News from 2005

• 45th District legislators invite citizens to town hall meetings December 3 (November 22, 2005)
• Rep. Nixon honored for work to create jobs (November 14, 2005)
• Rep. Nixon urges election reform in line with the law (September 15, 2005)
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Congress should butt out on medical marijuana (August 16, 2005)
• Nixon legislation will assert states’ rights to ‘experiment with liberty’ (June 16, 2005)
• Rep. Nixon says Chelan judge’s decision spotlights need for election reform (June 6, 2005)
• Rep. Nixon comments on estate tax bill (April 22, 2005)
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: House overwhelmingly votes to pass final election reform bills (April 22, 2005)
• Computer crime bills pass Washington State Legislature (April 18, 2005)
• Nixon: Voters can see where Democrats stand on election reform (April 15, 2005)
• Election legislation trickles out of House (April 13, 2005)
• Nixon calls on Democrats to defend rights of eligible voters (April 11, 2005)
• Rep. Nixon comments at election reform rally on capitol steps (April 11, 2005)
• The Olympian: Legislators earn honors for lone end of 97-1 votes (March 28, 2005)
• California emissions rules wrong for Washington, Nixon says (March 16, 2005)
• Nixon says look to market, not government, for insurance solutions (March 16, 2005)
• King County Journal: Revised version of ‘Brock’s Bill’ OK’d by House (March 12, 2005)
• ‘Sirita’s Law’ aimed at protecting kids from abusive parents (March 11, 2005)
• Brock Loshbaugh Act passed unanimously by House (March 11, 2005)
• House passes consumer protection bills fighting spyware, phishing and cell phone number directories (March 9, 2005)
• Woodinville Weekly: Proposal could mean more money for school construction (March 7, 2005)
• King County Journal: Panel backs “Brock Loshbaugh Act” (March 7, 2005)
• 45th District lawmakers plan Town Hall meetings March 19 (March 7, 2005)
• King County Journal: Rural landowners unlikely to get a break this Legislative session (March 5, 2005)
• Nixon bill aimed at expanding state’s sexual misconduct law (February 28, 2005)
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Behind the wheel, troopers shouldn’t be above the law (February 27, 2005)
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Our two states of mind (February 26, 2005)
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Homeless deserve safe dwellings (February 25, 2005)
• KPLU: WSP Chief Apologizes to Lawmakers for Threatening Emails (February 25, 2005)
• King County Journal: Revised bill holds all officers accountable for traffic wrecks (February 24, 2005)
• King County Journal: Our View: Bills to form new counties need attention (February 24, 2005)
• King County Journal: A county without Seattle (February 23, 2005)
• King County minus Seattle would equal ‘Cascade County’ under Nixon bill (February 22, 2005)
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Lawmakers want to protect consumer privacy (February 17, 2005)
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Election reform package passes Senate committee (February 17, 2005)
• House Republicans introduce plan to ensure free, fair and accurate elections (February 17, 2005)
• Woodinville Weekly: Report on 2004 election shows KC Elections performed well -- Not everyone thinks so (February 14, 2005)
• Nixon encourages committee to approve homeless-housing bill (February 10, 2005)
• Seattle Weekly: Taking Secession Seriously (February 2, 2005)
• Spokane Spokesman-Review: Legislator aims to hook phishing expeditions (January 30, 2005)
• Nixon wants to raise quality of temporary housing for homeless (January 28, 2005)
• House approves loans for public works projects benefiting East King County communities (January 26, 2005)
• King County Journal: Proposal would ease creation of new county (January 26, 2005)
• Nixon legislation would define process for creating new counties (January 25, 2005)
• King County Journal: “Brock’s Bill” treats troopers like other drivers (January 21, 2005)
• KING 5: Bill would crack down on accidents caused by troopers (January 20, 2005)
• Seattle Times: Bill would bar Patrol probing its crashes (January 20, 2005)
• Legislative task force wants to clarify law concerning traffic accidents involving law enforcement officers (January 20, 2005)
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Election reform gets lawmakers’ attention (January 17, 2005)
• Martin Luther King Jr.’s concern about voter eligibility still valid today, Nixon tells House (January 17, 2005)
• Nixon to continue serving on House transportation, technology committees (December 27, 2004)
• Nixon named lead Republican on House State Government Committee (December 16, 2004)

News Archives

• 2004
• 2003
• 2002

45th District legislators invite citizens to town hall meetings December 3

Carnation
10 – 11:30 a.m.
Carnation Public Library
4804 Tolt Avenue

Kirkland
1:30 – 3 p.m.
Mark Twain Elementary Library
9525 130th Avenue NE

Rep. Nixon honored for work to create jobs

Rep. Nixon receives the Cornerstone Award
from AWB Vice President Gary Chandler.

Rep. Nixon urges election reform in line with the law

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Congress should butt out on medical marijuana

    Olympia (August 16, 2005) -- The balance between the powers of the states and the powers of the federal government was tipped toward the latter by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on medical marijuana. As a state, Washington has the right to push back. And, as a state with a citizen-approved medical marijuana law, we should, if for no other reason than to assert our powers under the 10th Amendment to make our own decisions. We can begin by sending a formal message to Congress, and one is ready for my fellow legislators to consider.
     The question isn’t whether marijuana has medicinal value. Washington voters addressed that when a majority agreed with Initiative 692’s position that “some patients with terminal or debilitating illnesses, under their physician’s care, may benefit from the medical use of marijuana.” For I-692 supporters and those who oppose all marijuana use, the real question is whether to resist the expansion of federal power the court ruling represents, on the grounds that states should decide what’s best for the health and safety of their citizens.
     If a state chooses to defer to the feds on medical marijuana, fine. But Washington chose to try a medical marijuana law, and it deserves protection from federal encroachment like any of our laws, such as the 1996 “Two Strikes” law for sex offenders. Do we want the feds telling us our penalties for murderers or rapists are too tough? The issue’s the same.
     The Supreme Court ruled in a California case that Congress’ authority over interstate commerce lets the federal government prohibit Californians’ use of medical marijuana even if it’s grown inside the state in compliance with California law.
     Maybe the justices were simply being consistent with federal drug laws, which allow for medicinal use of narcotics (think methadone) but not marijuana. Regardless, our recourse is not to appeal the court’s ruling but instead appeal to Congress to amend the laws underpinning that ruling.
     State legislators from around the country are in Seattle for their national conference this week, and they’ll get to see a measure drafted for our 2006 legislative session. It asks Congress to let Washington and other states decide for themselves whether marijuana may be used for medical purposes, and perhaps it’ll inspire more states to stand up for their 10th Amendment powers.
     A great thing about our federalist system of government is that any state, with its citizens’ consent, may experiment with liberty to test innovative new ideas, without putting the rest of the nation at risk. Marijuana has been used for seven years in Washington for medical purposes under specific conditions, yet no one is asserting it’s caused social or criminal problems.
     But no matter what you believe about marijuana, it’s likely that given the choice between setting their own rules and deferring to authorities in the “other Washington,” the people of Washington would prefer to exercise the powers reserved to us, as a state, under the Bill of Rights. It’s time to send that message.

State Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, represents the 45th District and is ranking member on the House State Government Operations and Accountability Committee.

(return to top)

Nixon legislation will assert states’ rights to ‘experiment with liberty’

Rep. Nixon says Chelan judge’s decision spotlights need for election reform

Rep. Nixon comments on estate tax bill

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: House overwhelmingly votes to pass final election reform bills

Computer crime bills pass Washington State Legislature

Nixon: Voters can see where Democrats stand on election reform

Election legislation trickles out of House

Nixon calls on Democrats to defend rights of eligible voters

Rep. Nixon comments at election reform rally on capitol steps

The Olympian: Legislators earn honors for lone end of 97-1 votes

California emissions rules wrong for Washington, Nixon says

Nixon says look to market, not government, for insurance solutions

King County Journal: Revised version of ‘Brock’s Bill’ OK’d by House

     Olympia (March 12, 2005) -- A once-again revised “Brock’s Bill,” which would hold State Patrol troopers more accountable when they cause serious traffic accidents, was approved by the state House of Representatives on Friday.
     Lawmakers say they expect the bill to pass in the Senate, also.
     Named after a Mill Creek man who was fatally hit by a trooper’s patrol car while crossing a street, the bill has attracted controversy and evolved through at least four versions since it was first proposed in the Legislature last year.
     The previous version included all the state’s law enforcement officers in a set of new laws and policies that originally were intended to address the way the Washington State Patrol investigates and deals with accidents caused by troopers.
     After that version of House Bill 1387 met heated opposition from the State Patrol and the troopers association at a House Transportation Committee hearing last month, the bill’s chief sponsor, GOP Rep. Toby Nixon of Kirkland and transportation committee Chairman Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, hammered out a compromise with the troopers.
     The latest version returns to addressing only the State Patrol, and it takes a less prescriptive approach in specifying new policies the State Patrol must adopt for tracking trooper-involved accidents and disciplining them.
     The new version gives State Patrol Chief John Batiste time this spring and summer to draft, review and implement policies and procedures concerning accident investigations, accident tracking and disciplinary procedures.
     The bill calls on the chief to develop a set of policies and terms for its collective bargaining agreements with the troopers union. That would include a policy of progressive discipline and training for troopers who repeatedly are found at fault in on-duty accidents.
     Patrol spokesman Capt. Jeff DeVere said the new version of Brock’s Bill is an agreeable compromise. The previous version was too stringent, he said, and could’ve punished troopers for accidents that they didn’t cause.
     “We had troopers who would be removed from the road for collisions for which they were found not at fault,” DeVere said of the bill’s previous version.
     “We want to do the right thing and be as open and accountable as possible,” he said.
     The bill is named after Brock Loshbaugh, 22, who was run down by a State Patrol trooper in February 2002. Because Loshbaugh had been drinking and was crossing outside a crosswalk, the trooper was cleared.
     Despite his exoneration in Loshbaugh’s death, Trooper Jason Crandall had been found at fault in five other on-duty accidents, including some with injuries, all within a two-year period.
     Crandall never received a driving citation, and he still patrols Western Washington highways.

(return to top)

‘Sirita’s Law’ aimed at protecting kids from abusive parents

Brock Loshbaugh Act passed unanimously by House

House passes consumer protection bills fighting spyware, phishing and cell phone number directories

Woodinville Weekly: Proposal could mean more money for school construction

     Woodinville (March 7, 2005) -- State Rep. Larry Springer (D-45th District) proposed a change in state law that would result in the state being able to borrow more money than it can now.
     Springer said, if passed, his proposal, House Bill 2170, would generate an estimated $100 million over the biennium for school construction.
     “Every district anticipates some type of building campaign,” he said. “This money could be used for remodeling, rebuilding or new construction. Putting $100 million into school construction would help schools, kids and property-tax payers at the same time.”
     The state portion of the real estate excise tax (REET) is deposited in the general fund.
     There is language in the law, however, that prevents the REET money from being used in calculating the state’s debt limit. HB 2170 would eliminate the restriction on existing real estate excise taxes that prevents them from being used to increase bonding capacity for school construction.
     According to Springer, in the mid-80s, state coffers paid about two-thirds of total school construction funding, with local property taxes picking up the other third. By 2001, local property taxes were paying about 70 percent of total school construction costs. Even though the state increased its share of these costs in 2003, local property taxes are still paying a far larger share of school construction costs than they paid 20 years ago, he said.
     “Homeowners need property-tax relief,” said Springer. “Reducing the property-tax share of school construction would be a big help.”
     Since the way to generate the $100 million is to borrow it, borrowing would mean an additional $8 million be taken from the general fund to pay down the debt.
     Rep. Toby Nixon (R-45th District) said, “If we actually do borrow that ($100 million), it will mean that more money will be taken from the general fund for debt service, actually reducing the amount of money available for current-operating expenses. I am not necessarily opposed to the bill for that reason, but people need to understand that we will be enabling the state to go deeper in debt and spending more money on debt service than on teacher salaries, health care, and other current expenses, and make this decision with their eyes wide open.
     “Increasing the debt limit doesn’t mean that we will automatically borrow the money. The legislature would retain the discretion later to choose to not issue new bonds if there are concerns about our ability to service the debt. But the recent pattern has been to borrow as much as possible …, and the bill to increase borrowing capacity wouldn’t have been offered if it wasn’t going to be used.
     “I haven’t yet firmly decided how I will vote on this bill when it comes to the floor of the House, but these are the issues I’m thinking about now,” said Nixon.
     Springer anticipated that use of general-fund money to pay down the debt might be a concern for some legislators.
     He believes that potential savings from a proposed “green building” bill could generate enough to offset the money needed to service the debt.
     Northshore School District Communications Director Susan Stoltzfus said, “Every dollar from the state for construction is one less we have to ask for in capital bonds.”
     Northshore School Board member Rich Baldwin said, “HB 2170 is a small first step toward fixing a very large state problem in school construction funding. If the bill passes and the state makes use of its expanded bonding capacity, the Northshore School District may see a portion of these funds for school remodeling.”
     Bill Panos, Director of Facilities for the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, testified in favor of HB 2170. He said in a phone conversation, “The Superintendent and the State Board of Education support the measure. It means there would be more funds available for building and modernizing schools throughout the state.”
     The estimated $100 million would not be divided amongst the state’s 291 school districts. Rather, it would be put into a state matching-grant program for school construction. The funds would be distributed in the same fashion as those matching-grant funds are currently being distributed, Springer said.
     HB 2170 cleared its first major hurdle March 2 when it was voted out of the Capital Budget Committee, 21-5. It is on its way to the Rules Committee.
     “I expect to see it on the floor fairly soon,” said Springer.
     Springer, prime sponsor of the bill, said he worked with House Speaker Frank Chopp (D-43rd District) and House Capital Budget Chair Hans Dunshee (D-44th District) to develop the proposal.

(return to top)

King County Journal: Panel backs “Brock Loshbaugh Act”

     Olympia (March 7, 2005) -- The state House Transportation Committee has unanimously approved proposed legislation known as the Brock Loshbaugh Act, in memory of the Mill Creek man struck and fatally injured by a Washington State Patrol cruiser in 2002.
     If enacted as law, the measure would change the way the State Patrol handles accidents involving its own officers.
     State Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, said the measure, Substitute House Bill 1387, could go to the House floor for a vote as early as Wednesday.
     Nixon has sponsored the measure on behalf of Brock Loshbaugh’s parents, Dan and Melodee Loshbaugh of Woodinville.
     Their 22-year-old son was fatally injured when struck by a State Patrol cruiser as he crossed a street in Mill Creek. The parents learned the trooper had been involved in two collisions prior to the fatal accident and three collisions after Brock Loshbaugh’s death. The trooper was never cited for Loshbaugh’s death, but was disciplined by the Patrol.
     SHB 1387 would establish new procedures when troopers are involved in accidents, including independent investigations and better tracking of troopers’ driving records. It also would require annual reports to the Legislature on disciplinary actions and remedial training for troopers involved in collisions.
     The House committee’s unanimous 25-0 vote on Saturday was a good sign the measure will advance, Nixon said.

(return to top)

45th District lawmakers plan Town Hall meetings March 19

• Sammamish: 10 - 11:30 a.m., Fire Station #82 (Sahalee), 1851 228th Avenue NE
• Woodinville: 1:30 - 3 p.m., City Council Chambers, 17301 133rd Ave NE

King County Journal: Rural landowners unlikely to get a break this Legislative session

     Olympia (March 5, 2005) -- A flurry of bills was introduced in the state Legislature this session to ease the burden of critical areas ordinances on rural landowners. Most died in committee.
     Also dead is a bill to create a new Cascade County, but its sponsor, state Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, plans to introduce it again next year.
     Under one option, a new Cascade County would include all of King County, except for Seattle. Supporters are planning meetings to gauge the public’s interest in forming a new county, but the dates haven’t been set.
     A new county’s financial feasibility also will be studied.
     What’s left for legislators to consider is a bill that spells out how the state should go about forming a new county statewide. It has the support of Rep. Geoff Simpson, D-Covington, who as chair of the House Local Government Committee kept the other bills bottled up in committee.
     Those bills, he said, were poorly written or ran counter to existing state law, including one that called for a citizen referendum on critical areas ordinances. That bill was introduced by state Rep. Dan Roach, R-Bonney Lake.
     “I will do what I can to keep it on the front burner,” Roach said of his package of legislation.
     Still alive is House Bill 1500, which also was introduced by Nixon and is now in the House Appropriations Committee, after it was passed unanimously by Simpson’s committee.
     The bill would require that a new county be created by the Legislature or by a vote of the people. It sets up a process for the orderly transition to the new county bureaucracy.
     Simpson, who represents the 47th District, which includes part of rural southeast King County, expects the full House will vote on the legislation.
     “I am convinced we need to have a mechanism in place to create new counties,” he said.
     Also working its way through House committees is Simpson’s bill that would clarify how cities are required to comply with a principle called best available science. Land-use decisions are to be based on science, but Simpson said science is not the only consideration in creating land-use legislation.
     Last year was the first year that local governments were required to update, or at least review their critical areas ordinances. Some bumps were expected along the way, he said.
     “We experienced a big bump in King County,” he said.

(return to top)

Nixon bill aimed at expanding state’s sexual misconduct law

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Behind the wheel, troopers shouldn’t be above the law

     Olympia (February 27, 2005) -- “We humbly apologize.”
     Those are words no appointed state official wants to utter to the chairman of a key legislative committee after just three weeks on the job.
     But Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste had little choice in making that apology after a state legislator received a barrage of nasty, even threatening, e-mail messages apparently sent by troopers and their families.
     Batiste, who took the top WSP job earlier this month, offered the apology “as an individual and as a group,” to House Transportation Chairman Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, at a committee hearing Wednesday evening. “I and the union representative want to apologize for the behavior of a few,” he said.
     Those few ripped into Nixon for sponsoring a bill on how traffic accidents involving state troopers are handled. The legislation grew out of the February 2002 death of Brock Loshbaugh as he tried to cross the Bothell-Everett Highway in Mill Creek one evening after dark.
     The trooper whose vehicle hit him, Jason Crandall, had been a member of the State Patrol for only about eight months at the time of Loshbaugh’s death but had been involved in two previous accidents and reportedly has been involved in three other accidents since. The state has settled a lawsuit with Loshbaugh’s parents, who are outspoken proponents of the legislation, also known as the “Brock Loshbaugh Act.” The State Patrol cleared Crandall of any wrongdoing in the accident. He is apparently still on the road.
     As recently redrafted, House Bill 2228 would require that an outside agency at least supervise the investigation of any serious crash in which any law enforcement officer is involved. The idea is to let the public see that police officers are not above the law and that agencies are not covering up for their officers’ mistakes.
     The bill would also require that law enforcement officers determined to be at fault in four accidents in any three-year period be suspended from driving on duty for at least a year. It would also require drug and alcohol tests of all parties in any fatal auto accident.
     The onslaught of e-mails to Nixon ran from the personal to the political.
     “Shame on you, Mr. Nixon,” read one. “And hope one day you and your family need the help of a trooper or a police officer to save one of you, and that those officers would not respond on time.”
     Another referred to the legislation as the “Crock” rather than “Brock” bill and threatened Nixon’s political future. “It is simple math ... 1,100 troopers (times) 1,100 spouses/partners (times) all of their family members/friends/co-workers ... .” The missive also credited the WSP with defeating the election bid of veteran Mercer Island Republican Sen. Jim Horn last November.
     Another e-mail said Horn “lost his (seat) thanks to the WSPTA (Washington State Patrol Troopers Association). I hope you are next!”
     That was news to Horn, who told me he had no knowledge of the agency or the troopers’ association having any role in his defeat, which he links to how poorly the Bush/Cheney national ticket fared among voters in his district.
     Coming from the father of a son who’s honorably worn a badge, here’s the bottom line on this bill: Serious accidents involving police officers should get extraordinary and thoroughly transparent attention and investigation. They’re driving the taxpayers’ rigs, at taxpayers’ expense, acting in the public interest. Law enforcement management should have a mechanism to take demonstrably unsafe drivers out from behind the wheel of police vehicles. If there’s something wrong with that, e-mail me.
     Now for a point of personal privilege. Former Rep. Ruth Fisher, D-Tacoma, who died last week, was a tough, courageous, no-nonsense legislator of a breed increasingly rare around here. I always found the former chairwoman (and co-chairwoman) of the House Transportation Committee to be the source of both a pithy quote and the truth of the matter. She’ll be missed.

Thomas Shapley is an editorial writer and member of the Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board. E-mail: thomasshapley@seattlepi.com

(return to top)

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Our two states of mind

     Seattle (February 26, 2005) -- While it’s generally agreed that no man is an island, the notion of being an independent state holds a certain appeal these days to Justin Patterson -- maybe not by himself, but with a collection of like-minded people.
     “Sometimes, especially after the last election, you get the idea we really can’t get along,” the 31-year-old liberal said while sipping a cappuccino in a Seattle cafe. “Maybe we’re fundamentally different from the Eastside and from Eastern Washington.”
     Ah, fundamentally different. In the world of division politics, these are the magic words, the phrase of resignation its practitioners shout simply to hear the echo. Urban vs. rural?
     They feel your disenfranchisement, your threatened property rights. East vs. West? How dare condo-dwelling urbanites regulate farm water! Red vs. Blue? “He’s not my president,” proclaim Subaru bumpers along Seattle’s Phinney Ridge neighborhood.
     “The main thing is that we have our problems on this side of the state,” said Scott Frenger, 35, of Elk, a small town roughly 20 miles north of Spokane. “We would benefit from our own laws, our own government. The west dominates politics here.”
     Thus arose legislation designed to parcel, if not exactly boundaries, then opinion. Senate Joint Memorial 8009 requests that the U.S. government begin the process of establishing Eastern Washington as a separate, 51st state, divided at the Cascade Range.
     In Olympia, Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Us, has introduced a bill to subdivide King County, D-Them, by creating one county for liberal Seattle and another, Cascade, for everyone else.
     “Many of the voters in my district decided they that want a divorce from Seattle,” Nixon said by way of explaining House Bill 2074. “I’ve received many concerns expressed in my (rural King County) district that they are dominated by Seattle on the King County Council.”
     The image of Seattle as a dominatrix isn’t much of a stretch for most people. It tends to produce a large portion of Washington’s governors. It’s the center of gravity for the state’s most populous county, a region that generates 40 percent of the state’s taxes. Emerald City voters are the major reason that the state has two Democrats as U.S. senators.
     So eastern factions, both county and state, want self-governance or at least a break, Nixon concluded. But his legislation won’t produce one. Same for the two-state bill; neither bills’ authors expect the measures to move at all, much like similar legislation in the past.
     Want to find Freedom, Cedar or Olympic counties on a map? Better instead to check the legislative dustbin.
     “Frankly, I don’t expect it to get a hearing this year,” said Nixon, whose 45th legislative district wraps around Woodinville, Duvall, Kirkland and Redmond. “If it gets a hearing, it most likely will be next year.”
     Experts on politics say this boundary-division legislation can serve a purpose anyway.
     It has a populist appeal for starters, and it makes voters feel as if their political representative is one of them. Remember, analysts say, there are real value differences between east and west, between urban and rural. Or, more simply, no pol in Eastern Washington or east King County ever lost a race by bashing Seattle.
     Jeska Sand, 22, feels the differences. She moved to Seattle from the Tri-Cities to attend school and escape eastern conservatives. “Politically, Seattle is more lively, and there’s more people I can relate to,” she said. “I’m a vegetarian so being in Seattle is nice because I can actually eat at the restaurants.”
     Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis, no stranger to factional political fighting, said this style of division politics has a long-term cost along with its short-term benefit.
     “If it plays at home, great,” he said. “But the downside on border politics is that it creates division and that can makes things worse overall. The reality is that no one is going to create a 51st state. And carving up King into two separate counties isn’t going to work.
     “So what’s the point?”
     Tax revenue data from the state Department of Revenue indicates that both Eastern Washington and rural and suburban King County don’t generate comparatively much in taxes as the areas they would lose.
     Eastern Washington is 22 percent of the state’s population but generates 18 percent of the taxes. Theoretical Cascade County might fare better, however, as Nixon wants to include virtually everything outside the Seattle city limits.
     “(Cascade County) would be viable on its own,” he said. “It would have 1.2 million people and extremely valuable property.
     “But Eastern Washington as a state,” he added, “that might not work.”
     It will if the “t” word is used, Eastern Washington’s Frenger thinks. “Well, it definitely would put a burden on Eastern Washington financially to make its own state. I know that we would need to make up that loss somewhere. Taxes might have to be raised.”
     But, he said, it would be worth it. “We’d be on our own,” he concluded. “That’s what we need.”
     Still, Ceis said, that doesn’t mean that every faction should get its own separate government. If that’s the case, Broadmoor, Seattle’s wealthy golf-and-gated neighborhood, should be its own city, he said; it had the city’s only pro-Bush precinct last November.
     “There’s always going to be differences,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there has to be divisions.”
     But then, the notion gave the lifelong West Seattleite pause. Maybe he, too, could break away from Mayor Greg Nickels and establish his own town, a place with sensibilities like his own. “Maybe I could be mayor of Alki Beach,” he said. “Return to my roots.
     “I like that.”

(return to top)

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Homeless deserve safe dwellings

     Olympia (February 25, 2005) -- I’ve followed the evolution and relocation of King County’s tent cities with great interest because I represent part of the county in the Legislature and because I have something in common with the Tent City residents: I know what it’s like to be homeless.
     My dad was a Korean War medical technician and inspected rocket engines during the Gemini and Apollo programs. A work accident disabled him and workers’ compensation was not what it is today. He lost his job, my mom left us and we lost our home. He, my two brothers and I ended up subsisting on welfare, government surplus food and Medicaid in a small Los Angeles apartment.
     After gangs assaulted my little brother a few times, my dad decided to move us somewhere else -- anywhere else. We packed everything we owned into a few boxes and took a bus (because we didn’t have a reliable car) 700 miles north to Redding. We arrived with those boxes, very little money and no home but the bus station.
     For us boys -- I was 11, my brothers 9 1/2 and 8 -- it was an adventure. But I know my dad wondered if he had done the right thing. Fortunately, the local government agency soon found us transitional housing in an $8-a-night fleabag motel and within a month we had a small apartment.
     Fast-forward 35 years. I’ve been an elected official for three years, at Microsoft for 12 years and in the computer industry 30 years. Some might expect I’ve forgotten what it was like to have nothing, but I haven’t. When Tent City 4 was proposed for the Brickyard park-and-ride in my neighborhood, I was very concerned for the people who would live there in the rain and cold beside a bug-infested wetland and a noisy, smelly freeway. I thought of my youth, grateful that the people of Shasta County, California, helped us get a fresh start and grateful that they didn’t have tent cities -- because we might have ended up in one.
     When I learned the resources of SHARE, the organization that sponsors tent cities, come largely from taxpayers via the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the city of Seattle, my first thought was that one of the nation’s wealthiest counties can do better -- that we shouldn’t tolerate our fellow citizens and fellow human beings enduring such conditions. That led me to introduce House Bill 1585.
     The Legislature has addressed the issue of inadequate housing before. Many migrant farm workers in Washington were not citizens, or were here illegally, making them easily exploited -- the excuse being that the worst housing conditions here were better than conditions in their homelands. In 1995 lawmakers addressed their plight, directing the state Department of Health to develop safety and sanitation standards for migrant worker encampments.
     Homeless people are today’s exploitable workers. Maybe it’s because they lack skills or an address or phone number or legal identification. Maybe they have substance abuse problems or need medication they can’t afford. Maybe they don’t have transportation to jobs. Whatever the cause, they can’t get stable employment and end up, at best, working at day labor jobs without benefits. Housing them in substandard, unsafe and unsanitary conditions -- as a matter of government policy -- is as much an outrage today as it was for migrant farm workers a decade ago.
     HB 1585 would enact standards for homeless encampments in line with the state’s temporary worker housing standards, found in Chapter 246-358 of the Washington Administrative Code. For example: 70 square feet of housing space for the first occupant plus 50 square feet for each additional occupant; adequate heating during cold weather; a bed, cot or bunk with clean mattresses for each occupant; a ceiling at least 7 feet high; a ceiling-type light fixture plus electrical outlet in each housing unit; cold running water within 100 feet; one drinking fountain per 100 occupants; one toilet for every 15 people, cleaned daily, with a lighted path at night; showers, laundry facilities, separate cooking facilities; and ready access to first aid equipment.
     Ask yourself if this doesn’t represent the absolute minimum we should provide as housing, especially government-funded housing, for the most vulnerable and easily exploited. None of these requirements is unreasonable, although some adjustment might be appropriate to include use of facilities of host organizations.
     HB 1585 has bipartisan sponsorship and received a public hearing from the House Housing Committee. Whether the committee will take positive action and place the bill before the entire House is another question. It certainly would help if people who support the measure would contact their legislators with that request.
     Our fellow citizens who happen to be temporarily homeless deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Meeting minimal safety and sanitation standards in the housing provided for them is the least we can do.

Toby Nixon, a Republican, represents the 45th Legislative District, which includes Woodinville, Duvall, Carnation and parts of Kirkland, Redmond and Sammamish.

(return to top)

KPLU: WSP Chief Apologizes to Lawmakers for Threatening Emails

     Olympia (February 25, 2005) -- The Chief of the Washington State Patrol is apologizing to state lawmakers. The issue: threatening emails sent by troopers over proposed legislation. Olympia Correspondent Austin Jenkins explains. [1:01 SOQ]
     Representative Toby Nixon, a Kirkland Republican, is proposing that state troopers involved in multiple crashes face stricter discipline with the potential of being taken off the road. In recent days he’s received several angry emails from troopers and their family members. One reads: “hope one day you and your family need the help of a Trooper and those officers would not respond on time.” Another email warns: “don’t spit in the face of people that can remove you from that cozy leather chair.” Patrol Chief John Batiste has apologized to Representative Nixon and the entire House Transportation Committee.
     Chief Batiste: “I can assure you that it in no way reflects the view of my command staff or myself nor the 23-hundred members of the organization. I apologize to you for that.”
     The president of the Troopers Association has also apologized and reminded his members about proper etiquette in communicating with lawmakers. Both the State Patrol and the Troopers Association are opposing the legislation to crackdown on troopers with poor driving records. I’m Austin Jenkins in Olympia.

(return to top)

King County Journal: Revised bill holds all officers accountable for traffic wrecks

     Bellevue (February 24, 2005) -- Proposed revisions to state legislation known as “Brock’s Bill” would include all law enforcement officers in a set of new laws and policies that originally was drafted to hold only State Patrol troopers more accountable for causing traffic accidents.
     The changes reflect discussions between the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, and members of the State Patrol, the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association and the state Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, who expressed concern over inequities in targeting only troopers with the bill.
     But the cooperation broke down Wednesday, Nixon said, when he introduced the proposed changes to House Bill 1387 during a contentious, four-hour hearing before the House Transportation Committee.
     “It’s pretty clear from the hearing tonight, we’re not going to reach an agreement,” Nixon said. State Patrol representatives “seem quite happy to continue their investigations with no transparency.
     “But I don’t think the Legislature is going to go for that,” he said. “I think we may have to be a little more prescriptive in what (reforms) we have in the draft. ... We want openness.”
     The bill is named after Brock Loshbaugh, 22, who was run down by a State Patrol trooper while crossing a road in Mill Creek three years ago. It’s intended to hold law officers to the same standards as regular citizens when they’re involved in serious traffic accidents.
     After the February 2002 accident, Loshbaugh’s body was tested for blood-alcohol content, but the trooper who hit him was not. Since Loshbaugh was found to be legally drunk and crossing outside a crosswalk, the trooper was cleared.
     Despite his exoneration in Loshbaugh’s death, Trooper Jason Crandall was found at fault in five other on-duty accidents, including some with injuries, within a two-year period.
     Crandall never received a driving citation, and he still patrols Western Washington highways.
     “We expect everybody to be treated equal in enforcing traffic laws and investigating accidents,” Nixon said.
     If passed with the proposed modifications, Brock’s Bill would require all drivers, including officers, to undergo blood-alcohol tests whenever they’re involved in a fatal traffic accident.
     And it calls on all police agencies to establish rules for tracking accidents involving officers and specify disciplinary procedures up to and including termination for officers who repeatedly cause serious accidents.
     The substituted language would bar officers from driving while on duty if they’re found at fault in four serious accidents in any three-year period.
     The bill also would require all on-duty officer-involved accidents to be supervised by an independent agency such as a county prosecutor or the state Attorney General’s office. Before the substitution, the bill proposed having all trooper-involved accidents investigated by another local law enforcement agency.
     Nixon said many objected to excluding the State Patrol’s Major Accident Investigation Team, the state’s premier accident experts, from investigating serious trooper-involved wrecks.
     “We don’t want to exclude having all the best resources available during the investigation,” he said.
     Nixon was joined by representatives Dennis Flannigan, D-Tacoma; Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle; and Jan Shabro, R-Auburn, in drafting the bill.
     The bill has come under harsh criticism by troopers and cops of all stripes. Many say the individual departments do an adequate job disciplining their own when it comes to bad driving.
     “I don’t think it’s necessary,” said Rep. Al O’Brien, D-Bothell, a retired Seattle police sergeant. “Law enforcement does a pretty good job of investigating its own accidents.
     “It’s a matter of trust here. Do we trust our law enforcement enough to oversee themselves?”
     Still, O’Brien concedes the case of Trooper Crandall may indicate there’s room for improvement in the State Patrol’s training and discipline policies.
     “It’s a wake-up call for all the law enforcement agencies.” he said.
     One police supervisor wrote in an e-mail to the Journal that the series of reprimands, penalties and additional training that Crandall underwent with each accident was adequate.
     For his five at-fault accidents, Crandall received two verbal reprimands, lost 14 days of paid vacation and received remedial driver training, according to WSP personnel files obtained by the Journal.
     “Receiving a day off without pay or loosing a vacation day is not a slap on the wrist,” he wrote. “It amounts to about $280 in lost wages for officers in my agency, which is more than the average fine associated with a citation would be.”

(return to top)

King County Journal: Our View: Bills to form new counties need attention

     Bellevue (February 24, 2005) -- The topic of creating new counties in our state will be considered by legislators in Olympia today. They should give it the attention it deserves.
     HB 1500, introduced by Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, wouldn’t by itself form any new counties, but it would establish the process for creating them. Another bill by Nixon, HB 2074, would show how those tools outlined in HB 1500 could be used to create Cascade County.
     Nixon calls his bills “serious legislation, because it’s time to have a serious debate about the future of the relationship between Seattle and the people who live around it.”
     That these bills are even before the Legislature is another indication of the growing distrust many people have of a government that they believe doesn’t represent them. In this case, it’s a Seattle-centric point of view of what is good for the county as a whole. This already has produced strong feelings against King County’s Critical Areas Ordinance, which those in the eastern portion of the county say severely limits what they can do with their land.
     Nixon’s bill would add a chapter to the state law on counties. It would explain the process of creating Cascade County by petition, specifically provide for the division of assets, liabilities, real property and equipment between King County and Cascade County, and covers other details, including the transfer of records from King County and the election of interim county officers.
     Regardless of the Legislature’s actions, creating Cascade County will be difficult. If the Legislature approves the merits and details, a majority of people within the new county’s boundary would have to petition to create a county. There also would be the issues of electing new county commissioners and establishing a county seat. The effort could take up to four years.
     There’s no guarantee that a majority of people living east of Seattle want to break away from King County. However, there’s enough indication of anti-Seattle feeling for the Legislature to take note.

(return to top)

King County Journal: A county without Seattle

     Olympia (February 23, 2005) -- The divorce between Seattle and everyone else in King County could become final if the state Legislature adopts a bill to create Cascade County.
     The legislation, House Bill 2074, was introduced by state Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, who represents the 45th Legislative District.
     Rural residents have found an ally in Nixon in their fight to shake off control over their property and lives by what they say is a Seattle-centric county government.
     Some rural leaders call the relationship between Seattle and rural residents a divorce waiting to happen.
     Under the legislation, the interim seat of Cascade County is Kent, in part because it’s home to another major county facility, the Regional Justice Center.
     Even though Bellevue is the largest city in the proposed county, Nixon said it’s not in the running for interim county seat because some rural residents fear trading the domination of one big city -- Seattle -- for another.
     Kent was chosen because of the Regional Justice Center and because it’s in Geoff Simpson’s 47th Legislative District. Simpson, a Covington Democrat, chairs the House Local Government Committee and his word can make or break a bill.
     “It’s another way to get him to give a hearing on the bill,” Nixon said. “It’s a strategic thing.”
     Any city could argue its case to become the county seat, a decision that voters will make.
     It’s Nixon’s second swing at the new-county issue.
     He introduced legislation in January that spells out a process to create new counties statewide. A hearing on that bill, HB 1500, is scheduled for Thursday in Olympia.
     So far, he’s the only legislator who represents rural King County to have any success in advancing the cause in the state Legislature.
     HB 2074 sets out a specific process to form Cascade County, which is basically all of King County, except for Seattle, and would include Mercer Island.
     The process starts with the Legislature, which debates merits and details. Then, a majority of registered voters living in the new county must sign petitions to create the new county.
     The effort could take up to four years, depending on the time needed to gather signatures. Voters in the new county would elect three commissioners and other county officials, and select a county seat.
     King County would continue to provide services to Cascade County and all King County laws would apply in Cascade County during the interim period.
 
Dean Radford covers King County. He can be reached at dean.radford@kingcountyjournal.com or 253-872-6719.

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

     The state House Local Government Committee will hold a public hearing at 1:30 p.m. Thursday on House Bill 1500, which spells out how to create a new county. The hearing is in the House Hearing Room E in the John L. O’Brien Building on the Capitol campus in Olympia.

(return to top)

King County minus Seattle would equal ‘Cascade County’ under Nixon bill

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Lawmakers want to protect consumer privacy

     Olympia (February 17, 2005) -- People fed up with e-mail scams, devious computer “spyware” and even unwanted calls on their cell phones may soon have a reason to thank the Legislature.
     The House Technology, Energy and Communications Committee approved a package of bills Thursday aimed at protecting consumers’ privacy online and on their cell phones.
     “We’re a national leader in Internet-related businesses,” said the committee’s chairman, Rep. Jeff Morris. “The only way to keep that growth factor happening is to make sure this is a safe place to do business.”
     Two of the bills focus on crooked Internet activity.
     One would prohibit “phishing,” or sending fake e-mails or links to fraudulent Web sites. The e-mails and Web sites attempt to solicit financial or personally identifiable information, such as Social Security or bank account numbers.
     The Anti-Phishing Work Group estimates that 75 million to 150 million phishing e-mails are sent daily, though most are caught by spam filters and other technology. The work group is a nonprofit organization dedicated to stopping Internet fraud.
     The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, said he gets a dozen of these e-mails each day.
     Right now, no crime is committed until the information is used to falsely charge an account. Under Nixon’s bill, consumers and businesses would be able to sue the senders and seek damages for each violation.
     Morris, D-Anacortes, sponsored the second bill.
     It prohibits the use of “spyware.” Such software is designed to monitor, collect and send personal information without the computer user’s permission.
     Spyware can lead to a range of problems from computer viruses to identity theft. As part of the bill, people engaging in spyware activity could face civil penalties and the state’s attorney general could take legal action to prevent the activity.
     The attorney general’s office is also bolstering its efforts to fight cyber crime.
     Attorney General Rob McKenna has asked for increased funding for the consumer protection division, said attorney general’s office spokesman Greg Lane. Part of that funding would create a high tech unit focused on investigating computer crimes.
     Cell phone users may also see some new protections.
     The technology committee approved a third bill requiring wireless phone companies to get written permission before publishing a person’s cell phone number in a directory.
     The bill is a response to industry plans to create such a directory.
     Robert Pregulman, executive director of the Washington Public Interest Research Group, said the cell phone industry has a long track record of poor customer service.
     “We can’t rely on the cell phone industry to voluntarily protect privacy in an effective way,” he said.
     Rep. Dawn Morrell, the bill’s sponsor, said her constituents feel the same way. Morrell, D-Puyallup, said most people don’t want their cell phone numbers made public - and could unknowingly agree to it.
     “We shouldn’t be held hostage to tiny things on the bottom of contracts,” she said. “We should be making the choice on it.”
     California passed similar legislation last year, and other states are considering it. But most cell phone companies say the laws aren’t needed.
     Dave Mellin, Sprint’s regional spokesman, said the patchwork of rules aimed at the wireless industry stifles innovation and increases the cost of doing business.
     Besides, he added, his company and others are already supporting an “opt-in” directory, where people would need to give their consent to be included.
     The technology committee unanimously approved the package of bills, and their sponsors are confident they will pass into law. Protecting consumers’ privacy is a priority for Democrats in the House, Morris said.
     In other business, the committee also approved a bill establishing a life science discovery fund to finance biotechnology research. The governor proposed the fund.
---
On the Net:
The phishing bill is House Bill 1888.
The spyware bill is House Bill 1012.
The cell phone privacy bill is House Bill 1185.
The life sciences fund bill is House Bill 1623.
Anti-Phishing Working Group: www.antiphishing.org
Legislature: http://www.leg.wa.gov

(return to top)

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Election reform package passes Senate committee

     Olympia (February 17, 2005) -- Lawmakers pushed ahead with their promise to tackle election reform Thursday as a Senate committee passed several bills while House Republicans announced their agenda on the emotion-charged issue.
     The issue of reform jumped quickly to the forefront after Democrat Christine Gregoire won the governor’s race by 129 votes after a hand recount of nearly 2.9 million ballots after the Nov. 2 election.
     Supporters of Republican opponent Dino Rossi have gone to court seeking to void the results, alleging widespread problems and voting irregularities. Calls for a revote came after accusations were made of illegal votes by felons and dead people, and provisional ballots that were illegally tallied without being properly checked.
     Shortly after taking office, Gregoire created a task force to review the election process. The group, which has been holding public hearings around the state, will report recommendations to her and the Legislature by March 1.
     Dozens of bills have been introduced in both houses since the session began Jan. 12, and a package that passed out of the Senate Government Operations & Elections Committee on Thursday could go to the Senate floor as early as next week.
     The Senate package would hold the primary a month earlier so counties would have more time to get out general election ballots. It would impose statewide standards for handling ballots, require first-time voters to produce identification at the polls, require regular audits of county election departments, and require a paper trail for touch-screen voting machines like Snohomish and Yakima counties are using.
     Another Senate bill would allow counties to opt for conducting their elections entirely by mail.
     “People will see some very concrete things that will restore faith,” said Senate elections Chairman Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup. “Overall, what we’re trying to do is standardize the election procedure across the state.”
     Kastama said the Senate will not accept a Republican proposal for re-registration of all voters, a bill that has been sponsored by the committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Pam Roach of Sumner.
     Secretary of State Sam Reed said that the National Voter Registration Act prohibits the state from arbitrarily removing voters from the rolls.
     In the House, Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, offered a softer version of Roach’s proposal to reregister all voters. His bill - not yet filed - would not drop voters from the rolls if they failed to reregister, but would put them on inactive status. They could vote by provisional ballot until they reregistered.
     Neither option has much support from Democrats, who see it as a way to discourage people from participating in the process.
     “I think that’s a plan to deny people the right to vote,” said House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle. “We ought to make sure the voter files are updated, but that doesn’t mean you have to take everyone off the rolls and add them back on. That seems like an administrative nightmare.”
     Nixon’s proposal also would require voters to present identification at the polls, something supported by Reed. It would require monthly checks of voter registration lists for duplicate registrations, names of felons whose rights are not restored and names of dead voters.
     He also wants a revote to be held within 60 days of an election where the number of ballots cast for a measure or office exceeds the number of voters who cast a ballot.
     Nixon said his legislation was a mix of the best ideas from both Democrats and Republicans.
     “This embodies the best of the best ideas,” he said. “We’re looking for broad bipartisan support.”
     Reed, who introduced his election reform package last month, said that he and many lawmakers agree on several issues, like moving up the primary, color-coding provisional ballots and verifying voter identification. He said he thought there could be strong election reform laws that both parties will be happy with, as long as both sides can compromise.
     “The problem is, the devil is in the details,” he said.

(return to top)

House Republicans introduce plan to ensure free, fair and accurate elections

Woodinville Weekly: Report on 2004 election shows KC Elections performed well

     Woodinville (February 14, 2005) -- There are those who feel the November election was near perfection, King County Executive Ron Sims, for one.
     Then again, there are others who feel the wheels are coming off the county’s elections division.
     Certainly, there are many whose opinions about the county’s election process lie somewhere between the two extremes.
     That any citizens, however many, feel a crisis of confidence in King County’s handling of elections should be of concern.

What happened?

     This is what it’s all about. It was a close gubernatorial election last fall, the closest ever. After three recounts, Democrat Christine Gregoire was found to be ahead of Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes. The first two recounts had Rossi ahead of Gregoire.
     Skepticism of election fairness was fueled when it was learned the county could not account for who cast 1,853 ballots. With Gregoire’s razor-thin margin of victory and the governorship at stake, it is not unreasonable for some to call into question county election processes.

What to do

     King County Executive Ron Sims said in a Feb. 9 speech at the public presentation of King County’s 2004 Elections Report, “We do not need radical reform of elections. We need thoughtful, reasonable reforms. And those are exactly what Dean Logan (Director of King County Elections) has proposed in his report.”
     Logan said in the report he submitted, “We have done many things right. We have many more things to do better. We need to persevere, stay the course and not adopt radical measures when reasonable ones will make the most difference.”
     Over 70 bills having to do with voting and elections were introduced in the state House and Senate this session. They should be some indication of how seriously state legislators consider the topic.
     State Rep. Toby Nixon (R-45th District) said, “The legislature has the responsibility to enact changes that will mandate reforms statewide. We must know that all who are registered to vote are truly qualified to do so. We must know that everyone who votes is who they claim to be. We must know that every vote counted was cast legally. We must ensure that every qualified voter has a fair and equal chance to participate in elections, especially those who are making the sacrifice to defend our liberty and security overseas.
     “The House Republicans will soon propose a comprehensive election reform package that would have a real impact on the integrity of elections and restoring the people’s confidence in the legitimacy of their government. We hope that the majority party will join with us in quickly enacting these important changes,” said Nixon.

Media’s role

     Logan’s report scolds the media for bringing elections errors to the public’s attention.
     “Small mistakes (page 5, paragraph 2) were nightly news headlines. Process inconsistencies were tried in the newspaper.”
     Sims said in his Feb. 9 speech, “It is fair game to be partisan about many issues. But elections are a sacred trust that we must all hold dear. I am deeply disappointed that so many have sought to take political advantage of human error and turn it into cries of fraud and corruption. … Notably missing from much of this debate were facts.”
     Nixon said, “King County should be ashamed for trying to escape responsibility for a flawed election process by claiming that the news media misrepresented the facts and that the huge discrepancies between the number of votes and the number of voters is just ‘normal’ and consistent with previous years. It was not. It was an abomination.”

Discrepancies

     King County Councilwoman Kathy Lambert (R-District 3) said she finds one thing troubling, one thing Executive Sims did not mention in his speech, one thing not mentioned in Logan’s report. What about those 1,853 ballots that cannot be accounted for? She said in the year 2000, after reconciliation, the county could not account for about 30 votes. In the 1999 election, they couldn’t account for 17 votes.
     “Why 1,800 this year?” asked Lambert. “The report does not address the fact that over 1,800 votes are unaccounted for.”

Moving on

     Calling Logan’s report “an honest, factual and candid examination of last fall’s elections,” Sims said, “The challenge now is to get beyond the emotion of who is winning and losing and deal with what is real. We all know emotion never trumps information – but now is the time for the electorate to come to the aid of democracy. It is time that information, reality and truth triumph over rhetoric and partisan maneuvering.”
     Readers might want to access Executive Sims’ Feb. 9 speech at http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2005/02_Februrary/09_ElectionsRemarks.htm and consider Mr. Sims’ own use of “rhetoric and partisan maneuvering.” Readers then might want to access Logan’s 2004 Election Report to gauge its level of rhetoric and partisanship. Copies of the report are available on the Web at http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2005/02_February/09_ElectionsReport.htm and in hard copy at libraries throughout the county.
     Sims also said this about the November election: “We had an accuracy that any bank would envy.
     “And we were open, honest and transparent every step of the way. … I’m convinced we conducted the most accurate count humanly possible with the systems we have today. And most importantly, there is not a single shred of evidence that there was any calculated voter fraud or organized attempt to influence the outcome of the election.”
     “It is clear,” said Rep. Nixon, “that the King County Executive and his elections supervisor intend only to try to excuse their problems, to shove them under a rug and hold no one accountable, and to undertake no serious reforms to keep the same thing from happening again. King County is pleased with a 99.8 percent accuracy rate, but if the state were 99.8 percent accurate in accounting for the general fund budget, it would mean that almost $50 million was missing and nobody was being held accountable. People would be going to prison, not producing glossy self-congratulatory reports.”

Council input

     King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson (D-District 13) said last month, “The public’s confidence in the election system is paramount to the integrity of our democracy.
     While the administrative errors that occurred in the hotly contested governor’s race were identified, these errors are unacceptable and erode the public’s trust in our election system. We need additional common sense safeguards to help prevent human error which jeopardizes the precision of our election process.”
     Councilwoman Lambert said she has a problem with the county’s “enhancing” of ballots.
     “Are we saying we want someone to come in and guess what we intended on our ballot? While I observed vote tabulation, canvassing people would say, ‘I think this one is for Gregoire. I think this one is for Rossi.’ Think? It should be very clear. Citizens don’t want others to interpret their ballots. They want the ballots to be taken at face value. If you don’t write out a check properly, the bank disregards it, sends it back. Fourth graders taking the WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning) test are expected to fill in the same kind of circles the ballots have.”
     She also she noticed that election workers taking ballots to the “enhancing table” rounded a corner and were out of site of observers for a for a period of time. She said observers at the enhancing table sat across from “enhancers.” They saw everything upside down and couldn’t really see what was going on. Observers, she said, should sit next to enhancers.
     Lambert said she had a problem with reports of dead people voting in the election, however small the number was.
     “There shouldn’t be any dead people voting,” she said.
     She is also trying to understand why so many felons voted. She said that on page 12 of the elections report, in the bottom box, first sentence, it states, “By law, election officials cannot remove a convicted felon from the voter registration files without notification from the courts.”
     She has asked three attorneys so far to tell her what law, exactly, makes this stipulation. None of them could give her an answer. She’ll keep asking. She also wants to know about the database that contains information about felons. Who keeps it? How often is it updated? Why are there no backup files? How often is the court supposed to send a list of felons to Records and Elections? What about the felons not on the database?
     Last month, Patterson and Lambert introduced a package of measures aimed at improving King County’s elections procedures. The measures included reformatting provisional ballots to prevent machine tabulation before the ballots are verified, establishing a space plan for a centralized election facility, increasing funding for training of temporary and full-time elections employees, and conducting an election entirely by mail in King County.
     Council republicans have called for the re-establishment of the King County Elections Oversight Committee (KCEOC).
     “Though the county has taken many steps to ensure an open and honest elections process, clearly, much more needs to be done,” said Councilmember Jane Hague (R-District 11), prime sponsor of the legislation to establish the KCEOC. “That is why my colleagues and I believe it is time to bring back the scrutiny and expertise we received from the Citizens’ Elections Oversight Committee.”
     “Broken faith, like a broken vase, is hard to restore,” said Council Vice Chair Pete von Reichbauer (R-District 7). “We must begin to put the pieces of the public’s confidence in our system back together again.”
     “The election monitoring process in King County,” said Councilmember Steve Hammond (R-District 9), “broke down during the 2004 General Election and created a crisis of legitimacy in our electoral systems. We must begin now by identifying and rectifying the numerous unacceptable errors that plague King County’s management of elections.”

More recommendations

     Logan’s report also recommended election improvements, some of which are:

• Consolidation of elections operations into a single, state-of-the-art facility, instead of the four separate facilities currently used;
• Organizational changes, improved work flow, accountability and more staff training;
• An analysis of the possible reduction in the number of precincts and polling places;
• Implementing new federal provisions under the Help America Vote Act, such as providing disability access voting equipment at polling places and establishing a single, statewide voter registration database; and
• More public information about voter registration and how to vote.

• Moving the date of the primary,
• Authorizing local options for conducting certain elections entirely by mail,
• Reimbursing counties for the state share of even-year election costs,
• Clarifying and making uniform canvassing and ballot-processing procedures, and
• Extending the time provided for certifying election results.

Nixon encourages committee to approve homeless-housing bill

Seattle Weekly: Taking Secession Seriously

     Seattle (February 2, 2005) -- Last week, state Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, submitted a bill designed to make it easier to create new counties in Washington. Launching a new county has long been a dream of rural secessionists, including those in King County who talk of creating their own entity called Cedar County. Nixon’s proposal comes on the heels of new property-rights legislation submitted by Rep. Dan Roach, R–Bonney Lake, that would allow folks to seek compensation for any loss in property value due to government land-use laws (read: environmental protections). Nixon says if the Legislature rejects his plan, it could wind up as a statewide initiative; a property-rights initiative is also in the wind.
     Both efforts are born of the seething in suburbs and exurbs, a reaction in part to the perceived insensitivity of Seattle liberals who have been too heavy-handed in imposing restrictions with King County’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It is also fueled by a lack of confidence in the county and its executive, “King Sims.” The movement has gained momentum from grassroots Republican ire over the gubernatorial election debacle. Note that Dino Rossi’s home base is East King County and that some of the property-rights movement’s biggest proponents are Rossi’s supporters.
     That said, the revived secession movement raises a legitimate question. There is nothing magical about “39,” the number of counties in Washington. Indeed, counties have come and gone over the years. Is there any reason why we shouldn’t shake up the map?
     King is the state’s largest county by population, with 1.7 million residents, and encompasses nearly every socioeconomic and ecological zone. The county has long been run from Seattle, seat of government and the population center, and our view of the region has dominated. Long have Seattleites attempted to control growth in the rest of the county in the name of fighting the Los Angeles–ization of the region. But containing sprawl has largely failed. Even with the state Growth Management Act, sprawl has spilled to the Cascade foothills because the market has wanted it and the GMA left plenty of territory open to development.
     As a result, the county’s suburbs became edge cities, some of which are now real cities. They have ambitions that must be reckoned with. Bellevue, which first shocked Seattleites with the visible skyline that emerged in the 1980s, has long striven to be more city than suburb and is making good on that today. Redmond and Issaquah are growing and rapidly urbanizing, and their residents have become less concerned with preserving the old character of those towns than with getting the basic kinds of amenities city dwellers want. Start with a Starbucks and next is a freeway interchange. Their spheres of influence have created pressure in previously rural and semirural areas. Indeed, Seattle now resembles less L.A. than the San Francisco Bay area, and our determination to do our civic duty by increasing urban densities and absorbing the region’s growth hasn’t worked, any more than San Francisco—twice as dense as Seattle—has been able to prevent growth in the East Bay and Silicon Valley.
     All this growth has brought us to a place where it’s easier to imagine breaking the region into smaller, more manageable pieces, each with its own center of influence. While Seattle has viewed itself as the center of the Pugetopolis urban hub, its imperial approach will not prevail. Edicts—environmental or otherwise—are unwelcome elsewhere. Residents outside the city—much more numerous than those within—have a long, bitter history with King County and Seattle governments. They have clashed over growth, water rights, waste management, taxation, public safety, and transportation.
     In addition, King County government—the County Council was downsized last November by the voters, from 13 seats to nine—has a smaller domain to rule as more areas incorporate. This has left the county to provide services to a far-flung, ungrateful population, with those services funded by a diminishing tax base.
     The secession and property-rights movement is being encouraged by forces that are pursuing a broader, antigovernment agenda. It’s ironic that some supporters, like the building industry, tout property rights alongside rural folks who want autonomy. But anyone who thinks the Building Industry Association of Washington is going to help preserve rural character is smoking crack. They’d like to have their own “red” county in the shadow of the Cascades to exploit, without interference. Mainstream suburban Republicans are finding advantage in fanning rebellion’s flames. Even if the Nixon and Roach legislation goes nowhere in Democratic-controlled Olympia, they can score points with the pitchfork crowd.
     Nevertheless, there is nothing inherently wrong with seeking to redraw the political map of Washington by forming a new county or streamlining government by getting rid of some old ones. Garfield County in Eastern Washington, for example, has a population of 2,400 people, the smallest in the state. That’s fewer people than you need to start a county in the first place. Maybe we could cut costs and taxes by merging smaller counties. In the meantime, unwieldy counties in high-growth areas could perhaps better serve their citizens by breaking up.
     Yes, secession would make regional transportation and environmental planning much more complicated; yes, there are people who want to make mischief promoting retrograde agendas. We could wind up with a region that is ideologically gerrymandered. But there is often much to be gained by moving government closer to the people, and if that’s what people want, they’ll eventually get it.
     If King County no longer works, the people will create something that does.

(return to top)

Spokane Spokesman-Review: Legislator aims to hook phishing expeditions

     Olympia (January 26, 2005) -- Jargon in the electronic age often gives common words new meanings. For example, spam is no longer solely a mixture of pork shoulder, ham and secret spices, and a virus doesn’t necessarily make you sick anymore.
     Now another everyday word - albeit spelled differently - can be added to the lexicon of synonymous tech-talk: “phishing.”
     This technological type of phishing doesn’t involve casting a line into Liberty Lake; it involves baiting computer users into giving away personal identification and financial information. More than 12,000 consumers in Washington have fallen victim to this emerging Internet scam, authorities say. It’s growing so fast that state lawmakers are scrambling for ways to crack down on the elusive con artists.
     Phishers send e-mails appearing to be from legitimate businesses to millions of people. These e-mails usually take a threatening tone, asking for users to click on a link to verify their information or their account may be closed, for example. The user is then directed to a fake Web site where the phisher steals information from an unsuspecting consumer.
     The Federal Trade Commission reported that more than 515,000 people filed complaints of identity theft and fraud that were a result of phishing in 2003, of which 58 percent were a result of e-mail. That defrauding resulted in a loss of $200 million to consumers.
     In Washington the complaints of electronic fraud and identity theft resulted in more than $6.9 million in losses according to the Washington Policy Center, a business-backed think tank.
     Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, worked with Microsoft and other companies on the wording of a bill that directly addresses phishing scams. The bill is expected to be introduced this week.
     The penalties under Nixon’s bill would allow phishing victims to “recover the greater of actual damages or $500,000 for each separate violation.” Also, the legislation allows for the courts to penalize phishers up to three times the damages awarded, which could result in up to a $1.5 million offense.
     However, just because tough penalties for phishers are in the works doesn’t mean consumers are in the clear. Like many crimes committed over the Internet, authorities note the perpetrators often are overseas, which makes it difficult to apprehend and prosecute them.
     Several other states, including Arizona, Minnesota and Virginia, have proposed anti-phishing legislation. At the federal level, the Anti-Phishing Act of 2004 was introduced in the U.S. Senate last year by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
     Leahy’s proposal would impose a penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for creating fraudulent Web sites or attempting to lure someone to a fraudulent site. The bill died in committee, but Leahy plans to reintroduce the legislation this year.
     “These e-mails are becoming more and more sophisticated,” said state Rep. Nixon. “Unless someone is particularly skilled in looking at the source code of an e-mail, they may never be able to know if they are responding to a fake e-mail.”
     “If we can’t give every person the training needed to tell what constitutes a fake e-mail and what doesn’t, then we need to do something to help protect the people,” said Nixon.
     Cpl. Dave Reagan of the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office estimates he receives a dozen complaints about phishing per week. Reagan works with the local chapter of the Better Business Bureau to handle the complaints.
     “Many people don’t know they’ve become a victim until it’s too late,” said Zan Deery, communications investigator for the Better Business Bureau of Eastern Washington, North Idaho and Montana. “They just throw their information out into cyberspace and a few months later they find out they’re victims.”
     Nixon’s legislation is one of many technology-related bills aimed at protecting consumers. Earlier in the session, Rep. Jeff Morris, D-Anacortes, introduced HB 1012. The bill would make it illegal for software that is used to collect personal information, known as spyware, to be copied onto a computer without the user’s knowledge.

(return to top)

Nixon wants to raise quality of temporary housing for homeless

     “The legislature finds that, due to lack of a permanent address or other contact information, lack of skills and training, lack of reliable personal transportation, frequent health challenges, or other circumstances, homeless persons are vulnerable to exploitation as low-wage laborers.
     “In 1995, the legislature recognized that the circumstances of another group of exploited low-wage laborers, migrant agricultural workers, necessitated the creation of standards for temporary worker housing to prevent those workers from being forced to obtain housing that is unsafe and unsanitary; those standards are reflected in chapter 70.114A RCW.
     “The legislature finds that, due to their poverty, extreme need, and dire circumstances, similar exploitation of the labor of homeless persons also exists, and that, due to an inadequate supply of affordable housing and of space in permanent shelters for the homeless, they are likewise being forced to seek shelter in unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
     “If migrant farmworkers, who in many cases are not citizens of the United States and may not be in the United States legally, are worthy of the protection of the state to ensure that their housing is safe and sanitary, then our friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow citizens who find themselves temporarily homeless are even more worthy of that protection.”

House approves loans for public works projects benefiting East King County communities

King County Journal: Proposal would ease creation of new county

     Olympia (January 26, 2005) -- A Kirkland legislator has introduced a proposal that could help disgruntled rural residents split off from King County and form their own county.
     Rep. Toby Nixon, Republican, 45th District, said he’s trying to clear up the process residents can follow to create a county, short of leaving the job solely to the discretion of the state Legislature.
     He knows he has support in rural east King County. He also knows it’s going to be tough to get a hearing for his legislation in a Democrat-controlled Legislature this year.
     For now it’s a start.
     “There are folks who are ready to start this process as soon as the Legislature passes it,” he said.
     He’s attending a private meeting in North Bend on Thursday night of elected officials and rural residents to discuss how they want county government to look in the future.
     Nixon acknowledges that Kathy Lambert, a former state legislator who now represents rural areas on the King County Council, did much of the groundwork for his legislation when she was in the Legislature.
     “I think the people are ready for it now,” Lambert said. King County isn’t working, she said, and everyone now knows it. The whole nation “knows we can’t count ballots,” she said,
     Rural residents tried circumventing the Legislature in the 1990s to form a new county, gathering thousands of signatures to form Cedar County. But their hopes were dashed by the state Supreme Court.
     The high court in February 1998 ruled in essence that the Legislature can’t be forced to create a new county, which are creatures of the state.
     At the time, however, then-Secretary of State Ralph Munro said the Legislature needed to lay out a set of procedures for groups that want to form new counties.
     That is what Nixon said he’s trying to do.
     County Executive Ron Sims called the ruling “appropriate” in 1998. “It should not be necessary for citizens to secede in order to get quality services from their government,” he said in a statement.
     He listed several initiatives designed to make county government more accessible and responsive to rural residents, including an invitation to help revise the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
     But now, like then, anger is fueled by what rural residents say are heavy-handed environmental legislation and higher tax burdens imposed on them by city folk.
     Sims said in an interview with the Journal (then the South County Journal) on Feb. 5, 1998 that “We recognize that rules which work for the cities and suburbs don’t always work for the farms and forests. I’ve always said that all wisdom does not reside in downtown Seattle.”
     In its ruling, the Supreme Court did indicate that at least 50 percent of the registered voters in a proposed new county would have to sign petitions to start the process.
     However, Nixon said that requirement is “onerous.” Instead, his package of legislation includes a constitutional amendment that would lower the percentage to 25 percent.
     House Bill 1500 would require that a new county be created by the Legislature or by a vote of the people. It sets up a process for the orderly transition to the new county bureaucracy.
     His proposal is modeled after the process used to place a citizens initiative on the ballot.
     Nixon’s legislation requires that the proponents of a new county clearly delineate its boundaries to ease in the distribution of existing assets and liabilities between the new and old counties.
     The legislation will have its first reading today. But it’s up to the chairman of the House Local Government Committee, Democrat Geoff Simpson of Covington, whose 47th District includes rural areas, to call for a hearing.
     Also in Simpson’s committee is a package of legislation proposed by Republican State Rep. Dan Roach on critical areas ordinances, another hot-button issue in rural areas.

(return to top)

Nixon legislation would define process for creating new counties

King County Journal: “Brock’s Bill” treats troopers like other drivers

     Olympia (January 21, 2005) -- Proposed legislation known as Brock’s Bill to be introduced in Olympia today would hold Washington State Patrol troopers to the same standards as regular citizens when they’re involved in serious traffic accidents.
     If passed, the Brock Loshbaugh Act would serve as a legacy to the dead son of a Woodinville couple who was run down by a State Patrol trooper while crossing a road three years ago.
     After the February 2002 accident in Mill Creek, Loshbaugh, 22, was tested for blood-alcohol content, but the trooper who hit him was not.
     Since Loshbaugh was found to be legally drunk and crossing a street outside a crosswalk, the trooper was cleared.

What the law requires

     If passed, House Bill 1387 would require troopers to undergo a blood-alcohol test whenever they’re involved in a serious traffic accident, on duty or off.
     It also would require that all trooper-involved accidents be investigated by an independent agency -- usually the sheriff’s office in the county where the accident occurred.
     The bill also calls on the State Patrol to establish rules for tracking accidents involving troopers and specify disciplinary procedures up to and including termination for troopers who repeatedly cause accidents.
     “We kept in mind the demands we place on our law enforcement officers and the understanding that traffic accidents can and do occur in the pursuit of their duties,” said Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, on drafting the bill. “At the same time, we focused on the public’s right to expect law enforcement officers will be held to the same standards as the rest of us in their ordinary driving.”
     Nixon was joined by representatives Dennis Flannigan, D-Tacoma; Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle; and Jan Shabro, R-Auburn, in drafting the bill.
     Three years ago, Brock’s parents, Dan and Melodee Loshbaugh, were outraged when the State Patrol refused to accept responsibility after a trooper killed their son.

Lack of accountability

     They were dumbfounded two years later when they found out that the trooper, Jason Crandall, was still patrolling King County highways after being faulted in five separate accidents, including some with injuries, since November 2001. Crandall never received a driving citation.
     The revelation sent the Loshbaughs to Olympia, where they demonstrated at the Capitol and stunned many legislators with their findings.
     In the spring, the Loshbaughs sat down with legislators and State Patrol leadership on a task force commissioned by the House Transportation Committee to the study the problem.
     The task force looked at the laws in 40 other states and found Washington was seriously lacking in the way it holds law officers accountable for their lousy driving, Melodee Loshbaugh said.
     “Out of all of that work comes this comprehensive reform package,” she said. “I only wish it was retroactive because it would get Crandall off the road.”

Lawsuit settled

     Last week, the state settled a civil lawsuit brought by the Loshbaughs over the death of their son for $150,000.
     The judgment amount was limited because state law does not allow parents of adult children to claim damages for pain and suffering.
     Nixon said he was pleased with the bill that came out of the task force, and he hopes that in the future another bill will hold all law enforcement officers in the state to the same standard. The task force chose to focus on the State Patrol as a first step, he said.
     “It was a manageable thing,” he said, acknowledging that he expects opposition from police unions on several policy changes proposed by the bill.
     Historically, deciding how to penalize Washington troopers has remained in the hands of their supervisors, he said.
     The majority of other states that the task force studied have laws that specify a set of disciplinary procedures.

A victory

     For Melodee Loshbaugh, today’s first reading of Brock’s Bill marks a victory in her family’s three-year fight for accountability. It may not ease the pain of losing a son, she said, but it might mean Brock’s death won’t be forgotten.
     “It means to me that it wasn’t for nothing,” she said, “that his loss effected a difference for everyone in the state.
     “I know he would’ve thought this is incredible work that we’ve done. I just know he’d be proud of us.”

(return to top)

KING 5: Bill would crack down on accidents caused by troopers

     Olympia (January 20, 2005) -- The Washington State Legislature is taking steps to hold state troopers more accountable for accidents they cause.
     A new bill proposal was introduced Thursday, almost three years after a trooper accidentally struck and killed a Woodinville, Wash., teen.
     State representative Toby Nixon remembers the February 2002 incident well. Twenty-two-year-old Brock Loshbaugh was walking down the Bothell-Everett highway when he was accidentally struck and killed by a state trooper.
     Trooper Jason Crandall’s conduct wasn’t investigated by an outside agency and his blood wasn’t tested for alcohol. Patrol investigators ruled that Crandall was not at fault, but he had been involved in six crashes between November 2001 and June 2003. Crandall is still assigned to road duty in King County.
     “Under the process that we’ve defined in the bill, he wouldn’t be, he would have already been terminated,” Nixon said.
     The bill would come down harder on troopers involved in serious car accidents, including drug testing, tougher penalties, and independent investigations.
     The bill, as it’s proposed, would be known as the Brock Loshbaugh Act. It ends three years of frustration for his parents. The patrol paid $150,000 to settle the Loshbaugh’s wrongful death lawsuit.
     “That’s very fitting for Brock,” said his father, Dan Loshbaugh.
     “We were not treated well, everybody went into defensive posture,” said his mother, Melodee Loshbaugh. “We discovered a lot of holes, and this fills those holes.”
     They credit the state patrol for being proactive, even if the trooper continues to work.
     “It will stop other Crandalls from being out there,” his mother said.
     The State Patrol says the bill still needs work but the proposal does present some positive changes. It still needs full legislative approval. It must first pass through the transportation committee. A hearing is expected there within the next couple of weeks.

(return to top)

Seattle Times: Bill would bar Patrol probing its crashes

     Olympia (January 20, 2005) -- In the nearly three years since their son, Brock, was run over by a State Patrol trooper, Melodee and Dan Loshbaugh have grown tired of the apologies from the agency’s top brass.
     The Woodinville couple have hosted rallies, joined forces with lawmakers and even created a Web site to rally support for their mission to get the state’s largest police agency to change its policies.
     Today, exactly one week since the Patrol agreed to pay the Loshbaughs $150,000 to settle their wrongful-death suit, “Brock’s Bill” will be presented to the state House of Representatives.
     Lawmakers are being asked to adopt a policy forbidding the Patrol from investigating all serious crashes involving its officers, said state Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland.
     The policy also calls for the tracking of troopers involved in multiple accidents.
     “They should be exemplary, the best drivers on the road,” said Nixon.
     Trooper Jason Crandall, whose car hit and killed Brock Loshbaugh while the 22-year-old Mill Creek man was jaywalking across the Bothell-Everett Highway on Feb. 19, 2002, was involved in six crashes between November 2001 and June 2003.
     While Patrol investigators ruled Crandall was not at fault for Loshbaugh’s death, the trooper was reprimanded for rear-ending one car, ordered to take remedial driving training for hitting another vehicle, and suspended for 10 days after causing a chain-reaction crash that caused a woman to go into premature labor, according to Patrol records.
     Crandall still works as a trooper, said State Patrol Capt. Jeff DeVere, and he currently is assigned to road duty in King County.
     Melodee Loshbaugh said the Patrol’s decision to keep Crandall on the road “shows they truly lack a concern for public safety.”
     As part of their settlement, the Loshbaughs will have a chance to meet with top Patrol officials to discuss their concerns over policy and procedure, according to a letter the couple received from the state Attorney General’s Office. The letter said they also will have a chance to talk to Crandall.
     Melodee Loshbaugh believes that by signing the settlement, the Patrol acknowledged that Crandall was at fault for the crash.
     “What makes me the happiest is they took responsibility by the judgment,” she said. “The judgment means they did it; they were wrong. They can say all they want to, but I know what it means.”
     DeVere disagrees and says the settlement “was a way to resolve our differences.”
     DeVere said he hadn’t read the proposed policy to be presented to lawmakers today. He said if it resembles a bill presented last year, which demanded that troopers involved in crashes undergo alcohol testing, the agency would support it. Last year’s bill didn’t pass.
     If “Brock’s Bill” is passed by the Legislature, sheriff’s offices and police departments across the state would be asked to investigate crashes involving troopers. That’s a move Pierce County sheriff’s Detective Ed Troyer disagrees with.
     “It’s bad because it’s taking away the best traffic investigators in the state,” said Troyer.
     When a Pierce County sheriff’s deputy is involved in a fatal or serious-injury crash on a county road, the Sheriff’s Department investigators are called in. Seattle police and the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office have similar policies.
     Spokane and Everett police officials say that when their officers are involved in crashes that result in serious or fatal injuries, they have another agency investigate.

(return to top)

Legislative task force wants to clarify law concerning traffic accidents involving law enforcement officers

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Election reform gets lawmakers’ attention

     Olympia (January 17, 2005) -- Florida’s off the hook. Washington state is now under the election reform microscope.
     After a governor’s race that dragged on for eight weeks and three counts, some Evergreen State lawmakers hope to ensure that voters won’t have to wait months after future elections to learn who’s leading their state.
     “This is the issue of the year,” said Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup, chairman of the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee, which holds a public hearing on the issue today. “People expect action.”
     The issue of reform has jumped quickly to the forefront after Democrat Christine Gregoire won the governor’s mansion by 129 votes after a hand recount of nearly 2.9 million ballots.
     Supporters of Republican opponent Dino Rossi have gone to court seeking to void the results, alleging widespread problems and voting irregularities. Among their gripes: hundreds of provisional ballots that were counted in King County without checking that the voters were registered, and the county’s inability to produce a list of people who voted that matches the number of votes cast.
     Thus far, none of the bills filed directly addresses the problems in last year’s election.
     “At this point it would be good to do a lot of listening,” Kastama said. “If we’re going to fix it, let’s fix it right and let’s take our time.”
     In her inauguration speech last week, Gov. Christine Gregoire announced that she will create a task force to review the election process and to report recommendations to her and the Legislature by March 1.
     Secretary of State Sam Reed, who has been criticized by fellow Republicans for certifying the results, has unveiled a package that he wants lawmakers to support. His proposals include moving the September primary to the third Tuesday in June and requiring absentee ballots to be postmarked by the Friday before the election or received before the polls close on Election Day.
     Lawmakers agree that election reform needs to be a bipartisan issue.
     State Rep. Toby Nixon, the ranking Republican on the House’s state government committee, said voters want a uniform system that reduces errors exposed during the gubernatorial election.
     “If they believe the election system is flawed ... then they’re not going to trust any branch of government, be it the executive, legislative or judicial, to govern,” said Nixon, R-Kirkland. “That means no matter what brilliant ideas we come up with, people just aren’t going to support us in that because they don’t believe we’re here legitimately.”
     In committee meetings in the coming weeks, legislators will be looking at several bills that have been proposed.
     Sen. Pam Roach, R-Sumner, has introduced several bills dealing with voter eligibility. Roach, the ranking Republican on Kastama’s Senate committee, said there were too many questions over whether people voting by provisional ballot were actually eligible voters.
     Roach has introduced several bills on the issue, including:

• Senate Bill 5080, to make voters affirm citizenship before voting by provisional ballot.
• Senate Bill 5078, requiring all voters who registered to vote before July 1, 2005, to reregister in order to clean up the voter rolls.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s concern about voter eligibility still valid today, Nixon tells House

Nixon to continue serving on House transportation, technology committees

Nixon named lead Republican on House State Government Committee