NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate provides the Northwest Progressive Institute's uplifting perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Thursday, January 11th, 2024

Senator Cantwell demands answers of FAA as agency says it’s investigating Boeing

The fall­out from Alas­ka Air­lines Flight 1282 con­tin­ued today, as the Fed­er­al Avi­a­tion Admin­is­tra­tion noti­fied Boe­ing it will be prob­ing the com­pa­ny for alleged com­pli­ance with its approved 737 MAX air­craft design, while Sen­a­tor Maria Cantwell (D‑Washington) demand­ed answers from the FAA con­cern­ing its over­sight of both Boe­ing and Kansas-based Spir­it AeroSystems.

“The safe­ty of the fly­ing pub­lic is our top pri­or­i­ty. We must know what caused the ter­ri­fy­ing inci­dent on an Alas­ka Air­lines flight last week and whether man­u­fac­tur­ers and FAA over­sight failed to meet safe­ty reg­u­la­tions. The Amer­i­can pub­lic deserves answers. I am ask­ing the FAA to pro­vide a full account­ing of its over­sight of man­u­fac­tur­ers’ com­pli­ance and qual­i­ty con­trol stan­dards,” Cantwell said in a news release after dis­patch­ing a let­ter to the FAA.

Cantwell, who has rep­re­sent­ed the Ever­green State in Con­gress’ upper cham­ber since 2001, is chair of the Unit­ed States Sen­ate Com­mit­tee on Com­merce, Sci­ence, and Trans­porta­tion, with juris­dic­tion over the avi­a­tion sector.

“Cantwell has a decades long his­to­ry in Con­gress as a leader and staunch advo­cate for avi­a­tion safe­ty,” her news release notes. “In 2020, Sen­a­tor Cantwell authored and nego­ti­at­ed the Air­craft Cer­ti­fi­ca­tion, Safe­ty and Account­abil­i­ty Act (ACSAA) — com­pre­hen­sive bipar­ti­san, bicam­er­al avi­a­tion safe­ty leg­is­la­tion that imple­ment­ed new air­craft safe­ty and cer­ti­fi­ca­tion reforms in the wake of the Boe­ing 737 MAX crash­es and was signed into law on Decem­ber 27, 2020.”

Cantwell’s let­ter is below. She is request­ing a response no lat­er than Jan­u­ary 25th from Admin­is­tra­tor Mike Whitak­er, and accom­pa­ny­ing doc­u­men­ta­tion per­tain­ing to all Qual­i­ty Sys­tems Audits of Boe­ing and all Sup­pli­er Con­trol Audits of Spirit.

Maria Cantwell’s let­ter to the FAA

While Cantwell’s office was prepar­ing to put the FAA on notice, the FAA was prepar­ing to put Boe­ing on notice. “This inci­dent should have nev­er hap­pened and it can­not hap­pen again,” the FAA said in a state­ment announc­ing the trans­mis­sion of the let­ter and releas­ing its contents.

Read the let­ter here:

FAA let­ter to Boeing

Boe­ing offered a one-line response to the let­ter, say­ing only: “We will coop­er­ate ful­ly and trans­par­ent­ly with the FAA and the NTSB on their investigations.”

Mean­while, six pas­sen­gers who were on board Alas­ka Air­lines Flight 1282 — the flight that lost a plug in midair after tak­ing off from PDX (Port­land Inter­na­tion­al Air­port) — filed a law­suit against Boe­ing in King Coun­ty Supe­ri­or Court.

“Although every­one is glad that the blowout occurred while the crew could still man­age to land the air­craft safe­ly, this night­mare expe­ri­ence has caused eco­nom­ic, phys­i­cal and ongo­ing emo­tion­al con­se­quences that have under­stand­ably deeply affect­ed our clients, and is one more dis­turb­ing mark on the trou­bled 737-MAX series air­craft,” said attor­ney Daniel Lau­rence in a state­ment report­ed by The Seat­tle Times. Lau­rence is rep­re­sent­ing the plaintiffs.

Boe­ing told The Seat­tle Times it had no com­ment on the lawsuit.

After Fri­day’s episode, Alas­ka Air­lines ground­ed its entire MAX 9 fleet. It has not been able to return any of those jets to ser­vice yet, which has result­ed in a cas­cad­ing series of can­cel­la­tions that have dis­rupt­ed a lot of peo­ple’s trav­el plans. Alas­ka has put in place a flex­i­ble can­cel­la­tion pol­i­cy for its cus­tomers, but that has­n’t done much for peo­ple who were count­ing on Alas­ka to get them from one city to anoth­er and could not make alter­nate arrange­ments in time.

Unit­ed Air­lines also has a num­ber of MAX 9s, but it’s a big­ger air­line and has more assets it can deploy or reshuf­fle to com­pen­sate for its ground­ed jets.

The FAA has made it clear no MAX 9s will return to the skies until thor­ough inspec­tions have tak­en place. How­ev­er, the agency and Boe­ing appear to be at odds about the pro­to­col for those inspec­tions, so Alas­ka Air­lines may have to oper­ate in cri­sis mode for much longer than it would like to.

Thursday, January 11th, 2024

Initiative 2113 (allowing dangerous police pursuits to resume) gets certified

One of six sub­mit­ted ini­tia­tives to the 2024 Wash­ing­ton State Leg­is­la­ture spon­sored by Repub­li­can State Par­ty Chair Jim Walsh and fund­ed by right wing mul­ti­mil­lion­aire Bri­an Hey­wood was cer­ti­fied today, which means it is des­tined for the Novem­ber 2024 bal­lot for approval or rejec­tion by voters.

Ini­tia­tive 2113 would allow dan­ger­ous high speed police chas­es to resume by remov­ing rea­son­able safe­guards for pur­suits adopt­ed and sub­se­quent­ly revised by the Leg­is­la­ture in recent ses­sions in response to protests over unsafe, inequitable polic­ing in Wash­ing­ton State and across the country.

Accord­ing to the Sec­re­tary of State’s Elec­tions Divi­sion, 25,687 pages of sig­na­tures were received for I‑2113, con­tain­ing 434,594 lines.

324,516 valid sig­na­tures are cur­rent­ly required to qual­i­fy a statewide initiative.

Ini­tia­tive 2113 had a suf­fi­cient cush­ion of extra sig­na­tures to qual­i­fy for a ran­dom sam­ple check as allowed by state law, which con­sist­ed of 13,038 signatures.

Of those, 10,579 were accept­ed and 2,459 were reviewed. 2,447 sig­na­tures were deter­mined to be invalid, and twelve were deter­mined to be duplicate.

Sec­re­tary Hobbs today trans­mit­ted a cer­ti­fi­ca­tion mes­sage to the Leg­is­la­ture affixed with the state seal, advis­ing of I‑2113’s qualification.

Leg­isla­tive staff have giv­en I‑2113 its own bill-style page on leg.wa.gov.

The bal­lot title for I‑2113 is as follows:

Ini­tia­tive Mea­sure No. 2113 con­cerns vehic­u­lar pur­suits by peace officers.

This mea­sure would remove cer­tain restric­tions on vehic­u­lar pur­suits, allow­ing them upon con­di­tions includ­ing an officer’s rea­son­able sus­pi­cion a per­son has vio­lat­ed the law and pos­es a threat to the safe­ty of others.

Should this mea­sure be enact­ed into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

The sum­ma­ry is as follows:

This mea­sure would remove cer­tain restric­tions on when peace offi­cers may engage in vehic­u­lar pur­suits. Such pur­suits would be allowed when the offi­cer has a rea­son­able sus­pi­cion a per­son has vio­lat­ed the law, pur­suit is nec­es­sary to iden­ti­fy or appre­hend the per­son, the per­son pos­es a threat to the safe­ty of oth­ers, those safe­ty risks are greater than those of the pur­suit, and a super­vi­sor autho­rizes the pursuit.

Leg­is­la­tors have three choic­es as to how to respond to I‑2113:

  • Do noth­ing, in which case it goes to voters
  • Adopt the mea­sure into law
  • Send it to the Novem­ber 2024 bal­lot with an alternative

NPI oppos­es Ini­tia­tive 2113 and is work­ing for the mea­sure’s defeat. Because the chances of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic-con­trolled Leg­is­la­ture approv­ing I‑2113 are pret­ty much nonex­is­tent, it will be get­ting for­ward­ed auto­mat­i­cal­ly to the bal­lot, as men­tioned above. NPI’s Stop Greed project is urg­ing a no vote on I‑2113; if you’d like to sup­port this effort, you can donate to Stop Greed here using Act­Blue.

“The Wash­ing­ton State Leg­is­la­ture has tak­en impor­tant steps in recent years to pre­vent deaths and injuries result­ing from unnec­es­sary high-speed police pur­suits, and to ensure that all stu­dents feel safe in Wash­ing­ton’s pub­lic schools,” the ACLU of Wash­ing­ton not­ed last year in a state­ment oppos­ing I‑2113. “Let’s not allow reac­tionary forces to roll back this progress for civ­il lib­er­ties and civ­il rights.”

We agree and we invite you to join us in vot­ing NO on I‑2113 lat­er this year.

Thursday, January 11th, 2024

Poll Watch: Like NPI, Elway finds 2024 WA gubernatorial race looking competitive

Long­time Wash­ing­ton State poll­ster Stu­art Elway released a sec­ond round of elec­toral-relat­ed find­ings from his Decem­ber 2023 sur­vey of the Wash­ing­ton State elec­torate today — find­ings which cor­re­late NPI’s pre­vi­ous research sug­gest­ing that the 2024 Wash­ing­ton State guber­na­to­r­i­al race is competitive.

In part­ner­ship with Cross­cut, Elway sur­veyed 403 reg­is­tered vot­ers in Wash­ing­ton from Decem­ber 26th-28th, 2023. 116 took the sur­vey via land­line with live inter­view­ers, 149 took the sur­vey via mobile tele­phone with live inter­view­ers, and 138 took the sur­vey online using a link texted to them. 43% of the respon­dents are clas­si­fied as Democ­rats, 32% as inde­pen­dents, and 25% as Republicans.

Asked about this year’s guber­na­to­r­i­al race, a total of 37% of the respon­dents said they either intend­ed to vote for Demo­c­ra­t­ic fron­trun­ner Bob Fer­gu­son, or could vote for him, while a total of 31% said they either intend­ed to vote for Repub­li­can fron­trun­ner Dave Reichert, or could vote for him. Small­er num­bers of respon­dents said they intend­ed to vote or could vote for Demo­c­rat Mark Mul­let and Repub­li­can Semi Bird — Fer­gu­son and Reichert’s main com­pe­ti­tion for the position.

Sur­vey tak­ers were not asked a tra­di­tion­al horse race ques­tion (i.e. if the elec­tion were being held today, who would you vote for?) because Elway felt with the elec­tion being so far away, an uncon­ven­tion­al approach was warranted.

Elway’s guber­na­to­r­i­al ques­tion went like this:

QUESTION: There are cur­rent­ly four can­di­dates who have announced their inten­tion to run for Gov­er­nor. The elec­tion is almost a year away, but for each can­di­date, indi­cate – as things stand today – whether you: 1) Intend to vote for him; 2) Could vote for him; or 3) Will not vote for him for Gov­er­nor. If you are not famil­iar with the can­di­date, just indi­cate that.

These were the answers, as graphed by Crosscut:

Elway also asked respon­dents which par­ty’s can­di­dates they were inclined to sup­port in leg­isla­tive elec­tions. As with the guber­na­to­r­i­al con­test, a ques­tion with more than three answer choic­es was pre­sent­ed to respondents:

QUESTION: There will also be elec­tions for State Leg­is­la­ture. You will be asked to vote for two state rep­re­sen­ta­tives and per­haps a state sen­a­tor, depend­ing on your dis­trict. As things stand today, in the races for the state leg­is­la­ture in your Dis­trict, are you like­ly to vote for:

ANSWERS:

  • All Democ­rats: 24%
  • Most­ly Democ­rats: 26%
  • Most­ly Repub­li­cans: 17%
  • All Repub­li­cans: 17%
  • Don’t Know Yet: 16%

In total, 50% said they were inclined to vote for all Democ­rats, or most­ly Democ­rats, and 34% said all Repub­li­cans or most­ly Republicans.

There was also a ques­tion about who should con­trol state government:

QUESTION: Democ­rats have held the governor’s office since 1984, have had the major­i­ty in both hous­es of the state leg­is­la­ture since 2018 and now hold all eight of the statewide elect­ed offices. Which of these elec­tion out­comes comes clos­est to your opin­ion about the com­ing election:

ANSWERS:

  • It is impor­tant that Democ­rats keep con­trol state gov­ern­ment: 22%
  • It would be bet­ter if Democ­rats keep con­trol of state gov­ern­ment: 17%
  • It would be best if state gov­ern­ment con­trol was divid­ed between Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats: 25%
  • It would be bet­ter if Repub­li­cans took con­trol of state gov­ern­ment: 10%
  • It is impor­tant that Repub­li­cans take con­trol of state gov­ern­ment: 18%
  • No opin­ion: 7%

A total of 39% expressed a pref­er­ence for con­tin­ued Demo­c­ra­t­ic con­trol. 28% expressed a pref­er­ence for con­trol to shift to Republicans.

25% would like divid­ed gov­ern­ment, mean­ing a Leg­is­la­ture in which one par­ty con­trols one cham­ber and anoth­er par­ty the oth­er, or a gov­er­nor from a dif­fer­ent par­ty than one or both cham­bers of the Leg­is­la­ture. 7% had no opinion.

These leg­isla­tive find­ings sug­gest an edge for Democ­rats, and are con­sis­tent with what we saw in our gener­ic bal­lot polling last cycle and the actu­al elec­tion results, which yield­ed strong and slight­ly expand­ed Demo­c­ra­t­ic majori­ties in what many pun­dits had claimed was going to be a “red wave” year.

As a ques­tion­naire design­er myself, I think the elec­toral ques­tions above are unnec­es­sar­i­ly com­plex. I under­stand Elway’s desire to cap­ture the nuances of pub­lic opin­ion, but ask­ing fol­low-up ques­tions could have served that purpose.

I’m espe­cial­ly per­plexed by the answer choic­es in the third ques­tion (it is impor­tant ver­sus it would be bet­ter if a par­tic­u­lar polit­i­cal par­ty con­trolled state gov­ern­ment). That’s not a scale that makes sense to me. Why not just ask respon­dents who they want to see in con­trol of the Leg­is­la­ture: Democ­rats or Repub­li­cans? (This, inci­den­tal­ly, is what NPI does in our statewide polls).

In Novem­ber, NPI found Dave Reichert and Bob Fer­gu­son tied in a four-way race and near­ly tied in a hypo­thet­i­cal head-to-head, with Reichert hold­ing a slight, two-point lead over Fer­gu­son. This find­ing got a lot of atten­tion. It was the most-read Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate post of 2023, and has been men­tioned in a lot of media cov­er­age since then, includ­ing a Politi­co arti­cle last month.

Elway’s data is anoth­er bit of evi­dence indi­cat­ing that it’s a close race, at least as things stand now. Reichert has been run­ning a fair­ly low-pro­file cam­paign thus far, coast­ing along on his name recog­ni­tion, while Fer­gu­son has been focused on rais­ing mon­ey, scoop­ing up endorse­ments, and lay­ing groundwork.

Lat­er this year, the can­di­dates and their allies will begin spend­ing a lot of mon­ey to com­mu­ni­cate with vot­ers. We will see to what extent the dynam­ics change as vot­ers hear more from and about the guber­na­to­r­i­al candidates.

Wednesday, January 10th, 2024

Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley blast each other in CNN-hosted debate while Fox fetes Trump

Ron DeSan­tis and Nik­ki Haley trashed each oth­er, trad­ed talk­ing points, and took issue with fron­trun­ner Don­ald Trump’s false claims of a stolen 2020 elec­tion tonight, dur­ing a fero­cious debate staged in Des Moines five days before Iowa’s Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial caucuses.

The stakes in this Repub­li­can brawl could not have been higher.

Either DeSan­tis or Haley will sur­vive the Iowa and New Hamp­shire bat­tle­grounds to take on Trump. The oth­er will be rel­e­gat­ed to polit­i­cal Palookaville.

The result saw fire con­cen­trat­ed on each other.

Pres­i­dent Biden was not denounced until near­ly nine­ty min­utes into the debate, which was tele­cast on CNN. Exchanges were relent­less­ly nasty.

Nei­ther can­di­date came across as the least bit likeable.

In DeSan­tis’ words, Haley is a “mealy-mouthed” politi­cian who “caves” to the left, whose foot-in-the-mouth gaffes amount to “bal­lis­tic podiatry”.

In turn, Haley made no few­er than four­teen ref­er­ences to her DeSantisLies.com web­site and mocked him for blow­ing through $150 mil­lion in a cam­paign that has gone down­hill. “If he can’t han­dle the finan­cial parts of a cam­paign, how is he going to han­dle the econ­o­my when it comes to the White House?” she asked.

The can­di­dates had sub­stan­tive clash­es. Haley said she would raise the retire­ment age for Social Secu­ri­ty “to reflect what life expectan­cy should be.” To which DeSan­tis replied: “I don’t see how you can raise the retire­ment age when our life expectan­cy is col­laps­ing in this coun­try. That’s a huge prob­lem in itself.”

“You would cut Social Secu­ri­ty ben­e­fits for sev­en­ty-year-olds while you pay the pen­sions of Ukrain­ian bureau­crats,” DeSan­tis charged.

Haley respond­ed by again mock­ing DeSan­tis’ cam­paign, say­ing: “You’re so des­per­ate, Ron, you’re just so desperate.”

Both can­di­dates were selec­tive­ly tough on Trump. They argued that the ex-pres­i­dent would take bag­gage into the Novem­ber elec­tion. They refrained from call­ing him an insur­rec­tion­ist although DeSan­tis said Trump engages in “word vom­it.” Restraint was under­stand­able. DeSan­tis used a Trump endorse­ment to win his 2018 Flori­da guber­na­to­r­i­al pri­ma­ry. Haley was gov­er­nor of South Car­oli­na when plucked by Trump to become Unit­ed Nations ambassador.

DeSan­tis pre­dict­ed that Trump would lose his defense claim that he is immune for crim­i­nal actions for actions on Jan­u­ary 6th, 2021.

“What are we going to do as Repub­li­cans if Trump is the nom­i­nee” (and is con­vict­ed before the Novem­ber elec­tion) asked the Flori­da gov­er­nor. “If Trump is the nom­i­nee, it’s going to be about Jan­u­ary 6, legal issues, crim­i­nal tri­als.” And he added, “The Democ­rats with the media would love to run with that.”

“What hap­pened on Jan­u­ary 6th was a ter­ri­ble day,” said Haley. “Trump will have to answer for it. Trump will have to answer for it.” She also debunked the ex-pres­i­den­t’s false claims of vot­er fraud, say­ing: “That elec­tion, Trump lost it. Biden won that elec­tion.” And when it comes to Trump’s gov­ern­ing style, said Haley: “When it goes to Don­ald Trump, we go through four more years of chaos.”

The Repub­li­cans’ grow­ing split on aid to Ukraine was reflect­ed in the debate. Haley is the hawk. She argued that Chi­na would be encour­aged with a Russ­ian vic­to­ry. “Dic­ta­tors always do what they say they’re gonna do,” she argued. “This is about pre­vent­ing war.” (Chi­na’s Pres­i­dent Xi has late­ly deliv­ered aggres­sive sound­ings about Taiwan.)

“We need to find a way to end this,” DeSan­tis said of the Rus­sia-Ukraine war. He fault­ed that Haley “does­n’t artic­u­late how this comes to an end.” The Flori­da gov­er­nor repeat­ed­ly tried to depict his foe as an inter­na­tion­al­ist – a mor­tal sin in Repub­li­can cir­cles. Said DeSan­tis: “You can take the ambas­sador out of the Unit­ed Nations, but you can’t take the Unit­ed Nations out of the ambassador.”

The MAGA-era Repub­li­cans have seized on a curi­ous bun­dle of issues of late, which was reflect­ed in tonight’s debate. There was a curi­ous amount of indif­fer­ence to cli­mate dam­age, even though ris­ing sea lev­els threat­en the state of which DeSan­tis is gov­er­nor. “On day num­ber one, we will take Biden’s Green New Deal and throw it in the trash can,” DeSan­tis said in the debate. Not to be out­done, Haley promised: “We’ll roll back all of Biden’s green subsidies.”

Amer­i­ca, as a coun­try, has been built by immi­grants and has served as a home for refugees. Many nowa­days are flee­ing a social­ist regime in Venezuela. They were promised no mer­cy last night. What to do with the eleven mil­lion undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants in the Unit­ed States? “We have to deport them,” said Haley. “That is actu­al­ly what will get them to stop com­ing, is when they do real­ize they get to the wall, and they real­ize they have to turn around and go back.”

DeSan­tis took aim at those who have fled to the Unit­ed States and those who help them. “We’re going to crack down on sanc­tu­ary states and sanc­tu­ary cities,” he promised. He pledged that the “num­ber of peo­ple that will be amnestied when I’m pres­i­dent is zero.”

As well, no Repub­li­can gath­er­ing goes by these days with­out attacks on trans­gen­der Amer­i­cans. DeSan­tis was ready to push the hot but­tons, say­ing: “I have always fought to pro­tect kids. I have ways said that boys need to go to boys’ bath­rooms, girls need to go to girls’ bath­rooms, that we should­n’t have any gen­der tran­si­tions before the age of eighteen.”

The DeSan­tis-Haley slugfest had com­pe­ti­tion. While the brawl was under­way on CNN, Fox News pro­duced a com­pet­ing card. A spe­cial billed as a “town hall” saw Don­ald Trump bask in adu­la­tion with Fox per­son­al­i­ties ask­ing soft­ball questions.

Tuesday, January 9th, 2024

Washington State Democratic Party submits three names for 24 presidential primary ballot

The 2024 pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry bal­lot in Wash­ing­ton State is set to include three names on the Demo­c­ra­t­ic side, Sec­re­tary of State Hobbs’ office announced today, acknowl­edg­ing the receipt of a list of names from the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Party.

“Can­di­date lists are now com­plete for the statewide March 12th Pres­i­den­tial Pri­ma­ry bal­lot. The state Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty sub­mit­ted three can­di­date names: Joseph R. Biden Jr., Dean Phillips, and Mar­i­anne Williamson,” OSOS announced.

The Wash­ing­ton State Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty con­firmed the sub­mis­sion in a news release and point­ed out there will be a fourth option, which will allow vot­ers who wish to iden­ti­fy with the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty to vote “uncom­mit­ted.”

“Wash­ing­to­ni­ans across our state are moti­vat­ed to defeat Don­ald Trump and expand on our state’s Demo­c­ra­t­ic-led suc­cess,” said Wash­ing­ton State Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty Chair Shasti Con­rad. “We’re excit­ed that our par­ty has admin­is­tered a fair and Demo­c­ra­t­ic pri­ma­ry process, and we expect the March 12th pri­ma­ry will prove that Wash­ing­ton Democ­rats are ready for yet anoth­er year of record elec­toral vic­to­ry in 2024.”

“Democ­rats have deliv­ered since win­ning back the White House, from his­toric invest­ments into near­ly every coun­ty in Wash­ing­ton with the Infla­tion Reduc­tion Act and Bipar­ti­san Infra­struc­ture Law, to low­er­ing insulin pay­ments for the esti­mat­ed 500,000 Wash­ing­to­ni­ans with dia­betes — Wash­ing­ton Democ­rats are fired up for four more years!”

The Demo­c­ra­t­ic bal­lot will look like this:

  1. Joseph R. Biden Jr.
  2. Dean Phillips
  3. Mar­i­anne Williamson
  4. Uncom­mit­ted Delegates

Last week, the Repub­li­can Par­ty sub­mit­ted five names for its side of the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry bal­lot: Don­ald Trump, Chris Christie, Nik­ki Haley, Ron DeSan­tis, and Vivek R. Once sub­mit­ted, names can­not be removed from the bal­lot, so even if some can­di­dates drop out, their names will remain.

As men­tioned here last week, RCW 29A.56.031 is the state statute gov­ern­ing place­ment of names onto the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry ballot.

The cur­rent statute, which NPI was involved in devel­op­ing, makes it the respon­si­bil­i­ty of the major par­ties to draw up a list of names for the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry bal­lot out of respect for their First Amend­ment right of free assembly.

The pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry is what’s known in state legal par­lance as a spe­cial cir­cum­stances elec­tion. How­ev­er, in real­i­ty, it’s not an elec­tion at all, but rather a nom­i­nat­ing event that will influ­ence the allo­ca­tion of del­e­gates to the Demo­c­ra­t­ic and Repub­li­can nation­al con­ven­tions this summer.

The actu­al votes for the par­ties’ nom­i­nees will be cast in Mil­wau­kee (for the Repub­li­cans) and in Chica­go (for the Democ­rats) by nation­al con­ven­tion del­e­gates elect­ed from all fifty states, the Dis­trict of Colum­bia, and U.S. territories.

If you’re a Wash­ing­ton vot­er, you’ll be sent a bal­lot in a few weeks that will have a Demo­c­ra­t­ic col­umn and a Repub­li­can col­umn. If you wish to par­tic­i­pate, you must vote for only one can­di­date from one par­ty, and you must attest that you under­stand that by par­tic­i­pat­ing in that par­ty’s pri­ma­ry, you are choos­ing to affil­i­ate with that par­ty — at least for the moment in time that you cast your ballot.

The attes­ta­tions will be word­ed as follows:

“I declare that my par­ty pref­er­ence is the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty and I will not par­tic­i­pate in the nom­i­na­tion process of any oth­er polit­i­cal par­ty for the 2024 Pres­i­den­tial election.”

“I declare that my par­ty pref­er­ence is the Repub­li­can Par­ty and I will not par­tic­i­pate in the nom­i­na­tion process of any oth­er polit­i­cal par­ty for the 2024 Pres­i­den­tial election.”

The attes­ta­tions are iden­ti­cal except for the names of the parties.

When you vote for a can­di­date in the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry, you are express­ing a pref­er­ence as to which per­son you want one of the major par­ties to nom­i­nate. If enough vot­ers share your pref­er­ence, the can­di­date you like will receive an allot­ment of del­e­gates to the nation­al con­ven­tion from Wash­ing­ton. You can help influ­ence who becomes a del­e­gate, too, if you’re inter­est­ed, by going to a cau­cus. And if you’d like to be a del­e­gate your­self, you can throw your hat in the ring.

After the pri­ma­ry is cer­ti­fied, the major par­ties will receive a list of names of every­one who vot­ed in the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry. How you vot­ed is a secret; the fact that you vot­ed and which par­ty you affil­i­at­ed with is disclosable.

For even more details on the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry and what to expect, see last week’s post on the Repub­li­can Par­ty’s sub­mis­sion of names, which much of the infor­ma­tion above is drawn from. Feel free to ask a ques­tion in the comments.

Mil­i­tary and over­seas bal­lots for the March 12th pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry are due to be mailed out on Jan­u­ary 27th. Bal­lots to in-state vot­ers will fol­low on Feb­ru­ary 23rd.

Tuesday, January 9th, 2024

Washington State Governor Jay Inslee delivers his final State of the State address

Three-term Gov­er­nor Jay Inslee deliv­ered a State of the State address to a joint ses­sion of the Wash­ing­ton State Leg­is­la­ture today for the final time as Wash­ing­ton’s chief exec­u­tive, reflect­ing on his many accom­plish­ments in office and pledg­ing to be active until the very end of his tenure.

“This is my eleventh time address­ing this cham­ber, and I have a big­ger audi­ence each year,” said Inslee. “There are one mil­lion more Wash­ing­to­ni­ans today than when I took office, because Wash­ing­ton is the place to be. I wel­come our new Wash­ing­to­ni­ans who have seen the genius and promise of our state.”

“The min­i­mum wage was $9 in 2013 and today it’s over $16,” he con­tin­ued. “Wages over­all have grown by 39% — dou­ble the nation­al rate. Our GDP has grown 45% – from $528 bil­lion in 2013 to $768 bil­lion today. And we’re among the few states that rank as both a top state for busi­ness and for workers.”

“As we con­tem­plate this next year and the work ahead, I think back to my dad, who coached track at Sealth High School,” Inslee rem­i­nisced. “He told his run­ners to imag­ine the fin­ish line was ten yards beyond the fin­ish line. My father always said, and this is what sticks with me, ‘Fel­las, run through the tape!’ so they wouldn’t let up before the race was over. We are going to run through the tape this year. Just as I know you’ll give this state your best work, I’ll give mine.”

Inslee addressed the fol­low­ing top­ics in the speech:

  • The urgent need for cli­mate action
  • Rad­i­cal price trans­paren­cy for fos­sil fuels
  • Increas­ing K‑12 edu­ca­tion funding
  • Col­lege finan­cial aid and apprenticeships
  • The suc­cess of Wash­ing­ton’s paid fam­i­ly and med­ical leave program
  • Access to healthcare
  • Pro­vid­ing hous­ing to the homeless
  • Gun respon­si­bil­i­ty and the recent enact­ment of the assault weapons ban
  • Pub­lic safe­ty and the fen­tanyl crisis
  • Recruit­ing more police officers
  • Improv­ing behav­ioral health services
  • Help­ing Wash­ing­ton State Ferries
  • Advanc­ing social jus­tice by adopt­ing an equi­ty lens for pub­lic policy
  • Pro­tect­ing repro­duc­tive rights
  • Threats to Amer­i­can democracy

In atten­dance for the speech — which Lieu­tenant Gov­er­nor Den­ny Heck presided over, as is cus­tom — were the mem­bers of the House and Sen­ate, two-thirds of the Wash­ing­ton State Supreme Court, the rest of the exec­u­tive depart­ment (Bob Fer­gu­son, Steve Hobbs, Chris Reyk­dal, Pat McCarthy, Hilary Franz, Mike Pel­lic­ciot­ti, Mike Krei­dler), trib­al and local lead­ers, First Lady Tru­di Inslee, and mem­bers of the con­sular corps, with over a dozen nations represented.

Spe­cial guests were also present in the gal­leries, includ­ing for­mer Gov­er­nor Gary Locke, who went on to serve as Sec­re­tary of Com­merce and U.S. Ambas­sador to Chi­na (and lat­er as the inter­im pres­i­dent of Belle­vue Col­lege). How­ev­er, most of the guests Inslee rec­og­nized in his speech are peo­ple who could be called ordi­nary Wash­ing­to­ni­ans — folks who don’t have name ID or fan­cy titles.

Inslee asked each of them to stand after telling their stories.

The Wash­ing­to­ni­ans he named were:

  • Elisa Gar­cia, a farm­work­er in Top­pen­ish. “Her home was one of 32 in Yaki­ma Coun­ty that had rooftop solar installed, thanks to a state pro­gram specif­i­cal­ly geared toward farm­work­ers,” Inslee told leg­is­la­tors. “Her home now pro­duces 100% of its ener­gy from her own roof. Her family’s ener­gy bills are zero and it would not have been pos­si­ble with­out this Leg­is­la­ture. Elisa and her daugh­ter, Jas­min, are here with us today. Thank you, both.”
  • Bryan Ori­huela of Auburn. Bri­an “was going to be an engi­neer, but then he was in a trau­mat­ic car acci­dent, fol­lowed by high med­ical bills,” the gov­er­nor explained. “He had to leave col­lege. For­tu­nate­ly, he got con­nect­ed to Com­put­ing for All’s pre-appren­tice­ship pro­gram, which this Leg­is­la­ture helped sup­port with Career Con­nect Wash­ing­ton grants. Now he’s a devel­op­er at a men­tal health app, and Bryan is also here today. Bryan, thank you.”
  • Sheena and John Wil­son from Mount Ver­non. “Sheena’s hus­band John was diag­nosed with can­cer,” Inslee relayed. “Sheena expect­ed their health costs would go up to $3,000 a month, until she accessed the ben­e­fits of our Cas­cade Care pub­lic option. Her fam­i­ly now pays $108 a month and the most they’ll pay out-of-pock­et this year for her husband’s can­cer treat­ment is $2,500 total. John and Sheena are here with us today from Mount Ver­non. Thank you both and good luck, too.”
  • Starr Drap­er from Seat­tle. “This time last year a woman named Starr Drap­er found her­self in a right-of-way encamp­ment at First Avenue and Michi­gan Street in Seat­tle,” said Inslee. “No one can live in dan­ger and expect their con­di­tions to improve. No one can be swept from one dark cor­ner to anoth­er and expect life to get bet­ter. We must lift peo­ple up and give them the tools, the ser­vices and the pow­er of com­mu­ni­ty nec­es­sary to get life on track. State and local col­lab­o­ra­tion got Starr on her jour­ney to well­ness. Starr said this pro­gram, quote, ‘renewed my trust.’ She’s got work, she’s got a safe, pri­vate place to live, and Starr is here today. Thank you for inspir­ing us.”
  • Clau­dia Fuentes from Pas­co. “We’re joined today by the Pas­co Police Department’s own Clau­dia Fuentes,” said Inslee. “Clau­dia would not be a police offi­cer today if this Leg­is­la­ture had not invest­ed in more Crim­i­nal Jus­tice Train­ing Cen­ters like in Pas­co. It was impos­si­ble for a par­ent to spend four and a half months away from home for train­ing in Burien. But because we invest­ed in these train­ing cen­ters, Offi­cer Fuentes got to go home from the acad­e­my every night. And because she had this resource, the peo­ple of Pas­co are safer. Thank you, Claudia.”
  • Holle Edwards from the Swinomish trib­al com­mu­ni­ty. “We’re going to sup­port peo­ple with sto­ries like Holle Edwards, a mem­ber of the Swinomish Tribe whose life lan­guished in addic­tion to meth and hero­in before she got help at local resource cen­ters,” said Inslee. “Holle got her life back — and she’s now a recov­ery coun­selor help­ing peo­ple on the same jour­ney at a well­ness cen­ter in Ana­cortes. Holle is here today.”

It’s always nice to see poli­cies con­nect­ed to peo­ple, and Gov­er­nor Inslee did that in spades with his 2024 State of the State remarks. He did­n’t just rely on soar­ing rhetoric to car­ry the speech — he told the sto­ries of Wash­ing­to­ni­ans who have been helped by new state laws passed by Wash­ing­ton’s Demo­c­ra­t­ic majorities.

It made his address more mem­o­rable and resonant.

I pho­tographed the spe­cial guests as they each stood with a tele­pho­to lens, and it was love­ly to see them beam­ing as the law­mak­ers down below applaud­ed them.

The gov­er­nor con­clud­ed his address by opti­misti­cal­ly look­ing to the future.

“When I took office, we had auda­cious goals that defied the odds to become real­i­ty. I had con­fi­dence we could tack­le these chal­lenges because I’ve always believed in the unique tal­ent and ambi­tions of Wash­ing­to­ni­ans,” said Inslee.

“Wash­ing­to­ni­ans have more resilience, more love for our state, and more endurance to push toward the sun­ny uplands of the future than any oth­er peo­ple on the plan­et. The next two months, we’re going to make this state bet­ter at men­tal health, safer against opi­oids, more sup­port­ive for edu­ca­tors and stu­dents, and more com­mit­ted to our climate.”

“We’ve made hope for the future pos­si­ble because Wash­ing­to­ni­ans are nev­er restrict­ed by the past or the bog of the sta­tus quo.”

Inslee did not bring up Bri­an Hey­wood and Jim Wal­sh’s six destruc­tive ini­tia­tives, though in many ways, his address felt like a rebut­tal of the com­ments Hey­wood and Walsh have been mak­ing over the past six weeks as they turned in sig­na­tures for I‑2117, I‑2109, I‑2081, I‑2111, I‑2113, and I‑2124 — all ini­tia­tives that seek to part­ly or total­ly roll back key laws that Inslee has signed in the last four years.

For instance, on cli­mate, Inslee said: “We will not relent to our great­est chal­lenges. We will not go back­ward. This is the Ever­green State and the Ever For­ward State. And we’re going ever for­ward on our ever­green agenda.”

“Cli­mate change is our present, but cli­mate col­lapse does not have to be inevitable. This Leg­is­la­ture put us on a clear — and nec­es­sary — path to slash green­house gas­es 95% by 2050. We will stay the course. Any delay would be a betray­al of our children’s future. We are on the razor’s edge between promise and peril.”

With­in the cham­ber, Wash­ing­ton State’s Repub­li­can minor­i­ty lis­tened polite­ly and did not inter­rupt or heck­le the gov­er­nor, in sharp con­trast to how House Repub­li­cans have treat­ed Pres­i­dent Joe Biden dur­ing State of the Union address­es. Online, how­ev­er, Repub­li­cans respond­ed with negativity.

“Crime and the cost of liv­ing con­tin­ues to sky­rock­et in Wash­ing­ton,” a tweet from the Sen­ate Repub­li­can cau­cus began. “The fen­tanyl cri­sis wors­ens, many stu­dents are fail­ing in school, our fer­ry sys­tem is bro­ken, and home­less camps remain chron­ic. And yet, Gov­er­nor Inslee calls our state ‘a bea­con of progress.’ Wash­ing­to­ni­ans deserve bet­ter.” Tacked onto the tweet were a bunch of hash­tags Repub­li­cans love to use: #Unsafe­WA, #Unaf­ford­able­WA, #Unac­count­able­WA.

Mean­while, House Repub­li­cans put up this video, laden with stock images:

As men­tioned above, Gov­er­nor Inslee raised the top­ics Repub­li­cans are grip­ing about dur­ing his speech. He talked about edu­ca­tion, he talked about fix­ing the fer­ries, he talked about get­ting peo­ple out of home­less encamp­ments and into hous­ing, he talked about deal­ing with the fen­tanyl cri­sis. His speech both cel­e­brat­ed progress that Wash­ing­ton has made while call­ing for more action across a range of issues. It did not ignore the state’s chal­lenges at all.

Repub­li­cans were part of some of the accom­plish­ments that Inslee spoke of — paid fam­i­ly and med­ical leave was a bipar­ti­san accom­plish­ment, for example.

Yet, rather than join­ing Inslee in offer­ing a bal­anced assess­ment of where Wash­ing­ton stands, they con­sis­tent­ly take a glass half emp­ty view, fail­ing to appre­ci­ate that there are two sides to every equa­tion. But per­haps this behav­ior is to be expect­ed. Their base is unhap­py with Demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­er­nance and unhap­py with the Repub­li­can Par­ty’s repeat­ed elec­toral fail­ures over the past few cycles.

In a strik­ing moment dur­ing the speech, Repub­li­cans sat stone-faced and did not applaud when Inslee called for a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment to pro­tect repro­duc­tive free­dom. (The rest of the cham­ber gave Inslee a stand­ing ova­tion, includ­ing the gal­leries.) Repub­li­can votes would be required to send such an amend­ment to vot­ers, and they have zero inter­est in sup­port­ing one. There are no Repub­li­cans who favor repro­duc­tive rights on either side of the rotun­da anymore.

Aside from Dan Evans and Arthur Lan­glie — both Repub­li­cans from eras when pro­gres­sives were wel­come in the Repub­li­can Par­ty — no one has served as Gov­er­nor of Wash­ing­ton State for longer than Jay Inslee has. He is just the third per­son, after the two of them, to have been elect­ed to the posi­tion thrice, win­ning by a big­ger mar­gin each time. Inslee is also cur­rent­ly the gov­er­nor with the most senior­i­ty. No oth­er cur­rent­ly serv­ing state gov­er­nor has been in office for longer.

Inslee will leave office next Jan­u­ary. He has pledged to remain active after his tenure comes to an end. But he’s still got one more year to go, and he has no inten­tion of being a lame duck. “Run through the tape” is his mantra for these final twelve months, includ­ing the remain­der of the short leg­isla­tive ses­sion and the com­ing cam­paign to defeat Bri­an Hey­wood and Jim Wal­sh’s initiatives.

Know­ing Gov­er­nor Inslee, this isn’t just lofty talk. He means it and will be work­ing every day to secure as many more accom­plish­ments as he can before turn­ing over the gov­er­nor’s man­sion to his suc­ces­sor in Jan­u­ary of 2025.

Tuesday, January 9th, 2024

NPI urges Washington State House to advance legislation to move local elections to even years

Editor’s Note: The fol­low­ing are NPI founder Andrew Villeneuve’s pre­pared remarks in sup­port of House Bill 1932, leg­is­la­tion prime spon­sored by State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Mia Gregerson and cospon­sored by State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Darya Fari­var that would empow­er local gov­ern­ments to move their elec­tions to even-num­bered years. HB 1932 was heard today by the House State Gov­ern­ment & Trib­al Rela­tions Com­mit­tee, chaired by State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Bill Ramos. 

Chair Ramos, Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Cheney, and mem­bers of the com­mit­tee, good after­noon. For the record, I am Andrew Vil­leneuve from the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute, here in strong sup­port of House Bill 1932.

I extend NPI’s most pro­found thanks to Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Gregerson and Fari­var for their work on this impor­tant and need­ed legislation.

Very sim­ply, the rea­son to do this is because the data over­whelm­ing­ly shows that when local elec­tions are moved to even-num­bered years, turnout goes way, way up — and it becomes more diverse. We’re just com­ing out of a local elec­tion year in which we had the worst vot­er turnout in Wash­ing­ton State his­to­ry. Only 36.41% of those eli­gi­ble to par­tic­i­pate returned a ballot.

House Bill 1932 is one of two pro­pos­als before this cur­rent Leg­is­la­ture that would update an old law dat­ing back to the 1960s which locks cities and towns in Wash­ing­ton into odd-num­bered years. The oth­er is Sen­ate Bill 5723, which is in the Rules Com­mit­tee on the oth­er side of the rotunda.

The main dif­fer­ences between the two are as follows.

First, Sen­ate Bill 5723 only per­tains to cities and towns, while House Bill 1932 also extends to oth­er lev­els of local gov­ern­ment, such as ports and school districts.

And sec­ond, as you heard Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Gregerson say a few min­utes ago, House Bill 1932 has a manda­to­ry trig­ger, where­as Sen­ate Bill 5723 is entire­ly vol­un­tary — it’s 100% opt-in. It’s up to you as our elect­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives to decide which path you want to take — NPI is very sup­port­ive of both approaches.

I want to close by not­ing that this is some­thing vot­ers real­ly want.

Our polling has found a ratio to 2:1 sup­port and oppo­si­tion statewide in favor of even year elec­tions for local­i­ties. In King Coun­ty last cycle, vot­ers had an oppor­tu­ni­ty to change the coun­ty char­ter to move elec­tions to even-num­bered years — and over 69% vot­ed yes. King Coun­ty Char­ter Amend­ment 1 was one of thir­teen such pro­pos­als around the coun­try that all got approved.

From Flori­da to Cal­i­for­nia to Col­orado and here, every sin­gle bal­lot propo­si­tion to adopt even year elec­tions passed. Every one.

As the lead­ing nation­al experts on elec­tion tim­ing have not­ed, this is the only elec­toral reform avail­able to us that can as much as dou­ble turnout in local elec­tions while also great­ly diver­si­fy­ing it. Let’s lis­ten to the vot­ers — please give this bill a “do pass” rec­om­men­da­tion. Thank you!

Monday, January 8th, 2024

VICTORY! Washington House unanimously readopts bill to end child marriage

The Wash­ing­ton State House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives wast­ed no time today get­ting down to busi­ness and tak­ing action on one of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s 2024 leg­isla­tive pri­or­i­ties, vot­ing unan­i­mous­ly on open­ing day to pass leg­is­la­tion that would put an end to child mar­riage in the Ever­green State.

All nine­ty-eight Demo­c­ra­t­ic and Repub­li­can rep­re­sen­ta­tives cast votes this after­noon in favor of State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Mon­i­ca Stonier’s leg­is­la­tion to set a min­i­mum age of eigh­teen for both par­ties to legal­ly marry.

Stonier had pitched her col­leagues on mak­ing House Bill 1455 a pri­or­i­ty for ear­ly action, and they respond­ed enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly. As a con­se­quence, the bill is now head­ed to the Sen­ate, where Law & Jus­tice Chair Man­ka Dhin­gra, a North­west Pro­gres­sive Foun­da­tion board­mem­ber, is pre­pared to hear it.

Remark­ably, State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Jim Walsh, now the Chair of the Wash­ing­ton State Repub­li­can Par­ty, joined Stonier in deliv­er­ing a floor speech urg­ing that the bill receive the sup­port of every mem­ber of the House of Representatives.

No mem­bers were absent or excused, so we can say that every sin­gle one of Wash­ing­ton State’s rep­re­sen­ta­tives is on the record in sup­port of HB 1455. That’s just fan­tas­tic. And it reflects the tremen­dous sup­port our research has found for end­ing child mar­riage — 80% of like­ly 2024 Wash­ing­ton vot­ers sup­port this bill.

Here’s the unan­i­mous roll call on HB 1455:

Roll Call
HB 1455
Child mar­riage
3rd Read­ing & Final Passage
1/8/2024

Yeas: 98

Vot­ing Yea: Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Abbarno, Alvara­do, Barkis, Barnard, Bate­man, Berg, Bergquist, Berry, Bronoske, Caldier, Callan, Cham­bers, Chan­dler, Chap­man, Cheney, Chopp, Chris­t­ian, Con­nors, Cor­ry, Cortes, Cou­ture, Davis, Dent, Doglio, Don­aghy, Duerr, Dye, Enten­man, Eslick, Fari­var, Fey, Fitzgib­bon, Fos­se, Goehn­er, Good­man, Gra­ham, Gregerson, Grif­fey, Hack­ney, Har­ris, Hutchins, Jacob­sen, Klick­er, Klo­ba, Kretz, Leav­itt, Lekanoff, Low, Macri, May­cum­ber, McClin­tock, McEn­tire, Mena, Mor­gan, Mos­bruck­er, Nance, Orcutt, Orms­by, Ortiz-Self, Orwall, Paul, Peter­son, Pol­let, Ramel, Ramos, Reed, Reeves, Ric­cel­li, Robert­son, Rude, Rule, Ryu, San­dlin, San­tos, Schmick, Schmidt, Senn, Shavers, Sim­mons, Slat­ter, Springer, Stearns, Steele, Stokes­bary, Stonier, Street, Tay­lor, Thai, Tharinger, Tim­mons, Volz, Walen, Walsh, Waters, Wilcox, Wylie, Ybar­ra, Jinkins

Now that HB 1455 has been sent back across the rotun­da, the next step is a hear­ing in Sen­ate Law & Jus­tice. The bill then needs a “do pass” rec­om­men­da­tion to be sent up to Sen­ate Rules. From there it will need to be pulled to the floor and be select­ed for bill action by Sen­ate lead­er­ship. Giv­en how much bipar­ti­san sup­port the bill has, this ought to be sim­ple — but it’s impor­tant to remem­ber that HB 1455 stalled out last year due to time con­straints, a reminder that even non­con­tro­ver­sial bills can get stymied in the bicam­er­al leg­isla­tive process.

We’re work­ing with the Wash­ing­ton Coali­tion to End Child Mar­riage to ensure that does­n’t hap­pen again. 2024 is the year to get this done! If you’re inter­est­ed in sup­port­ing the cause, we invite you to join us on Jan­u­ary 18th in Olympia, when our friends at Unchained At Last will be hold­ing what they call a chain-in — a demon­stra­tion to call for an end to child mar­riage — on the steps of the domed Leg­isla­tive Build­ing on the Capi­tol Cam­pus. Unchained At Last has held many chain-ins in oth­er states, and this month, it’s Wash­ing­ton’s turn!

If you would like to par­tic­i­pate in the chain-in, please reg­is­ter here.

Details from Unchained At Last:

Child mar­riage is an urgent prob­lem in Wash­ing­ton. Dan­ger­ous legal loop­holes allow par­ents to enter a child of any age into mar­riage with­out any input required from the child, and with­out any real legal recourse for a child who does not want to marry.

Some 5,048 minors as young as 13 were entered into mar­riage in Wash­ing­ton between 2000 and 2021. More than 80% were girls wed to adult men, and between 38 and 51 mar­riages occurred with a spousal age dif­fer­ence that met the def­i­n­i­tion of a sex crime.

Fur­ther­more, child mar­riage cre­ates a night­mar­ish legal trap that destroys near­ly every aspect of an Amer­i­can girl’s life. There’s a rea­son the Unit­ed State Depart­ment has called mar­riage before eigh­teen a “human rights abuse.”

This calls for a protest.

We will Chain-In in Olympia on Jan­u­ary 18th. We will wear bridal gowns and chains to urge leg­is­la­tors to pass SB 5695 / HB 1455, the sim­ple bill that would end child mar­riage in Washington.

Speak­ers include:

  • Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Mon­i­ca Stonier, leg­isla­tive champion
  • Sen­a­tor Man­ka Dhin­gra, leg­isla­tive champion
  • Sen­a­tor Derek Stan­ford, leg­isla­tive champion
  • Stephanie War­ren, sur­vivor & advocate
  • Sara Tas­neem, child mar­riage advo­cate and survivor
  • Kate Yang, child mar­riage advo­cate and survivor
  • Kather­ine Cleland​, Zon­ta USA
  • Michele Hanash, AHA Foundation
  • Fraidy Reiss, Unchained At Last

We also will sing and chant against forced and child mar­riage, includ­ing a ren­di­tion of The Girls You Have Destroyed, a chill­ing poem/song we wrote about child mar­riage in the Unit­ed States.

Chain-In Olympia
Jan­u­ary 18 | 11:30 a.m.
North Steps of the Wash­ing­ton State Capitol
416 Sid Sny­der Ave. SW, Olympia, WA 98504

Again, the link to reg­is­ter is here if you’d like to join us.

Big thanks to Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Stonier for secur­ing floor time for this impor­tant bill on the first day of the leg­isla­tive ses­sion, and earn­ing the votes of every sin­gle one of her nine­ty-sev­en col­leagues! It’s on to the Senate.

Monday, January 8th, 2024

80% of 2024 likely Washington voters support ending child marriage, NPI poll finds

Eight out of ten like­ly 2024 Wash­ing­ton vot­ers are sup­port­ive of adopt­ing leg­is­la­tion that would put an end to child mar­riages in the Ever­green State, a poll recent­ly con­duct­ed for the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute has found.

80% of 700 like­ly 2024 Wash­ing­ton State vot­ers sur­veyed by Pub­lic Pol­i­cy Polling for NPI in Novem­ber of 2023 expressed sup­port for enact­ing leg­is­la­tion that would require both par­ties to be at least eigh­teen years old to legal­ly marry.

A mere 14% were opposed, while 6% said they were not sure.

It’s very rare that we find the vot­ing pub­lic in Wash­ing­ton this unit­ed behind pend­ing state-lev­el leg­is­la­tion, but it goes to show that even in polar­ized times, there are areas of bipar­ti­san, cross-ide­o­log­i­cal agreement.

End­ing child mar­riage is one of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s 2024 leg­isla­tive pri­or­i­ties, and it has a first-rate cham­pi­on in State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Mon­i­ca Stonier, who intro­duced House Bill 1455 last session.

Fit­ting­ly, HB 1455 received no oppo­si­tion what­so­ev­er when it appeared on the House floor last year, reflect­ing the deep and strong sup­port for end­ing child mar­riage that we can now see in our research polling.

Regret­tably, HB 1455 stalled out in the Sen­ate due to a mas­sive log­jam of bills that sen­a­tors weren’t able to ful­ly clear due to time constraints.

(Unlike Con­gress, Wash­ing­ton’s bicam­er­al Leg­is­la­ture is only in active reg­u­lar ses­sion for 105 days in odd years and 60 days in even years.)

But since bills from odd year ses­sions car­ry over to even year ses­sions, Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Stonier does­n’t have to start over with a new bill. The House can sim­ply send HB 1455 back over to the Sen­ate a sec­ond time, where Law & Jus­tice Chair Man­ka Dhin­gra — a North­west Pro­gres­sive Foun­da­tion board­mem­ber — is ready to hear it and report it out with a “do pass” recommendation.

HB 1455 could be on Gov­er­nor Inslee’s desk in a mat­ter of weeks if the Sen­ate fol­lows the House­’s lead this time and approves the bill unanimously.

Our research shows Wash­ing­to­ni­ans are very enthu­si­as­tic about HB 1455.

Here’s the exact ques­tion we asked and the respons­es we received:

QUESTION: Wash­ing­ton State cur­rent­ly does not pro­hib­it mar­riages in which one or both par­ties are under the age of eigh­teen. Do you strong­ly sup­port, some­what sup­port, some­what oppose, or strong­ly oppose pass­ing a law to end child mar­riage by requir­ing that both par­ties be at least eigh­teen years old to legal­ly marry?

ANSWERS:

  • Sup­port: 80% 
    • Strong­ly sup­port: 64%
    • Some­what sup­port: 16%
  • Oppose: 14%
    • Some­what oppose: 8%
    • Strong­ly oppose: 6%
  • Not sure: 6%

Our sur­vey of 700 like­ly 2024 Wash­ing­ton State vot­ers was in the field from Tues­day, Novem­ber 14th through Wednes­day, Novem­ber 15th, 2023.

The poll uti­lizes a blend­ed method­ol­o­gy, with auto­mat­ed phone calls to land­lines (42%) and online answers from respon­dents recruit­ed by text (58%).

It was con­duct­ed by Pub­lic Pol­i­cy Polling (PPP) for the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute, and has a mar­gin of error of +/- 3.7% at the 95% con­fi­dence interval.

Fol­low this link for addi­tion­al method­ol­o­gy details, includ­ing demo­graph­ic data.

NPI and PPP have worked togeth­er for a decade and have a track record of excel­lence, as detailed in this 2022 elec­toral polling recap and this 2020 one.

Child mar­riage has been declared by the Unit­ed States Depart­ment of State to be a human rights vio­la­tion. Yet, in much of the coun­try, it’s legal — includ­ing in all of the states in the Pacif­ic North­west. That needs to change.

So far, ten states have banned child mar­riage. Those are:

  • Delaware (2018)
  • New Jer­sey (2018)
  • Penn­syl­va­nia (2020)
  • Min­neso­ta (2020)
  • Rhode Island (2021)
  • New York (2021)
  • Mass­a­chu­setts (2022)
  • Ver­mont (2023)
  • Con­necti­cut (2023)
  • Michi­gan (2023)

All of those states are in the Great Lakes, New Eng­land, or mid-Atlantic regions. Wash­ing­ton could become the first state in the Amer­i­can West to ban child mar­riage if House Bill 1455 is successful.

Wash­ing­ton has a his­to­ry of human rights lead­er­ship, includ­ing the suc­cess­ful repeal of the death penal­ty. Let’s con­tin­ue that lead­er­ship in 2024 by mak­ing sure the Ever­green State becomes the next state to end child marriage.

Sunday, January 7th, 2024

What is history? Here’s a historian’s answer to that critically important question

What is his­to­ry? sounds like a straight­for­ward question.

But to answer it, we need to use a less then direct approach, as if we were going to sneak up and cor­ner it, so it must reply honestly.

To answer the ques­tion What is his­to­ry? the best ques­tion to begin with is Where does his­to­ry come from?

This is a key point.

If I ask What is his­to­ry? most of us would reply with some ver­sion of: Every­thing that’s hap­pened in the past; or, a true and hon­est account of our past.

But how do we know what is a true or hon­est account of our past?

That knowl­edge only comes from what his­to­ri­ans write and teach.

That’s why we need to ask, Where does his­to­ry come from?

His­to­ry, with very few excep­tions, is writ­ten by peo­ple who were not alive dur­ing the times they were writ­ing about. No one alive today was there in 1898 when Ted­dy Roo­sevelt and his Rough Rid­ers helped con­quer Cuba for the U.S.

Or in 1858 for the Dred Scott Supreme Court deci­sion, which ruled that enslaved Black peo­ple were prop­er­ty, not per­sons before the law, and there­fore it was in vio­la­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion to pass any law lim­it­ing slav­ery, or pro­hibit­ing its spread; nor in 1565, for the estab­lish­ment of the first Euro­pean set­tle­ment in what became the Unit­ed States of America.

That’s why, to find out about the past, his­to­ri­ans rely prin­ci­pal­ly on pri­ma­ry sources. Pri­ma­ry sources are writ­ten doc­u­ments, pic­tures, arti­facts, any mate­r­i­al that was cre­at­ed at the same time that it is describ­ing: news­pa­pers, jour­nals, med­ical records, pic­tures and pho­tographs, gov­ern­ment doc­u­ments, per­son­al let­ters or notes, record­ings when avail­able, church records.

(That’s, for exam­ple, how we know that the num­ber of brides who went to the altar already preg­nant in Puri­tan colo­nial New Eng­land was greater than in twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry New Eng­land. Sev­en­teenth cen­tu­ry church records includ­ed mar­riage and bap­tism dates.)

For the most part, learn­ing from doc­u­ments and pri­ma­ry sources works well. But learn­ing about the past from pri­ma­ry sources also has its own problems.

For exam­ple, there’s a well-known pri­ma­ry source cre­at­ed by artists who came to this con­ti­nent from Europe, late in the 1500’s, specif­i­cal­ly to draw pic­tures of the indige­nous peo­ples liv­ing here. One sketch of what they observed shows natives, clothed in the car­cass­es of pre­vi­ous­ly killed deer, sneak­ing up to with­in four or five feet of unsus­pect­ing deer drink­ing at a stream “with­out fright­en­ing them.”

What are we to make of this? Most of us today with any expe­ri­ence of deer in the wild might right­ly react with puz­zle­ment, or disbelief.

Yet the pri­ma­ry source was cre­at­ed by peo­ple who were there at the time. Their pur­pose was to describe what they observed. Are we to dis­count the valid­i­ty of this 16th cen­tu­ry pri­ma­ry source because it’s not con­gru­ent with our under­stand­ing of its sub­ject – hunt­ing deer in the wild – today?

Anoth­er draw­ing from this series, titled Her­maph­ro­dites as Labor­ers, shows her­maph­ro­dite natives car­ry­ing the wound­ed and sick on stretchers.

The descrip­tion under the draw­ing tells us “Her­maph­ro­dites are com­mon in these parts. They are con­sid­ered odi­ous, but are used as beasts of bur­den, since they are strong. When­ev­er the Indi­ans go to war, it is the her­maph­ro­dites who car­ry the provisions.”

Again, what are we to make of this? Do we dis­count this six­teenth cen­tu­ry first per­son source because of our own beliefs today about the exis­tence of her­maph­ro­dites – humans with the phys­i­cal sex­u­al char­ac­ter­is­tics of men and women? How do we know whether it is accu­rate? And what about oth­er draw­ings pro­duced by the same artists? Should we doubt them also?

What we can learn from these exam­ples is that cur­rent inter­ests and beliefs always influ­ence the his­to­ry told.

Our sense of our present — what the world is like now, accord­ing to us — effects how we under­stand the past. What we see as rea­son­able, or pos­si­ble, now impacts how we under­stand pri­ma­ry mate­ri­als from decades or cen­turies ago.
Here’s anoth­er exam­ple – per­ti­nent today — from the his­to­ry of his­to­ri­ans writ­ing about Black Americans.

The most up-to-date infor­ma­tion in the 1940s and 1950s, from the most expe­ri­enced and respect­ed his­to­ri­ans of slav­ery in the Unit­ed States at the time, con­clud­ed that because the “Negro” was slow to learn, tend­ed to lazi­ness, liked to laugh and sing, was not respon­si­ble, or depend­able, enslave­ment was real­ly the best solu­tion for them. And Negroes knew that, these his­to­ri­ans concluded.

They appre­ci­at­ed their mas­ters — mas­ters who treat­ed them kind­ly, made sure they had food every day, and ade­quate hous­ing, and presents at Christ­mas time, and a safe plan­ta­tion to live on. These con­clu­sions from the 1940s and 1950s have been shown, repeat­ed­ly, by his­to­ri­ans work­ing in the last six­ty years or so, to be false, inac­cu­rate, and gross­ly misleading.

What can explain this rad­i­cal change in our under­stand­ing of Amer­i­can history?
What we see here, again, is the pow­er of our own cur­rent beliefs to influ­ence how we see our country’s past.

The his­to­ri­ans who wrote those dis­tort­ed accounts of plan­ta­tion life were men of integri­ty, hon­est­ly work­ing with pri­ma­ry mate­ri­als — and each oth­er — to uncov­er infor­ma­tion in an attempt to under­stand slav­ery in America.

But because those men — and his­to­ri­ans were almost exclu­sive­ly men then — were large­ly white, upper mid­dle class, or even patri­cian, they used only those sources that made sense to them: sources that sup­port­ed their own heart­felt cer­tain­ty that Black peo­ple were — and are — inferior.

The his­to­ry of slav­ery in Amer­i­ca has changed so marked­ly in the past six­ty or so years because the class, race, gen­der, age, and per­son­al expe­ri­ence of his­to­ri­ans has changed.

To add a per­son­al note: I remem­ber a not­ed his­to­ri­an of the Mid­dle Ages who came to our uni­ver­si­ty as a guest lec­ture in the ear­ly 1970’s Over din­ner, before his talk, he told us what he thought was an amus­ing sto­ry. One of his grad­u­ate stu­dents pro­posed to do his research on anti­semitism in Europe dur­ing the Mid­dle Ages. How sil­ly, he said; laugh­able! Of course, he told his stu­dent no.
As a young his­to­ri­an who hap­pened to be Jew­ish, I found it nei­ther sil­ly nor laugh­able; it sound­ed like an impor­tant top­ic, not to be overlooked.

The same as with knowl­edge in every oth­er field of study, his­tor­i­cal under­stand­ing is con­stant­ly being revised. We wouldn’t want to be lim­it­ed to the physics of six­ty or sev­en­ty years ago — before big screen tele­vi­sion, and the inter­net, and cell phones, inter­con­ti­nen­tal mis­siles, drones, satel­lites, and inter­ac­tive maps.

Or the phys­i­cal edu­ca­tion con­ven­tions of six­ty or sev­en­ty years ago, when girls and young women couldn’t play orga­nized sports — no girls’ bas­ket­ball, or soft­ball, or vol­ley­ball, or soc­cer. Such activ­i­ties were con­sid­ered unsuit­able for girls and young women. Why expect the nation’s schools to teach the his­to­ry of six­ty or sev­en­ty years ago, when women, peo­ple of col­or, LGBTQ+ peo­ple, and folks who worked in the trades were large­ly ignored?

All his­to­ry is revi­sion­ist his­to­ry. It’s con­stant­ly being revised and changed. That’s the only kind of his­to­ry there is. There is not, and nev­er can be, one uncon­test­ed, objec­tive, true account of history.

(An author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ment may deter­mine what can and can­not be taught. But that would not make its account accu­rate, or objec­tive, or uncontested.)

What is the answer, then, to the ques­tion: What is his­to­ry? Again, it’s not the sto­ry of the past, or what­ev­er hap­pened in the past, or even what the win­ners of wars write. His­to­ry is what­ev­er his­to­ri­ans now care enough about to do research in pri­ma­ry sources, and then share their results.

Saturday, January 6th, 2024

Eight good reads about Alaska Airlines 1282, which lost a door-sized plug after takeoff

An almost brand new Boe­ing 737 MAX 9 (reg­is­tra­tion num­ber N704AL) owned by Alas­ka Air­lines suf­fered mod­er­ate dam­age yes­ter­day when a door-sized plug sep­a­rat­ed from the body of the jet after take­off, prompt­ing an NTSB inves­ti­ga­tion and an FAA-ordered ground­ing of all MAX air­craft of the same type.

Thank­ful­ly, the crew of Alas­ka Air­lines Flight 1282 was able to get their plane and pas­sen­gers suc­cess­ful­ly back to Port­land Inter­na­tion­al Air­port with­in min­utes. There were no fatal­i­ties or seri­ous injuries. How­ev­er, the acci­dent has once again put Boe­ing’s trou­bled 737 MAX pro­gram back under the spot­light and raised ques­tions as to whether cor­ners are being cut in the assem­bly process.

Our team has put togeth­er a col­lec­tion of arti­cles that explain what we know so far and how it’s impact­ing avi­a­tion in the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond.

From The Seat­tle Times:

Boe­ing 737 MAX 9s ground­ed after Alas­ka Air­lines in-flight blowout

by Dominic Gates and Tay­lor Blatchford

An emer­gency aboard Alas­ka Air­lines Flight 1282 may have long-last­ing impli­ca­tions for 737 MAX mak­er Boe­ing, as well as Alaska.

From KOIN:

NTSB: Blown door from Alas­ka flight near Barnes Road

by Tim Steele

The door that blew off Alas­ka Air­lines Flight 1282 short­ly after take­off from Port­land Fri­day night is believed to be around Barnes Road near Hwy 217 and the Cedar Hills neighborhood.

From The Wall Street Journal:

‘Is It OK if I Hold Your Hand?’: Inside the Cab­in of Alas­ka Air­lines Flight 1282

by Patience Hag­gin and Alli­son Pohle

Pas­sen­gers recount har­row­ing expe­ri­ence after a chunk of the plane broke off midair

From The Asso­ci­at­ed Press:

Hear how a pilot calm­ly led her Alas­ka Air­lines flight to safe­ty dur­ing an emergency

by AP editors

Audio of the pilot com­mu­ni­cat­ing with air traf­fic con­trol as the emer­gency was unfold­ing shows how she calm­ly nav­i­gat­ed the plane to safety.

From Bloomberg:

Boe­ing 737 Max Blowout Points to Per­va­sive Flaws

by Brooke Sutherland

The ground­ing of a Boe­ing Max vari­ant after a fuse­lage sec­tion came apart midair on an Alas­ka Air­lines flight adds to the planemaker’s long list of problems.

From Politi­co:

Boe­ing 737 MAX again under scrutiny

by Ori­ana Pawlyk

The Nation­al Trans­porta­tion Safe­ty Board will inves­ti­gate Fri­day night’s inci­dent where an exit door blew out of an Alas­ka Air­lines plane mid-flight. No one was injured.

From Forbes:

Ground­ing Of Boe­ing 737 MAX 9 Planes Is A Key Cri­sis Man­age­ment Lesson

by Edward Segal

The deci­sion by FAA to ground Boe­ing 737 MAX 9 air­craft tem­porar­i­ly pro­vides busi­ness lead­ers with an impor­tant cri­sis man­age­ment les­son: as soon as you know some­thing, do something.

From Reuters:

Boe­ing’s ongo­ing 737 MAX crisis

by Reuters staff

Read a time­line of recent issues sur­round­ing Boe­ing’s MAX planes.

Read­ers may also want to view this video from the Boe­ing 737 Tech­ni­cal Chan­nel on YouTube. “In it I cov­er the rea­son for the mid-cab­in exit door, its con­struc­tion and oper­a­tion, Door Warn­ings & Flight­locks, the SPSEU, MAX PSEU Dif­fer­ences and Alaskan [sic] 1282,” vlog­ger Chris Brady writes.

Video of NTS­B’s Jan­u­ary 6th brief­ing is avail­able for on demand view­ing as well.

The ini­tial state­ment released by Alas­ka Air­lines is below.

A state­ment from Alas­ka Air­lines CEO, Ben Minicucci:

At Alas­ka Air­lines, safe­ty is our foun­da­tion­al val­ue and the most impor­tant thing we focus on every day. Fol­low­ing tonight’s event on Flight 1282, we have decid­ed to take the pre­cau­tion­ary step of tem­porar­i­ly ground­ing our fleet of 65 Boe­ing 737–9 aircraft.

Each air­craft will be returned to ser­vice only after com­ple­tion of full main­te­nance and safe­ty inspec­tions. We antic­i­pate all inspec­tions will be com­plet­ed in the next few days.

I am per­son­al­ly com­mit­ted to doing every­thing we can to con­duct this review in a time­ly and trans­par­ent way.

We are work­ing with Boe­ing and reg­u­la­tors to under­stand what occurred tonight, and will share updates as more infor­ma­tion is avail­able. The NTSB is inves­ti­gat­ing this event and we will ful­ly sup­port their investigation.

My heart goes out to those who were on this flight – I am so sor­ry for what you expe­ri­enced. I am so grate­ful for the response of our pilots and flight atten­dants. We have teams on the ground in Port­land assist­ing pas­sen­gers and are work­ing to sup­port guests who are trav­el­ing in the days ahead.

And here’s the state­ment Boe­ing released today:

“Safe­ty is our top pri­or­i­ty and we deeply regret the impact this event has had on our cus­tomers and their pas­sen­gers. We agree with and ful­ly sup­port the FAA’s deci­sion to require imme­di­ate inspec­tions of 737–9 air­planes with the same con­fig­u­ra­tion as the affect­ed air­plane. In addi­tion, a Boe­ing tech­ni­cal team is sup­port­ing the NTS­B’s inves­ti­ga­tion into last night’s event. We will remain in close con­tact with our reg­u­la­tor and customers.”

Book­mark this Alas­ka Air­lines page if you’re inter­est­ed in fur­ther updates. Go here to learn about the sys­temwide flex­i­ble trav­el pol­i­cy Alas­ka has imple­ment­ed due to Boe­ing 737–9 air­craft inspec­tions and win­ter weath­er in the Northeast.

Saturday, January 6th, 2024

New reporting shines light on Joe Kent’s bad bookkeeping, shady campaign operations

The con­gres­sion­al cam­paigns of ultra MAGA Repub­li­can Joe Kent, who is present­ly seek­ing a rematch with Unit­ed States Marie Glue­senkamp Perez in Wash­ing­ton’s Third Dis­trict, take the shape of a polit­i­cal ice­berg. The bulk of that metaphor­i­cal ice­berg is sub­merged with dan­gers that may go unheeded.

On the sur­face, Kent has tak­en in more than $1 mil­lion for his sec­ond House bid. He boasts of friends in high places. Joe has col­lect­ed cam­paign dol­lars in Flori­da at Mar-a-Lago and car­ries endorse­ments from Don­ald Trump and Don­ald Trump, Jr. He has staged a fundrais­er at the Capi­tol Hill Club in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., with Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Matt Gaetz, R‑Florida – who oust­ed Kevin McCarthy – as lead host.

Kent is backed by a super PAC called the Pacif­ic North­west Polit­i­cal Action Com­mit­tee. He has been endorsed by the Wash­ing­ton State Repub­li­can Par­ty, which has joined the Joe Kent Vic­to­ry Fund in spon­sor­ing a Jan­u­ary 19th fundrais­er in Longview. He is already hold­ing cam­paign meet­ings across the dis­trict, and has recent­ly released a radio spot.

But ques­tions remain from his 2022 campaign.

What exact­ly does Kent do for a liv­ing? An estranged for­mer cam­paign man­ag­er has claimed he has a no-show job. How did it come to pass that Kent was able to loan $205,000 to his own cam­paign? We can go on ask­ing, but as Glue­senkamp Perez’s polit­i­cal con­sul­tant Sandeep Kaushik notes, “The prob­lem is the FEC (Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion) is tooth­less and won’t do anything.”

The Dai­ly Beast has just tak­en a deep dive look at what lies beneath the sur­face of the Kent cam­paign. It found a can­di­date try­ing to dis­tance him­self from a prob­lem­at­ic advi­sor with white nation­al­ist ties. An appar­ent shell com­pa­ny dis­guis­es who’s being paid. And there’s what could be over­lap between the Kent cam­paign and the pro-Kent super PAC, which by law can­not collaborate.

The advis­er is one Matt Braynard.

Bray­nard was a hon­cho from the 2016 Trump pres­i­den­tial cam­paign, and an elec­tion denier fol­low­ing Trump’s loss in 2020. He was also a voice of the 2022 Kent cam­paign, now say­ing he has “vol­un­teered my ser­vices” in the 2024 effort. He offi­cial­ly stopped work­ing for Kent in Novem­ber of 2022, but his byline has shown up as recent­ly as last month on a cam­paign’s meta­da­ta and source code.

“The mon­ey trail sug­gests not only that the two men (Kent and Bray­nard) remain tight, but that they’re so close that the rela­tion­ship may have crossed into a for­bid­den form of polit­i­cal incest,” accord­ing to the Dai­ly Beast.

Bray­nard is known for such pro­nounce­ments as post­ing on Twit­ter: “The World would be a bet­ter place when Ger­many is again proud of its history.”

The Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion has reg­is­tered a firm called QEB Con­sult­ing, reg­is­tered by Bray­nard’s wife. It has received $64,000 for work on Ken­t’s behalf, start­ing with $22,000 paid by the pro-Kent PAC for an email blast.

The blast went out in Novem­ber of 2022, the day before Bray­nard stopped field­ing calls for the Kent campaign.

A key ques­tion is whether Bray­nard took the man­dat­ed time required between his role in the offi­cial cam­paign and the work he has since done with the Pacif­ic North­west Polit­i­cal Action Com­mit­tee. Fed­er­al law requires staff and ven­dors to observe a 120-day “cool­ing off peri­od” between roles.

Cam­paigns and PACs are sup­posed to remain sep­a­rate, although a super PAC called Nev­er Back Down has been han­dling mat­ters such as pres­i­den­tial cam­paign sched­ul­ing for Flori­da Gov­er­nor Ron DeSantis.

Bray­nard had angry words for Dai­ly Beast, say­ing in an email: “It is rep­re­hen­si­ble and sex­ist to sug­gest that my wife, who has spent ten years as an advi­sor to my own polit­i­cal con­sult­ing firm and as a news­room man­ag­er for one of the largest media agen­cies in the world, is not capa­ble of estab­lish­ing and run­ning her own polit­i­cal con­sult­ing firm com­plete­ly inde­pen­dent of me.”

(The media firm in ques­tion is AFP… Agence France-Press.)

Bray­nard is exec­u­tive direc­tor of an out­fit called Look Ahead Amer­i­ca, which has tak­en a lead­ing role as defend­er and advo­cate for those fac­ing crim­i­nal charges for their role in the Jan­u­ary 6rg, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

It has staged ral­lies in sev­en­teen states and Wash­ing­ton, D.C., and filed a for­mal com­plaint with the Unit­ed Nations Human Rights Com­mit­tee. Joe Kent spoke at the D.C. ral­ly. Dai­ly Beast reports that Bray­nard has been paid $190,000 as a con­sul­tant, tes­ti­fy­ing in elec­tion chal­lenges in four states.

The polit­i­cal oper­a­tions of Kent and his friends have foot­prints all across Amer­i­ca. Joe is run­ning for Con­gress in South­west Washington.

The “Joe Kent Vic­to­ry Fund” address is a post office box in Bat­tle Ground. QEB Con­sult­ing is head­quar­tered in Vir­ginia. The pro-Kent PAC pays two firms out of a post office box in Wis­con­sin. A firm called “HWY99 Cor­po­ra­tion”, reg­is­tered in Delaware, has account­ed for two-thirds of Kent cam­paign spending.

It han­dles such tasks as media place­ment, dig­i­tal con­sult­ing, legal & cam­paign con­sult­ing, plus print­ing and bill­boards. The cam­paign pays its bills to an address at 499 S. Capi­tol Street, #405, Wash­ing­ton, D.C.

The trea­sur­er for Joe Kent for Con­gress, as well as the super PAC, is one Tom Datwyler. He is a cam­paign com­pli­ance spe­cial­ist whose firm 9Seven Con­sult­ing works on cam­paigns all over the coun­try. Datwyler was announced last year as trea­sur­er for then-Unit­ed States Rep­re­sen­ta­tive George San­tos, R‑New York, but appar­ent­ly turned down the job. (San­tos was expelled from Con­gress last month.) The Kent cam­paign was ordered to pay $3,304 in fines for fail­ing to file notices for $29,600 in income dur­ing the 2022 campaign.

The cutouts are dizzy­ing, but their pur­pose seems sim­ple: The Kent cam­paign has ties that it is con­ceal­ing, in par­tic­u­lar its pay­roll. In words of the Dai­ly Beast, FEC records show that since August of 2022 “the cam­paign has rout­ed the major­i­ty of its expens­es through what legal experts said appears to be a shell com­pa­ny. The scheme has the effect of hid­ing the iden­ti­ties of who the cam­paign is ulti­mate­ly pay­ing, which the experts said could run afoul of dis­clo­sure rules.”

It appears, too, that pay­ments to Bray­nard by the Kent cam­paign and the pro-Kent PAC may have over­lapped. In the words of Sandeep Kaushik: “They’re clear­ly skirt­ing cam­paign finance and dis­clo­sure laws, and ille­gal­ly coor­di­nat­ing between the cam­paign and the super­PAC. Very typ­i­cal of how Joe and Matt Bray­nard oper­ate. They learned noth­ing from the last campaign.”

Its mem­ber­ship even­ly divid­ed between Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats; the Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion is vir­tu­al­ly par­a­lyzed. Dan Got­tlieb of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Con­gres­sion­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee has sought to shine a light on what lies beneath the sur­face, say­ing in a state­ment: “Joe Kent does­n’t just pal around with insur­rec­tion­ist sym­pa­thiz­ers, it seems he’s also hid­ing pay­ments to them using ’ what legal experts say what appears to be a shell com­pa­ny.’ South­west Wash­ing­ton will judge Kent by his far-right beliefs and the extrem­ist com­pa­ny he keeps – and will hold him to account in November.”

Per­haps. The mar­gin in 2022 was paper-thin, and the rematch in 2024 is rat­ed a tossup. Glue­senkamp Perez is a Blue Dog Demo­c­rat, putting dis­tance between her­self and par­ty lead­ers. She has immersed her­self in dis­trict issues, joined Repub­li­cans in cospon­sor­ing a stream of bipar­ti­san leg­is­la­tion, and bro­ken with the Biden admin­is­tra­tion on such issues as relief from stu­dent debt repayment.

But the 3rd Con­gres­sion­al Dis­trict is Wash­ing­ton’s blue col­lar bas­tion. Don­ald Trump car­ried it in both 2016 and 2020 and is almost cer­tain to be atop the bal­lot once more this year. House can­di­date Joe Kent may have the ben­e­fit of a tailwind.

Friday, January 5th, 2024

Watch President Biden’s Valley Forge speech on upholding American democracy

Today, Pres­i­dent Joe Biden trav­eled to Val­ley Forge, Penn­syl­va­nia to deliv­er remarks on uphold­ing Amer­i­can democ­ra­cy in the face of ris­ing author­i­tar­i­an­ism, par­tic­u­lar­ly from neo­fas­cist Don­ald Trump and his enablers.

Biden’s cam­paign pro­mot­ed the speech as one of his most con­se­quen­tial address­es, and hav­ing watched and read it, our team agrees. We believe that hav­ing access to pri­ma­ry source mate­r­i­al is valu­able, so we’re mak­ing the speech acces­si­ble to our read­ers right here on The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate. Click play to watch, or read an anno­tat­ed tran­script by scrolling down below the video.

Read More »

Friday, January 5th, 2024

Washington State Republican Party submits five names for 24 presidential primary ballot

The 2024 pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry bal­lot in Wash­ing­ton State is set to include five names on the Repub­li­can side, Sec­re­tary of State Hobbs’ office announced today, acknowl­edg­ing the receipt of a list of names from the Repub­li­can Party.

“The Wash­ing­ton State Repub­li­can Par­ty has sub­mit­ted five can­di­date names to go onto the 2024 Pres­i­den­tial Pri­ma­ry bal­lot: Don­ald Trump, Ron DeSan­tis, Nik­ki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Chris Christie,” the office announced in a state­ment. “Under RCW 29A.56.031, each major polit­i­cal par­ty has until Jan­u­ary 9th to sub­mit can­di­date names for the Pres­i­den­tial Primary.”

RCW 29A.56.031 is the state statute gov­ern­ing place­ment of names onto the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry bal­lot. The cur­rent statute — which dates back to 2019 and which NPI was heav­i­ly involved in get­ting passed — makes it the respon­si­bil­i­ty of the major par­ties to draw up a list of names for the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry bal­lot out of respect for their First Amend­ment right of free assembly.

That way, the Sec­re­tary of State is relieved of the prob­lem­at­ic bur­den of decid­ing which can­di­dates should be on each par­ty’s bal­lot. In oth­er states, sec­re­taries of state do have that bur­den and are wrestling with the ques­tion of whether to exclude Don­ald Trump on Four­teenth Amend­ment grounds, due to his incite­ment of an insur­rec­tion on Jan­u­ary 6th, 2021, exact­ly three years ago tomorrow.

Wash­ing­ton State law stipulates:

Each par­ty must deter­mine which can­di­dates are to be placed on the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry bal­lot for that par­ty. The chair of each par­ty must sub­mit to the sec­re­tary of state the names of the can­di­dates to appear on the bal­lot for that par­ty no lat­er than six­ty-three days before the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry. Once sub­mit­ted, changes must not be made to the can­di­dates that will appear on the ballot.

The pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry is what’s known in state legal par­lance as a spe­cial cir­cum­stances elec­tion. How­ev­er, in real­i­ty, it’s not an elec­tion at all, but rather a nom­i­nat­ing event that will influ­ence the allo­ca­tion of del­e­gates to the Demo­c­ra­t­ic and Repub­li­can nation­al con­ven­tions this summer.

The actu­al votes for the par­ties’ nom­i­nees will be cast in Mil­wau­kee (for the Repub­li­cans) and in Chica­go (for the Democ­rats) by nation­al con­ven­tion del­e­gates elect­ed from all fifty states, the Dis­trict of Colum­bia, and U.S. territories.

If you’re a Wash­ing­ton vot­er, you’ll be sent a bal­lot in a few weeks that will have a Demo­c­ra­t­ic col­umn and a Repub­li­can col­umn. If you wish to par­tic­i­pate, you must vote for only one can­di­date from one par­ty, and you must attest that you under­stand that by par­tic­i­pat­ing in that par­ty’s pri­ma­ry, you are choos­ing to affil­i­ate with that par­ty — at least for the moment in time that you cast your ballot.

The attes­ta­tions will be word­ed as follows:

“I declare that my par­ty pref­er­ence is the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty and I will not par­tic­i­pate in the nom­i­na­tion process of any oth­er polit­i­cal par­ty for the 2024 Pres­i­den­tial election.”

“I declare that my par­ty pref­er­ence is the Repub­li­can Par­ty and I will not par­tic­i­pate in the nom­i­na­tion process of any oth­er polit­i­cal par­ty for the 2024 Pres­i­den­tial election.”

The attes­ta­tions are iden­ti­cal except for the names of the parties.

When you vote for a can­di­date in the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry, you are express­ing a pref­er­ence as to which per­son you want one of the major par­ties to nom­i­nate. If enough vot­ers share your pref­er­ence, the can­di­date you like will receive an allot­ment of del­e­gates to the nation­al con­ven­tion from Wash­ing­ton. You can help influ­ence who becomes a del­e­gate, too, if you’re inter­est­ed, by going to a cau­cus. And if you’d like to be a del­e­gate your­self, you can throw your hat in the ring.

After the pri­ma­ry is cer­ti­fied, the major par­ties will receive a list of names of every­one who vot­ed in the pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry. How you vot­ed is a secret; the fact that you vot­ed and which par­ty you affil­i­at­ed with is disclosable.

As men­tioned, on the Repub­li­can side of the bal­lot, you’ll see these names:

  1. Don­ald Trump
  2. Ron DeSan­tis
  3. Nik­ki Haley
  4. Vivek Ramaswamy
  5. Chris Christie

(It might be more accu­rate if the Repub­li­can side of the bal­lot said Auto­crat­ic instead of Repub­li­can, but that’s a dis­cus­sion for anoth­er post!)

On the Demo­c­ra­t­ic side of the bal­lot, you can expect to see these names:

  1. Joe Biden
  2. Dean Phillips

Each par­ty has its own process for qual­i­fy­ing. The Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty’s process is spelled out in its Del­e­gate Selec­tion and Affir­ma­tive Action Plan, or DSAAP, an impor­tant par­ty rules doc­u­ment that is draft­ed by the Wash­ing­ton State Demo­c­ra­t­ic Cen­tral Com­mit­tee and approved by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Com­mit­tee. (I sit on the WSDCC as a vot­ing member.)

The 2024 DSAAP states:

Pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates, who are eli­gi­ble by DNC rules to obtain del­e­gates and who seek to par­tic­i­pate in Washington’s pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry will be required to sub­mit a peti­tion for can­di­da­cy to the Chair of the Wash­ing­ton State Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty with 1,000 sig­na­tures of Wash­ing­ton State vot­ers who pub­licly declare them­selves to be Democ­rats, and a $2,500 admin­is­tra­tive ser­vices fee. Forms for the state­ment of can­di­da­cy and peti­tion will be avail­able on Decem­ber 1, 2023.

The forms must be received no lat­er than Fri­day, Jan­u­ary 5, 2024, by 5:00 PM PT, and must be returned by cer­ti­fied mail to Wash­ing­ton State Democ­rats, PO Box 4027, Seat­tle WA 98194, or in per­son to the par­ty affairs staff at the office of the Wash­ing­ton State Democ­rats, 615 2nd Ave., Suite 580, Seat­tle WA 98104. For pur­pos­es of this sub­sec­tion (A)(1)(c), “received” means: (i) Being phys­i­cal­ly received by a mem­ber of the WSDCC staff by the close of busi­ness of the required dead­line; or (ii) for appli­ca­tions received online or elec­tron­i­cal­ly, by mid­night, of the required deadline.

This evening at 5 PM was the dead­line for Demo­c­ra­t­ic can­di­dates to sub­mit their peti­tions. The Wash­ing­ton State Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty now has until next Tues­day to turn over its list of names to the Sec­re­tary of State.

The Repub­li­cans’ qual­i­fi­ca­tion process is a bit dif­fer­ent. The require­ments include pay­ing a $20,000 fee — that’s eight times more than what Demo­c­ra­t­ic can­di­dates have to put up — and obtain­ing a dozen sig­na­tures from mem­bers of the party’s state cen­tral com­mit­tee rather than get­ting a thou­sand sig­na­tures from voters.

Mil­i­tary and over­seas bal­lots for the March 12th pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry are due to be mailed out on Jan­u­ary 27th. Bal­lots to in-state vot­ers will fol­low on Feb­ru­ary 23rd.

  • Thanks to our sponsors

    NPI’s research and advo­ca­cy is spon­sored by: