newsrackblog.com

Most readers probably know that there’s an easy, centralized way to contribute to campaigns of specific Democrats — “ActBlue.” Some blog supersites have set up lists of candidates they approve of in special ActBlue fundraising campaigns; for example, “firedoglake” has “Accountability Now,” and “Daily Kos” has “orangetoblue.”

The one I like right now is called simply “Better Democrats,” and it’s a project of the “OpenLeft” blog run by Matt Stoller et al.  The reason I like it is that I ran across Matt Stoller’s interview of Georgia Senate candidate Jim Martin, in which the Georgia Democrat pleasantly surprised me:

Question: Do you have a position on FISA and government wiretapping?

Jim Martin: The threat of terrorism is real and the government should take all necessary measures to protect us. While I support the overall aims of the recent FISA bill, the inclusion of a provision granting amnesty to telecom providers who permitted the government to listen in on the conversations of Americans without a warrant troubles me. Because I do not believe that the government should craft policy that permits law breaking, I would not have supported the FISA bill that included telecom immunity. [...]

Question: Do you think that Congress should investigate potential criminal activity within the Bush administration after he leaves office, or should Congress choose to ignore them and work on legislation going forward?

Jim Martin: Congress has an awful lot to do in order to get this economy working for the middle class again, and that would be my first priority. That said, laws are meaningless if not applied and applied fairly. If there is reason to believe that Bush Administration officials broke the law, they should be investigated and punished if found guilty just like anyone else.

These and other good answers — plus, it must be admitted, the prospect of kicking Saxby Chambliss’s worthless ass out of the Senate — convinced OpenLeft community members to support adding Martin to the “Better Democrats” list.

Note the name, and make no mistake — if you want a “Absolutely Perfect Democrats” ActBlue list, you’ll need to keep looking.  For example, Martin severely disappointed GLBT Georgians this summer with his opposition to same-sex marriage, though he supports the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell,” and other affirmations of gay rights.

Even on FISA, I don’t think Martin is pitch-perfect; for my part, I don’t even support the overall aims of the recent FISA bill, not when they include shortcuts around the probable cause principle of the Fourth Amendment.  But to the extent that Martin “gets it” that telecom immunity permitted lawbreaking retroactively, he may eventually get it that the FISA bill permits ongoing Constitution- and Bill of Rights-breaking as well.

So Martin is a “Better Democrat” in my book, and I recognize many of the names on the “Better Democrats” list as well:

• Darcy Burner (WA-8), author of “A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq” — which includes provisions for giving plaintiffs status to sue if they believe warrantless electronic surveillance is threatening their First Amendment rights.
• Sam Bennett (PA-15), co-endorser of “Responsible Plan”;
• Jeff Merkley (OR), who called out Obama for voting for the FISA Amendment Act.
• Al Franken (MN), who made his opposition to the Iraq war the center of his campaign with effective, hard hitting ads like this one.
• Dennis Shulman (NJ-5), who wrote on his web site after the FISA Amendment Act passed in the House: ““The House of Representatives, with the support of Republican Scott Garrett, recently passed a bill that would grant President Bush and future administrations unprecedented powers to spy on American citizens without a warrant or review by any judge or court. The new law would also let our nation’s largest telecom companies off the hook for knowingly violating the law and releasing their customers’ private information at the behest of George Bush.“

I’ve been flogging the “Better Democrats” idea via facebook and myBarackObama “Get FISA Right” groups, and thought I ought to mention it here as well.  Matt Stoller was nice enough to add a “Get FISA Right” tag (the “?refcode=GetFISARight” at the end of the URL), which makes it possible to track the subtotal gathered via all the various links sharing that tag, like this one.

So if you can spare a few bucks, but want to make sure they go not just to any old Democrat the DCCC wants to spend money on, but to ones you want to spend money on, here’s a place to do just that.  Click the link: ActBlue - Better Democrats.  Thanks.

=====
UPDATE, 10/23: Shulman point added.

Million Doors for Peace on Saturday. Obama on Sunday. Today must be Monday.

I only knocked on about 80 doors this weekend, but on Sunday it seemed like every d…elightful one of them was on the 3d floor of IdentApartmentComplexVille in Dumfries, VA.

In both cases, I was working from walking lists — lists of selected names in address order.  The common thread was that both lists — as usual — bore only an approximate relation to reality.  On Saturday, I was in my own neighborhood, and the names were of infrequent or new voters.  They turned out to be mainly — duh — kids who had left for college.  I had enough presence of mind to ask their parents whether they might sign on to the MD4P petition  to Congress (out of Iraq in one year), and a fair number did.  Most importantly, I got three or four (potential) volunteers for future work that way, vs. only one off the walking list.

Dumfries, VA Obama HQ.
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew;
see also slideshow.

For some reason, I was less mentally flexible the next day, though the problem was a little different.  In this case I was in a cookie cutter low-to-middle-price range apartment complex development in Dumfries, Virginia.  By whatever criterion the names were selected here (perhaps also newly registered and/or infrequent voters), turnover was high — and this time, instead of doing something with Mr. or Ms. Surprise NewlyMovedIn at the door, I just gave them the packet of literature and moved on.  The difference, I think, was (a) that I was maybe a little more tired and stupid on Sunday, (b) I had it in my head from the briefing that I was only after answers about the names on my walking list, and (c) that I didn’t have any designated piece of paper to put Mr. or Ms. Surprise NewlyMovedIn on.  (Though I might have crossed out the Mr. or Ms. NotThereAnymore and just written in the new name.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.)  I did get one volunteer and a couple of strong Obama supporters, but my unstupid partner did much better with fewer doors.

Well, I’ll do better next time.  Now to bed.

=====
UPDATE, 9/22: Prior “Million Doors for Peace” posts here. Also, eRobin at factesque provides a video of how things went in a Pennsyvlania “Million Doors for Peace” canvass.  Pretty well! — 3 hours, 257 contacts, 11 volunteers.
UPDATE, 9/22: SurveyUSA has Obama up 51-45 in Virginia, though results are among voting age; likely voters made up 80% of the tally. Still, how about this: “Among women, Obama led by 6 points before Sarah Palin was named to the GOP ticket, now leads by 16.” Survey taken 9/19-21.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE, 9/22: I’d heard of this, from Yale U.’s Brett M., but here’s the specific finding and reference, via Sean Quinn (”fivethirtyeight.com”): “For every twelve voters who you talk to at their doors, one voter goes and votes who would not otherwise have voted. If you’re asking: “how can I be most effective in helping my candidate win the election?” then an organizer’s answer is going to be: knock on doors.” (Source: Getting Out the Vote in Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments. Donald P. Green, Alan S. Gerber, David W. Nickerson; Yale University.)

Like eRobin, I’m already pretty impressed with the “Million Doors for Peace” effort, and it hasn’t even happened yet. Tonight I reserved a “walking list” of people in my neighborhood; I can print out neat lists of names, addresses and phone numbers; I can also print out a Google map of the households involved — all within a couple of blocks of me. Famous last words, but this may be so easy it’s almost embarrassing.

An extensive “Frequently Asked Questions” site provides a lot of the details:

Whose doors will I be knocking on?

Our goal with this project is get beyond the usual list of peace activists who sign online petitions and pass them around to each other, by going into the street (or on the phone) and reaching out specifically to people who haven’t been involved. That’s why we’ve compiled the list of new or infrequent voters which we’ll be sending you. We will put up an online petition after the canvassing is done, but the most important thing is to reach these specific people, not to simply collect names. [...]

…we came up with a list of people who either haven’t voted in the past few years or else have only recently registered to vote. Political professionals say these are the people most likely to respond to our message.

Will I be asked to support a particular presidential candidate? CAN I support my favorite candidate while canvassing?

A: No. This is a non-partisan activity. We aren’t working for or against any candidate.

Am I supposed to argue with war supporters?

…The point of canvassing is to find the people who already agree with us but whom we haven’t met yet. If you spend your time debating with war supporters, you’ll run out of time before you find the peace-minded people further down the list.

And so on.

Looking over my list, I see some neighbors I would think are fairly frequent voters. Of course, I may be mistaken in that, but the quality of the list will be important.

At any rate, this is an impressive,  well planned effort. You should get involved if you’ve got a couple of hours to spare — they’re OK with you going the next day, or even with phoning people on the walking list.

…so let’s make it a bad one for George Bush, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Josh Bolten by joining this American Freedom Campaign petition:

…In order for our government to function, we must have checks and balances. In order to prevent a president from assuming king-like powers and to ensure that all presidents are held accountable for their actions, Congress must have effective congressional oversight ability. And, of course, our presidents must respect that power.

George W. Bush does not.

It is time to put an end to this defiling of our Constitution. The U.S. House of Representatives has set September 26 as a target date for adjournment. By that time, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Josh Bolten must comply with the congressional subpoenas they have been issued – and which a federal judge has ordered them to follow.

If they do not, then George W. Bush must be impeached and removed from office….

Full text and petition here — and of course, feel free to join it before September 17th.  The American Freedom Campaign is organizing more than that for Constitution Day, as a press release last week explained:

Groups From Across the Political Spectrum Call on Presidential Candidates – and the Media – to Dedicate Constitution Day (September 17) to Addressing Constitutional Issues

…This year, an ideologically diverse coalition of civil society groups and think tanks from the human rights, civil liberties, environmental, civil rights, open government, limited government, and public interest communities have joined forces in a rare effort to foster respect for the U.S. Constitution by an incoming administration. Leading the effort are the American Freedom Campaign, World Resources Institute and the Liberty Coalition.

The organizations are calling on presidential candidates from all parties to describe their commitment and ability to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” as the next president. These groups recognize that presidents exercise a great deal of discretion and flexibility in interpreting the Constitution and that abuse of constitutional rights and safeguards can have significant harmful effects on the American people’s lives. It is therefore essential, they assert, to understand where candidates stand on constitutional rights and the separation of powers prior to their election. These groups also believe it is the responsibility of the media to inform the public about the candidates’ positions on constitutional issues and to press the candidates for their positions if they are unknown…

I.e., what Charlie Savage did with all the candidates late last year for “executive power” issues (something I turned into a spreadsheet rating system and described in a blog post here.)

There’s broad support for this initiative at the “grass tops” level and — I hope — at the grass roots level as well. I attended a press conference last Friday announcing the plan, and Sarah Dufendach (Common Cause), Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights), Dane Von Breichenruchardt (American Conservative Defense Alliance), and Robin Murphy (World Resources Institute), among others, all spoke about the urgency of this moment. Jon Pincus, Aviva OThirtytwo, and I were there (in person or by phone) representing “Get FISA Right”, one of the most recent expressions of citizen/netizen dissatisfaction with where our civil liberties are headed.

I went in hopes that this might become another nucleus of activism for a political drive like Nell Lancaster was writing about last week:

…post-power impeachment hearings are the single best way to uncover just what lawbreaking was done. Not only do impeachment investigations have much stronger testimony-extracting powers than regular Congressional hearings, but post-term impeachment is much less easily characterized as a “partisan witch hunt” because it’s removed from an electoral landscape. [...]

Impeachment is the key to reversing the damage of the last eight years, not simply papering it over. The time to organize for demanding it is not after the election, but now.

Now as campaign director Steve Fox stressed at the press conference, advocating impeachment is not a goal of the “Constitution Day” initiative per se — and the goal of elevating an election campaign above lipsticks, pit bulls, and hockey moms is hugely important in its own right.

But AFC’s own willingness to use the “I word” in its demand for Rove, Miers, and Bolten to take the stand shows they’re a potential ally for impeachment later on — whether before or after the election, and whether they’re ready to consider that right now or not. After all, even if the September 26th recess comes and goes with no progress in getting testimony from the White House, the urgency of sanctioning a presidency that thumbed its nose at the Constitution won’t go away.

Nor will all the benefits of impeachment. See Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution (emphasis added):

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Moreover, Article II, Section 2 states:

[the President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The implications are left as an exercise for the reader.

Members of the United States Congress:

The five and a half years of war in Iraq has been an exercise of misplaced priorities:

Draining U.S. taxpayers of at least three trillion dollars which could have gone towards investments that strengthen our economy, such as: health care for our families, ensuring the best education for our children and youth, and addressing the energy crisis.

Resulting in hundreds of thousands of American and Iraqi’s dead and wounded.

And undermining the United States’ standing as a worldwide symbol for democracy and justice.

Because of these reasons, the majority of American and Iraqi people want the United States to begin a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq as soon as possible, with a date certain for completing that process.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, call on [Your Representative and Senators] to immediately support and pass legislation that will set a specific date to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq within a year.

On September 20, an alliance of organizations including USAction, MoveOn.org, United for Peace and Justice, Pax Christi USA and others will be circulating this petition in a new kind of demonstration — a demonstration of power. The goal is to have 25,000 volunteers visit or call a million households, asking for people’s agreement with the statement.  That will (1) help elevate the issue of Iraq and its economic, human and moral costs, and (2) expand a database of war opponents to pressure whoever gains the White House this November to accelerate their plans for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

The idea is that you sign up here; Million Doors for Peace will contact you with a list of addresses to visit or call; on September 20th, that’s what you do; then you report back to the web site with the information you’ve gathered. According to the e-mail alert I got, the addresses will be of “new or infrequent voters.”

I’m going to do it.  I hope you will too.

After the FISA vote this summer, I vowed I was not going to just be a foot soldier for the Democratic Party this fall.  I wish the Obama campaign well, and will work with it in the weeks ahead.  But I won’t put all my work there this fall.  As Russ Feingold put it earlier this year, “January 21 is as important as January 20,” meaning that it wasn’t enough just to elect the right guy.  Even Obama will need to see pressure (and be able to point to it) if we want a timely withdrawal from Iraq rather than endless postponements of one — to say nothing of McCain.  This will be one small way for me to help prepare the ground for that.

The GetFISARight.net group is at it again, offering a new way for regular citizens — for instance, people who don’t need staff help to count their homes — to have a direct impact on the politics of civil liberties: individual sponsorships of cable TV ads, targeted at the Republican Convention. Thanks to saysme.tv, you can run an ad on all major cable news channels in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area between September 1 and 4 for $103 during daytime hours (9am-4pm), and as little as $324 during evening hours. More information about how you can help get the ad on TV is at http://getfisaright.net/ad.

GetFISARight’s first ad featured a tombstone for the Constitution. The new ad stars the Constitution as the main player, with the visual featuring a pan over founding documents. One version of the ad takes aim at Republican Senators, who voted unanimously to extend the powers of government to listen to Americans’ phone calls and read their emails without a warrant; another highlights John McCain’s strong endorsement of the Bush Administration’s wiretapping policies over the last eight years.

It takes 48 hours from purchase to airtime, so don’t delay. Here’s a way to take a stand for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that GOP convention-goers can’t avoid: on their TV sets. Please visit http://getfisaright.net/ad today!

=====
CROSSPOSTED to American Street, DailyKos. SEE ALSO: GetFISARight organizer Jon Pincus’s post on this: “Senate Republicans voted unanimously for the FISA Amendments Act — and (except for Specter) in favor of telecom immunity as well. A majority of Democrats voted against FAA, and only five supported telecom immunity. So there are clearly significant differences between the parties.” Julian Sanchez (Ars Technica): “Get FISA Right turns crowdsourced guns on McCain:“…the group seems to have calculated that they’re more likely to exert influence from within than by taking a “pox on both houses” approach.”

UPDATE, 8/26: WELCOME, “Sideshow” readers! Because I really want outclicks (and pledges, of course), I hope you’ll also click here just to take in the very interesting “fundable.com” mini-pledge drive model we’re using; you may want to give it a try yourself sometime. The pledges are void if the pledge drive goal isn’t reached.

FURTHER UPDATE, 8/26: I’m informed that the “fundable.com” model should only be used for informational, issue-advocacy ads. These are the so-called “FISA Tombstone” and “FISA Constitution 1″ ads. “FISA Constitution 2″ (“John McCain would do the same” — the one above) could be considered a political ad expressly advocating the defeat of a candidate; we’re advised to be cautious and not do any group “fundable.com” purchases for this ad. So I won’t, and pledges will go to the “Constitution 1″ ad.
If you’ve got the money, though, individual purchases of the “Constitution 2″ ad — you, saysme.tv, and $100+ — are strongly encouraged.

UPDATE, 8/29: A total of at least 8 ads have been purchased and will air in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area during the GOP convention.

The people at “rejecttorture.org” just e-mailed to let me know that the Republican Party is soliciting input for their national platform at http://www.gopplatform2008.com.

The GOP is thus doing something similar what Obama and the Democrats did with the kind of “Listening to America” event I attended — except they’re apparently doing it all online, and calling that “the most grassroots-driven platform in the history of American politics.” They specify that participants need not be Republican to have a voice in their platform process.

Naturally, the “Reject Torture” people are urging all of us to weigh in with variations on “reject torture” and “no torture, no exceptions.” As they noted in their e-mail, the Democrats actually have “reject torture” in the draft Democratic platform,* as well as rejecting the “legal” processes that have kept torture hidden away for years –

We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. We reject torture. We reject sweeping claims of “inherent” presidential power. [...]

…To build a freer and safer world, we will lead in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. …

So let’s take the Republican Party organizers at their word and see what happens. There’s a sign-up process - be sure to check the box next to “Attribute Ideas, so your first name and city will appear — followed by a followup e-mail from the site. Once you use the password in the e-mail to log in, you’re presented with the kind of online form similar to those used by many politicians and businesses, in which your comments are categorized by issue. Since none correspond directly to the issue of torture — surprise, surprise — the “Reject Torture” organizers suggest you categorize your anti-torture input as either “Protecting American Values: Other” or “National Security: Human Rights.”

I chose the latter, and wrote:

The United States should never torture anyone under any circumstances. To do so demeans our country as a whole, and ignores what interrogators tell us over and over again: that torture doesn’t work.

There are better ways to get information from those who have it, instead of having to follow up on every desperate lie told by someone just trying to make the pain or torment or degrading treatment stop. And there are costs and risks every time we stoop to torture: every time it happens, our country runs the real risk of making an enemy out of a bystander, loses any ability to try our true enemies fairly, and loses the respect of more of our friends around the world.

It’s time to draw the line and say “no torture, no exceptions” — not for the military services, not for the intelligence services, not for anyone.

I hope you’ll join me in sending messages like this to Minneapolis, to the Republican Party, and to John McCain.

=====
* EDIT, 8/23: Democratic platform section added. The cited parts can be found on page 49 of the document, p.54 of 56 PDF pages.

As advertised, I went to a nearby “Listening To America” Democratic platform drafting meeting yesterday. The idea was that “people all across America will hold Platform Meetings in their homes, or in their local churches and even coffee shops, to help build the Democratic Party’s platform for change from the bottom up.”

Signing in to “Listening to America” platform
drafting event
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew

As it happened, ours really was in a coffee shop, the Mayorga Coffee Factory in Silver Spring. About twenty people showed up to the area set aside for us and signed in.

I brought a bunch of “Restore Our Rights & Demand Accountability” fliers I’d printed out drafted by the GetFISARight.net organization,* proposing three additions to the Democratic platform:

• Stop government practices that violate the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, privacy, and due process, including warrantless surveillance on Americans, secret evidence in military courts, torture, illegal imprisonment of U.S. citizens and others, and arbitrary racial and religious profiling.
• Repeal or substantially amend laws that violate constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments law, the Military Commissions Act, related executive orders, and executive signing statements. Replace these with laws that reaffirm our fundamental rights and hold accountable all parties who violate those rights.
• Restore constitutional rights that the Bush administration has eroded through its lawless theory of unchecked executive power, including dissent, free speech, assembly, habeas corpus, privacy, due process of law, and equal protection.

When the meeting began, it quickly became clear I’d have trouble getting all of those points adopted. The goal, it turned out, was to actually try to draft a single platform statement reflecting a group consensus, rather than perhaps voting on a series of possible statements like those above and just forwarding that to the higher ups in the process. The moderators — two very nice and able people from the policy side of the Obama campaign, Keith Harper and Chris Goldthwait (sp.?) — had in mind that we’d eventually form a couple of clusters around the commonalities that emerged as people introduced themselves and explained what they hoped for from the meeting. While I wasn’t alone in bringing the Constitutional/rule of law/civil liberties concerns to the table, there were plenty of other agendas — housing, health care, women’s reproductive rights, global warming, energy, education, poverty, to name just the ones I was able to jot down.

One woman (A.) noted how in other parts of the world, things like health care, education are considered human rights, and that (I’m paraphrasing) we need to catch up with that. So I suggested that maybe my civil liberties/constitutional erosion concerns and those like education and health care might be joined up under a single rubric of “restoring and expanding rights,” and that’s pretty much what happened.

The meeting broke up into basically one “rights” group and another “problems” group (energy, global warming), and got to work. After a bit of philosophical discussion about whether we were for expanding rights or reclaiming ones that were there all along, we settled on “Rebuilding and Reclaiming Our Basic Rights” as a title, and then A. came up with a pretty good preamble. From my notes:

The Democratic Party has long recognized that the most significant role of government is to protect basic human rights. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his “Four Freedoms” speech, set forth a comprehensive vision of human rights, and Eleanor Roosevelt fought hard to ensure that vision of human rights was incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Success - getfisaright.net point adopted
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew

Then Keith, our moderator, said it was time to get specific - “put some meat on the bones.” I figured of the ones I’d brought, I most wanted the second one, because it mentioned accountability (i.e., prosecutions, I explained to one guy before the meeting started).

So I said that I knew I’d said a lot already, but I really hoped that point could be part of our platform recommendations. And people were OK with that; we dictated it to the “raporteur”/Obama organizer (Mona) keeping track on a poster sheet. Hooray! We then went on to “rebuild and reclaim” other basic human rights — living wage, education, health care, housing — with codicils that, for example, reproductive health care was part of the picture for universal health care. When we got back together with the rest of the meeting, no major changes were made by either group to the overall result.

I guess it’s true: sometimes all it takes is showing up. Of course I can’t guarantee that these points will make it to Denver or actually become part of the Democratic party platform. But it’s to the credit of the Obama campaign that they have this much grassroots input to the platform, and I think they’ll have to take note of all of us somehow. At any rate, it felt like a good afternoon’s work to me.

=====
* An alternative excellent flier focused on the FISA Amendment Act per se. I picked the “PlatformConstitution.pdf” one on the theory that it might help to put the FISA Amendment Act in a broader context in a platform discussion.

UPDATE, 7/29: You, too, can be part of a platform drafting team — follow this link to Netroots Nation’s Democratic Platform and vote on or write your own plank on Civil Liberties!
(UPDATE, 8/11: the full text of the 7/28 Silver Spring consensus statement is here.)

I went to the monthly Montgomery County Progressive Alliance (MCPA) meeting this evening to hear Stan Boyd brief the group on the state of play regarding voting reform in Maryland. Boyd is a retired teacher and citizen activist who works with Save Our Vote and TrueVoteMD.org.

Tonight, Boyd gave a succinct, informative account of what’s going on in Annapolis. I’ll try to relay it accurately from my notes; any mistakes will be mine, not his.

In a nutshell, it looks good, but some timely, focused letters to your legislators will be helpful. State Senator and Majority leader Ed Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore, Howard) is sponsoring SB392, a version that starts with and improves on Sheila Hixson’s HB18 bill, itself apparently a streamlined (my word)* version of the “model electronic voting bill” from last year that passed the Assembly unanimously before stalling in the Senate.

As State Senator Jamie Raskin told me at the demonstration on the 27th, the Senate bill has added language addressing disability issues. Disability advocacy groups are concerned that any voting system should continue to be easy to use by variously disabled persons — e.g., the blind or paraplegics. Voting systems should also not be so two-tiered as to make plain which vote was cast by a disabled person and which was not. In these regards, Section 9-108 of Kasemeyer’s bill stipulates that voting systems shall

• provide equivalent access for voters with and without disabilities
• comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act
• allow voters to verify ballots by visual and nonvisual means

Boyd reports that Kasemeyer’s Senate bill is OK with at least one disability group. Kasemeyer’s bill is also good in that it applies to “each election occurring on or after January 1, 2008, that is required to be conducted in accordance with the Election Law Article”; Boyd says HB18 differs from Kasemeyer’s in both respects. Given its “model” design, Boyd is also concerned that Hixson signaled that HB18 could be amended; Ways and Means Elections subcommittee chair John Cardin may be key here, and has reportedly formed a “study group” to review the issue.

State election administrator Linda Lamone’s strategy now is to fight for delay. Her watchword now is to “get it right”– as well it might be — but to her that mainly means fighting to delay implementation past the 2008 elections. Her stated motives are the supposed difficulties and costs in switching back to optical scan. But her former chief ally, Senate President Mike Miller, may not be the rock solid Lamone ally that he’s been in the past; Miller has “come around,” says Boyd, and says a “paper trail will get done.” I wonder if last year’s election fiasco was too much for him to countenance. (UPDATE, 2/8: Boyd writes to say “come around” may not be the right description; Miller may be inclined to support Lamone’s call for a delay until 2010; see below for other updates and edits.)

While it might have been preferable to insist on “optical scan” voting technology, my reading of SB392 and HB18 is that both are agnostic on this issue, focusing instead on the features any voter-verified, well-audited election voting system should have. That is, neither bill appears to force the use of optical scan voting technology and only such technology. That’s OK: the decision which particular voting system to use can wait. Since optical scan technology is demonstrably cheaper (whatever Lamone may say), less hackable, and was in widespread use before the Maryland Diebold debacle began, I don’t doubt it will win out if voter-verified, well-audited elections are mandated.

Likewise, the issue of how well audited a given election should be can be legislated separately. Recently the National Election Data Archive (NEDA) floated a “tiered audit” proposal that (sensibly) gears the level of auditing effort to the closeness of the given election; the Maryland SB329/HB18 bills admittedly don’t do that. Although it merits consideration, the NEDA plan is not (yet?) an expert consensus proposal; meanwhile, Boyd points out, SB329 would still constitute the strongest state voting reform bill anywhere in the country. It would establish the principle of random audits, and would ensure that audits are even possible by requiring voter-verified paper voting records.

Boyd recommends that Marylanders concerned about electronic voting urge their delegates to support HB18 as introduced, except for adding SB329’s effective date of January 1, 2008 and its language guaranteeing equivalent access to verified voting for disabled citizens. Those with the time and inclination to lobby in Annapolis should consider going on February 22, when Kasemeyer’s SB329 bill may be considered by a Senate committee.

I found the MCPA meeting to be very worthwhile — and Boyd wasn’t even the only person to discuss issues with the group. James Salt from Citizens Against State Executions (CASE) also made a brief appearance, and urged us to write our delegates and state senators about ending the death penalty in Maryland. A number of Democratic politicians have been noncommittal so far about bills before the Assembly (HB225) and Senate (SB211), telling CASE “not to assume” anything and that they want to hear from their constituents about the issue. Make it so, especially if Delegate Ben Cramer (D-19), Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17), or Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17) represent your Montgomery County-area district in Annapolis. See this CASE “take action” web page for their addresses and those of other legislators whose votes are needed to end the death penalty in Maryland. There are many good arguments against the death penalty; to me, the main one is that abolishing it is the only sure way to avoid executing innocent people.

The MCPA — chaired by Mike Hersh — maintains a very active Yahoo! group tracking issues ranging from electronic voting to Iraq to the local “ICC” (Inter County Connector) boondoggle. You can subscribe to it by e-mail. It’s a great resource if you live in the county and want to stay informed about local politics and local connections to national politics.

=====
* I describe HB18 as “streamlined” only because last year’s HB244 contained specific instructions about not using Diebold machines in the upcoming 2006 elections; at this point, HB18 does not contain a similar specific provision of this kind — at least not in the document available online. (It does specify that the governor allocate special funds received for the bill’s purposes except(!) for federal funds received to implement the 2002 HAVA Act.) Most importantly, HB18 doesn’t specify immediate implementation like SB329 does. HB18 and last year’s HB224 otherwise appear to be essentially identical.

UPDATE, EDITS, 2/8: Mr. Boyd wrote to let me know who he works with, which I used to replace a less informative introduction. I also added the footnote above and struck a “Cruella DeVote” moniker for Ms. Lamone — my invention while writing, not Mr. Boyd’s in the briefing — from the body of the text. Other corrections: SB329 may be considered by a Senate committee, not the full Senate as might have been inferred; Cardin is not vice chair of Ways and Means but chair of its Elections subcommittee.

Food table under tarp. More photos here.

The Maryland September 12 primary is a particularly overwhelming election in my town, with eighteen(!) Democratic Senate candidates, seven state assembly district candidates, thirteen Democratic county council at large candidates, and scores of other races as well.

Some of my neighbors (Suzanna, Peter, Jim, and Jane) and my wife and I decided we’d weren’t going to risk wondering “who’s that?” in the ballot booth, and would get our neighbors’ help in figuring out the upcoming election. So we flyered our immediate neighborhood with an announcement for a “Politics Potluck”, to be held Labor Day afternoon on a cul-de-sac near our house. Neighbors were invited to bring dishes and their political knowledge — takes on issues, candidates, and controversies — to share with everyone else.

Unfortunately, it drizzled. Fortunately, that didn’t stop us. We just strung a bunch of tarps from trees, bushes, and a basketball goal, and proceeded as planned.

I think it was a big success. A couple of us spoke about races and/or issues, but the main thing was that there was a lot of discussion, both in small groups and then as a whole, with people clarifying points about candidates, recounting telling anecdotes, and generally participating in a pretty good discussion. I’ve come away feeling like I have a much better handle on the Senate race and county council races in particular, and I think other people learned a lot as well. I also met quite a few neighbors I hadn’t really met before — I can be a terrible stay-at-home.

Names emerging from the fog of county politics for me were Duchy Trachtenberg (quoted to the effect “you can’t build your way out of traffic problems”) and Mark Elrich; in the delegate race, Lucinda Lessley got mentions by several people besides me, and one issue about Heather Mizeur got cleared up, at least to my satisfaction: her move to a new house was not done expecting to lose a council seat as a result.* Mfume and Cardin both had defenders and detractors. I’d gladly vote for either one over Steele.

While it’s not comprehensive by any means, here are some good resources to consult in getting to know Democratic District 20 and Montgomery County candidates:

• The Washington Post’s Local Elections 2006 puts Montgomery County side by side with other Maryland counties. The result is more condensed than the next two items, so it’s a good way to start, but might not be the best item to choose by itself. Statewide races are handled separately, with Senate, House, State Senate, and State House listings.
• Takoma Voice Voter’s Guide 2006 — the Voice asked questions of each candidate and publishes the answers here. There are also links to online broadcasts of the 7/20 Raskin-Ruben debate, the 6/15 District 20 delegates forum, and the District 5 Ervin-Riemer forum.
• Gazette.net 2006 Voter’s Guide — also a survey of candidates, along with biographical information.**
• League of Women Voters Voter Guide
• Action Committee For Transit (ACT): Where the candidates stand on the Purple Line and other transit issues (PDF file)
• ICC scorecard by MICC; unfortunately, it’s old (ca. 2002-4?) so many current candidates aren’t included.

Good news and op-ed articles:

• COUNTY COUNCIL: Democratic Free For All in At Large County Council Race, Mary Vause, Potomac Almanac; Riemer and Ervin offer similar vision, Graham Taglang, Takoma Voice
• SCHOOL BOARD: Five Compete in At Large School Board Primary, Mary Vause, Potomac Almanac
• PURPLE LINE, TRANSIT: Candidates walk the line over transit, Meredith Hooker, The Gazette (Purple Line route)
• ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr. Gansler’s Vision - pro-Gansler op-ed, Washington Post; Attorney General - pro-Simms op-ed, Baltimore Sun.
• COUNTY EXECUTIVE: Fundraising skills a blessing and a burden, Is Leggett just too likable?– Steve Silverman and Ike Leggett profiles, Washington Post.
• U.S. SENATE:CARDIN, MFUME: Democratic Senate candidates running neck and neck (WJZ, 8/24); For MD’s Cardin, the delight is in the details (Washington Post profile); Telling of Life Story Enlivens Mfume’s Campaign (WaPo); Mfume, Cardin stress contrasts in TV debate
  
  OTHERS: Washington Post profiles on Josh Rales, Allan Lichtman; Dennis Rasmussen’s web site. Lichtman’s Letter from the Baltimore County Jail may suffer from an overdrawn title, but his points about being excluded from a publicly funded debate are worth considering. See also HotLine’s Who Judges “Significant” Candidates? and segments on WAMU’s Kojo Nnamde Show on 9/6 and 9/7.

This resource list may be updated periodically over the next week.

PREVIOUS MARYLAND PRIMARY ELECTION POSTS on this blog:

• June Maryland Assembly District 20 candidate forum
• District 20 candidates on Fair Share Health Care: Murray, Klein, Lessley, Nixon, Raskin, and Ruben respond to my question about what the legislature should do next after a court decision striking down this good law.
• Jamie Raskin for Maryland Senate: i.e., my endorsement
• The July 20 Raskin-Ruben debate
• Raskin, Ruben, and “real Democrats”: about cases Raskin worked on, and Ruben’s charge he therefore wasn’t a “real” Democrat.
• Maryland election dates — minus early voting, for now
• District 20 update (8/21/2006), including my delegate picks
  

=====
* Here’s a Gazette article about it. UPDATE, 9/6 (thanks Chris!): Commenter “Jeff” tells Mizeur’s side at MoCoPolitics. Scroll down to the 5:48pm comment, or find “Heather desperately wanted to finish her term“:

…Nor was there anyone—including other members of the Council—who thought it would bar her from finishing her term.

It was the city attorney who reviewed the charter and found that Heather had to relenquish her seat.
So she gave up the title, but not the work. Those of us who were there watched Heather bend over backwards to finish every shred of Council business on her plate. She trained her replacement, continued to work on a number of issues with the County, and never once missed a meeting…even after she had been stripped of her title.

** The Gazette assured readers that while “the biographical information was edited for Gazette style, The Gazette did not edit or alter the candidate’s responses to our questions for anything other than obscenity or libel.”

UPDATE, EDIT, 9/5: Reorganized resource list news items by theme, added links (thanks Suzanna, Jim); added brief descriptions of my own posts.
UPDATE, 9/5: Welcome, PEN list! Your comments and resource suggestions are very welcome, use the [#] comment[s] link below.
UPDATE, 9/6: Links to additional Senate candidates and debate controversy added.
UPDATE, 9/8: ICC scorecard added, although it’s old. Thanks to PEN list commenter Greg Smith for pointing out that the ACT survey ignores the ICC issue — a weakness, since the ICC may well drain away funds needed for the Purple Line.