Near Tie For 1240

I note that several Stand for Children-supported candidates lost tonight.  Congrats to those who fought back against charters - Rosemary McAuliffe and Gerry Pollet (and our friend, Marcie Maxwell).

As of 9:28 pm:

Yes 51.16%
No 48.84%

That gap is still tighten.  I cannot seem to find what percentage of the total votes this is but I suspect it is about 50%.  Still very close.

KUOW's Ann Dornfeld reports seeing the head of the Alliance for Education's Sara Morris at the Yes on 1240 campaign party.


Reporters aren't allowed to mingle with the guests at the charter schools supporters' campaign party.


As of about 8:15 p.m.:
Yes - 50.2%
No - 49.8%

And that isn't counting all of King, Skagit or Snohomish counties.

Interesting.  Hard to call.  But really, much closer than the polls had indicated.


mirmac1 said…
I'm smiling and feeling good. Grassroots can prevail : )
mirmac1 said…
Looks like those fence sitters gave it some serious thought and agreed with us.
Anonymous said…
Charters may win or lose...but LEV
and Stand lost HUGELY north of Seattle. Rosemary McAuliffe will keep her seat and her chairmanship of the Olympia Education Committee.

Take that and - um - smoke it - Corporate Ed Reform.

Anonymous said…
KOMO is running a BS blurb about charter schools right now...

I know that teachers in the Shoreline/Edmonds/Lake Forest Park areas worked really hard to keep McAuliffe in office. Even some of the more hard-core Republican residents of those areas voted for her. When I was up doing some doorbelling with the Dems, there were some people who said that even though they disagreed with me and would vote McKenna rather than Inslee, they were going to vote McAuliffe for their state representation, because she listened and responded to them, regardless of party.

Anonymous said…
Until there is a constitutional amendment that limits campaign spending, we are living in an oligarchy posing as a republic. Voting is hardly a democratic process, it is largely a sham. Congrats to the Waltons et al. for their complete corruption of the voting process on I-1240 in WA State.

-- Dan Dempsey
Charlie Mas said…
State superintendent of public instruction, Randy Dorn, said on the radio that if I-1240 wins he will challenge it in court because the charter schools will not be under his authority - as required by the constitution.
Charlie Mas said…
KUOW coverage with Randy Dorn's statement.
basically said…
Two no votes from my King Co house not yet counted! (we mailed in on Monday).
mirmac1 said…
Just an fyi. Frank Greer of the Bridge/Alliance/Edu-mutt clan has sucked up real tight to Inslee. Otherwise, I'd say Inslee/Dorn/New AG Ferguson should team up against a bad charter law.
Charlie Mas said…
Would Randy Dorn's constitutional challenge to the initiative put the Attorney General in a conflicted spot?

I must have this wrong, but wouldn't the AG have to act as the OSPI's counsel in challenging the initiative, but also have to act as the state's counsel in defending it?

Will someone please help sort that out for me?
Anonymous said…
I don't know how the numbers will fall in the end, but I know that we will need to keep fighting the charter fight.

Glad to see the quotes from Dorn. And, if charters are established in WA, we have to keep the evidence/data gathering fires going and make sure that any charters that are established follow the rules and assess their success.

I was asked by kids why I feel strongly about charters, and, fundamentally, its because I believe they will deliver worse education, not just for the children left behind, but for the children's in the charters themselves. So, if we establish charters, we have to gather the data, not engage in wishful thinking about outcomes.

LM said…
1.9 Million votes counted, 493,300 still left to count. From the secretary of state's site:

The King county breakdown when it comes to 1240, is tighter even than at the state level, no 48.86% and yes 51.14%

In King County, 556,083 votes have been counted and there are a
estimated 163,000 king county ballots left to count.

So can the 46K vote gap statewide be closed? Don't know...
Unknown said…
@Dan Dempsey. The initiative process is particularly vulnerable to being bought. It starts with people paid to gatherer signatures in supermarket parking lots from people who mostly haven't a clue what they're signing. I think there's a place for these kind of ballot measures in our state democracy, but the bar should be set much higher for allowing them onto the ballot.

When approached by people who ask for our signatures in the future, we should ask if they are paid, and if so, we should as a matter of principle refuse to sign.

BTW I'm on my fourth try here to prove I'm not a robot.
Unknown said…
Also about the corrupting influence of money in our politics, take some time to watch this video by Larry Lessig, Harvard law, author of "Lost Republic" given at the Nantucket Project. Well worth the time and well worth sharing. It's the issue of the next decade.
Anonymous said…
Would Randy Dorn's constitutional challenge to the initiative put the Attorney General in a conflicted spot? I must have this wrong, but wouldn't the AG have to act as the OSPI's counsel in challenging the initiative, but also have to act as the state's counsel in defending it? Will someone please help sort that out for me?"

Here's a first cut at this.

First - the OSPI is a sub-division of the state and Mr. Dorn is an employee of the state. He likely cannot in his state capacity challenge the constitutionality of I-1240, because he derives his authority from the state and its voters. For now, the voters have spoken and OSPI will have new responsibilities in administering the state's education laws, should I-1240 be found to be constitutional.

It is highly likely that I-1240 will be found to be constitutional, in whole or major part. Several weeks ago Melissa mentioned that Professor Spitzer was preparing a strategy to challenge it, but to date no one here has seen it so it is impossible to question how successful he might be. I mentioned that a good strategy is to focus on procedures, not substance, if the voters passed I-1240, which at this point it appears they have with a 2.5% absolute edge over the no votes (with a chunk still be counted, which could tighten up this spread by the time the final vote is certified).

I voted my heart, not my head, in voting No but as I predicted, I-1240 is now here and staring at educators in the face, including Mr. Dorn.

Mr. Dorn could challenge I-1240 in his personal capacity, which would mean he, if anyone would be conflicted out, not our new AG. He might have to resign to do that.

I-1240 does not usurp his authority, it redefines it. if you read the initiative, you will see that OSPI still has a major seat at the table in administering charter law. Section 222 on funding clearly spells out that OSPI retains allocation power over funding decisions as to any new charter schools. Also, OSPI retains reconciliation power over funding decisions in regards a charter school's operations.

- Realistic Attorney
Unknown said…
Realistic Attorney, where to start?

First, the counting isn't done so we'll have to see how the voters have spoken (shades of Sharon Peaslee's win, anyone?).

Also, I didn't say ANYONE was preparing any challenge. I said a UW law professor, Hugh Spitzer, had reviewed 1240. That's all.

Also I have to wonder about your statements about Dorn because it seems odd that he would state this publicly without having checked first if he has status to sue.

All OSPI does under 1240 is financial, not oversight of any schools. Major seat? C'mon.
mirmac1 said…
Realistic Attorney, then how is it state lawmakers have challenged in court the supermajority provision for any tax increase? Did the voters "speak" on that doody pile?
Maureen said…
Jack, I don't know whether or not to thank you for that Nantucket Project link. It basically destroyed any faith I had left in the democratic process. If I-1240 fails, I may get a small amount back.
mirmac1 said…
Furthermore, if by bizarre chance a, I dunno, twit gets an initiative passed that was blatently wrong (unconstitutional, harmful, discriminatory etc etc), public servants (like the AG) are duty-bound to enforce the constitution of our state. Otherwise they should resign and get a job at the Gates Foundation.
Anonymous said…

If you think OSPI has no major seat at the table, that is ok to argue. I think it is meaningful that "all they have is financial" power. Remember the McCleary decision? The money is the problem, and OSPI will still be in the mix as to how the money is allocated, funding decisions, and reconciliation of charters school books and records for public money received - IF the initiative holds up with its lead. I did not imply the vote counting was over and I know there's more counting to do. Randy Dorn, hopefully, has checked with counsel about his standing to sue. And I'm guessing he is finding there is much more legal power on the other side of the table than he will find on this. I want to see the precedent in other states where courts have found charter laws to be unconstitutional. Please show it to me, Melissa. I am open minded but not swayed by your narrow rhetoric and handwringing about the Yes crowd.

I apologize if I was wrong to assume too much about Professor Spitzer and a possible challenge to the law. Does he have an opinion yet that he has shared with you? As I have suggested several times, one way to attack it is to focus on the vagueness and overbreadth in some of the procedural issues that may be troublesome. Randy Dorn's interview to a radio station about his personal animus against the result is *not* a winning argument, when OSPI continues to be a player in the charter law.

- Realistic Attorney
Jan said…
Realistic Attorney: I don't believe you are correct on the conflict of interest, at least when voters pass things by initiative. If the voters passed an initiative that removed the right to vote from anyone living in a farm community of under 1000 people, it would clearly be unconstitutional -- even if King County loved it and pushed it through. I do not believe the State AG, or the governor, would have any issue in challenging that.

I realize the devil is in the details, but I have thought since the first time I read I1240 that it had constitutional problems. Dorn is correct, I think, in believing he has the authority and the obligation to defend the constitution, even if it means passing an initiative funded by a handful of rich oligarchs, and passed under false pretenses of costing nothing (it will) and improving educational outcomes (it won't).
Jan said…
And Jack -- thank you for the link. This puts into words much of what I have been thinking (with far better examples, from both sides of the aisle, than I could come up with). My next question is (and this is something I mused over all through the Occupy Wall Street stuff, etc.) -- how do we do this? How to we build a coalition (because the two "parties" are way to embroiled in this, I think) to elect House and Congress members who will enact the type of legislation he proposes?
And second, if the financing system he proposes were adopted, don't we still need a constitutional amendment to change the result of Citizens United?
Unknown said…
"The Georgia Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional Monday a 2008 law that allowed a state commission to charter schools and direct funding to them that would have otherwise gone to local districts."

There's one.

I find it amusing that you think there has to be a precedent for something to be declared unconstitutional.

I'm thinking your area of law is not constitutional.

I can tell what happened here. I-1240 passed through many hands, most of them from outside our state. And, they knew EXACTLY what they wanted in the law (not the creation of the "best" law).

So they decided to double-down and threw in everything but the kitchen sink and are hoping it sticks.

It won't.
Anonymous said…
When the drafters and proponents of I-1240 say "best law" they don't mean what they want you to think that they mean.

They mean "best" because it aligns with their narrow corporate education reform interests. They do not mean best because of the quality and integrity of the drafted initiative. Nor do they mean "best" related to the common good, particularly when it comes to "the children". Those advocating for I-1240 claiming that not to be the case are either naive, incompetent or liars. The best light to shine on those in the naive or incompetent category is that they haven't read the initiative, or if, having done so, lack the clarity of thought and reason or understanding to see the initiative for what it is.

And since it's such a mess, the lawyers can all meet and...

Sue in Zen Field
mirmac1 said…
Oh Melissa, there goes that "narrow rhetoric" again...
Jan said…
Sue in Zen Field -- you are exactly right. "Best" means easiest for the charter school industry to operate with the fewest obstacles, the most public money, and the least amount of oversight.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools