The tables below give you the endorsements by our contributors. These are all I have so far, but if more come in before tomorrow I will add them to the tables.
| measure | Sharkansky | Goddard | Miller | Rosenberg |
| I-330 | yes | yes | yes | -- |
| I-336 | no | no | no | -- |
| I-900 | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| I-901 | no | yes | no | yes |
| I-912 | yes | yes | yes | no |
| SJR 8207 | -- | yes | no | -- |
| measure | Sharkansky | Miller |
| Proposition 1 | no | no |
| office | Sharkansky | Miller |
| Executive | Irons | Irons |
| Dist. 1 | Pyeatt | Pyeatt |
| Dist. 2 | -- | -- |
| Dist. 3 | Lambert | Lambert |
| Dist. 4 | Pottharst | Pottharst |
| Dist. 5 | Wells | Wells |
| Dist. 6 | Hague | Hague |
| Dist. 7 | von Reichbauer | von Reichbauer |
| Dist. 8 | -- | -- |
| Dist. 9 | Dunn | Dunn |
| Sheriff | Rahr | Rahr |
| office | Sharkansky | Miller | Rosenberg |
| Pos. 1 | Creighton | Creighton | Creighton |
| Pos. 3 | Hara | Hara | Hara |
| Pos. 4 | Jolley | Jolley | Jolley |
| measure | Sharkansky | Rosenberg |
| Monorail 1 | no | no |
| Monorail 2 | yes | yes |
| Health Care Advisory | no | -- |
| office | Sharkansky | Rosenberg |
| Mayor | Runte | -- |
| Council Pos. 2 | Conlin | -- |
| Council Pos. 4 | Corr | Corr |
| Council Pos. 8 | McIver | -- |
| Monorail Board 8 | Goldberg | Goldberg |
| Monorail Board 9 | Nobles | Nobles |
| School Board 5 | Fellner | Fellner |
You can find Timothy Goddard's endorsements for Snohomish County here and his discussions of I-901 and I-912 here and here. By tomorrow noon, at the latest, I will have a post up discussing the reasons for some of my choices above. And, if I have enough time, I may even do a post with endorsements for the Kirkland elections.
More: As you can probably tell, I have updated the tables, and more than once. Those interested in understanding Timothy Goddard's thinking on I-912 should look here and here. Those interested in understanding Matt Rosenberg's thinking on the same initiative should look here and here. (And that promised post of my own is coming real soon now; I spent all morning working on a long post on the causes of the riots in France.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 06, 2005 05:00 PM | Email This I couldn't help but notice that in King County
Council district 2 you failed endorse Rep
Brian Thomas who I know is a conservative.
Now I know he rubbed some people the wrong way.
I'm also aware that the King County Gop has
turned there back on him.
Its unfortunate that it had to be this way.
Brian should have gotten the party support
as well as yours.He recieved 100% of the vote
at his district caucus that should have been enough.
Its to bad some people have to act 3 year olds.
We all should be grown up enough to the right
thing.
Brian Thomas is an unstable whack job, and those who are aware of his actions/comments/philosophy completely understand why he gets no support from the KC Reps. You have to wonder why an entity that exists to elect R's won't give him the time of day... it's because no self respecting person (especially Republican) would associate themselves with him.
Posted by: Hard R on November 6, 2005 07:06 PMThanks!
Posted by: Deborah on November 6, 2005 07:58 PMTimothy Goddard supports I-901 as well. See his blog for comments.
As far as I-901, the Washington State Republicans have taken no stance on I-901 and are split on the issue. They have taken positions on the remainder of the initiatives.
Numerous groups support I-901 and the Washington Restaurant Association has now taken a neutral position on the issue.
Currently 64 percent of people in a 11/1/2004 Survey USA support I-901
Posted by: Erik on November 6, 2005 08:52 PMCouncil Pos. 1 - Chuck Price
Council Pos. 3 - Hank Stecker
Council Pos. 5 - Mike Roskind
Council Pos. 7 - Peter Tountas (write-in)
Water District Pos. 1 - Ron Braun
How about posting by the Friday before an election?
Posted by: Mary on November 7, 2005 08:05 AMHow about posting by the Friday before an election?
Posted by: Mary on November 7, 2005 08:05 AMHow about posting by the Friday before an election?
Posted by: Mary on November 7, 2005 08:05 AMShe's a big cog in the Sims machine. There's a reason I wrote checks to Schmidt from 60 miles south of KC.
Posted by: Andy on November 7, 2005 08:23 AMUnfortunately, the way the law is going, instead of this being a choice it is one day going to be required :(
Kathy Lambert was the only NO vote on the King County Council. I have to respect Kathy's stand for principles, but all the other GOP members -- including conservative stalwarts like Steve Hammond -- supported the measure.
At some point, we actually have to vote to INCREASE our property taxes. This is because state law only allows the total dollar amount collected by a given government to be increased by 1% per year without a public vote, even if inflation is a lot higher than 1%.
Regardless of who wins the county executive race, King County will likely have other property tax increase votes, since a 1% increase won't be enough to support general government functions. Just like many other cities and counties who have been putting off tax increase votes will be forced to put these issues on the ballot.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 7, 2005 09:07 AMIf you want to oppose I-336, fine. But I can't believe that you'd choose emotion over logic on I-330.
I-330 is NOT about damage award caps or attorney fee limits. It is EXACTLY the kind of thing that Dem legislators try to sneak through. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The real core of the initiative is that insurance companies want to exert even more control over your healthcare choices and doctors want to find yet another way to hide the (admittedly small) portion of their ranks that really screws up.
If they want to write a CLEAN initiative for attorney fee caps, I'll be the first to sign. Damage award caps? Depends on the numbers and the details. Signing away my right to hold a doctor and/or hospital responsible if them maim me? NEVER!
Don't be a sucker, Shark. This initiative is one straight out of the Lefty playbook.
Posted by: Mark on November 7, 2005 09:12 AMIt is not Brian Thomas from the House of Reps. That Brian was a hell of a guy, the Brian running for King County Council is a horrible angry person.
Posted by: Hard R on November 7, 2005 09:29 AMI also think I-330 is flawed, but it is a start. What I would have liked to see is not only a cap on punitive damages, but also a cap on the insurance rates. That is the only way the desired effect will occur. Without the insurance cap, there is no incentive for the insurance companies to alter their rates at all. My guess is that an initiative which addressed both issues would have failed the one subject rule and we would be back to square one. If I-330 passes and is followed by an insurance cap, I will support it.
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 10:03 AMIt unfairly favors the indians, who will be exempt, and punishes private business.
It is based on junk "science" and emotion. I recognize that it will probably will pass, because Washington has turned into a nanny state, but I can't let that stop me from at least trying to save our personal freedoms.
Posted by: alphabet soup on November 7, 2005 10:42 AMThis inititive will do nothing to lower med-mal rates.
However, it will allow health providers to force you to sign away your right to jury trial before recieving care.
I can't believe conservatives line up behind this initiative. It strips power from individuals and strengthens insurance companies.
And isn't that the idea? Get more insurance companies to come back in the state and rates would go down?
Posted by: swatter on November 7, 2005 11:33 AMI'm still voting no on I-901, but not for that reason.
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 11:53 AMAll of us Smoker's will have quit by then, and MOVED out of this "Green" state, that is run by the most selfish liberals I have known.
Of course our property will be taxed to the hilt, but a nice rich, lattee drinking, tired of condo living, Seattlite will buy my house and 10 acres (only 4 acres usable) and allow me to move to Boise, where you are still free to be FREE.
Dont worry, in the mean time, I will take up drinking, that is still legal I think???? Oh yes, our own STATE is the ONLY Seller of Booze.
My oh My, they are really concerned for my health!!! What is Next "Second Hand Drinking"
Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 11:57 AMHey Palouse who said anything about smokers buying ALL their cigarettes at tribal facilities? I said 20% and that is conservatively $40 million a year in lost tax revenue just on cigarettes. They're also cheaper at tribal smoke shops so if that is the only place that can legally cater to smokers why is it so hard to believe SOME will buy their cigarettes there. Just like when you go to Costco you stock up. Smokers will simply do the same.
The three richest tribes in this state own the land that surrounds where 3/4 of the state live and that means 1 million smokers have a tribal business willing to cater to them within easy driving distance. Stick your head in the sand if you want to but I'll be proven right on.
So junk science doesn't bother you, lies and misrepresentations don't bother you from the I-901 side but one sign printed up not by the campaign but by someone who nobody knows changes your mind. Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life here.
As for the economic impact of people going to the tribes at the expense of private business, the evidence in other places does not support that conclusion.
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 12:37 PMJust my 2 cents
Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 12:47 PMDon't get me wrong, I am still voting "no", but I admit I won't be that upset if this thing passes.
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 12:51 PMBy all means vote no, or yes, as it is your right. I can understand your reasoning for not going to those establishment's. I feel that this if passed, infringes upon our private rights even more. That is why I am voting NO!!
Again, Just my 2 cents...
Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 12:56 PMTake a look at the statistics of cigarette sales by type of store (e.g. grocery, mini-mart, bar etc). Then you have to estimate the number of smokers who will switch exclusively to buying at the tribes (this initiative does not ban selling cigarettes in bars, only smoking them there).
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 12:59 PMWhat I meant to say is "If this passes, my rights as an individual are more surpressed"
Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 01:00 PMI would not buy cig's in a bar, where I could not smoke. It would drive me crazy to have a fresh pack and not be able to SMOKE them.
As a smoker, I am already made to feel as a second class citizen. Right next to the panhandler on the street who needs a bath, and a few bucks.
I just wish that if they are going to make it illegal to smoke, other than your home or car(and i am not sure if this is still legal, driving and smoking) then why dont the State just quit selling the damn things, and make us quit cold turkey.....That would be more humane than bannishing us to the street like lepers.
Honestly, I agree with alot of what you say and don't have an argument against in many cases. But having gone out to a few bars in a state recently that bans smoking everywhere, I can say it was fantastic coming out and not smelling like cigarettes.
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 01:13 PMImagine if 50 years ago when more people smoked someone came up with an initiative that did the opposite of I 901 where smoking had to be allowed in every place open to the public and every private club. Not really fair.
I know I get really stressed out when I see someone eating (or purchasing) a fatty, sodium laden meal. I just know that this will lead to their becoming unhealthy and a drain on our health care system. Seeing this behavior really stresses me out. Especially when I food stamps used to purchase this meal. I have a heart murmur and any added stress is a real health hazard to me and others with similar conditions. So the stress this causes me is a real threat. Instead of not going to a McDonalds or Burger King...I think I'll get an initiative going that bans unhealthy foods within 25 feet of any business open to the public. This way, people that get stressed like I do won't have their health effected by this anymore.
It's just my $.02. But I would love to see someone try it.
Posted by: Mark D on November 7, 2005 01:43 PMBut I will still be voting No on I-901.
I have no right to tell private businesses that they CAN'T allow smoking, if that is their choice to do. And I have even LESS right to tell the government to tell private businesses that they can't allow smoking in their establishment.
It's all a choice thing, see.
Posted by: Sarah of WA on November 7, 2005 01:44 PMI should add that many people have skin conditions that makes wearing certian types of clothing impossible. In a public place, they may bump into someone wearing a fabric that irritates their skin. We should ban clothing in public places.
Also, some people are bothered by perfume. It makes their eyes water and can be extremely irritating. Because of this, we should ban perfume in any business open to the public.
I become stressed out (detramental to my health because it makes my blood pressure rise) when I hear a person talking really loudly or when I hear a child cry in a public place. Let's ban speaking and children from any business open to the public.
I get stressed out when I see a local sports team losing on tv when I'm in a public place. Instead of going to a place without a tv, I think televisions should be banned in places that do business with the public.
Posted by: Mark D on November 7, 2005 02:24 PMHowever, we live in a representative democracy, which means there are rights beyond the power of the mob.
Posted by: South County on November 7, 2005 02:56 PMHear, hear!
Thank goodness it would require a Constitutional amendment to repeal the initiative process, else the elites in Olympia would have done so already. They have already usurped our right to referendum with the ridiculous emergency clauses.
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 03:36 PMFor Palouse and Stephan:
It seems not to support it due to the 25FR is shortsighted. I have a friend that visited NY recently where they have this law without the 25FR. People there are complaining because people that choose to smoke naturally congregate in the doorway and the smoke blows into the building. They get no smoke-free indoors if the immediate outdoor area isn't. I don't think it was put in 901 for the hell of it. We might as well get it right here the first time by including that provision (it's not new...Albuerqurque and other communities have them). People would soon be bitching here if we didn't have it.
By the way in my Voters' Pamphlet, it states 25Feet OR a lesser approved distance. I'm not sure how you could get more flexible than that.
On the whole, there are a lot more benefits to this initiative than the few imagined "what-ifs". Sometimes I think we tend to get stuck in overthinking minutia with the big prize right in front of us.
I look forward to not wallowing around in secondhand smoke any longer at the places I want to go. I'm done with it. And I'm sure as a "side benefit" some workers' lungs will benefit too. If we were already smoke-free in these places, we'd never think of allowing it knowing what we know about the negative health effects of secondhand (unfiltered) smoke...just like we can't in offices.
That's the big picture for me, and it looks pretty good. Long-term this initiative will be a non-issue. We'll wonder what took us so long to do it.
Posted by: Jason Sieverson on November 7, 2005 07:48 PMI couldn't agree more. I have kids who are extremely sensitive to smoke. It actually gives them a sick stomach or headache. We can steer clear of most smokers, but the one that's really hard is waiting in a outdoor line or at an outdoor concert. Invariable the person next to us lites up.
Couldn't 901 go a bit further and ban smoking while waiting in public lines? Not many have put them out when I politely ask them to.
Posted by: Mike J on November 7, 2005 09:24 PMFunny how you go from a smoking ban to a "government entity that tells us what you can eat, whether or not you can drive, maybe even when you can die". Not compelling analogies. Sounds like you're trying to change the subject...now back to I-901.
If it takes "government" by the vote of the people to rid ourselves of secondhand smoke via 901, then so be it. In this case, it works. The status quo isn't.
And if freedom means "More of The Same" with being exposed to secondhand smoke, then it's a freedom that has no value. At least make it sound enticing.
Posted by: Jason Sieverson on November 7, 2005 09:35 PMIf majority rules...and we aren't concerned with the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights anymore..then I'm sure a majority of people could vote to take your property and turn it into a park. Timothy..please read up on the constitution and the theory behind it and what it actually means. The founding fathers were extremely careful to avoid a "majority rules" type of system.
If "majority rules" was it...the problems that could be created are enormous...I guess you wouldn't mind gassing Jews...If the majority thought it was okay? Extreme example..kind of..it actually has happened though, when a "majority" didn't care and when a "minority" had no protection.
Posted by: Mark D on November 7, 2005 09:46 PMBe careful what you wish for, you might just get it.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on November 7, 2005 09:53 PMSmoking is a choice made by people that affects others around them when in an indoor envirornment open to the public or workplace. Most analogies I've seen (re: the sun) don't equate to this. People affected by those people who choose to smoke and create secondhand smoke have looked into it and taken action to effect change. People that choose to smoke can still puff away...again, just not around others in an indoor building open to the public or workplace.
As far as the "liberal democracies in Europe" they are banning smoking...we don't live in a bubble here. Italy, Ireland, Sweden, Norway and Malta have. Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales will be following. Not to mention outisde of Europe...India, Uganda, Bhutan, etc.
To alphabet soup:
One can call it a "nanny state" or any other knee-jerk scary and unattractive adjective. In the end, it's simply freedom from smoky indoor air...that's clear to me. I know what I'm "wishing for", and I know what I'll get...the same smoke-free laws that 9 other states, many municipalities, and the countries mentioned above already have. If they were wildly unpopular or ineffectual, we wouldn't even be having this conversation in here WA state.
Thanks. Good dialogue.
Posted by: Jason Sieverson on November 8, 2005 09:32 AM