Alaska Election Context 2 - US Senate Race

[This is the second post on this topic.  The first post  focused on the problems of determining the actual numbers of registered voters in Alaska which, if compared to the Alaska voting age population, would mean 96% of voting age Alaskans are registered.]

Overview

Few people voted Tuesday.  The winners of the US Senate races got votes from between 3% and 9% of the voting age population.  That means over 90% of the voting age population voted for someone else or didn't vote.  75% of the voting age population didn't vote at all. 


Alaska's Population

The US Census gives the population of Alaska in 2008 as 686,000.
The Alaska Permanent Fund estimates the 2008 population as 679,720 and 2009 population as 692,314.


Registered Voters
That same Census Bureau estimates the voting age population of Alaska as 506,000 in 2008.
The Alaska Division of Voters, as of August 3, 2010, says there are 487,575 registered voters.  As I noted in a previous post, this would mean that Alaska has about 96% of its voter age population registered while the US average is closer to 70%.

How the Alaska Primaries Work

The Republican primary is a semi-closed primary.  That means that only Republicans appear on the ballot and only Republicans and people not registered with another party can vote in the Republican primary.  So, Republicans, independents, and undeclared voters can vote.

The other parties have a blanket primary.  That means the other parties (Libertarian, Democratic, Alaska Independence, etc.) have their candidates all appear on one ballot and anyone, including Republicans, can vote on this ballot. 

There were three ballots.

• ADL - This includes Alaska Independence Party, Democrats, and Libertarians, and both ballot measures.
• R - This is the Republican Ballot, plus both ballot measures.
• M - This is just for ballot measures. There are no candidates.

Each voter had to choose one ballot.
Republicans could choose any ballot.
Undeclared and Independents could choose any ballot.
Democrats, Alaska Independence, and Alaskan Libertarian Party members could choose the ADL ballot or M ballot.

I would guess that most voters probably did not understand all this and it had to be explained by the election workers. 

There were two ballot measures.

• Prop. 1 to severely limit lobbying by public officials and employees and non-profits, but not businesses.  (It lost resoundingly.)
• Prop. 2 to require doctors to notify the parents of girls under 18 before they can have an abortion. (It won 55%-44%)

How many people voted?

ADL Ballot Total votes for statewide races

• Senate - 30,855 (one Libertarian and three or four relatively unknown candidates)
• US House - 33,192 (one candidate, State Rep. Harry Crawford)
• Governor - 39,768 (two high profile Democrats, one Libertarian, one Alaskan Independent)
• Lt. Governor - 37,149 (three Democrats - one got 67% - and one Libertarian)

R Ballot Total votes for statewide races

• Senate - 92,386 (Lisa Murkowski and Joe Miller)
• US House - 62,590 (one candidate, incumbent Don Young)
• Governor - 90,938 (six candidates, including sitting Governor)
• Lt. Governor - 84,928 (seen by many as the most contested election, four candidates, three high profile)

M Ballot- Voters could vote on the ballot measures on all three types of ballots.  So, these vote counts reflect all three ballots and are the highest.  The election results do not distinguish the votes of the different ballots on these measures, or even how many people voted for them on which ballots.

Measure 1 - 134,471
Measure 2 - 134,981


Votes for US Senate Races


ADL Ballot

ADL Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 438 100.0 % Times Counted 41923/487456 8.6 % Total Votes 30855 Haase, Fredrick LIB 4849 15.72% Kern, Jacob Seth DEM 5978 19.37% McAdams, Scott T. DEM 15347 49.74% Vondersaar, Frank J. DEM 4681 15.17%

R Ballot

US SENATOR (R) REP Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 438 100.0 % Times Counted 93170/487456 19.1 % Total Votes 92386 Miller, Joe REP 47027 50.90% Murkowski, Lisa REP 45359 49.10%

The box below shows that overall, 24% of Alaskans of voting age voted in the US Senate race.  The Democratic winner had about 6% of Alaskans of voting age and the two Republicans who were almost tied, each had about 9%.

What does it mean? 

Without good polling to hear from the voters themselves, the numbers leave a lot of unanswered questions.


1.  How many Independents and Undeclared took Republican ballots, Democratic ballots, M ballots?  My guess is they were more likely to take Republican ballots.

2.  How many Independents and Undeclared voters voted for Miller?  And Why?  Clearly some were swayed by the Tea Party rhetoric.  Some, no doubt, we're voting against Murkowski.

3.  If Miller wins, how many of his voters this time will vote for him in the general?  How may others can he attract in November?  If the Tea Party folks were fired up, are there that many left who will vote for him in the Fall?

4.  If Murkowski wins, what will the Miller voters do?  Sit out?  Vote for Murkowski?  Vote for McAdams? Vote for the Libertarian Party candidate?

5.  McAdams is just as unknown today as Miller was three months ago.  Can he get Alaskans excited?  He has a great Alaskan profile - fisherman, small town mayor, but basically a 'real person' rather than a politician.  Will he attract Outside money to counter the money the Tea Party has sent to Miller?

6.  Will Murkowski's close race make her seem more vulnerable even if she wins?

7.  Is Miller so extreme that when his positions are known Alaskans will reject him when more show up to vote?

All these questions and others may or may not be answered in the next few months.  I think the key point here is that really very few people have voted.  That means that so far very little support has been given to anyone.  If the Tea Party really spent half a million dollars on Miller, it means helped get a victory (even if he doesn't win) by spending $10.63 per vote. 

All things being equal, Alaska voters tend to be more conservative.  The key to winning for Democrats is identifying non-voters who can be cajoled at worst and excited at best to come out and vote.  Obama energized a lot of Alaskan liberals to vote in 2008.  But, that said, it's easier said than done.

Scott McAdams Alaska US Senate Candidate - Video

I first met Scott last February in the Capitol hallway in Juneau.  After he told me what he did I realized he would be good on tape and posted a short video of him then.  With the Tea Party putting Joe Miller ahead of Sen. Murkowski, Alaskans as well as Outsiders are now asking, "Who is Scott McAdams."

There was a hint of what he had inside in the February video.  Tonight, at the Democratic Unity Dinner at Kincaid Park, on a spectacularly beautiful evening, Scott ignited those present as people realized that this guy is real, is articulate, has a brain, and could be our next US Senator.

The video shows most of his eleven minute talk.  I cut out some of the applause, but otherwise left it pretty raw.  I'll bet he grows tremendously as he travels the state in this election.

Alaska Election Context 1 - 96% of Alaska Voting Age Population Registered to Vote

It would appear from the data available that somewhere between 94% and 97% of Alaskans of voting age are registered to vote.  The national average is about 70%.   Basically, what I think this means is that the Alaska Division of Elections list of registered voters is carrying a lot of names - I'm guessing about 125,000 or 25% - of people who are no longer Alaskan residents - they've either moved away or died.

OVERVIEW

Registered Alaska Voters = 487,000  - official (Table Y below from Div of Elections)
Voting Age Alaskans  = 506,000 (2008 Census Data) (Table 16 below)
Percent of Voting Age Americans Registered to vote = 68-70% (Table 1 below from 2010 Census Survey)
Percent of Voting Age Alaskans Registered to Vote = somewhere from 94% - 96%
70% of Voting Age Alaskans (if the same as general US rate) = 354,200
Number of Possible Phantom Registered Alaskan Voters = 133,000 (about 27%)



In the rest of this post I'll go through the numbers.  In a follow up post I'll speculate what this means about the Republican primary yesterday that has Joe Miller slightly ahead of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski.

The Numbers

From the Alaska Division of Elections website, we learn that there are 487,575 registered voters in Alaska. 

(I realize these tables go into the right column, but otherwise the numbers are too small for most and the lost numbers don't matter much.)

TABLE Y		RECOGNIZED POLITICAL PARTIES						POLITICAL GROUPS
STATEWIDE TOTALS	TOTAL	A	D	L	R	N	U	G	M	V
(438 PRECINCTS)	487,575	14,464	74,802	9,392	126,486	78,189	177,219	2,373	2,892	1,758

(These numbers are at the very bottom of the page on the website.  Here's what all those initials mean:

Political Parties:
A – Alaskan Independence Party
D – Alaska Democratic Party
L – Alaska Libertarian Party
R – Alaska Republican Party

Political Groups:
G – Green Party of Alaska
M – Republican Moderate Party Inc.
V – Veterans Party of Alaska

Other:
N – Nonpartisan (no party affiliation)
U – Undeclared (no party declared)

Less than half a million may not seem like much to most US citizens, but according to the 2008 Census data there are only 502,000 Alaskans of voting age.  This number comes from a 2010 US Census Statistical Abstract Resident Population by Age and State: 2008 [Excel 143k] | [PDF 446k]

I got 503,000 by adding up the totals for the age categories over 18.  But that is a 2008 population and this is 2010.  Can we get more up-to-date data?  Well, the Alaska
Department of Revenue Permanent, Fund Dividend Division's Annual Report, estimates the 2009 population at 692,314.  But their 2008 estimate of 679,720 was actually lower than the Census Bureau's 2008 estimate of 686,000.  The Permanent Fund estimates annual population increases between .7% and 1%  for 2005-2008.  From 2008-2009 they estimate a 1.9% increase in population.  If I increase their 2009 estimate by 1% for 2010, I get 699,237.

from 2009 Permanent Fund Dividend Annual Report

Then if I take the percent of the population over 18 from the Census Bureau 2008 population in the chart (Table 16) above,  about 73% of the population is of voting age.  That comes to 506,000 of the 2008 Census population total, and 519,000 using an estimate based on extrapolating from the Permanent Fund numbers. 

I don't suspect that any sort of Chicago shenanigans, that people were voting in the name of any of these phantom voters. (Though if there were a headline that this did happen, I wouldn't be surprised either.)  Alaskans move about a lot more than the average US citizen.  People come and go.  We have a large military population, some unknown number  of which take on Alaska residency because of the Permanent Fund Dividends.  When I spoke to an elections official last spring, I was told they purge the lists on a regular basis (I remember that it was something like four or five years of not voting to get off the list.)  I remember my son was on the list when I would go to vote for a long time after he was no longer a resident.  Perhaps the state should rethink how often the list is purged.  Or at least study whether our phantom number is significantly greater than in other states.

NOTE TO READERS:  Most of you aren't going to go through all the numbers and the math and are going to just trust me.  That's probably a mistake.  I wouldn't intentionally play with the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if I made a mistake or two.  My brain is no longer capable of looking at all this and as a blogger I don't have an editor.  And I want to get this out and I have to leave already.  I don't think any possible mistakes will affect my conclusion that we have a lot of people on the voting rolls that aren't Alaskan residents any longer. 

With 97% reported Joe Miller Still Leads Murkowsi

     

Miller, Joe	REP	45,909	51.09%
Murkowski, Lisa	REP	43,949	48.91%

Miller will  run against Sitka, Democrat Scott McAdams for the US Senate.  Will the Democrats try to get him to step down so a better known Democrat can run?  I'm not sure what conditions would have to be met for them to do that.  And it would be even more embarrassing if Miller to win anyway.

No surprise:  Don Young versus Harry Crawford for US House.

Berkowitz 48%    French 38% for Democratic Governor candidate.

Parnell, 43,764  49.49%
Walker, Bill 30,019  33.95%
Samuels, 12,420   14.05%

Lt. Gov   Rep. Treadwell (53%)  v. Dem Benson (65%0)


Con Bunde's old Senate Seat  Anchorage hillside will be a woman - Giessel (47%) (R) v. Reiser (D)

Peggy Wilson keeps her  SE House seat 52% to 47%

I'll post this now and then finish adding the other close races.


[Updated:


Steve Thompson wins Jay Ramras open Fairbanks house seat with 54%.



The closest raise was to fill John Harris' Valdez House Seat on the Republican side:

Feige, Eric A.	REP	666	33.57%
Fellman, Pete	REP	658	33.17%
Haase, Don	REP	660	33.27%

Carl Gatto keeps his Matsu seat with 54% of the vote.  And Mark Neuman keeps his with 65%.

Bill Cook won the Rep spot in Nancy Dahlstrom's old seat with 39% in a three way race.  Lindeke won as the only Dem.

Rep. Charisse Miller got 75% of the vote in her Anchorage seat.  Rep. Bob Lynn got 69% to keep his.

Appointed Rep. Neal Foster got 57% to keep his Nome seat.

Measure 1 to severely limit lobbying by governments and nonprofits lost 63% No to 37% Yes.
Measure 2 to require parent notification of a minor's abortion won 55% Yes to 45% No.]


All the results from the elections website are below

State of Alaska 2010 Primary Election August 24, 2010 Unofficial Results

08/25/10 03:56:12

Registered Voters 487456 - Cards Cast 134102 27.51%

Num. Report Precinct 438 - Num. Reporting 429 97.95%

US SENATOR (ADL) ADL Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 429 97.9 % Times Counted 40596/487456 8.3 % Total Votes 29837 Haase, Fredrick LIB 4730 15.85% Kern, Jacob Seth DEM 5781 19.38% McAdams, Scott T. DEM 14802 49.61% Vondersaar, Frank J. DEM 4524 15.16%

US SENATOR (R) REP Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 429 97.9 % Times Counted 90618/487456 18.6 % Total Votes 89858 Miller, Joe REP 45909 51.09% Murkowski, Lisa REP 43949 48.91%

US REPRESENTATIVE (ADL) ADL Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 429 97.9 % Times Counted 40596/487456 8.3 % Total Votes 32062 Crawford, Harry T. DEM 32062 100.00%

US REPRESENTATIVE (R) REP Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 429 97.9 % Times Counted 90618/487456 18.6 % Total Votes 86444 Cox, John R. REP 5220 6.04% Fisher, Sheldon REP 20365 23.56% Young, Don REP 60859 70.40%

GOVERNOR (ADL) ADL Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 429 97.9 % Times Counted 40596/487456 8.3 % Total Votes 38483 Berkowitz, Ethan A. DEM 18718 48.64% French, Hollis S. DEM 14964 38.88% Toien, William S. LIB 1367 3.55% Wright, Donald R. AI 3434 8.92%

GOVERNOR (R) REP Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 429 97.9 % Times Counted 90618/487456 18.6 % Total Votes 88423 Heikes, Gerald L. REP 355 0.40% Hlatcu, Merica REP 499 0.56% Little, Sam REP 1366 1.54% Parnell, Sean R. REP 43764 49.49% Samuels, Ralph REP 12420 14.05% Walker, Bill REP 30019 33.95%

36% of the Vote In - Miller leading Murkowski 51%-48%

[Update 10:27:  looking at the 9:47 count, Anchorage has large percentages reported (58%- 77%) but with some very low ones like the Mt. View district.  Districts with low reporting:
Kodiak 0%; Bethel 0%;  Kotzebue 4%; Nome 11%;  Dillingham 9%;  the giant rural district 6 that includes Tok   3%;  Juneau 20%. Ketchikan 22%.  These probably bode well for Murkowski, but who knows?]

It's not clear which precincts aren't in yet.    No votes from Anchorage District 20 - Mountain View area legislative race.  Kodiak races have nothing. Juneau only has about 2 of 9 precincts in Egan's race.  Some other SE Alaska votes are missing or lower percent than overall.  Some Anchorage races are 58% and 68%.
Below are all the results as of 9:36pm from the election site.

State of Alaska 2010 Primary Election August 24, 2010 Unofficial Results

08/24/10 21:36:00

Registered Voters 487456 - Cards Cast 66051 13.55%

Num. Report Precinct 438 - Num. Reporting 159 36.30%

US SENATOR (ADL) ADL Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 159 36.3 % Times Counted 19183/487456 3.9 % Total Votes 13838 Haase, Fredrick LIB 2340 16.91% Kern, Jacob Seth DEM 2528 18.27% McAdams, Scott T. DEM 6867 49.62% Vondersaar, Frank J. DEM 2103 15.20%

US SENATOR (R) REP Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 159 36.3 % Times Counted 45740/487456 9.4 % Total Votes 45375 Miller, Joe REP 23251 51.24% Murkowski, Lisa REP 22124 48.76%

US REPRESENTATIVE (ADL) ADL Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 159 36.3 % Times Counted 19183/487456 3.9 % Total Votes 15139 Crawford, Harry T. DEM 15139 100.00%

US REPRESENTATIVE (R) REP Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 159 36.3 % Times Counted 45740/487456 9.4 % Total Votes 43641 Cox, John R. REP 2679 6.14% Fisher, Sheldon REP 10509 24.08% Young, Don REP 30453 69.78%

GOVERNOR (ADL) ADL Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 159 36.3 % Times Counted 19183/487456 3.9 % Total Votes 18222 Berkowitz, Ethan A. DEM 8822 48.41% French, Hollis S. DEM 7446 40.86% Toien, William S. LIB 627 3.44% Wright, Donald R. AI 1327 7.28%

GOVERNOR (R) REP Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 159 36.3 % Times Counted 45740/487456 9.4 % Total Votes 44674 Heikes, Gerald L. REP 175 0.39% Hlatcu, Merica REP 248 0.56% Little, Sam REP 721 1.61% Parnell, Sean R. REP 21895 49.01% Samuels, Ralph REP 6140 13.74% Walker, Bill REP 15495 34.68%

LT GOVERNOR (ADL) ADL Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 159 36.3 % Times Counted 19183/487456 3.9 % Total Votes 16987 Benson, Diane E. DEM 11102 65.36% Brown, Jeffrey D. LIB 1601 9.42% Moreno-Hinz, Lynette DEM 902 5.31% Powers, J. J. "Jack" DEM 3382 19.91%

LT GOVERNOR (R) REP Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 159 36.3 % Times Counted 45740/487456 9.4 % Total Votes 41864 Burke, Eddie REP 5231 12.50% Lupo, Bob REP 961 2.30% Ramras, Jay REP 13302 31.77% Treadwell, Mead REP 22370 53.43%

Early Morning Election Day

As regular readers might remember, I originally went down to Juneau as a volunteer staffer for Rep. Max Gruenberg.  So when he and his wife invited us to hold campaign signs I thought I needed to say yes.  It is primary election day.  Besides, it would be a chance to chat with them.  Rep. Gruenberg is unopposed in the primary, but he does want to have his name out.  The idea of holding a campaign sign on a street corner to wave at cars going by is low on my list of things I want to do.  Plus it was at 7:30 in the morning.  But I advise others to do things they normally wouldn't, so I should too.  So there we were as the sun was blindingly coming over the Chugach Mountains. 

The weather was perfect - sunny but not too warm.  Drivers waved and I got to talk to some of the kids walking to Clark Middle School and introduce them to their Representative in Juneau. 

Mt. View Community Council member Joyce saw as at the corner and joined us for breakfast at the Mountain View Diner - a Chanlyut project, where Noble's Diner once was.  The food was good and we had a nice chat. 

2010 Alaska Proposition 2

[UPDATE 2012:  Here's the post on the 2012 Prop 2 to reestablish an Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program.]


I've been trying to avoid this.  KSKA has done a pretty good job and you can listen to Kathleen McCoy's Hometown Alaska show with guests representing both sides.   And Lisa Demer at the Anchorage Daily News on Friday covered it in depth. 

So I can just step back and leave the details to the others and try to put it into a larger perspective.


The PR characterization by the pro and anti forces:

PRO:  Alaskans for Parental Rights
ANTI:  Alaskans Against Government Mandates

Comment:  The pro forces win here, by being closer to what the measure is about.  The bill would require notification of parents before a pregnant girl under age 18 can have an abortion.  The anti forces seem to have taken a lesson from some of the right wing groups that have stretched the names they use to fight things they don't like.  Many things the government does (including things the anti-forces believe in) are 'government mandates' and yes, this would require doctors to inform the parents, I think this is fairly misleading.


What it's really about:

This is basically an anti-abortion measure.  An earlier law which required parental consent for an abortion for girls was thrown out by the Alaska Supreme Court.  This is an attempt to at least require parental notification.  But is this about parental rights?  Technically, yes, but it sure smells like it's really an attempt to make it harder to get an abortion.


What it's really about 2:

This is also about the balance of power between parents and their daughters.  The pro forces would give more power to the parents.  The anti forces would maintain the daughters' freedom to make these decisions.

The anti forces argue that there are girls whose dysfunctional families make it impossible, even dangerous, for the girls to go to their parents.  90% of the girls, they say, actually do talk to their parents.  Their concern, they say, is the 10% in dysfunctional families, or who may even be pregnant by a family member.

The pro forces say they have taken care of this by including an option to have a judge make the decision.  (Would you trust a random judge to make this sort of decision for you?)
The anti forces are particularly concerned about rural girls and the difficulties they already face.



Types of Parents and Types of Kids

As I see it, we have a continuum of parents from 

1_______________________2___________________________________3

1. Parents who essentially have abandoned their kids to do their own thing - either because they are working so much, or they are dysfunctional and can't control their own lives let alone their kids' lives. 
   
2. Parents who teach their kids to make age appropriate decisions about their lives and encourage them to become independent and think for themselves as they mature and give them the skills and information to do this - including birth control and sexual health information.
   
3. Parents who want to keep a close control of their kids and have very specific expectations for how their kids should behave and what they should do, even if the kid doesn't fit their mold.  

There are more different kinds of parents along the line and I'm sure readers could fill in different types of parents and where they fit on the continuum.

There are also different kinds of kids:

1___________________________2____________________________3

1.  Kids who are physiologically incapable of making many decisions for themselves.  FAS kids, for instance, come with many different kinds of abilities, some of whom really can't make good long term decisions and need protection from being taken advantage of even as adults.


2.  Kids whose families have not prepared them to make responsible decisions or who temperamentally are not suited to making important decisions on their own.

3.  Kids who have good smarts and have been trained or simply had an aptitude  to take personal responsibility and make important decisions about their lives.

I guess what I'm saying is that we can't generalize about the power relationship between kids and their parents.  In some cases the kids are better equipped to make important decisions about their own lives.  In other cases not.

There are cases where good kids make it through bad families, and there are cases where despite the best parenting, the kids turn out difficult.


I would argue that most parents would like their kids to consult them for important decisions.  And I dare say that in most families this happens.  In cases where girls cannot be persuaded by counselors to include their parents in the decision, I would guess that the girls probably have a good reason.  But not always. 

Does it really matter if it passes or not?

In the KSKA debate both sides seemed to agree that there were about 125 girls under 18 who have abortions in an average year in Alaska.  If it's true that 90% inform their parents (and I didn't hear the pro-forces challenge this), then all this is about 12 girls a year.  It doesn't stop them from getting abortions, it only delays it for 48 hours or so.  This may prevent a few girls from getting abortions, or, as the anti forces argued, it may cause some girls to take desperate measures to end their pregnancy.

Anti-abortion advocates will say that each abortion is a murder and so any abortion prevented is worth any effort.  I don't think abortion is a good thing.  No surgical procedure is a good thing if it can be prevented.  Rather than spend all this time and money on trying to change the law this way, it seems to me that everyone's time would have been better spent on serious sex education and birth control to make sure that there are simply fewer unwanted pregnancies and this would decrease the number of pregnancies.



Other Issues

It was suggested that this law would make doctors consider their own legal liability when trying to determine what is best for their patient.  Doctors have to deal with informing parents and in some cases getting girls to judges. 

The pro forces have very effectively taken the comparison between parents permission required for schools to give a kid an aspirin to their not even being informed that their daughters are pregnant.

There is a major difference here though.  Schools are not medical institutions and except for school nurses the personal are not medically trained.  These rules are in place to be sure that a teacher or an aide doesn't give an aspirin to a kid who is allergic to aspirin and would have a serious reaction.

Doctors, however, will be making the decisions about whether the child has an abortion.  I don't know how they work out getting the girl's medical record before making this decision.  And some girls may not even have a medical record. 

I did another post the other day that suggested if people didn't read and/or understand the bill, they should either not vote or vote no.  I would advise anyone who hasn't read this bill and doesn't understand it after they read it, should simply skip this measure and go on and vote for the candidates.  Or they should vote no.

Political Signs

Sometimes I have a possible story, but then things happen and I let it go.  Except it keeps coming back. 

About four weeks ago I noticed a Parnell Sign on what I always thought was a government built fence on the right of way at Lake Otis and 36th.  I thought that because when they did the bike trail they put in one fence all the way along the block and then added a flower planter at the corner.  It had flowers the first two summers and has been weeds since.












And there were two little signs on the big red sign. 

One said the sign was authorized by the property owner. 




The other said it was illegal. 




So I called the numbers on the "illegal" sign attached to the sign. 

The State told me that things related to political signs on the right of way were complicated right now because of a US Supreme Court decision and they were reviewing all their policies.

The Municipal planning person said he'd send someone out and check and if it was on the public right of way it would be torn down. 


I know it stayed up for at least another week, maybe two. 

Sometimes seeing something that isn't there is harder than seeing something that is there.  I went by the corner often and I'd get home and think, "Is that sign still there or not?  I don't recall seeing it, but maybe I'm just used to it now."

That  happened again just this last Friday.  I still had my bike out, so I just rode back to check it out.  No sign, and probably there hasn't been a sign up for a while now, which is why I couldn't remember seeing it.  Because I didn't see it. 


Ah, so it must have been found illegal and taken down. 

But today as I headed over to UAA, I noticed it was back, plus another sign had joined it.  Tomorrow is the election.  Campaign underlings often get ambitious and the candidates, especially for a major office, can't keep track of all this stuff. 

Nevertheless, if there were big fines for this sort of thing, maybe it wouldn't happen so much.  Or maybe candidates would put up their opponent's sign so he'd get fined.  Every time you make a rule, someone finds a way to mess with it. 

Race War? Why are you bringing all that up again?

I'm reading Tim Wise's White Like Me.

Here, Tim is talking to his white Southern great aunt who has asked him if he thinks there is going to be a race war.  Rather than answer yes or no, he says,

...we're already in a race war.  It started several hundred years ago when white folks decided to exterminate Native Americans, and then continued when whites opted for the importation of slaves from Africa, ripping people from their homes, their cultures, their religions, their continent and bringing them to the land we were now on, so as to make Europeans wealthier.  This was not what my aunt had in mind, needless to say, when she thought of a race war.

 "No,"  she interjected, "I don't mean all that."

"All that" is the term whites tend to use instead of that other one:  the one people of color tend to favor when speaking of the same thing.  What's that other one again?  Oh yeah.  Genocide.  Far preferable, "all that"  pretty much sums up, in two little words, what most whites think of the extermination or enslavement of nonwhite peoples:  as in, "Why are you bringing up all that." or "All that happened a long time ago;  why can't they just let it go?" (pp. 57-58)

The losers are supposed to let it go.  Like the many American Southerners who have let go of the Civil War.   

Well you might not mean all that, I noted, but from the perspective of black folks, which in her case was who she feared, all that, is the only logical starting point for any discussion about race war.  Fact is, the war is on, we started it, and the only problem most whites seemed to be having was that the targets had decided to fight back.  They apparently had forgotten or never learned the rules:  the ones that said we were always supposed to win, to get our way, to run the show.(p. 58)

Let's see.  Who ended up victorious in most of the Hollywood cowboy and Indian movies? 

Tim Wise will be in Anchorage Sept. 13-15 and will talk at UAA Tuesday the 14th at 7:30pm at Wendy Williamson. 

[Disclosure:  I am on the Steering Committee of Healing Racism in Anchorage, the organization that's bringing Wise to Anchorage.]

If You Don't Understand It - Don't Vote or Vote NO!

Most people would agree with the idea that legislators should read the bills they vote on. We can find a lot of self-righteousness on the topic on-line.

From Greta Van Susteren's blog on the Fox News website.

How about reading the #### bill before you vote for it???! What is wrong with Congress? 

CBS reported 

Let Freedom Ring, a non-profit, grassroots organization that supports a conservative agenda, announced an initiative today urging members of Congress to sign a pledge to read and give citizens the opportunity to read any health care reform legislation before voting on it.

From Rand Paul's website:

Once elected Rand Paul has pledged to never vote for a bill he hasn’t read and one of the first bills he will sponsor is the Read The Bills Act.

Maybe it's because the Democrats are in power that the sites I can find quickly on this topic are conservative sites.  But no matter, I think most people agree that there is something wrong when our members of Congress don't read the bills they vote on.

On Tuesday, Alaskans have two Ballot Measures to vote on.  Each is about five pages in the  State's voter pamphlet full of language like this:

(A) No public body, public officer, person in the employ of the state, any of its political subdivisions, any school district, or candidate for public office may, directly or indirectly, direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which, directly or indirectly, engages in lobbying, campaigns, or partisan activity. No candidate, political committee, or political party may accept any contribution from any state, state agency, political subdivision of the state, foreign government, federal agency, or the federal government. A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Neither of the petitions are easy to make sense of.  In talking to a few people about Prop. 2 it became clear that what they thought a 'yes' vote would do, really needed to be a 'no' vote.

My advice to people is this:  We shouldn't make new laws that we haven't read or don't understand.  If you haven't read the ballot measures, you probably shouldn't vote on them.  If you insist on voting, you should probably vote no - that that new laws don't get added that people haven't read and/or don't understand.

And if you have read them but don't really understand them, the advice is the same.  Either don't vote or vote no.

If a significant number of people who vote for candidates but do NOT vote for the petitions, this will send a significant message to our legislators that we won't copy their behavior and we want them to copy ours.  If you haven't read it, don't vote on it.

Of course, being me, I could argue that there are times when you might want to follow the advice of someone you know who's an expert in a topic and vote as they suggest.

And one could say that this is just a sneaky way to manipulate people into defeating these two ballot measures.  It's true, I don't think either of these is a great measure.  Both are very confusing.  Legislation often needs to be complex to reflect the complexity of society, but the writing can still be clear so that someone willing to read it should be able to understand it.

I truly believe that no great or even minor tragedy will occur if both these measures and the point of passing up these two would have a positive effect.\

You can get the Voter Pamphlet here (it's a pdf file) and read them yourselves.

I'll try to get some specifics up about Ballot Measure 2 by Monday.