The U.S. national scene remains worrisome as Senator Manchin (D?-WV) digs in his heels on the filibuster, Republicans erect hurdles to suppress voting groups they don’t like, and Trump signals to his armed followers that he’d happily accept their nomination as Biden’s replacement this August 4th, a placement for which there exists no legal path.
As threatening as all that feels on a national level there are glimmers of hope and humanity on the local and regional scene. Take, for example, this Saturday’s Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Heritage Day to be celebrated from 11 am to 4 pm at Centerplace in Spokane Valley. If you haven’t been to Centerplace here’s a good excuse to visit.
While contemplating Spokane’s great outdoors it is also worth remembering that it was the community and the political process in Spokane more than a century ago that gave us a municipal park worthy of national note, designed by the Olmsted Brothers. We in the U.S. can thank the Olmsted family, Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903) and his sons, John Charles Olmsted (1852–1920) and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. (1870–1957), for the design and preservation of countless public spaces all over the country, including Central Park on Manhattan and much of the public park system of Boston as well as Manito Park in Spokane. These locations for community gathering and enjoyment don’t happen by accident.
And there is a glimmer of hope to be had in one tiny electoral scene: Last month in Bonner County, Idaho, far-right ideologues vied to replace several East Bonner County Library District and Pend Oreille Hospital District trustees. The challengers for the Library District positions were apparently motivated by the extremists who had agitated against a mask requirement to enter the library. In addition they voiced interest in censoring the book offerings available at the library and could demonstrate no expertise in library science or related fields.
All of the challengers lost with vote totals in the neighborhood of 2,300 to 3,750. The telling (and encouraging) number is the increase in the voter turnout percentage in this relatively obscure election. In the similar election for these positions in 2017 only 14.82% of the registered voters bothered to vote. This year 26.05% of registered voters turned out. Not only did the participation percentage nearly double, but the number of voters registered to vote in these contests increased in those four years from 19,774 to 25,150, a 27% increase (the population in Bonner County [a somewhat wider area] increased only 9.5% in the same time period). In absolute numbers more than twice the votes were cast in the election this year than in 2017 (6552 compared to 2930). That’s a lot of numbers, but both percentages and raw numbers can be informative. In this electoral microcosm, more people registered to vote, more people participated, and reasonable people, not the ideologues, won.
What happened? Reasonable people mobilized. Groups formed. Phone banks were activated. Letters to the editor in the local papers strongly favored the incumbent candidates candidates over those advocating for the ideologues both in numbers of letters and in content.
Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of a growing trend…
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. The Spokesman carried a front page article last Monday, June 7, from the same electoral microcosm, Bonner County GOP seeks removal of Woodward. This is the land of far right ID State Reps Heather Scott and Sage Dixon. First term State Senator Jim Woodward is under attack by the extremists who run the local Republican Party Central Committee in part because he voted against an attempted override of Idaho Governor Little’s veto of a bill limiting the governor’s emergency powers. The last two paragraphs of the Spokesman article bring us back to recent election results discussed above:
Almost 22,000 people voted him into office, and a request by 30 people to resign will not make him do so, Woodward said.
“I think it’s more appropriate that I serve in office,” he said.
The New York Times Editorial Board in an opinion piece entitled “Congress Needs to Defend Vote Counting, Not Just Vote Casting” detailed Republican efforts to undermine faith in the integrity of our electoral system and pass state laws restricting voters’ access to the ballot, but to seize control of state electoral administration and set the stage for invalidating electoral results they deem unfavorable.
Republican-controlled state legislatures are whittling away at the integrity of electoral democracy in the United States, rushing to pass laws that make it harder for Americans to vote and easier for partisans to tamper with election results.
It is a legislative assault motivated by the failure of President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign and justified by baseless allegations about the legitimacy of his defeat. Mr. Trump and his supporters pursued indiscriminate lawsuits to overturn the results and then, urged on by Mr. Trump, some of his supporters stormed the Capitol to halt the completion of the election process. Now they are seeking to rewrite the rules to make it easier for Republicans to win elections without winning the most votes.
The threat to democracy of that electoral groundwork is worrisome on its own, but several recent pieces of news suggest a growing and disturbing backup plan now openly supported by some of the most far-right members of Congress.
During an “America First” rally on May 27, 2021, a rally that also featured the antics of the QAnon promoter, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) exhorted the crowd (the bold is mine):
We have a Second Amendment in this country, and I think we have an obligation to use it. The Second Amendment, this is a little history lesson for all the fake news media, the Second Amendment is not about, it’s not about hunting, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about sports. The Second Amendment is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary. I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation and make that they are fully understood.
Eight days later, on June 4, a Republican-appointed (Bush II) federal district judge, Roger T. Benitez, overturned California’s decades old ban on assault rifles. The named plaintiff in the lawsuit, James Miller, is an attorney and a “Volunteer Advisory Board Member”of the political action committee San Diego County Gun Owners (SDCGO), which is itself one of the plaintiffs in the suit. SDCGO, on the front page of its website, promotes a movie, “The Plot Against the President,” which has nothing to do with gun ownership and everything to do with promoting a conspiracy theory. A trailer advertising the movie offers cameo appearances of Donald Trump, Trump Junior, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), and, you guessed it, Rep. Matt Gaetz (among other vaguely familiar figures in the Trump pantheon whom I could not identify by name). The net effect of the SDCGO website is a sense of “patriotic” preparation for armed conflict for political ends.
…a gun range, saying that there will be “a whole thing where we teach kids how to shoot” and stating that “we’d live near VerTac Tactical, so we’d be safe as bugs in a rug. I mean, I’d have my own private paramilitary force, which is always a good thing.”
Vertac Tactical, as demonstrated on its website, bares no resemblance to the hunter safety, marksmanship-oriented firearms training available to me as a youth in Wisconsin. Vertac Tactical is all about military weaponry.
Former WA State Rep. Matt Shea (R, Spokane Valley) was (and, doubtlessly, still is) promoting paramilitary training in northeast Washington, while, as a “pastor”, he is offers justification for armed conflict to his quasi-Christian flock with his provocative writing, “The Biblical of War”.
The “Three Percenters,” a militia group implicated in the January 6th insurrection, is named after the erroneous assertion that only three percentof colonists were active “on the field” during the American Revolution against Great Britain. Regardless of historical accuracy, the core belief of the Three Percenters is that a few well armed revolutionaries can change the course of history.
Meanwhile, according to a reputable survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) of over five thousand randomly chosen Americans from all over the United States, fifteen percent agreed that “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” Among those who put their trust in far-right media sources like One American News Network (OANN) and Newmax, four in ten agree with that statement.
Added up, Trump Republican undermining of electoral confidence, efforts to undermine weapons laws, a growing militia movement, and an increasing number of Americans subscribing to the idea that violence is warranted, is a flashing warning light we would all do well to heed. History is replete with examples either of societies descending into armed conflict (Libya and ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq are current examples) or coming under autocratic rule in effective abandonment of democracy (currently Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Belarus and, earlier, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy). “It Can’t Happen Here” is a profoundly dangerous assumption…
And, as if to amplify my unease, as I pondered this post at six thirty in the morning last weekend in North Idaho, an incredibly loud pickup truck roared by my perch, an oversize Confederate battle flag flapping wildly from a pole anchored to the bed…
On Tuesday this week (June 1) the members of the Washington State Board of Health (WSBOH) met to consider the preliminary investigation and possible action in the case of Amelia Clark. Amelia Clark is the Spokane Regional Health District’s (SRHD’s) Administrator. Seven months ago at the height of the Covid 19 pandemic Ms. Clark made a lot of news. She was the public face of the District and the SRHD Board of Health in the days-long ouster of SHRD’s health officer, Dr. Bob Lutz.
…the local health officer shall not be removed until after notice is given, and an opportunity for a hearing before the board or official responsible for his or her appointment under this section as to the reason for his or her removal.
Ms. Clark might have imagined (or had been told by someone of presumed authority?) that a perfunctory meeting in executive session, i.e. in a privileged behind-closed-doors meeting, would satisfy the state statute. She may have thought (or been told) that Lutz’s dismissal would blow over in a few days and all would be well. Instead, the outrage was loud, swift and specific. In an effort that looked like an attempt at damage control to retroactively satisfy the letter of the law, the Board met the next week in public. After a presentation of a litany of disjointed complaints by Ms. Clark, a rebuttal by Dr. Lutz and his attorney, and another private executive session, a majority of the Board voted to rubber stamp Ms. Clark’s dismissal of Dr. Lutz as a fait accompli.
It might have ended there were it not for sustained community outrage, the involvement of community leaders, and an understanding of the law. Ben Stuckart, former City Council President and others filed a complaint with the Washington State Board of Health, the body empowered by law (RCW 70.05.120) to review and take action against a local health administrator. In response the State Board of Health may hold a hearing “if a preliminary investigation so warrants.” After that hearing it is within the Board’s power to remove the administrator from office.
The preliminary investigation is complete. You can read it as a document here. The work was done by Karen M. Sutherland of the Seattle law firm Ogden, Murphy, and Wallace. The document is extensive and thorough, providing evidence that Ms. Clark did violate the provisions of RCW 70.05.050in her dismissal of Dr. Lutz.
I watched the Tuesday meeting of the WA State Board of Health online. Karen Sutherland carefully and clearly presented her preliminary investigation. This meeting was not typical material for the members of the board. They are mostly health professionals with expertise in epidemiology, not legal determinations. After some questions and deliberation they unanimously approved a motion to do the next thing the statues require: hold a formal hearing to which they may subpoena witnesses and take testimony under oath. They decided to hire the services of an administrative law judge to run the proceedings.
Researching this process through to this point is an education in the way government is supposed to work if citizens are paying attention. It is also a cautionary tale warning us that without citizen involvement government and government agencies can go off the rails.
The Lutz dismissal saga last fall reeked of behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Administrator Clark’s and Board Chairman Ben Wick’s announcement of Dr. Lutz’ dismissal was poorly prepared, confusing and contradictory. Mayor Woodward praised the action in a letter composed and sent before the announcement, suggesting prior knowledge. After public outcry that clearly caught Ms. Clark off guard, a proper Board meeting with a hearing and a confirmatory vote was hurriedly scheduled the next week. This put the Board members in the position of either backing up Ms. Clark’s action or admitting she had misstepped. At that emergency Board meeting Al French darted on and off the Zoom screen, contributing little in public and an unknown amount in executive session. Minutes after the vote that rubber stamped Ms. Clark’s action (and before anyone on the Board had caught their breath), County Commissioner French offered up Dr. Velasquez as Dr. Lutz’ interim replacement. The public will never know exactly how the drama unfolded, but it makes no difference to the issue at hand: a competent administrator should understand the law. The law is available with a few keystrokes on the internet. A competent administrator would have pushed back at whomever was urging her toward the summary dismissal of Dr. Lutz. Ms. Clark either understood the thin ice she was on and gambled that she could get away with her action or she did not do the homework required of a competent administrator. Either way, all the evidence I have read suggests that Ms. Clark broke the law.
Points to contemplate:
1) These days the rules by which we are governed are easily accessible (even if they require some diligent reading).
2) Mechanisms exist in the law for common citizens to expose and compel the system to examine alleged faulty behavior. It is incumbent on the citizens to understand and use the tools available.
3) Washington State requires that governmental meetings be conducted in public, but that is useful only if citizens like us pay enough attention to notice when things aren’t right.
The Washington State Board of Health is in the process of scheduling the required hearing. The proceedings should be very interesting.
Judd Legum’s post in his Popular Information blog/email (which I highly recommend) added some important details to the recent news out of Texas, where last weekend the state legislature’s majority Republicans stumbled (briefly?) in passing SB7. SB7 is arguably the most egregious example of the nationwide Republican effort to restrict voting rights. Mr. Legum points out that some of the grossest voter suppression provisions were new additions that had not appeared in either the Senate or House versions previously passed by those bodies. Instead, they were added by Republicans in a closed door session of the Conference Committee that met to reconcile the differences between the legislation passed in the two chambers. Had it passed, the sixty-seven page Conference Committee version of the bill would have done so including provisions no one in either chamber had previously seen or discussed, forced through in the last minute rush to close out the regular session.
If restricting voter access to the polls wasn’t enough, the Conference Committee slipped in a Republican electoral poison pill: The added clause would have allowed a sympathetic judge to declare an election void “without attempting to determine how individual voters voted.” No need to prove that wild allegations of electoral fraud actually have merit, just get one judge on your side and voila! you can nullify the will of the voters! Had it passed, this legislation would have opened the door to the autocratic takeover over of Texas elections.
I’ve reproduced Judd Legum’s post below. I urge you to read it and absorb the details. Mr. Legum and his small team often focus on the disconnect between corporate speech and corporate political donations, a theme he touches on at the end his post.
For months, the Texas House and Senate have been working on legislation to make voting in the state more difficult. Texas Republicans claim the legislation is necessary to crack down on fraud. But Texas is already the most difficult state in the country to vote and there is no evidence that fraud is a real problem. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) devoted 22,000 staff hours to identifying voter fraud during the 2020 election and came up with 16 people who put an incorrect address on their voter registration forms.
Nevertheless, Republicans in each chamber passed versions of “SB7,” a bill that would suppress voting. Then House and Senate Republicans negotiated behind closed doors, combined many of the worst provisions of each bill, and added new restrictions that weren’t debated in either body.
At 6 AM Sunday morning, the Texas Senate approved this Frankenstein version of the bill, which targeted voters of color with surgical precision. The last step was for the Texas House to approve the legislation, which appeared to be a formality.
Then, late Sunday night, the process collapsed. The House did not approve the bill and the legislative session ended. The legislation is dead — at least for now.
What happened?
Under Texas law, all legislation in the session needed to be approved by both chambers by Sunday at midnight. Because of internal disputes among Republicans about the final composition of the bill, the Texas House did not begin considering the bill until Sunday evening.
Texas House Democrats initially engaged in the debate over SB7, raising various procedural and substantive objections as the clock ticked closer to midnight. Then around 10:35 PM, as Republicans prepared to end debate and call for a final vote, all of the Democrats left. “Leave the chamber discreetly. Do not go to the gallery. Leave the building,” Texas Representative Chris Turner (D), the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, wrote in a text message.
The exodus deprived the body of a quorum, which requires two-thirds of the 150 representatives present to conduct business. Texas Speaker Dade Phelan (R) was forced to gavel out the session, killing the bill. It was the first time Democrats used the tactic to block legislation since 2003.
Later, Abbott said he would veto the section of the budget that funds the modest salaries of the state legislators. If he follows through, the legislature’s professional staff and maintenance workers also would not get paid.
Notably, the limitation on Sunday voting was not included in either the House or Senate version of SB7. It was not debated in either chamber. During the legislative session on Sunday night, Republican proponents of the bill refused to take questions on why it was added. No one has explained why votes cast before 1PM on Sundays are more likely to be fraudulent than votes cast after 1PM.
“Why in the world would you pick Sunday morning to outlaw voting in Texas, but for the fact that they know that a lot of Black parishioners historically have chosen that time to organize and go to the polls?” Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-TX) asked.
Overturning elections “without attempting to determine how individual voters voted”
Another last-minute addition to SB 7 would allow Texas judges to declare an election “void” without bothering to determine if allegations of fraud would have had any impact on the outcome of the election.
OVERTURNING ELECTION. If the number of votes illegally cast in the election is equal to or greater than the number of votes necessary to change the outcome of an election, the court may declare the election void without attempting to determine how individual voters voted.
The provision appears to be an effort to address a problem that Trump had while pushing the Big Lie that Democrats stole the presidential election. Attorneys representing Trump would make wild allegations of fraud but were unable to identify which ballots were fraudulent. This provision would make that unnecessary.
For example, one argument advanced by Trump’s lawyers was that thousands of absentee ballots were fraudulent because not enough were invalidated as compared to previous elections. Under this provision, a sympathetic judge could void an election on this basis. It would open up the possibility of voiding elections based on suspect statistical analysis rather than actual evidence of fraud and an examination of votes.
Texas Representative Briscoe Cain (R), the chairman of the House Election Committee and a lead sponsor of the bill, was part of Trump’s team that attempted to void the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.
A related provision would lower the standard to establish voter fraud from “clear and convincing evidence” to a “preponderance of the evidence.”
Other restrictions on voting
Other provisions in SB7 were included in versions of the bill debated in the House and Senate, but are unnecessary or discriminatory:
Bans drive-thru and 24-hour voting which were used in Harris County in 2020, disproportionately by voters of color.
Makes it a felony to send an absentee ballot application to anyone who didn’t request one.
Allows partisan poll watchers “freedom of movement,” potentially opening up voters to harassment.
Subjects local election officials to numerous new criminal penalties, including a new crime for counting “invalid” ballots.
As Popular Information first reported in March, the sponsors of Texas’ voter suppression legislation were backed by millions in corporate contributions over the last three years. Under pressure, two Texas corporations, American Airlines and Dell, issued strong statements opposing the legislation. Later, a few dozen corporations signed a letter with more ambiguous language objecting to the bill. Hundreds of corporations and executives have signed onto a broad statement opposing efforts to restrict voting.
But as SB 7 barrelled toward the finish line, corporations went quiet. “By the time the Texas bill was poised to pass over the Memorial Day weekend, the opposition from businesses had grown faint,” the AP reported.
While some corporations were willing to issue statements, none expressed a willingness to take action if the bill was signed into law. It was a willingness by corporations to take action that defeated, for example, anti-gay legislation in Georgia in 2016.
While the bill may be revived in a special session, the delay gives activists more time to renew pressure on the corporate community.
