". . . with the state's dire financial crisis, pursuing expensive litigation that has little chance of victory is an unwise use of our dwindling resources," [Updated]

[UPDATE April 4, 2015:  Here's an update where the governor says he wouldn't have done it, but his attorney general called the shot.  Since he's the one who can hire and fire the AG, sounds like a lame excuse.]  

"Despite my personal views on marriage, with the state's dire financial crisis, pursuing expensive litigation that has little chance of victory is an unwise use of our dwindling resources," he [Walker] said."  (ADN October 13, 2014)

Yet today I learned that Alaska is party to the Amicus Brief against gay marriage in the appeal of the 6th Circuit Court's decision to the US Supreme Court.  

The governor's statement comes pretty close to an explicit promise.  I know lots of Alaskans who took it as a promise not to pursue the state's appeal of the decisions against the decisions that resulted in gay marriage being legal in our state, despite our state constitutions amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.

Given that, it didn't occur to anyone that we would join to fight for the rights of  Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky to block gay marriage.

As an Alaskan, I'm chagrined and embarrassed.  Governor, you don't have a lot of support among the Republicans in the legislature on key issues.  You shouldn't also piss off the majority of Alaskans who elected you as well.

Here's the outline of the argument being made in our names:

Argument................................................................................ 2
    I.    Determining the shape and meaning of marriage is
 a fundamental exercise of self-government by
state citizens .................................................................. 2
    A.    Our Constitution ensures that state citizens
 have the sovereign authority to govern themselves ............................................................... 2 

    B.    The States’ exercise of sovereign authority is
 at its apex in domestic relations law........................ 4 

    C.    In deciding whether to adopt same-sex marriage, state citizens exercise their sovereign authority to determine the meaning
of marriage ................................. 7 

    II.    A decision constitutionalizing same-sex marriage would erase the sovereignty of state citizens to determine the meaning of marriage............................... 9


   A. Such a decision would abandon the premise of Windsor .......................... 11 

    B.    Such a decision would dilute the numerous democratic victories recently won in the States
by proponents of same-sex marriage..................... 17 

    C.    Such a decision would eliminate the States’
role as laboratories of democracy in the realm
of domestic relations ............................................. 19 

    D.    Such a decision would announce that state citizens are incapable of resolving this issue through constructive civil discourse...................... 21 


OK, with that off my chest, does Alaska's name on the brief matter?  I suspect not much, but it is one more state the group can point to.   I'm guessing our Department of Law didn't contribute a lot to the amicus brief from the states.  But, it's the first major broken promise to the coalition that elected Walker.  We knew Walker was a Republican, but he did promise to focus on the gas pipeline and the budget and leave social issues alone. 

Coney Island, Venice Beach, Santa Monica Airport, And LA Rain

We flew down to LA right after the film festival ended and slept most of Monday. But I did get in a bike ride down to Venice beach. There was some sun, but mostly clouds.


There were some, but not too many, boardwalk vendors.  I'd been thinking about the Venice Boardwalk after seeing the film Coney Island:  Dreams for Sale at the festival.  It was about a developer who bought up a huge chunk of Coney Island real estate and was planning to build some big hotels and a mall.  Local folks rose up in protest, but were only modestly successful in their efforts to scale the development back.  The area wasn't zoned for large scale residential, but people in the film speculated that a hotel could and would be converted to condos eventually and the development would destroy the quirky kinds of shops and the unique community at Coney Island.

Venice Beach has, at least superficially, the same kind of quirky shops and community, and it's also right at a beach.  It doesn't have an amusement park, but there is a small one on the Santa Monica pier about a mile north.

The movie, which, by the way, was the runner up in the documentary category, got me thinking about whether the Venice Boardwalk was a likely target for developers like Coney Island and what protection there was for this strip along the beach.  I guess the people in the area need to be alert for people buying up property - making sure they aren't fronts for some giant developer.  This is one part of the southern California beach that is still wide open to anyone.

It also got me to thinking about what happened in the November election in Santa Monica where there were two ballot initiatives.  One, from the jet owners and airport interests to require a vote of the people of Santa Monica before the airport could be curtailed or closed down.  The other, in response, was to require a vote only if there were plans to develop the airport, but not to put in park or recreational activities.

It turns out the private jet and airplane folks' initiative (D) lost (58.8% to 42.8% and the park initiative (LC) won (60.2% to 39.8%.)  There were only 24,053 people who voted for Measure D and 500 more who voted for LC.  I'm not sure how many registered voters Santa Monica has, but in 2005 there were 60,000.








Over night it rained somewhat.  California still needs lots more rain to make up for the long period of drought and more is scheduled tonight.  Here's one of my mom's epidendrums after the rain - the red flower, not the leaf.  This is two pictures photoshopped together, with some playing around with the leaf.  But not too radically.

The epidendrums are tiny (about the size of a quarter) orchids that bloom in a bunch of ten or fifteen.

Hollis French Returns $30,000 Leftover Funds To Campaign Contributors - Giving Money Back

I get press releases every day and usually take note, I might look into one and write a pot about the issue, but I seldom put them here on the blog.  But this one caught my eye and I followed up with a call to Hollis French.  Here's the story from the French office.

"ANCHORAGE: In an unusual move at the end of an unusual campaign Alaska State Senator Hollis French (D-Anchorage) announced today that he will be returning over $30,000 of excess campaign funds to his contributors.   Additionally, French intends to make contributions of $5000 to both the Boys and Girls Club of Alaska and the Alaska Democratic Party.  Refund checks to donors will start going out at the end of this week according to French.

 French's campaign for lieutenant governor came to an end with the formation of the Unity Ticket of Bill Walker and Byron Mallott.  He worked with the Alaska Public Offices Commission to make certain that the disposal of his campaign funds was according to law.

"It isn't very often that you send money back to contributors," said French, "but this was anything but an ordinary campaign.  The campaign funds I accumulated have to be distributed according to law and that's what I've done."

French will carry forward $50,000 of his campaign funds for a future campaign, which is allowed by statute."

So I called French to check on the details.  He's keeping the $50,000 he's allowed to roll over to future campaigns.  This doesn't happen too often, he said, because most campaigns don't have more than $50,000 at the end of the campaign.  But since his Lt. Governor candidacy ended when Democratic gubernatorial candidate Byron Mallot joined (as Lt. Gov candidate) with independent candidate Bill walker as the "unity ticket."  So, after the primary, he had money on-hand and soon nothing to spend it on.

 He's giving back about $30,000 to donors, but not  donations under $100.  The cost of repaying small donations wasn't worth it.  He'll have expenses of $500 - $1000 to figure out all the contributors and write an mail the checks.  Often candidates who have left over money give it to non- profits as French is doing with the Boys and Girls Club and the Democratic Party.  Giving back to donors is apparently rarer. The only precedent he could give me was that he'd heard that Charles Wohlforth had done that when he was on the Anchorage assembly.

I checked with Wohlforth who told me after his second Assembly campaign he had $5000 left over.  He wrote to the contributors and asked if they wanted:

1. a pro rated return of their contribution.  For example, the campaign had spent 80% of the funds, then the contributors could get 20% back
2. Wohlforth to spend the money for:
1.  a copy machine and office supplies
2.  a party for volunteers

There might have been another choice.  His donors overwhelmingly said to spend the money on the copy machine and office supplies. In Wohlforth's case, this was all money below the $50,000 threshold. 


Often a simple idea gets more complicated when you start to implement it.  (I know blog posts do all the time and I'm trying to keep this one from doing that any more than it has.)  How does French distinguish between the donors whose money he already spent and those he hadn't?  He didn't spend much Or will he give them a proportional amount back to reflect what the campaign had already spent and the $50,000 he was keeping for a future campaign?  I didn't think it out enough to ask those questions when I talked to him.

I know that someone will claim this is simply a political move to make him look good.  But you can say that about any good deed a politician makes.  But giving back money you didn't need is a gesture I believe in.  It can be more than a gesture.  I know that government agencies have a reputation for spending all the money they've been budgeted, even when they don't need to.  Their legitimate fear here, is that the legislative body will see they didn't spend what they got and will cut their budget the next year.  Legislatures need to reward, not punish agencies that use their money efficiently.  They also need to be able to carry over leftover funds for future needs.  It's hard to plan and do multi-year jobs well when your budget only goes for a year.

I personally have experience with this.  Back in the early 80's I helped set up a small non-profit to get the Municipal assembly meetings onto cable.  It was supposed to happen but Multivisions was waiting for the assembly to move to the library.  Our group found a young videographer who was willing to work cheap and a very small grant from the assembly to try out televising the meetings for six months.  Some assembly members had real doubts - both on the left and right.  Nobody would watch.  Only the rich had cable.  Assembly members would grandstand.  It only took about two weeks for all the assembly members to be won over.  They got people calling them up because of things they'd seen on cable.  People stopped them in the market because they'd seen them on television.  They learned that poor folks did have cable because it was much cheaper than taking a family to the movies or other entertainment.  And assembly members couldn't grandstand for six hours - they quickly forgot about the cameras and acted as they always did.

At the end of the six months, the assembly was ready to take over the funding and our group could bow out.  We had about $300 left over - we used all volunteer camera operators and only the guy who provided the equipment got a modest payment - and we presented the assembly with a check and just asked that they use it support public access to government through cable.  Now, except for the videographer, we all had other jobs and had no interest in keeping our organization alive.  So we didn't worry about next year's budget.

So, talk to your legislators about rewarding agencies - both government and non-profits - for using their money efficiently.  Let them give the surplus back without penalties.    Set up conditions where they can carry it over to the next year and certainly don't penalize them by cutting their budget the following year.

So Kudos to Hollis French for making this gesture.  Symbols do matter.  If readers know of other situations where left over money was voluntarily given back like this, please let me know.

How Many Blacks In the 114th Congress?

My first post on this topic came out of frustration that I couldn't easily find the answer. It's sort of easier now, but not really. In any case I've found it necessary to keep updating this information - particularly after an election. From what I can tell, checking the districts of the current Black Congress Members and searching for new ones, the 114th Congress, that begins its two year term next January, will have 45 Black Congress Members.  That's two more than the 113th Congress and includes the first Republican black woman (from Utah).  There will also be two Black Senators - one Republican and one Democrat.  You can find more on Black Senators in the previous post.

This post updates the table I put together after the 2012 election which you can find here.

I've tried to keep some of notes on changes in people between 2012 and now - in some cases people were appointed or elected to fill the terms of members who left between sessions such as Melvin Watt who resigned to become the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

The chart is in alphabetical order by states.  [This chart was updated Nov 7, 2016 to:
1.  add New Jersey District 12 Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman originally overlooked because she was a new African-American represented from a district that was 75% white
2.  corrected spelling of Rep. Marc Veassey in Texas 33rd.]

Black Congress 2014 NovemberUpdated by Steve on Scribd

This is an update of previous lists that I put together when I couldn't find an up-to-date list of Black Members of Congress.  You can get a list of earlier posts here.  Please email me any errors or omissions. Email link in right column above blog archive.  Thanks.




I checked the numbers with the LA Times election results page which is very quick and very easy to use.  I used other sites to get the Washington DC election results. and the
Virgin Island election results.

South Carolina Race- Second Time Two African-Americans Compete For US Senate Seat

Senator Tim Scott was appointed to the US Senate in December 2012 until the November 2014 election to fill the position after Jim DeMint resigned.  This week he was elected to finish the last two years of DeMint's original term. (So there were two US Senate races in South Carolina this year.) Scott, the first African-American to represent South Carolina in the US Senate, defeated Democrat Joyce Dickerson, also an African-American, to become the first elected African-American from South Carolina.  This got me thinking about whether there had been a US Senate race where two African-Americans were the candidates.  It turns out there was one before as people in Illinois will surely remember.

There have only been nine African-American US Senators, beginning with two from Mississippi - Hiram Rhodes Revels and Blanche Bruce.  Both were Republicans, the party of Lincoln. They were both appointed by the Mississippi State Legislature.  (US Senators were not directly elected by the voters until after the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913.)


In 1966 Massachusetts Republican Edward Brooke became the first African-American to be elected to the Senate.

In 1992 Carol Moseley Braun, Democrat in Illinois, became the second to be elected to, and the first woman African-American in, the Senate.

In 2002 Democrat Barack Obama defeated Republican and also African-American Alan Keyes.  Yes, this was the first time two African-Americans ran for the US Senate against each other.

When Obama was elected President, another African-American, Roland Burris, was appointed to finish his term.

Then came the appointment of Tim Scott to replace DeMint followed by the appointment of Mo Cowan of Massachusetts to replace John Kerry when he was appointed Secretary of State.

Finally, Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, was elected in a special election to fill the vacancy after Senator Frank R. Lautenberg's death.  Booker was reelected in this week's election.

So, a total of nine black US Senators.  Of those,

• two were appointed by the Mississippi state legislature
• three were appointed, one of those going on to get elected for another term (Scott)
• four elected to office the first time

A sidenote to the unexpected Democratic loss of the Maryland governorship is that the Democratic candidate, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, is African-American.  You can get more on that story here.


The outlines of this post come from a Wikipedia List of African-Americans in The US Senate, which also puts these numbers into context:

"As of 2014, there have been 1,950 members of the United States Senate, but only nine have been African American."

That Wikipedia entry also had a strange side note of sorts about P.B.S. Pinckback titled:

"African Americans elected to the U.S. Senate, but not seated"

It doesn't say anything more about how that happened, but there are footnotes. 

Google turns up almost nothing on Pinchback.  A footnote in the Wikipedia piece leads to an essay on Black politicians and the post civil war South from the US House of Representatives History, Art, and Archives pages that probably offers the most meat.  Here's most of what they say about Pinchback:

"In a unique case of double contested elections, African-American Pinckney B. S. Pinchback of Louisiana was elected simultaneously to both the Senate and House. Pinchback lost the contested House seat and, citing claims of fraud in the state legislature, the Senate denied him his seat as well. Serving as provisional governor of Louisiana at the time, Pinchback signed his own election certifications."

 I suspect that Pinchback would make a great doctoral dissertation and/or book.


For people wondering how I got into this, I'm updating my older posts on Blacks in Congress to reflect this week's election.  This is one of the sidebars that's delaying posting that one. 

What Election?

This Steller Jay was oblivious to yesterday's election.  Didn't mention it at all when he came to visit today.  Instead he wanted to know about my foot and what the doctor had said.  He had his own foot problems - much worse than mine.  But he seemed to be managing pretty well.

Now, he has wings to help him get around.  But this foot also takes the place, somewhat, of a hand.  Though the beak does a lot of that work too.  So I fashioned him a boot like mine to see if that would help out. 

Did Brat Win In Virginia?

David Brat's the econ professor at Randolf-Macon College in Virginia who knocked off House Majority Leader  Eric Cantor in the Republican primary in June 2014.

Yes, he defeated his Randolf Mason colleague, Jack Trammell  60.9% - 36.9%.  147,897 to 89,793.  [From Politico]

Someone got to my post on the June upset by googling "Did Brat from Virginia win?" and I realized I didn't know and it was a good question.  So I looked it up.

A lot of people are looking up Sherrill Redmon divorce too, which I mentioned as a side comment at the bottom of another post  in 2009.  It's a little out of date.  She retired in 2013.

By the way, here's some background on the June primary when Brat beat Cantor.

Alaska Election 2014: What Does It All Mean?

Your guess is as good as mine.  I guess in today's internet style I should have titled this "The Ten Takeaways From Yesterday's Election and How You can Lose Ten Pounds (or Organize Your Life, or Become Financially Secure in Two Weeks.)"

This post is just my thinking out loud after the election.  Since my foot is still in a boot I can't go run or bike or even walk too much (trying to just let it relax and heal).  So I'll try to write my way out of this.


1.  Republicans won most offices that were up for grabs.  But there are still absentee and maybe early voters to count.

• Republican Dan Sullivan  is ahead of Democratic incumbent Mark Begich by 48.7% to 45.1% (102,054 votes to 110,203) in the US Senate race.  This morning's ADN headline is "Sullivan holds lead;  Begich won't concede."  Begich was behind Stevens at this point in 2008, but not as far behind.

• Republican incumbent Don Young handily beat Forrest Dunbar by 25,000 votes (51% to 40%, a margin that didn't change all night) in the US House race.

• The so called Independent/Unity Ticket of Walker/Mallot is ahead of Parnell/Sullivan (different Dan Sullivan) by 3,160 votes (47%-46%).  The ADN says "Too close to call."  But even if the Walker/Mallot lead stays through the absentee votes, we'll have a governor who was a Republican until he changed to undeclared before joining up with the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mallot to run as independents.  

Republicans kept most of their seats and took a few they didn't have in the state house and senate.  They picked up one Senate seat in Anchorage

• (Rep. Mia Costello took Hollis French's seat.  He had originally been the Democratic Lt. Gov candidate before the Unity ticket.) 

The House apparently has one seat switching from Republican to Democratic:

• Democrat Adam Wool beat incumbent Pete Higgins in Fairbanks' District 5 in the House. 

Other House races are still too close to call. 

• Republican Anand Dubey is 35 votes behind Democrat Matt Claman in House District 21, held before by Democrat turned Republican after the 2012 election Lindsey Holmes.
• Independent Daniel Ortiz is 19 votes ahead of Republican Chere Klein in the Wrangell District 36 that was held by retired Rep. Peggy Wilson.  
• Democrat Laurie Hummel is only 167 votes behind Republican incumbent Gabrielle LeDoux in Anchorage District 15.  This one would be a little harder for Hummel to pull off, though LeDoux gained 140 votes over Hummel when the last 20% of the voters were counted.  I don't know how many absentee and early votes are to be counted in this normally low turnout district.

2.  All the ballot measures passed (well sort of because in the wording on Anchorage Prop 1, a no vote was a vote to pass the proposition).  This is noteworthy because while the Republicans did well when their label was on the candidates, the Democrats did well in the ballot measures where there was no party label.

• Ballot Measure 2:  To Legalize Marijuana  - we can quibble if this was a Democratic or Republican cause because both parties had key figures leading both sides.  But the Democratic opposition seemed to be more about the commercialization of marijuana than about legalizing marijuana.   It passed 116,803 to 107179 or 52.15% to 47.85%.  Marijuana got more votes than Dan Sullivan.  But then there was no 'maybe' or other options in this election, but there were third parties in the Senate election.

• Ballot Measure 3:  Increase Minimum Wage
  Yes:  154,516 (68.8%)
  No:    70,082  (31.2%)
  While this is normally a Democratic issue, some of the Republicans supported it on the grounds that states can set minimum wage, just not the feds.  Not sure how much difference that makes with their economic argument that it messes with the free market and causes jobs to disappear. 

• Ballot Measure 4:  Protect Bristol Bay Fish (by making it harder to build the Pebble Mine)
  Yes:  143,287 (65.32%)
  No:     76,062 (34.68%)
  Note again, that Republican Senate candidate Dan Sullivan got 110,203 votes.  Dan Sullivan who vehemently opposes federal regulation, the EPA report that raised major questions about Pebble Mine, and, from what I can tell, has never seen a problematic development project.

• Anchorage Proposition 1: Keep Mayor Sullivan's Draconian Labor Ordinance
  Yes:  41998 (46.17%)
  No:  48961  (53.83%)
  Remember, a no vote essentially approved the proposition because of how it was worded:  Should we keep Anchorage Ordinance 37?  Also, only Anchorage voters had this on the ballot so the numbers are much lower.  This was heavily backed by labor unions and Democrats and opposed by Republicans.  

3.   So, what does this all mean?  Here I'm going to just hypothosize possibilities.  But who knows for sure?  Certainly not me.

• Left leaning issues did well when there was no party label, right leaning candidates did well when there was a label.

• Nationally, the Koch Brothers Party did extremely well.  It's more than money since there were left  leaning PACs as well that poured lots of money in.  

• Who's checking the voting machines?  I have no evidence whatsoever that there was any tampering with voting machines.  However, it's clear that such tampering is possible and has probably happened in past elections.  But we have no systems to vigorously guard against such tampering in each state and nationally.  We know that computer hackers can get into large corporate and government data bases.  The US government has accused China of hacking to get into trade and government secrets.  Yet as we watched the somewhat surprisingly heavy Republican victory nationwide last night, I heard none of the national new media even mention election fraud or hacking of machines in any of their attempts to explain what happened.  They can't, because they have no evidence.  But how would they get any evidence?  They don't have any way of checking except for the most obvious, clumsy attempts.  We need to have serious monitoring of all electronic voting equipment, just as we have monitoring of polling booths and voter ids.  

That's what comes to mind this morning after the 2014 election.  There are plenty of other issues to ponder and this is a quick and dirty post.  Don't take it too seriously.  I have things to do today besides blog. 

Districts 24 and 25 in Ancorage Both Have 100% And Clear Winners

HOUSE DISTRICT 24
		Total
Number of Precincts		7
Precincts Reporting		7	100.0%
Times Counted		7389/13514	54.7%
Total Votes		7058
Fenster, Michael "Mi	DEM	2515	35.63%
Johnson, Craig W.	REP	4512	63.93%
Write-in Votes		31	0.44%

HOUSE DISTRICT 25
		Total
Number of Precincts		7
Precincts Reporting		7	100.0%
Times Counted		6253/12534	49.9%
Total Votes		6045
Millet, Charisse E.	REP	3333	55.14%
Higgins, Patti	DEM	2693	44.55%
Write-in Votes		19	0.31%

mmmmmmmm

Here Are The Districts With 100% Precincts Counted

As of the 10:50pm Election Report.

Although these all have 100% of the precincts counted, there are still absentee and questioned ballots to count.  But none of these look close.

There are three of 20 Senate seats - two went Republican, one Democratic.

There are 14 of forty House seats - fourteen went Republican, four went Democratic

So a lot of the Democratic districts haven't fully reported yet, which might give some faint hope to Mark Begich who is behind by about 5 percent.

The initiatives all look like they are on their way to pass, including the Anchorage Prop 1 where a No vote is a vote to repeal Mayor Sullivan's labor law.    Minimum Wage and the Bristol Bay initiative to protect salmon are both winning big.  The marijuana initiative is also ahead, but not by quite so much.  I'd say it's not certain yet.  [The next report has it about 8000 ahead]

Don Young seems to have retained his seat - he's leading 51% to 40% over Dunbar.

The governor race is tightening with Walker/Mallot less than 2000 votes ahead.

SENATE DISTRICT A
		Total
Number of Precincts		13
Precincts Reporting		13	100.0%
Times Counted		8305/23296	35.6%
Total Votes		8030
Kelly, Pete	REP	4902	61.05%
Kruse Roselius, Tama	DEM	3088	38.46%
Write-in Votes		40	0.50%

SENATE DISTRICT O
		Total
Number of Precincts		17
Precincts Reporting		17	100.0%
Times Counted		10994/27367	40.2%
Total Votes		10509
Treider, Eric D.	NA	2313	22.01%
Micciche, Peter A.	REP	8134	77.40%
Write-in Votes		62	0.59%

SENATE DISTRICT Q
		Total
Number of Precincts		18
Precincts Reporting		18	100.0%
Times Counted		13998/28622	48.9%
Total Votes		13613
Egan, Dennis	DEM	9734	71.51%
Williams, Tom	REP	3817	28.04%
Write-in Votes		62	0.46%

HOUSE DISTRICT 1
		Total
Number of Precincts		9
Precincts Reporting		9	100.0%
Times Counted		5019/12150	41.3%
Total Votes		4917
Bringhurst, Gregory	REP	2241	45.58%
Kawasaki, Scott J.	DEM	2662	54.14%
Write-in Votes		14	0.28%

HOUSE DISTRICT 2
		Total
Number of Precincts		4
Precincts Reporting		4	100.0%
Times Counted		3286/11146	29.5%
Total Votes		3145
Thompson, Steve M.	REP	2129	67.69%
Murakami, Larry	DEM	1005	31.96%
Write-in Votes		11	0.35%

HOUSE DISTRICT 3
		Total
Number of Precincts		5
Precincts Reporting		5	100.0%
Times Counted		5445/12683	42.9%
Total Votes		5293
Hunter, Sharron J.	DEM	1047	19.78%
Wilson, Tammie	REP	4219	79.71%
Write-in Votes		27	0.51%

HOUSE DISTRICT 4
		Total
Number of Precincts		7
Precincts Reporting		7	100.0%
Times Counted		7577/13749	55.1%
Total Votes		7315
Blanchard, Joe II	REP	3129	42.78%
Guttenberg, David	DEM	4140	56.60%
Write-in Votes		46	0.63%

HOUSE DISTRICT 5
		Total
Number of Precincts		9
Precincts Reporting		9	100.0%
Times Counted		6032/12565	48.0%
Total Votes		5836
Higgins, Pete B.	REP	2788	47.77%
Wool, Adam	DEM	3011	51.59%
Write-in Votes		37	0.63%

HOUSE DISTRICT 7
		Total
Number of Precincts		7
Precincts Reporting		7	100.0%
Times Counted		5866/12668	46.3%
Total Votes		5603
Rupright, Verne	NA	1964	35.05%
Gattis, Lynn	REP	3605	64.34%
Write-in Votes		34	0.61%

HOUSE DISTRICT 9
		Total
Number of Precincts		11
Precincts Reporting		11	100.0%
Times Counted		5487/13439	40.8%
Total Votes		5234
Colver, Jim	REP	3003	57.37%
Goode, Pamela	CON	1509	28.83%
Wimmer, Mabel H.	DEM	691	13.20%
Write-in Votes		31	0.59%

HOUSE DISTRICT 11
		Total
Number of Precincts		9
Precincts Reporting		9	100.0%
Times Counted		6475/13477	48.0%
Total Votes		6301
LaFrance, Pete P.	DEM	1858	29.49%
Hughes, Shelley	REP	4428	70.27%
Write-in Votes		15	0.24%

HOUSE DISTRICT 28
		Total
Number of Precincts		9
Precincts Reporting		9	100.0%
Times Counted		8983/15175	59.2%
Total Votes		8596
Combs, Samuel Duff	DEM	3207	37.31%
Hawker, Mike	REP	5349	62.23%
Write-in Votes		40	0.47%

HOUSE DISTRICT 29
		Total
Number of Precincts		11
Precincts Reporting		11	100.0%
Times Counted		5530/13570	40.8%
Total Votes		5231
Chenault, Charles "M	REP	4013	76.72%
Knudsen, Rocky	DEM	1175	22.46%
Write-in Votes		43	0.82%

HOUSE DISTRICT 30 Total Number of Precincts 6 Precincts Reporting 6 100.0% Times Counted 5464/13797 39.6% Total Votes 5249 Thornton, Shauna L. DEM 1352 25.76% Olson, Kurt E. REP 3869 73.71% Write-in Votes 28 0.53%

HOUSE DISTRICT 31
		Total
Number of Precincts		9
Precincts Reporting		9	100.0%
Times Counted		5853/14583	40.1%
Total Votes		4907
Seaton, Paul	REP	4769	97.19%
Write-in Votes		138	2.81%

HOUSE DISTRICT 33
		Total
Number of Precincts		11
Precincts Reporting		11	100.0%
Times Counted		6494/14803	43.9%
Total Votes		6242
Dukowitz, Peter	REP	1491	23.89%
Kito, Sam S.	DEM	4719	75.60%
Write-in Votes

HOUSE DISTRICT 34
		Total
Number of Precincts		7
Precincts Reporting		7	100.0%
Times Counted		7504/13819	54.3%
Total Votes		7359
McGuan, George	DEM	2774	37.70%
Muñoz, Cathy E.	REP	4565	62.03%
Write-in Votes		20	0.27%

As Of 10:16 Report - Democrat Adam Wool Ahead of Incumbent Pete Higgins

District 5 race in Fairbanks, Dem. Adam Wool is leading incumbent Pete Higgins by 276 votes with 66% of precincts reporting.

District 15 Democratic challenger has moved up in the latest report to within 30 votes.  She was 95 votes behind in the earlier reports.

The initiatives continue to be well ahead.

Begich continues to be 5% behind Sullivan.

Early Results - Tammy Wilson in District 3 Is A Winner

Most races have from 0% to 50% of precincts reporting.

The initiatives - marijuana, minimum wage, Bristol Bay, and repeal of Anchorage's Labor Ordinance -  are ahead.

It says that 100% of the precincts are in.  There's 5030 votes.  And Wilson has 79%, so this one looks like a wrap.

UPDATE:  9:35pm they've put up another set of results and despite having 100% in the race, they added about 260 votes.

 Another race that looks like it's over is Fairbanks District 1.  Scott Kawasaki, with 90% of precincts reported looks comfortably ahead by percent, but he's only.

[I'm having trouble with feedburner, so I'm reposting this.  I'm seeing if I change the images from .png to .jpg it will work.] [It didn't.]

Alaska Election Through Spanish Eyes

"Alaska es tres veces más grande que España, pero tiene menos población que la ciudad de Zaragoza. Para salir elegido senador en ese estado bastan 151.767 votos, que es los que sacó Mark Begich en 2008. Por comparar, Diane Feinstein necesitó 7,7 millones de papeletas en 2012 para renovar su escaño por California. Paradojas de los sistemas electorales.

Pero hacer campaña en Alaska es mucho más difícil que en California. En el caso de Begich, mucho más. En 2008 ganó por los pelos: menos de 4.000 votos de diferencia frente a su rival, el senador Ted Stevens, que estaba procesado por corrupción. Solo ese escándalo permitió a Begich derrotar a la formidable maquinaria política que Stevens había construido en sus 40 años de senador. El demócrata le derroto, además, con una innovadora estrategia: se fue a buscar votantes al Polo Norte."

My high school Spanish gets me more than I would expect - the first sentence is clearly "Alaska is three times bigger than Spain, but has a smaller population than the city of Zaragoza."  But  Bing translator fills in the blanks I can't quite make out, and does it with a distinct computer accent.

Alaska is three times larger than Spain, but has less population than the city of Zaragoza. To exit elected Senator in that State are sufficient 151.767 votes, which is what Mark Begich released in 2008. By comparison, Diane Feinstein needed 7.7 million ballots in 2012 to renew his seat to California. Paradoxes of electoral systems.

But campaigning in Alaska is much more difficult than in California. In the case of Begich, much more. In 2008, won by a whisker: less than 4,000 votes against his rival, Senator Ted Stevens, who was prosecuted for corruption. Only that scandal enabled Begich to defeat the formidable political machinery that Stevens had built in their 40 years of Senator. Democrat defeated him, also with an innovative strategy: went to find voters to the North Pole.

Here's a little more:

. . . Ahora, en 2012 [sic], la historia se está volviendo a repetir. Solo que más intensa. El republicano Dan Sullivan ha decidido disputar a Begich el voto rural. O, más bien, remoto. Y se ha ido, por ejemplo, a Barrow, un pueblo a 2.100 kilómetros del Polo Norte geográfico en el que el 56% de la población es esquimal. Solo hay 10 núcleos urbanos situados más al Norte en el mundo. Canadá, Noruega y Rusia tienen cada uno tres, y Dinamarca oros dos, en Groenlandia. Por su parte, Begich ha reforzado su campaña entre los pescadores, una comunidad extremadamente importante en Alaska.
Así es como los candidatos al Senado se dedican a celebrar reuniones con los patriarcas de las tribus y a aceptar banquetes tradicionales de carne de ballena en pueblos en cuyos basureros no merodean ratas, sino osos polares. Lo que está en juego, sin embargo, es mucho más. Lo más obvio es el control del Senado. Con las elecciones legislativas más inciertas en décadas, todo puede acabar dependiendo de quién gane en Alaska, y eso, a su vez, puede acabar siendo determinado por cualquier pueblo como Barrow.

And a little more humor from Bing translate:

Now, in 2012 [sic], the story is becoming to repeat. Only that more intense. The Republican Dan Sullivan has decided to contest the rural vote to Begich. Or, rather, remote. And a town 2,100 kilometers from the geographic North Pole in which 56% of the population is Eskimo has been, for example, Barrow. There are only 10 cities located more to the North in the world. Canada, Norway and Russia have each three, and Denmark two gold medals, in Greenland. For his part, Begich has strengthened his campaign among fishermen, an extremely important community in Alaska.

So as candidates to the Senate are devoted to meetings with the Patriarchs of the tribes and to accept traditional banquets of whale meat in peoples in whose garbage dumps do not roam rats, but polar bears. What is at stake, however, is much more. The most obvious is the control of the Senate. With legislative elections more uncertain in decades, everything can be finished depending on who wins in Alaska, and that, in turn, can end up being determined by any people as a Barrow.

El Mundo (The World) is Spain's second biggest print newspaper and biggest online paper according to Wikipedia.

The whole article is here.

Heavy Early Voting Yesterday

I finally made it to vote early yesterday over on Gambell.  I got there about 1:30 pm.

I've never seen the early voting so crowded.  There were about eight people in line in front of me and all the voting booths were full.

People working there said last Monday (the first day of early voting) they had about 800 or 900 and they thought yesterday was going at the same pace.  That's about 100 voters per hour.  This is the main early voting spot in Anchorage, so there are people from all precincts.  And maybe I was there at a particularly crowded moment.  But candidates are trying to get their supporters to vote absentee or early.  

You can check the hours this week - through Sunday - at this link. 

Big Outside Sullivan Backer Also Supports LGBT Rights, Immigration, Role Of Government

Things get curiouser and curiouser as Alice said.   As I was following the tracks on Paul Singer, a major donor to the Dan Sullivan campaign, identified as the money behind Opportunity PAC which is funding letters to folks in Anchorage that list their neighbors and their voting records, I discovered a much more complex man than the standard image of Rich White Republican Billionaire. 

Singer, according to this article has been a major backer of same-sex marriage.  He's also far more nuanced on the relationship between government and business - calling for regulation of financial sector.  He also has been a big supporter of immigration reform.  Here are some excerpts from the Washington Post article titled:

Meet the wealthy donor who’s trying to get Republicans to support gay marriage

. . .   Since 2010, Singer has spent more than $10 million trying to get states to legalize gay marriage and get Republicans to join the battle.

 He's not completely opposed to government regulation of the financial sector:

In April 2009, he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal stating, "conservative opposition to any expanded role for government is a mistake. There is an urgent need for a new global regulatory initiative that addresses the primary cause of the financial collapse: highly leveraged and concentrated positions."

And on immigration:

"He also favors immigration reform, and gave a six-figure donation to the National Immigration Forum last year. "

It says he also gave a modest amount to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - that highly deceitful ads that helped sink John Kerry's presidential bid.

He seems to be a competitor, into winning.  That's a mindset that reduces life to a game that often overlooks the damage that results.   The article says that as a hedge fund manager he's best known for distressed debt investments  (though the company does less of that now).  The article says:

In the summer of 2013, Singer told Institutional Investor's Alpha Magazine that forcing debt payment is a Singer-flavored form of activism. "We've made the point over and over again that sovereigns that could pay their debts and choose not to may be attempting to save some money but are harming their people and their economies by making investing in their countries more risky and more problematic and by discouraging foreign investment." In Singer's view, he isn't just forcing indebted companies and countries to pay up. He's trying to create a world where distressed debt doesn't exist.
Depending on your own views, that makes Singer an activist investor, or a "vulture capitalist."

I mention this in part because it displays the attitude to debt that David Graeber attacks in his book Debt: The First 5000 Years.  Graeber takes an historical view of the moral and business history of the idea that it's morally important to pay one's debts, especially third world countries whose debts were often obligated by dictators  who deposited most of the money in their foreign bank accounts.  The people who end up paying the debts are the struggling citizens who never would have approved the debt and who find foreigners prescribing the dismantling of what meager infrastructure and social supports the country has to pay wealthy first world banks and their rich investors. 

This is loansharking at the international level and how Singer apparently got the money he is now using to play power broker in American politics.

And why is supporting same-sex marriage?  According to the Washington Post article, that was

"first inspired by his son, who was married to his husband in Massachusetts — the first state to offer same-sex marriage."

But in politics, candidates rarely look too carefully at where their money comes from.  But I wonder how many of Sullivan's supporters know their candidate is getting lots of money from someone who helped to make same-sex marriage a reality in the US.   What does a Senator say to someone who's donated hundreds of thousands to his campaign.  I would imagine his door is always open and he's more than willing to help him get legislation that he wants.  OK, this is true for every politician who gets big donations.  But I don't think very many get such significant help from individuals.  Before Citizens United it was illegal.  You can compare Begich and Sullivan contributions at Open Secrets.  Singer's company is Elliot Management and he also was a big donor to Club For Growth.  And these seem to not include all the contributions to PACs that support the candidates. 

I also found out in my googling that Dermot Cole reported much of this back in February.

My Voting Report Card - And Other Political Fliers

We were only gone from Sunday to Friday, but here's what was in our mail when it was delivered Saturday.   Up til now Alaska's never been a critical state.  Our outcomes were generally not close, nor would they impact the balance of the Senate.  It's not that much mail, about two pieces per day. 

Then there was this one.  My voting report card.

What?  Someone's grading my voting?  Well, someone was checking how often I vote.  I knew that campaigns do that, because they particularly target the people who vote all the time.  Do I didn't think too much about it until I saw this post at Immoral Minority that was citing a report at KTUU about letters to people telling them how often their neighbors vote - by name!   That's takes this a step further.  This one comes from America Votes, what appears to be a liberal PAC.   The letter with the neighbors' names and voting records apparently comes from The Opportunity Alliance PAC, conservative group.  At their website - Alaska Votes - you can plug in your address and see how often your neighbors vote.  KTUU cites the letter:

“This year, we’re taking a new approach,” ASVP members wrote. “We’re sending this mailing to you, your friends, your neighbors, your colleagues at work, and your community members to publicize who does and does not vote.”

It's not clear to me how long the organization has existed and thus whether the 'this year' is misleading or not.

The KTUU piece talks about people's outrage over their voting record being circulated like this.  This is public information, though it's tricky for members of the public to get it.  I know parties and candidates pay for lists of people's voting records.  I'm trying to think about reasons why people's voting record (whether they voted, not how they voted) should be kept secret or made public like this.  Would more people vote if this information was readily available?  I'm guessing they would.

But then this led to the backers of Opportunity Alliance PAC - mainly Paul Singer.  Now, he's an interesting person and I'll focus on that in another post soon. 

Incumbency Is Not Forever: The Difference Between A 'Nobody' And A Congressman Young Is Just Votes

The way labels affect how people treat each other has always fascinated me.  When I was a doctoral student and teaching my first graduate classes, I tried an experiment that was very revealing, though not completely successful at first.

The Experiment 

I was young and I looked younger.  I came to the first class and sat down just like all the other students.  I had arranged for someone to come in and say the instructor asked that the students divide into groups of four and talk about what they expected from a graduate class.  I went off with one of the groups as though I were an MPA student like everyone else.  Which I had been until just a year earlier.

When we got back into the class, there was a discussion led by the students.  My voice was not given any more deference than anyone else's and a few people vigorously disagreed with what I said.  When I tried to transition from the exercise to getting the class to move on, students resisted.  Finally, I went to the front of the class and declared I was the instructor.  Some people laughed.  Others told me to sit down. Slowly, my identification and status in people's heads changed.  I apologized for the deception, but said I couldn't think of a better way to make an important point.   How we treat people is based on all sorts of labels and social instructions we get.  I pointed out I had been a masters degree student not long ago and that I wasn't much different from any of them and that's how they treated me at the beginning of class.  But now that they learned I was the class instructor, they treated me differently and thought about me differently.  In reality, I was the same person.  But in their heads I was a different person. 

Most of the students got the point and took it in the spirit I intended: it was a learning experience about how we know things and treat people.  But one student, who refused to even give her name when I asked everyone to introduce themselves, went to the dean to complain.  She was sure that I would retaliate against her for things she said when she thought I was a student.  Fortunately, the dean knew me and he convinced her my intent was good and to stick with it.  At the end of the semester she invited the whole class to a party at her house.


I tell you this story because we think of people in special positions - teachers, police officers, doctors, elected officials - as somehow specially anointed.   And in their roles, they do have some special authority in certain areas and we are expected to give them deference consistent with those roles.  And they are expected to fill those roles with an appropriate level of dignity and respect. But the special stuff applies only when they are acting in those roles.  The rest of the time, they are just human beings like the rest of us.

Alaska's Congressional Race Between Don Young and Forrest Dunbar

I say all this because Alaska has a Congress Member who has been in that role since 1974.  He's been the Congressman from Alaska for the lifetime of both my kids.  But, he's just a human being, though it appears that he no longer sees a difference between his official role and his private self.  And he doesn't particularly stick to the level of decorum expected of a Congress Member.  In fact, he's a pretty fallible human being as he most recently demonstrated at Wasilla High School.

Yet despite his bizarre behavior over the years, Alaskans have continued to reelect him.

Partly, because he is a pretty smart guy, who has been able to pull himself together when it counted.  When he debated Ethan Berkowitz in the US House race in 2008, for example, he had facts at his finger tips, he was charming and funny, and he handily took the debate, much to many people's surprise.  He wasn't the bumbling clown some expected.

But I also think that voters are dazzled by the pixie dust that transforms incumbents into a special, superior species.  But they are just normal humans, with more power.

This year Young's opponent, Forrest Dunbar, is an extraordinary, ordinary human being.  But a lot of people looking at him might think, well, ok, but he's nobody. How can he transform into "Congressman?"  That just means they haven't done their homework and found out who he is.  After all, there was a time when Don Young was just as 'nobody.'

In fact, all of the next ten presidents of the United States are now alive and many, if not most, are living their lives as relative 'nobodies.'  You could probably set up lunch dates with most of them.  They are just people.  But at some point they will morph from just people into "The President."

 The 'nobody' who is challenging Don Young this year is just like you and me - some guy from Alaska.  And if he were elected, he'd stay a genuine guy, I'm sure.  He's like me in class as a student, before I became, in their eyes, the instructor.

Here's what the Alaska Public Media said about Dunbar:

He spent his pre-school years in the Yukon River town of Eagle, cutting his teeth on caribou while his father worked as a Fish and Game biologist.  After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the family moved to Cordova, where Dunbar says they had running water for the first time. . . 

Dunbar spent summers working on a commercial fishing boat and was an exchange student in Japan. A high school teacher, Tim Walters, remembers him as determined.
“Forrest was intense. And he was serious,” Walters says.
He says it was obvious, even then, that Dunbar was going places.

“In a teacher’s career, there’s usually a handful of students that really kind of stand out, that ‘Some day,’ you say to yourself, ‘they’re going to be on the cover of Time magazine.’ And Forrest was one of those kids,” Walters says.

Dunbar went on to an East Coast education:  Undergrad at American University in Washington. Harvard for a Master’s in public policy, Yale for law school. He fought wildfires out of Fairbanks for a summer and served in the Peace Corps in Kazakhstan. He was an intern for then-Sen. Frank Murkowski in Washington. He worked for Guam’s delegate to Congress. He worked in the Alaska Office of Public Advocacy. Last year, he joined the Alaska National Guard, as an officer and an attorney — a JAG.

He's a pretty special 'nobody.'

People vote for Young for all their own special reasons.  But if anyone is thinking, "yeah but the other guy's nobody" well I'm writing this to say

1. Everyone is nobody until they suddenly become somebody - as I was just another student in my class until I became 'the instructor'
2. Don Young was nobody until he got elected
3. One day, a nobody will replace Don Young
4. Forrest Dunbar is one perfect candidate for Alaska's sole US House seat - he was raised in rural and small town Alaska, he was educated in some of the best universities in the US, he's got experience in Washington DC, and he's got international experience.
5. Dunbar is far, far better prepared to be a Congress member than Young was in 1973

Young has criticized Dunbar as immature.  I think he was referring to his being only being 29.  But I'd point out that Alexander the Great was 32 when he died and Jesus was 33.

Don Young's recent arrogance at Wasilla High School should convince people that he really needs to retire.  'But what's the alternative?" 

I'm here to assure folks that we have a very viable replacement who would change our lone Congress Member's office from an embarrassment to the state to one that will bring honor to Alaska.

It's all a matter of people getting their head around the idea of what makes a nobody a somebody.

Incumbency Is Not Forever

And that change can happen.  Here's an example from the LA Weekly Voter Guide:

A year ago, Lee Baca was considered a favorite to win re-election to a fifth term as sheriff. Historically, incumbent sheriffs have needed only to be able to fog up a mirror in order to win. And though Baca was beset by scandals in the county jails, it was an open question whether voters would care. How times change. After 18 sheriff’s officials were indicted last December, Baca was forced to resign.

Murkowski (The Elder) Throws Kitchen Sink Into Editorial Against Marijuana Initiative

I've been hoping to get time to tease out the arguments for and against the Marijuana Initiative and go through what each side has to say.  But Frank Murkowski's commentary in today's paper was so lame, I couldn't help jumping in.

I'll just go through it as I would with a student's paper - line by line to test what it says.  I'm fairly critical, but that doesn't mean I support or oppose the proposal.  Here I'm just evaluating the argument, which seems like a kitchen sink approach.  That is, throwing in everything he can think off why people should vote no.   I'm putting Murkowski's words in blue so it's clear what he's written and what I or others I quote have written.

Alaskans should just say no to ‘Big Marijuana’
By FRANK MURKOWSKI
   Everyone has something to say on the marijuana issue, it’s just that not everyone has said it yet.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?  The opening sentence should tell us what the argument is about.  This sentence could be said about anything.  Just cross out marijuana and put in any word you want.  It would work just as well opening an essay for the marijuana initiative.  It doesn't affect the argument one way or the other.

For the life of me I can’t understand the rush to legalize marijuana in our state, as Ballot Measure 2 would do.

"For the life of me I can't understand" - Yes, that was always a problem for Murkowski - understanding people whose view of the world was different from his.  This may sound snarky, but I mean it seriously.  As governor, he didn't engage with those who opposed his agenda.  He had a majority in both houses.  What's to discuss?  We're right, you're wrong.  He alienated enough people in his own party that Sarah Palin beat him in the primary. 

"the rush to legalize" - I don't know what rush he's talking about.  Marijuana was legal in Alaska when I arrived in 1977.  It's been almost 40 years for us to go from individuals being able to grow a few plants and smoke them at home to making it so someone besides gardeners can legally get marijuana.  That doesn't seem like a rush to legalize.

It reminds me of the herd mentality of the lemmings stampeding off the cliff with little thought to the consequences.

About the lemmings.  The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has a whole webpage on how the story of lemmings committing suicide is a myth.  Murkowski should know better.  Lemmings are arctic animals after all.   And Murkowski was governor of Alaska, so the Alaska Department of Fish and Game reported to him.  If he's so uninformed on this one, how many other myths does this editorial have?  Here's part of the ADFG debunking:

"It's a complete urban legend," said state wildlife biologist Thomas McDonough. "I think it blew out of proportion based on a Disney documentary in the '50s, and that brought it to the mainstream."

. . .   According to a 1983 investigation by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producer Brian Vallee, the lemming scenes were faked. The lemmings supposedly committing mass suicide by leaping into the ocean were actually thrown off a cliff by the Disney filmmakers. The epic "lemming migration" was staged using careful editing, tight camera angles and a few dozen lemmings running on snow covered lazy-Susan style turntable.

Oh dear.  Debunking the lemming myth and the Disney myth in one paragraph.   I'm sure that Governor Parnell will have them remove this page because the science doesn't support his policy.  [Coincidentally, while I watched a bit of Jeopardy with my mom tonight after I wrote this, but before posting, one of the questions was about the faking of the Disney movie about what arctic animal committing suicide.]

   The fact that Colorado and Washington state have recently legalized marijuana should give us pause to consider the impacts. We should wait and see how those efforts unfold. There is no incentive to be among the first.

It's not unreasonable to wait and see how their models work.  But the sky hasn't fallen in those states.  How long should we let them test it before we jump in?  Five years?  Ten?  Twenty?   I suspect there may actually be some incentives to getting there first.  We get the experience and a head start, and we get extra tourists probably.  We'd be ahead of the pack.

But he's right that if we wait, we might be able to avoid their problems.  But then, Alaskans don't usually care how they do it Outside anyway.  We Alaskans don't let the ugliness and traffic of Los Angeles, for example, keep us from repeating the strip malls, environmental degradation, and general paving of paradise.

   Should the proposal become law, would it be beneficial to our citizenry, our youths and the quality of life? What will be the impact on rural Alaskans? These are just a few of the many unanswered questions before Alaskans as we prepare to vote.

He's throwing out the questions with the implication that the outcomes will be bad, but not with any factual answers.  Rural Alaskans have the right to make their villages dry and they'll be able to do the same with marijuana.  But even though bringing in marijuana is illegal now, my understanding is that you can get it in most every village.  How will legalizing and regulating it make it worse? 

Why is the effort being initiated in Alaska? It is simply because Alaska is a cheap place to run an initiative campaign. It also has a very young population. Children and teens are especially vulnerable to potential harm from long-term pot use, and this experiment is not worth risking their futures. 

I'm sure the cost of doing an initiative in Alaska is one of the reasons.  And the young population is also a good reason - young folks are more likely to vote for it than older folks.  As are our many libertarians. And Alaska has a long tradition of marijuana being legal, so it seems like there are a lot of reasons.  If it were just the small population they could have done it in Wyoming which is closer to Washington and Colorado and not as expensive as Alaska. By the way, did you notice he said 'pot' this time?  It looks like he was being careful to say marijuana throughout, but pot slipped in here.  He says marijuana eight times.

The part about children and teens does follow from the sentence about Alaska being a young state.  But it doesn't follow the logic of it being cheaper to do an initiative here.

He raises the theme of Reefer Madness and the impact on the kids.  Will it be different from the impact of alcohol on kids?    The National Institute on Drug abuse says (as of January 2014) that kids in the lower middle/high school grades use marijuana more than they get drunk, but in 12th grade that changes.  Specifically:

Marijuana use by adolescents declined from the late 1990s until the mid-to-late 2000s, but has been on the increase since then. In 2013, 7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana in the past month, up from 5.8 percent, 13.8 percent, and 19.4 percent in 2008. Daily use has also increased; 6.5 percent of 12th graders now use marijuana every day, compared to 5 percent in the mid-2000s. .  .

In 2013, 3.5 percent of 8th graders, 12.8 percent of 10th graders, and 26 percent of 12th graders reported getting drunk in the past month, continuing a downward trend from previous years.

It seems the standard for alcohol (getting drunk) was higher than the standard for marijuana (used marijuana) so maybe a higher number used alcohol, but didn't get drunk.  What's interesting is that they say use of the illegal drug was increasing while use of the legal drug was decreasing.   Murkowski only raises the specter of something terrible without supporting it with facts.

    Where is the Outside money coming from in support of this ballot initiative? The Marijuana Policy Project of Washington, D.C., and the Drug Policy Alliance of New York have supplied the bulk of the funding. Don’t be fooled this is big business.

Evil Outside money.  It's good to see Murkowski and Begich agreeing on an issue.   Outside money shouldn't buy Alaska elections.  Unless, of course, the Outside money is supporting my candidates and my issues.

When did Murkowski become opposed to big business?  Before Parnell, he was the oil companies' best friend.  This is a real turn around in his values.  By the way, illegal marijuana distribution is also big business.  He seems to prefer illegal big business to legal big business.

 I believe the ballot process is flawed. If enough money can be raised outside the state to hire people to gather signatures, any issue can get on the ballot. The process circumvents the responsibility of legislators. Had the issue originated in our state Legislature, it would have failed overwhelmingly because every legislator would have to vote on the issue. The ballot initiative process allows any elected official to simply take a walk and avoid being held accountable. This is simply wrong. Alaskans need to know from each of their elected representatives, from the Legislature to the governor and the federal delegation, whether they support or oppose this important ballot measure. They need to respond with a simple yes or no answer.

Now he's arguing against referendums and initiatives.  "This is simply wrong."  Well, I recently pointed out that initiatives and referendums are part of the state constitution.  So now he's saying the Alaska constitution is wrong.  

Now he switches to the dual system argument, that if we pass this, we'll be out of sync with the feds:

If Ballot Measure 2 passes, it would establish a dual system. It would be unlawful to buy or sell marijuana under federal law but permissible under state law. Such an inconsistency has the federal government telling us one thing and the state government telling us another. Further, the enforcement of contradictory marijuana regulations would be very difficult for those in law enforcement. I would urge all Alaskans to read the statement from the Alaska Peace Officers Association, which details the difficulties associated with maintaining law and order.

Wow, is Murkowski still a Republican?  After all, "federal overreach" is the most common phrase among Alaska Republicans these days.  Sort of like "uh" among most people.  I thought Parnell's policy was to just ignore or sue the feds if their rules were different from ours.  But Murkowski thinks the state should not contradict the feds.  Interesting.

   It would also make hiring Alaskans for jobs that require drug screening more difficult, and may complicate insurance payouts if an accident happens. Jim Jansen of Lynden Transport and Alaska Marine Lines indicated to me that his businesses require zero tolerance, and he sees legalization as a major headache.

Most businesses also don't allow people to come to work drunk and we manage to make that work.  Testing might be more complicated than testing for alcohol though.  Healthblogger lists time marijuana can be detected in the blood, hair, urine, and saliva.  They also discuss the accuracy of current tests.  I also found a National Drug Court Institute report that says their numbers (ie 30 days detectable in the urine) are commonly accepted, but not necessarily accurate and that there are different factors that would make the length of time to get a negative reading vary from person to person.  I didn't find a publication date, but the most recent date cited in the footnotes was 2004.

So yes, Murkowski is probably correct in saying it will make some things a little more difficult for some businesses.  Every bit of legislation has that impact.  So does alcohol,  driving,  concealed carry, and sex.  For those individual choice items, we've decided the benefits outweigh the risks.  Murkowski doesn't explain how this is different from those issues. 

   Our opponents believe that with access to Outside funds they can buy our votes on Ballot Meaure 2. Let’s tell them that Alaska’s quality of life is not for sale. We have defeated this issue once and we can do it again. Big Marijuana, Big Mistake for Alaska.

Again, Outside money and buying the election.  I'm waiting for his piece on why we shouldn't vote for Dan Sullivan.  Quality of life means many things to many people.  A key aspect of quality of life for many, I think, would be the freedom to make personal choices.  For those who don't like alcohol or can't use it for health reasons, the option to become high on marijuana might give them a better quality of life.  For others, just having the state tell them what they can and can't ingest, lowers their quality of life.  For others, elimination of trees and natural spaces to accommodate the profits of developers lowers the quality of life.  Murkowski hasn't explained what specifically he means by quality of life and how legalizing marijuana lowers it. 


Assuming that Murkowski wrote this himself, I'd say it reflects his statement near the beginning - "For the life of me I can’t understand."  I suspect the reasons for opposing legalizing marijuana are so obvious to Murkowski, that he can't understand why anyone would be for it.  And so he can't articulate arguments that might be meaningful to people who are planning to vote yes.  He can't fill in the details that would support his opinion, because it seems so obvious.  When you only know that you believe, but can't articulate why with convincing arguments, you're in trouble.  It's faith, not science  You don't need facts.    The only factual statement I see in this essay is that someone gave his opinion -

"Jim Jansen of Lynden Transport and Alaska Marine Lines indicated to me that his businesses require zero tolerance, and he sees legalization as a major headache."   

It may be a fact that Jansen said this, but what he said was opinion.  

I realize that this post might make folks think that I'm for legalizing marijuana, but what I've tried to do here is simply look at how Murkowski made his argument.  On those grounds alone, I see no real facts, just lots of opinion.  Now I do realize that facts take up words and the ADN gives writers a limited number of words.  In that case, instead of throwing in every argument, including the kitchen sink, he should have focused on a couple and given us some facts to support his position.   

Here's a pretty good outline for how to write a persuasive essay from  Waterford Union High School.  It might be helpful to folks who need to convince others of something.