On February 20, a Washington state superior court in Pierce County ruled that pro bono legal assistance to a committee that is trying to recall a public official is not a campaign contribution to the recall.
In 2012, Robin Farris decided to launch a recall of the Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer, Dale Washam. Washington state recall petitions cannot begin to circulate until the recall proponents first go to court to establish that they have a good basis for recall. But Washington state law also set an $800 contribution limit to a recall committee. Farris went to federal court to overcome that limit, and she won injunctive relief that the limit can’t be applied to her committee. The Ninth Circuit agreed, although the Ninth Circuit declined to rule the limit unconstitutional for future recall campaigns.
Then, the Washington Public Disclosure Commission tried to take punitive action against Farris, on the grounds that the free legal help she received in her lawsuit against the limit constituted a campaign contribution. Since she hadn’t reported it as a campaign contribution, the Commission threatened her with a fine. But in the new lawsuit, called Institute for Justice v State of Washington, the state court ruled that free legal help to a recall committee for a constitutional challenge, is not a “campaign contribution.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
Dale Washam, the target of the recall, illustrated the failure of IRV, as he was elected with 37% of the votes cast in the first round, as many ballots were discarded.
http://www.piercecountywa.org/DocumentCenter/View/6979
The official returns say he was elected in the 4th round. Pierce County also used IRV in 2008 to elect County Executive, Sheriff, and County Council. It doesn’t appear IRV was responsible for “bad” people being elected to those offices. Dale Washam wasn’t the incumbent when he won in IRV in 2008. How is it IRV’s fault if the voters picked someone who turned out to be a “bad” office-holder? I’m sure if Pierce County had continued to use IRV, he would have been defeated for re-election in 2012.
IRV, i.e. single-winner ranked choice voting (RCV), will elect the biggest party/civic group.
When voters want change they usually turn to the second biggest group which in turn perpetuates the back and fourth of a two-party system.
It was in 1994 when I first met Richard Winger and when I spoke at his house as a candidate for Governor of California who was promoting state voting reform through pure proportional representation (PR).
I have been promoting RCV in multi-winner districts correctly now for 23 years, since I first embraced the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, Hagnebach-Bischoff method, multi-winner seats of two or more only, under ranked choice voting (RCV).
I knew I was onto something but I couldn’t articulate or explain it for the first ten-plus years of counting votes.
The USA Parliament has annual cycles which peak on July 4th, and which started as a unity project between two US Presidential candidates from different parties who had me as the Treasurer as filed with the Federal elections Commission in 1993.
We have come a long way in the United Coalition which has been publicly thwarted year after year, along with other innovative voting reforms like Top Two, by those who are promoting IRV (single-winner RCV).
The mathematician who brought me to understanding the Hagnebach-Bischoff method in 1992, Mike Ossipoff [Peace and Freedom], should be commended. I first met Mike in 1992 when I ran for Santa Cruz city council as a candidate who advocated for splitting the city into seven single-winner districts.
The Santa Cruz city council elections were seven-member at-large names elected, and slate voting always elected one civic group year after year with less than 50% of the votes.
Mike Ossipoff [Peace & Freedom] was correct in teaching the third alternative to single-winner district or at-large elections, and that alternative is called pure proportional representation (PR).
Those who have supported IRV, ranked choice voting in single-winner districts, have been incorrect and we need to hold them accountable.
Their parties will bring us the Clinton/Bush/Stein/Johnson tickets in 2016 in IRV or plurality voting.
The 9th USA Parliament has a different plan; a team of 48 US Presidential candidates who have been working together for the good of the whole and who are for the unity of the 100%.
Our team may not be the most synchronized and coordinated united coalition, but if we keep practicing and practicing the correct plays over and over, year after year, eventually we’ll start to make headway.
See the list of 48 POTUS (POTUS=President of the United States) candidates here:
http://usparliament.org/pdc.php
If you’re interested in learning more about a unifying voting system that treats everyone with equality across the board under algorithms based on percentages, then sign up and be part of the unity phenomena. All are forgiven and all are welcomed.
We also have a new WordPress site being developed.
Programmers and sign-ups are welcomed to sign in to this new site too.
Be part of a team that thinks, votes and acts like one unit on a sub-atomic scale:
http://usparliament.org/usap-wp/
Did ALL robot party hack incumbents become the Enemies of the People on 4 July 1776 ???
STATISM is now controlling about 40 (repeat 40) percent of the GDP in the USA.
262,141 persons voted in that race.
In the 2nd Round 5.2% of the ballots were discarded.
In the 3rd Round 8.5% of the ballots were discarded.
In the 4th Round 11.8% of the ballots were discarded.
That is a total of 27.7% of ballots discarded.
2008 was the first time the sheriff had been elected since 1975. Paul Pastor had been appointed in 2001, and received 72.2% of the vote.
Three of the county council races had two candidates, and in the 4th, the leader received 49.92% of the vote.
Instant Potato Voting denied voters the opportunity to scrutinize the candidates, just like when San Francisco elected someone who did not even live in the city.