In light of the overwhelming public opposition, the King County Council tabled the proposal for forced mail voting for two more weeks. More than a dozen citizens, Republicans, Democrats, Greens and independents, spoke against forced mail voting. Not a single member of the public testified in favor. The Council will now ask Deanron to address the public's concerns before the Council votes on the measure and some amendments in two weeks time.
Members of the Council told me that postponing the vote was "a big victory" and "a huge success".
More later.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 05, 2006 06:07 PM | Email ThisBut in 2 weeks, they will be able to mobilize a big liberal turnout for the next meeting.
Illegals, Homosexuals, Mailbox Residents, Homeless, Teachers, etc. will show up to say their rights will be enhanced by forced mail balloting.
Posted by: Norm Gilbertson on June 5, 2006 07:12 PMNorm, could it be with so many cancelled registrations, double voters, questionable registrations, and dead voters, etc., that real live bodies weren't that easy to find on such short notice?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 5, 2006 07:16 PMI have to admit, I thought they'd steamroll you.
Bravo!
Posted by: ScottM on June 5, 2006 07:18 PMNo need to worry. The public hearing is closed for this so they missed their opportunity!
Posted by: Matthew Lundh on June 5, 2006 07:18 PMNext time I hope Larry Phillips will stay and listen to those concerned with this very serious subject. He left his seat when public comment started and returned when they finished. I was very much bothered by this this behavior.
Posted by: Marge on June 5, 2006 07:38 PMSouthernroots and Matthew - they now have their opportunity for organization -- and a "CAUSE" -- just spread the word that the right wing bloggers packed the meeting and the moonbats will appear outta nowhere -- THEY DO NOT HAVE TO GET INTO THE MEETING -- just raise a rukus outside and they will get plenty of press and airtime.
Posted by: Bill on June 5, 2006 08:11 PMThis is not even mention the thrashing given to him and SP by councilmember Patterson. She called him and others out for thier two faced nature and seeming inability to make cogent points with resorting to baseless allegations.
You got your two week cooling off period, but in the end we will get mail voting. All your paranoid fantasies aside.
What a bunch of degenerates!
aRe you actually implying that someone might try to get a bunch of people to come speak on one side of a particular issue. Impossible
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/006289.html
Kudos.
I agree with Soup, Norm probably has it right, but;
you make em embarrass themselves to do it. If at all possible, I will be there next time.
Right on!!!
For someone who wants to spout off, you certainly know very little about what you are talking about.
The Council's refusal to allow citizens to yield the remainder of their time to another citizen who had additional remarks was bordering on criminal.
It is a well-known public hearing courtesy extended to speakers before this council and other lawmaking bodies, that remaining time may be yielded to other speakers. The three-minute limit per speaker is in place to ensure that all citizens who appear to speak get their opportunity, not to stifle the legitimate testimony being offered by citizens.
The Democratic majority on the Council misused and abused procedure today, and it was unconscionable.
Julia Patterson's meltdown was an embarrassment to her, to the Council, and to the Democratic Party. As a Democrat who has in the past donated hundreds of dollars to her campaigns, and pounded in dozens of yard signs in th4 rain for her, I was mortified at her appalling behavior toward Stefan.
She irrationally attacked Sharkansky when he wasn't even at the microphone, and had no opportunity to defend himself. To those of us present in the audience, she appeared so pissed off that her sponsored "pet" legislation was disliked by every single speaker (not one person was there to testify for the legislation), that she just lost control and went off on Stefan.
It was unbelieveable conduct on the part of an elected public official. She should seriously consider resigning, so we can elect a Democrat in her district who won't embarrass the party.
Posted by: Insider on June 5, 2006 09:19 PMCriticizing is not censoring. Patterson is well within her rights to call out a member of the media for actions she believes are damaging to the body politic (as bush does all the time). That is a far cry from seeking government action to silence them. In fact by acknowledging a blog as a member of the media Patterson is acknowledging there right to do as they please. However, as I am sure you'll agree, with rights come ethical (not legal) responsibility. A point the councilmember was making. She has free speach rights as well.
Posted by: Giffy on June 5, 2006 09:20 PMWhen will Deanron and the illegals, homosexuals, miniature (quaint but poorly painted) wooden mailbox residents, homeless stinky morons from Portland,
angry and lazy rich liberal Lake Union boaters, liberal e-d-u-c-a-t-o-r-s, and timorous troglodytes show up to make the farce?
Her "free speech" rights do not come at the expense of a citizens "free speech" rights.
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 5, 2006 09:34 PMI have not idea as to the veracity of your claims to be a past supporter of Patterson, but I am inclined to take you at your word. However it seems odd to say the least that you would so forcefully withdraw your support over her admonishing for more civility in online blogging. The Stephan who appeared today is not the Stephan how posts on SP. One was moderated and calm, the other inclined to name calling and pointless attacks. Surely it is with in her right to point that out.
RE Burdabee,
You keep up your paranoia and witty name calling and we'll keep winning elections.
Please find me one, just one, instance of Patterson attempting to use legal or legislative power to curtail Stefan’s free speech rights. Unless you believe that Stefan will be so terrified by the big bad councilmember that he’ll shut SP down. While your at please differentiate the bush administration criticisms of various media sources for their coverage of Iraq, him, budget issue, etc, from Patterson’s critique of SP. Free speech goes both way. You are free to speech, but that does not mean your speech cannot be challenged. In fact it is the essence of Democracy.
By the way I have no problem with the Bush Administration challenging and critiquing media coverage they disagree with.
I'm proud as heck of those who showed up to talk about their concerns. I saw people come into the last polling place wanting to change from mail in to voting in that school because they no longer trusted the King County elections department, and believed their vote had a chance of being counted if it went into a voting machine istead of that office!
Bravo for now!
Posted by: GS on June 5, 2006 09:44 PMCoward!
Posted by: GS on June 5, 2006 09:52 PMThose of us down here in Red Square didn't even have a say in the matter. Thurston County just mandated it. No discussion to even table.
Posted by: SP Fan on June 5, 2006 10:05 PMWould you please write your last comment again in a way that is literate and coherent?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 5, 2006 10:14 PMUnless you believe that Stefan will be so terrified by the big bad councilmember that he’ll shut SP down. While your at please differentiate the bush administration criticisms of various media sources for their coverage of Iraq, him, budget issue, etc, from Patterson’s critique of SP. Free speech goes both way.
Two guesses, Giffy . . . or . . . Giffy.
Posted by: Amused by libral morons on June 5, 2006 10:19 PMYou go girls! I just love the (un)ambiguosly gay duo. It's so cute that alphie always chimes in when his partner is making his clever arguments at people.
Posted by: Q on June 5, 2006 10:30 PMThank you for that glorious illustration of the highly vaunted Liberal Tolerance(tm).
Now FO....
Patterson, like many in the old world, does not understand blogs. Blogs can be quite heated at times. And often people post things that they would never say in public, and especially not in a formal government setting. But, that doesn't mean that there are not serious issues being discussed.
And as always, there's a genuine irrational fear on the left that the goal of Republicans, SPers, Stefan, etc. is to somehow disenfranchise the poor, hapless, little old grandma who votes Democrat. The reality is that folks here just want to see fair elections. Fair as in not easy to cheat, not easy to cast votes illegally, open and accountable procedures, etc. ID Authentication and basic security in tabulation and accounting is not too much to ask.
There is a latent sense of frustration in the electorate for what happened in 2004. Dems will discount and dimiss this, but voters have not forgotten.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 5, 2006 11:34 PMGeeeeees did they call the wrong home..
One ringy dingy.....two ringy dingy's.......Three ringy dingys......
That was far enough dingys thanks!
Posted by: GS on June 6, 2006 12:30 AM