A few morning links:
*Stefan has a great op-ed in today's Seattle Times: "A citizens' revolution for clean elections, new media." Here's the conclusion:
There will be election reform, but it won't be entrusted to a commission appointed by today's governor to propose peripheral changes. There will be citizen-led initiatives for meaningful reforms.For example: requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration; requiring every voter to show both a photo ID and a pulse; and requiring that an election can be certified only if the number of votes equals the number of voters.
UPDATE 1: The mighty Powerline (Time Magazine's "Blog of The Year" in 2004) links to Stefan's Seattle Times op-ed of today, with a long excerpt and the hed, "Get This Man A Pulitzer." Hat tip: SP commenter Max. UPDATE 2: Instapundit links to Stefan's Times piece, too.
*And the Washington State College Republican Federation has a new blog. Promising content, spiffy masthead, and, under "Chapters," links to CR groups at the University of Washington, Washington State University, Gonzaga University, Seattle University, Evergreen State College (give these folks the Red Badge of Courage!), and Pacific Lutheran University. It'd be great to see active political blogs from these chapters, and other conservative students at all these institutions. PLU's College Republicans of course, already have one; it's called The Rant.
Everyone else, send us the URLs as you go live!
*Finally, this from a recent column by Peter Callaghan of the Tacoma News Tribune, my favorite equal-opportunity snarkmeister:
During the campaign Gregoire said that if elected, she was going to “blow past the bureaucracy.” Has she?She has blown past the bureaucracy, asking everyone to stick around for a few months. The only member of the Locke administration that isn’t in the Gregoire administration is Gary Locke.
Click here to send us story links (URLs included); other tips; links to Washington state conservative blogs; and links to conservative regional group blogs from around the U.S.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 19, 2005
10:22 AM | Email This
I second the motion.
Posted by: max on January 19, 2005 10:36 AMEither that or i'm having a "Neo" Moment, and Agent Smith is about to bust down my door and start kicking my ass.
Please tell me i've seen this article before!
Help!
Posted by: FireWolf on January 19, 2005 10:53 AMExpecting her to shake up the established power structure of the Democrats is like expecting a fish to ride a bicycle. Aint gonna happen. This is especially the case now that she owes so many favors to various Democrats who spent political capital on helping her steal the election.
Instead of getting change, we will get more of the same with a vengeance.
Posted by: Iguana on January 19, 2005 11:01 AMhttp://www.strategicvision.biz/political/washington_gov.htm
I also have to say that......"we've heard this before, now havent we??" See below:
Seattle/Northwest 2000-12-02
CANTWELL GETS A NEW JOB
By Dionne Searcey and David Postman
Seattle Union Record
"We campaign as Democrats and Republicans, but we should govern as Americans," Maria Cantwell said. "I will be a senator for all of Washington." She promised to visit every county in the state at least once a year.
She said her first priority would be passing campaign-finance reform, an issue she championed throughout her campaign.
Of course, illegal aliens, dead people, and felons would be screened against their drivers license or state identification cards.
Anyway, I just don't understand why we can't get government getting this right.
Posted by: Jim on January 19, 2005 01:05 PM1.) We need to repeal the Motor Act
If Proficiency in English is still an official requirement for naturalization, then
2.) We need to eliminate the printing of voter pamphlets in any other language than English.
A good idea, but an impossible standard. Even the best counties had a hand full of ballots that went through the process wrong.
A better idea is to have the counties certify both the vote and the admitted error.
Sum the absolute value of all error by precinct and certify the total error by county.
Sum the absolute value of all errors by county. If that absolute total exceeds the margin of victory, a new election SHALL be granted at the request of any candidate whose total vote plus the error would be enough to win the election.
Summing errors by precinct will be shockingly high. A ballot that gets mixed up between precincts at one polling place would generate TWO errors: short one in one precinct, long one in another. But error rates traceable to polling places and precincts would command attention.
People may contest elections though challenging the certified error totals as well as the certified vote totals.
!?! Certify the ERRORS ???
Of course. How can you possibly certify a vote until you reconcile all that went wrong.
That's probably because Democratic politicians always vote against things like photo IDs at the polls or other measures to prevent fraud.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 19, 2005 01:46 PMMichele S wrote:
YESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Proof of citizenship! It only makes sense! Heck, I had to send a certified copy of a family member's BC to get a passport. Why is voting less sacred????
Fine, but...
Remember that voting is a right. We cannot put obstacles in the way of legal voters.
A passport is a legal document that is not required in order to exercise legal rights. Therefore, if the government charges a fee for processing and requires the citizen to do the research to verify citizenship, it is not putting any obstacle in the way of exercising a right.
Side note - for those that wish to claim that voting is not a right, I would refer you to I refer you to the Constitution of the State of Washington:
Article 1, Section 19: FREEDOM OF ELECTIONS. All Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. (emphasis added.)
(In essence, we've already disposed of that argument.)
Additionally, we in this country consider a person innocent until proven guilty. Yes, that tends to be inconvenient at times, but it is the way we run things. Therefore, a person's sworn statement that they are a citizen must be believed unless the state has reasonable cause to dispute it. The state may make reasonable inquiries to verify the information, it may not require the citizen to pay for it.
Additionally, it would cost just as much to verify the "certified" birth certificates as to simply order them. Remember that most of the people posting on this board have the technology to manufacture a fake birth certificate, complete with "certification."
So, the crooks are not going to be inconvenienced, but law-abiding people are. Yes, for most of the people on this board, it's a pretty minor inconvenience. But, for the homeless veteran with the "will work for food" sign, it's a major obstacle. Remember, that homeless veteran is a citizen and has a right to vote.
So, how do we solve (or at the very least, reduce) the problem? I've suggested, on a couple of these threads, an option. The registrant could be given options to pick from.
1. Produce state-issued photo identification (drivers license, military id, state id card)
- or -
2. Sign a sworn statement and give a thumb print for identification.
- This removes the obstacle for legal voters, while providing an evidence trail if the registration/vote is illegal.
- Existing (rather inexpensive) technology is available for comparing thumbprints, and duplicates would be easily caught and prosecuted.
- Legal immigrants would be prevented by the chance of being caught and deported, forever losing their chance at becoming a citizen. If possible, I would arrange cross-checking with the Immigration Service to further weed-out non-citizen voters. I would also publicize that this was being done, in order to reduce any temptation.
- Illegal immigrants (criminals by definition) would be very reluctant to provide a thumbprint.
Other options. A free, optional “voter identification” that is produced at the registration point. The state has the responsibility to verify the information given, and bears the expense.
For those that feel that the voter should bear this, I will remind you again that voting is a right and, on a more practical level, that it would be just as expensive to verify the documents provided by the voter as it would to simply order the certified documents. If the state isn’t going to verify the documents, then any sixteen-year-old kid with a good color printer can be a voter, perhaps many times over.
One potential difficulty with applying error ranges to all vote counts would be that it would make it possible for an election official to 'spike' any election that wasn't going his way by adding uncertainty. I would suggest, though, that a couple of refinements would avoid that problem.
-1- For fishy ballots to be the basis of an election contest, it must be reasonably likely that they could have gone in favor of the winner. If a precinct strongly favors the non-winning candidate, it would seem likely, absent evidence to the contrary, that any fishy votes there would do so as well.
-2- I would suggest that if a revote is ordered, the costs of the revote should be assessed to counties in proportion to the number of fishy votes originating therein.
I would expect that these two rules would do a lot to prevent unscrupulous people from 'spiking' an election, but would preserve the ability to ensure that elections are fair and honest.
Posted by: supercat on January 19, 2005 03:46 PMIf you are student at UW getting in-state tuition, you need to prove that you are a resident of the State of Washington.
Same thing should go for voting.
And, let's not get confused about "rights." Suggesting that every measure to ensure that a vote is legal will interfere with a person's "rights" is typical fluffy totalitarian Democrat talk.
With "rights" come responsibilities. Voters are personally responsible for proving that they have a right to vote. It's simple enough.
Posted by: Iguana on January 19, 2005 04:17 PMNothing personal, but each time I read your posts I think 'Here's the winner for the person who writes the most yet communicates the fewest ideas.'
Whether voting is a right or a privilege is a matter of semantics. Try telling a five-year-old that voting is her right. She still has civil liberties, but not the 'right' to vote. The same goes with illegal aliens and non-residents.
At some point we have to require voters to prove they are citizens of the US and residents of Washington. Your ideas shift the onus of proof and the cost to the state, rather than the individual. If it is the state's responsibility, guess who pays those costs? Taxpayers! Guess who the taxpayers are? US citizens who are residents of the state! Except that the taxpayers get to pay overhead for the bureaucracy, rather than just ordering a birth certificate.
It should be the individual's responsibility to prove that he or she is in the class of people who have the right to vote, rather than the state's responsibility to prove that they are not. If the responsibility rests with the state, nothing will be done, they won't check, and we'll be back in the same situation as always.
Posted by: Larry on January 19, 2005 05:05 PM"So, how do we solve (or at the very least, reduce) the problem? I've suggested, on a couple of these threads, an option. The registrant could be given options to pick from.
1. Produce state-issued photo identification (drivers license, military id, state id card)
- or -
2. Sign a sworn statement and give a thumb print for identification."
These suggestions are the MINIMUM acceptable practices that I would require. I have stated previously that your suggestions have quite a bit more than a modicum of common sense.
One cannot be deprived of the right to vote without due process {to persons who are eligible}:
18 YO, Breathing, born in US or Naturalized, Not convicted of a Felony (and I still think Felons should not have rights restored without a Pardon signed by the Gov or Pres, as I recall from reading the Constitution when I was growing up), and Residing in the County unless deployed by the place of business (Military or overseas worker, who should have Certified Eligibility from their employer).
Due process can include re-registration because the rules have not been enforced IMO. The proof that you can vote (breathing, have a pulse, can interact with other humans) is paramount, but given that we don’t know who is alive or dead during registration, on the rolls to begin with considering Provisionals (here, your thumbprint would be vital!), and surely not when an absentee ballot is offered, I think the process must be re-instituted.
Iguana wrote:
Not just proof of citizenship, but proof of residency!
United States Constitution, Amendment XIV.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If they live here, they're a resident.
If you are student at UW getting in-state tuition, you need to prove that you are a resident of the State of Washington.
Last I checked (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) attendance at UW is not a right guaranteed by either the US or State Constitutions.
Same thing should go for voting.
Voting is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Washington.
And, let's not get confused about "rights." Suggesting that every measure to ensure that a vote is legal will interfere with a person's "rights" is typical fluffy totalitarian Democrat talk
Oh, dear. Where to start? There are some very nice countries that do not worry about the rights of their citizens. With over 20 years in the Navy, I've visited some of them. I prefer it here.
From Webster's:
to·tal·i·tar·i·an adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul"
(emphasis added)
The state has the burden of proof in this country, not the citizen. This is what I'm saying. If you will be so kind as to read the definition of "totalitarian" provided above, you will note that your post, saying that the citizen's rights are subordinate to the desires of the state would somewhat better fit the definition. Or, does "fluffy totalitarian" somehow mean "anti-totalitarian"? If so, I wear the title with pride.
Larry wrote:
Whether voting is a right or a privilege is a matter of semantics.
No, it's a matter of fundamental principles. In the United States, the citizen is supreme. The government works for the citizens, not the other way around. Please see the definition of "totalitarian" above.
As I mentioned, if (for example) a certified birth certificate is required, then it will have to be verified. Otherwise, any kid with a decent color printer hooked up to his computer can print them by the hundred. (I had thought that the idea here was to reduce fraud.)
The only way I can see for the state to verify them is to order another one to compare. Hence, the citizen has been inconvenienced without any good reason, except for those that want to keep that homeless veteran from voting. That would include many that post here, as that homeless vet is probably a Democrat.
Poll taxes (of many sorts) have been used before to prevent "undesireables" from voting. It got so bad that we came up with this horrible "Democratic" sceme to let all those low-life, Democrat-voting scum into the polls. It's called the twenty-fourth amendment. I was alive when this was ratified. Prior to it, all sorts of obstacles were put in to prevent the poor, black and just unpopular from voting.
If we refuse to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. Some here would think this a good thing, but I trust you are not one of them.
smegma wrote:
These suggestions are the MINIMUM acceptable practices that I would require.
And in something as fundamental as voting rights, the minimum obstacle needed to solve the problem is the maximum acceptable obstacle. So, in essence, I agree.
The problem certainly needs to be solved, if we can just keep people from "enhancing" the idea in ways that look more like an attempt to disenfranchise people (that tend to vote the "wrong" way) than preventing fraud.
I still think Felons should not have rights restored without a Pardon signed by the Gov or Pres, as I recall from reading the Constitution when I was growing up
The fourteenth amendment speaks briefly on the matter, but does not obligate states one way or the other. In some states, that is the rule. I would interpret the Constitution (WA) to mean that we should maximize the ability of citizens to vote, but I can certainly understand those that disagree with me.
Still, do we disenfranchise Martha Stewart for life? Most of the people we think of when we say "felon" are not the actual people that are being affected. Muggers, rapists and killers are not the majority of "felons". More typically it's the 19 year old with four ounces of marijuana. No doubt, the kid was wrong, but should he be disenfranchised for life?
Posted by: John Barelli on January 19, 2005 07:07 PMstephan, there is a sesmic shift in the political culture from the recent events in king county. the grassroots of political activity will change the current culture.
Posted by: ray on January 19, 2005 07:11 PM"Still, do we disenfranchise Martha Stewart for life? Most of the people we think of when we say "felon" are not the actual people that are being affected. Muggers, rapists and killers are not the majority of "felons". More typically it's the 19 year old with four ounces of marijuana. No doubt, the kid was wrong, but should he be disenfranchised for life?"
To answer your question bluntly - YES.
As I grew up, I always heard a phrase in my neighborhood - You do the crime, you do the time. And that essentially means if you're too stupid to take into account all the consequences for your actions, you certainly aren't smart enough to vote. Period. While states have the ultimate discretion to decide this matter, I don't think ANY felon should have his or her voting rights restored. ESPECIALLY that 19 yr old punk caught with 4 ounces of an illegal subtance. Regardless of your liberal views of pot smoking. (Not you personally).
Posted by: FireWolf on January 19, 2005 07:38 PM“And in something as fundamental as voting rights, the minimum obstacle needed to solve the problem is the maximum acceptable obstacle. So, in essence, I agree."
I disagree. Minimum establishes the essence, not the fix for the fundamental crisis.
"The problem certainly needs to be solved, if we can just keep people from "enhancing" the idea in ways that look more like an attempt to disenfranchise people (that tend to vote the "wrong" way) than preventing fraud.”
Let us remember that “Enhancement” was my reason for disenfranchisement. Enhanced ballots by suspect election workers failed me in the first place…
"The fourteenth amendment speaks briefly on the matter, but does not obligate states one way or the other."
If it is not offered, it is not…
John Barelli,
I consider you Good people. It is not simply that you were also a Navy knucklehead, you have a position, and it is valid. I will listen as often as I am capable without the blinders. But, "it's tough, hard work..."
C'ya around...
Posted by: smegma on January 19, 2005 08:46 PMLet us remember that “Enhancement” was my reason for disenfranchisement. Enhanced ballots by suspect election workers failed me in the first place…
Here, at least, we can agree.
I'm a big fan of the idea of machine-produced ballots, where the voters punch in their choices on a screen, then the ballot is printed, verified by the voter, and then deposited. I don't want some election worker, even with the best of intentions, "enhancing" my ballot.
About the points I make about the obstacles to voting. I agree wholeheartedly (despite what Michele S seems to think) that vote fraud is wrong. Despite what many on this board think, almost all Democrats agree.
(Just as almost all Republicans agree that restricting voting access to poor and minorities is also wrong, despite what some of the posters on the left wing boards say.)
But you also have to remember a time that is before many here were born. A requirement for "proper" identification and a "small" tax to cover processing costs was used by many states to deliberately disenfranchise poor minority voters.
We aren't talking about obscure theories here, it was actually done, and was so rampant as to require a Constitutional Amendment to stop it. Even then, many American's didn't really understand what the problem was. After all, an ID and a couple of bucks shouldn't be an impediment to anyone, right?
Wrong. It was, and could be again. Are we willing to tell some minimum-wage single parent that she has to choose between feeding her kids tonight and paying for a certified birth certificate? That is disenfranchisement. For those that somehow believe she doesn't deserve her right to vote, well, at least be honest enough to say so directly.
I'm open for any idea to protect against vote fraud that does not also disenfranchise legal voters. It's when I see an idea that looks like a way to bring back the poll tax that the hairs on the back of my neck go up.
I have seen it argued that the real intent of all this "proper identification" and "registration verification" is actually to prevent poor and minority citizens from voting. I really don't believe this is the intent of most Republicans. I think we have problems with the system that need fixing.
I would be happier, however, to see fixes that did not look like they were designed to discourage poor and homeless citizens from exercising their right to vote.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 19, 2005 09:41 PMAn issue which is related to that is the extent to which people should be allowed to "help" voters cast their ballots. If someone were to request an absentee ballot for someone suffering from dimentia, visit that person with the ballot, tell them all the circles to fill in, and have them sign it, would such an action be giving a vote to the person with dimentia, or to the person who "helped" them?
I don't know the extent to which "assisted" voting affects elections, or the extent to which assistants bias votes, but I suspect strongly that in at least some cases, assistants assert their own will rather than the people they are "helping" to "vote"; I would hope you would agree that this is not a good thing.
Posted by: supercat on January 19, 2005 10:56 PMI agree with your view of the "revolution" that is taking place.
I pray that it's flame will not go out until we have seen the changes that are necessary for fair elections in this state and others. We owe much of the success of this movement to the blogs.
Long live the bloggers!
Posted by: jaybo on January 19, 2005 11:26 PMIt all comes down to accountability and responsibility on the part of the election officials!
Why should 'WE THE PEOPLE' be the ones to jump through hoops? Submit our fingerprints, iris scans, DNA? Why? If those in charge would just take their jobs seriously - we would not have the problems we do today.
What we have instead - are elections officials along with a liberal Governor and legislature who choose to water down any and all laws in place to detect fraud and prosecute offenders!
If the state tightened up security procedures with voter registration, absentee ballot processing and those absurd provisional ballots, half of the problems would be solved! I have read where there is an effort to place a national voter registration database in place to catch double voters, dead people, non-citizens and even felons! This national effort is constantly thwarted by individual states - (like ours) who just can't seem to get a simple *State* database together!
Rather than place the burden on the legal voters - why not create a system to verify registration? Why not create a department in the AG office to handle prosecution of voter fraud? This would require our State officials to get their act together and to hire a staff to update and maintain the information....Something tells me we have that staff in place..they just aren't doing their jobs.....
Posted by: Deborah on January 19, 2005 11:37 PMYou state ‘they just aren't doing their jobs.....’. My point beyond what you have reiterated is severe consequence for all election law violators. Including and especially Election Officers.
Posted by: RG on January 19, 2005 11:57 PMHonest to goodness, we've been hearing this cry for decades, and PLEASE look where it's gotten us: it is now very very easy to cheat (and thus rob another person of his legal vote).
At the very minimum, a photo ID should be required. I would bet all the poor have IDs, so we're just talking about the homeless now. Yes, that is tougher on the indigent. Last I checked, everything is more difficult for the indigent. We do not rearrange our entire society for them, nor should we.
I would like to see MY RIGHT TO VOTE being protected for once.
There is a tradeoff between protecting rights of a tiny, tiny minority and protecting the rights of the rest of us. Enough already!!!
Posted by: Bostonian on January 20, 2005 10:56 AMAt the very minimum, a photo ID should be required. I would bet all the poor have IDs, so we're just talking about the homeless now. Yes, that is tougher on the indigent. Last I checked, everything is more difficult for the indigent. We do not rearrange our entire society for them, nor should we
Well, my answer was the choice between a photo id and a sworn statement with a thumbprint attached, but the photo id alone wouldn't be as big an obstacle as the "certified birth certificate" idea I keep seeing posted.
Since a photo id is also pretty helpful in finding a job and otherwise trying to get reintegrated into society, why not just provide them to low-income people on request? That could help stem some of the DSHS fraud as well. Yes, it is a cost to the state, but the savings in DSHS fraud alone may very well show it to be money well-spent.
I don't like the "certified birth certificate" answer for a couple of reasons.
1. Difficult to verify. As I've noted before, any sixteen year old with a decent color printer could print one that would fool almost anyone. We could verify them, but that would essentially mean ordering another copy for comparison. If we're going to do that anyway, why are we asking the citizen to provide one?
2. Cost and delay. While I disagree with many of my fellow Democrats in the "instant" registration debate, adding the additional cost (around $20) and time (around two weeks) can only be justified if the problems cannot be solved any other way.
Additionally, one of the rationales for the normal delay between registration and being able to vote is to allow verification and processing of the information.
If we are going to require a certified birth certificate for use by the government (hence, all of us, to protect the integrity of our voting process), then let the government (again, all of us) pay for it. At least then we aren't asking the individual citizen to pay for it, and then paying again to verify it.
One of my fellow lefties on this board goes further than I do, and I understand his point. With any of these changes, we are requiring the citizen to prove to the state that he is telling the truth or to provide evidence that could be used against him.
That in itself is more than somewhat troubling, although I see no practical alternative. I agree that illegal voting deprives all of us of our rights, and some actions must be taken. My view is that we need to make it as unobtrusive as possible.
One additional item. Apparently, the man everyone (but me) loves to hate, Sam (could I please go count the vote somewhere safe, like Iraq) Reed has complained that he has referred cases of vote fraud to prosecutors, with lukewarm responses at best.
While I'm not in favor of prosecuting someone for making an innocent mistake, this seems like a place where improvement doesn't require any changes to the law.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 20, 2005 11:59 AMI agree that even driver's licenses do not solve the problem, as non-citizens can get them. On the other hand, they do give auditors a way to trace people later on, if it turns out that they were not legal to vote in that place.
A thumbprint adds even more to that. Civil libertarians will scream bloody murder over that, I am sure, but I think they're wrong. If we cannot protect our votes from being diluted illegally, then our system is fair game for the unscrupulous.
I would like to see a federal law making it possible for the feds to prosecute in the case of an illegal ballot in a federal election. Then even if a state is dodgy in its practices, at least I'm sure someone is looking out to make sure the state doesn't let illegal votes go for federal offices.
In this, I know my opinion differs from classic states-rights conservatives. Tough.
BTW, I've heard a very interesting point: the electoral college system places a limit on the effects of illegal voting in a state. That is, if one state has really dodgy practices, that can do only so much damage to the presidential election.
After hearing the WI stories, I say thank goodness for that!!!
Posted by: Bostonian on January 20, 2005 01:44 PMA thumbprint adds even more to that. Civil libertarians will scream bloody murder over that, I am sure, but I think they're wrong. If we cannot protect our votes from being diluted illegally, then our system is fair game for the unscrupulous.
Well, the thing about a thumbprint is that, while it is very good for identification, it really isn't an intrusion. I'd include some strict privacy limitations on it, but it should be something that we can work with.
No cost to the voter, and a fool-resistant way of preventing multiple votes. If fraud is discovered, the evidence is available. (Every time we make something foolproof, some idiot goes and invents a better fool.)
Oh, and a few other thoughts for those who still have their hearts set on a "certified birth certificate."
When the state requires a citizen to provide something of value to the state, that is, by definition, a tax. As this is a very Republican concept, I really don’t expect too much argument on this board.
A “certified birth certificate” has value. The state charges for the service of providing one.
The twenty-fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Some may object to my characterization of this as a “poll tax,” but there is little doubt in my mind that if enacted, it could be challenged on that basis.
So the question comes up, do we want to find a way to solve the problem, or do we just want to make the good fight, look like we’re trying to do something, then get to blame the courts for tossing the whole mess back in our laps?
Personally, I’d rather solve the problem.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 20, 2005 03:18 PM