Although the Democrats held their precinct caucuses a full month before the Republicans did (February 7 vs March 9), as the process moves on to the district level, the Republicans are first. The Democratic district caucus is scheduled for May 8 (I think); the Republican district caucus was last night. (Um, Tuesday, I mean. I see this is going out with a Thursday date stamp....)

As mentioned in the previous caucus report, Karen is a delegate. We weren't sure if I would be allowed to attend as a guest, and we never got an answer to the phone message she left inquiing. I decided that I'd drive down there with her, and if guests weren't allowed, I'd just sit in the car and listen to the A's-Mariners game on the radio.

We had been warned ahead of time that there would be $10 registration fee. As it turned out, that fee was for delegates only. (The registration fee for the state convention will be $85!) I simply stated that I was not a delegate, and that was that. No one asked me if I was a Republican, though I think one guy -- an organizer whom Karen has corresponded with -- is starting to suspect.

Early in the evening, I had counted 55 individuals in the room (16 of them women, a slightly higher proportion than at the precinct caucus). That went up to about 60 as latecomers arrived. The official count of credentialed delegates was 44, including two late-arrivers who were allowed to join by acclamation vote, so there were at least a dozen other guests. I'm told that the district has about 200 precincts, so there are still a majority of precincts unrepresented.

Most (or perhaps all) of the guests were out-of-district Republican candidates who were visiting the convention in order to schmooze the Party faithful. The two friendly-looking women whom Karen chose to sit with were in this category. One was the wife and the other was a family friend cum campaign worker of Reed Davis, who is running against George Nethercutt to be the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Democrat Patty Murray. (We're holding primary caucuses for the presidential race right now, but candidates for state offices will be chosen in a primary election in September)

I don't know if the national party official endorses a primary candidate, but everything I've ever heard about this Senate race mentions Rep Nethercutt as if he is the only Republican in the race, and it seems pretty clear to me that he's the one the Party regulars want to back. Nethercutt is the Gingrich-era congressman who unseated then-Speaker Tom Foley and now presents himself as a moderate Republican in contrast to Sen Murray's allegedly radical leftism.

Mr Davis is running against Nethercutt from the right ("I want our Republican revolution back", his flyer says), which means that I agree with him on half of his issues (spending, deficit) and disagree on the other half (social issues). When he gave his little speech later in the evening, he focused almost exclusively on the former, perhaps suspecting that the latter wouldn't sell as well in Seattle, even among Republicans.

Looking at his flyer again now, I see that he's somewhat coy about the war. He proclaims his determination to "maintain our resolve and win the war on terror", but then he states that his standard for determining American military involvement is "the national interest" and that no U.S. soldier should ever "fight under a U.N. flag." Nothing there really contradicts Bush's policy, but it sure looks like code for bringing the troops home, à la Pat Buchanan.

At our table, the talk was more at the local and personal level, with little attention to policy positions. Karen made friends with the Davis women, who had the sort of Midwest-friendly personality that she gets along well with, and they found common ground in their shared antipathy to the rigid follow-the-party-line attitude that dominated the room. No one actually said so, but I got the impression that Mr Davis was a bit of an outsider for choosing to run against the anointed candidate. Of course, neither the caucus officials nor the candidate himself showed any sign of disunity, but that's the subtext I sensed from the women.

Mrs Davis expressed a dislike for "career politicians" -- Nethercutt being one who initially ran as a candidate favoring term limits, but then chose to stay on anyway. She offered up the opinion that a politician should go to Washington to serve his term and then come back to the farm -- "like Thomas Jefferson did", she said. Now, it's true that Thomas Jefferson retired to Monticello when he was out of office, but to cite him as the opposite of a career politician is, well, fanciful. But I could weather one misrepresentation of a founding father without bursting, so I held my tongue.

Like the Republican precinct caucus (and unlike the Democratic precinct caucus), the district caucus was run according to parliamentary rules of order. Or at least it was supposed to be, but this time procedure was frequently derailed: sometimes when an outsider stopped to question something which the planners hadn't anticipated stopping to discuss, and other times when one of the insiders jumped in to make a point even though it wasn't really his turn.

The proceedings began with the pledge of allegiance, just as the precinct caucus did. But unlike the precinct caucus, this one opened with the pledge and then followed it up with a prayer. The prayer was nothing too extreme -- nothing like "God is on our side and may He smite the Democrats" -- but it did mention Jesus by name.

The main order of business was to choose delegates to go to the state convention. I had been a little confused about the caucus procedure. There is also a county caucus, but that's on a separate track. The delegates elected at the precinct level are chosen to represent their precincts at both the district and county caucuses. The county caucus deals with various other local issues; the district caucus selects delegates to the state convention and can propose resolutions to send on to the state convention. [Karen tells me there will be platform debate at both the county and the state convention. I'm not sure, but I think each of them has its own platform.]

Our district is allocated seven delegates (and seven alternates) to attend the state convention. One of the letters sent out to precinct delegates included a form for those who wished to put their names on the ballot to be one of these seven. Because Karen had been out of town, she missed the deadline for this, though we later learned she could still be nominated from the floor. The names of those who had submitted this form were on one list (the "ballot") on the flip chart at the front of the room.

A second list on the flip chart was the "slate". The same list appeared on a page which was handed out to everyone along with numerous other materials. This list, titled the "Unity Slate" and written under a headline of "Bush Cheney '04", showed the names and credentials of seven individuals chosen to be delegates and seven more to be alternates. There was a great deal of confusion about the two lists, confusion which many of the insiders were not eager to dispel. Eventually it became clear that the slate was simply the list of names which the various local party insiders decided among themselves were the most worthy to go on to the next level and they were recommending that everyone vote for them (the mention of "unity" perhaps being a subtle hint that anyone who didn't go along was a divider not a uniter). Karen and the Davis women, all of whom had had experience with other Republican parties elsewhere, quietly shared their outrage that there should be a slate at all, opining that it was contrary to grass-roots representation.

Adding to the confusion about the two lists was that not every name on the slate appeared on the ballot, because several of the slate candidates had neglected to nominate themselves. These individuals were duly nominated by the local head of the Bush Cheney campaign. The chairman of the meeting also opened the floor to further nominations from the floor, and Karen -- with the encouragement of the Davis women -- stood up and nominated herself. On the other hand, several of the individuals who were on the ballot stood up to have their names removed, expressing their desire to stand down and support the Unity Slate instead. (Presumably they had submitted the form earlier, not knowing there would be a slate.)

There was yet further confusion about which names were on the ballot as delegates and which were only running for alternate. Technically, the two are completely separate ballots, something which the local rules-nerd (who was among those listed on the slate as an alternate) kept pointing out. The chairman of the meeting wanted to save the time of running through everything twice, so he insisted on a single list with all the names, which would serve as ballot for both elections.

Each candidate was given 60 seconds to talk, which in most cases was just a simple introduction and brief description of his or her interest in politics. Most (but not all) of those listed as alternates on the slate clarified that they are not running for delegate, only for alternate. Among the non-slate candidates, one young woman stood out. She stated that she came to this precinct because she wants to be proud to be a Republican and not have to be embarrassed by having a bad candidate. She didn't explicitly express opposition to Bush (and she later told us that she would still support him if he were the candidate), but it was clear to everyone what she meant. Karen was not nearly so confrontational, offering instead a brief biography and a few populist words about how the party should be about the grass roots and not the establishment.

Each voter was to select up to seven names. On the first ballot, six of the seven slate candidates were elected. The seventh placed seventh with 19 votes, but that was four short of the 50% needed for nomination. Among the non-slate candidates, Karen had 8 votes, putting her in the middle of the non-slate pack. The anti-Bush candidate had 11 votes, which I found very interesting. Of the 44 delegates to this district convention, 25% supported an individual who was clearly opposed to Bush getting the nomination.

A second ballot was held in which each voter was to list one name. The slate guy still had only 19, with the remaining votes scattered among the others. The total votes had declined to 41, but the slate guy was still short of 50%. For the third ballot, the rules called for a runoff between the top two, which in this case was the slate guy and another man who was pointed out. I hadn't realized it before, but this other man was listed on the slate as an alternate. If the third ballot had been run, he might well have made it on as a delegate, but before the vote was taken he stood up and withdrew his name. Thus, all seven of the slate candidates were elected.

There followed more confusion about who was officially a candidate for alternate, and those alternate candidates who had declined their 60-second speech the first time were now given a chance. On the alternate election there was no drama. The slate's seven were all elected on the first ballot. The anti-Bush delegate again had 11, and Karen again had 8.

Reviewing my notes, I see I skipped past a few things that happened during the sundry bloviation and pep talk that preceded the actual vote. One man representing the Bush-Cheney campaign tried to impress upon us the importance of winning Washington state. With a straight face, he told us that contrary to what we may have heard, Washington really is a battleground state. I noticed one person -- a campaign worker for one of the out-of-district guests -- roll her eyes at that.

Another man, who seemed to be the driving force behind the entire slate agreement, gave the obligatory sales pitch for monetary contributions. He said that he'd be checking with everyone on the way out. It's "sort of like a poll tax," he said. I assume he meant that as a joke, but I didn't think it was funny at all. No one else laughed either.

When Reed Davis -- the guy running against Nethercutt -- gave his speech, one of his talking points was that the Congress under Bill Clinton increased non-military discretionary spending by 3.5%, while the Congress under George W Bush increased non-military discretionary spending 25%. Did I hear that right? I'll have to check up on those figures and see if I can figure out how he came up with that.

Another local party official gave us a report on the ongoing legal efforts to make Washington's primary a closed one. That is, under current rules, Democrats and Republicans are all on the same ballot for the primary election. There is no party registration, so any voter can choose candidates of various parties on the primary ballot. This man's group favors, as a first choice, that voters declare a party affiliation when registering to vote. Failing that, his second choice (and also mine, and how it is done in California) is that when voting at a primary election, each voter may request either a Republican or Democratic ballot (or whatever other small party provides one), and vote on all the primaries for that one party.

The logic is that the point of a primary election is not just a generic run-off in which candidates can register for one of several slots for the real election. Rather, it is the process whereby each party chooses from among its members who will represent that party in the election. That being the case, it makes no sense that Democrats should have any say in who represents Republicans nor that Republicans should have any say in who represents Democrats. I am adamantly opposed to open primaries. Most of my moderate friends disagree with me, on the grounds that whatever one may think about the principle, the practical reality is that open primaries tend to yield moderate candidates while closed primaries yield extremists. They're right, of course, but I just can't get past the wrong-headedness of it.

The Republican who was making this case tonight was presenting it as if it were a Republican issue, which didn't quite make sense since one of the main people opposing them in court is the Washington secretary of state, who is himself a Republican. I think it's more a matter that hard-core party activists (such as those who get involved in a caucus) oppose open primaries. The speaker here had only a few minutes to try to describe a complicated legal situation, and he wasn't particularly skillful in getting to the point. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who couldn't figure out what he was saying. All I got out of it is that there's an ongoing legal wrangle about switching to a closed primary.

In the course of the discussion, someone asked about why the Republican and Democratic caucuses were on different days. To me, that was a red herring, since even with the caucuses on separate days one cannot split one's primary ballot. The answer given was that the Republicans wanted to have the caucuses on the same day, but they had their national rules which imposed a schedule they couldn't break, and the mean old Democrats refused to compromise and go along with their schedule. Everyone else seemed satisfied with that, but Karen and I wondered if the Democrats wouldn't say the exact same thing about the Republicans.

It seems to me that it makes little difference whether the party caucuses are on the same day. The Libertarian Party typically has its caucus months before either of the major parties does. On the other hand, I know from personal experience that anyone who might set out to cheat by voting in more than one caucus could easily do so. Both parties prohibit it by rule, but neither makes an effort to enforce the rule. Tonight, the initial ballot was handed out at registration, but the ballot for the alternate was handed out directly. They tried to give me one, and since a few delegates had left by then, I doubt anyone would have noticed if I had just taken it and voted. But of course I didn't.

With the delegates selected, all that remained of official business was to consider any proposed resolutions which our district might pass on to the state convention. There was just one of these, which Karen and I ended up calling the "God resolution".

The gist of it was that since believing in God is nothing to be ashamed of, we resolve that we will freely use God's name without embarrassment, and we condemn the efforts of those mean old atheists who seek to remove God's name from public life. Something like that. I know that Jesus was not named, and that the last sentence said "condemn" but what was condemned were "efforts" and not individuals. I remember this only because both points later came up in debate.

What I clearly remember is that among the whereases, the proposed resolution pointed out that the Founding Fathers believed in God, and to illustrate that point it "quoted" the Declaration of Independence where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that God created all men equal." At the first misrepresentation of Thomas Jefferson I was able to bite my tongue, but this time I couldn't help muttering to Karen that the Declaration of Independence says no such thing. Although the "Creator" is later mentioned, that is as close as Jefferson the deist comes to mentioning God.

The actual quote is, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Karen isn't too fond of the "Men" part either. She's heard a million times that "men" really means "men and women", but she's not buying it. No matter how much syntactical argumentation I try to bully her with, she just says, "Yeah, but all the guys who signed it, they really didn't mean 'men and women', they meant men." [Reviewing this before I post it, Karen adds, "If it really meant both, there would not have been a need for a women's suffrage movement or a 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote."]

The God resolution finally stirred up some spirited debate among the moderate minority. (The Davis clan had left by then. Given that Mr Davis's flyer proclaimed him to be both pro-life and in favor of the constitutional amendment against gay marriage, I imagine they would have embraced it.)

The chairman seemed favorable to the proposal and even more favorable toward rushing it through -- all the more so since we were rapidly closing in on 9 pm, which we had been told at the beginning was the time when the caucus would be forced to adjourn. The anti-Bush woman was the first to stand up and question why such a proposal was needed. The chairman took her question literally and gave a cursory explanation of what happens to the proposal procedurally. He then ignored the others eager to speak and called for a vote. This was too much for the dissenters and they shouted him down insisting on debate. The chairman said he called for debate and saw no one step forth, but when that didn't fly he backed down and apologized for failing to notice.

The debate then ensued, along the lines you might imagine. In addition to the opponents and proponents, there were some looking for consensus and some looking to just send it on to the state convention and let them worry about. Karen, bless her heart, stood up and suggested that the proposed resolution should at least be factually accurate. This, along with similar objections, was answered by saying that the author should be forgiven for having written in haste, and the state convention would be sure to clean it up. The chairman was losing patience by now and he cut Karen short, saying, essentially, "Fine, if you don't like it, don't vote for it."

Somewhere in the course of the debate, one of the opponents noted that the 9pm deadline had passed and suggested that we should stop now (leaving the resolution unpassed). But one of the party insiders -- the slipperiest one, the one who had pushed the slate -- said that he had talked to the janitors and we were given a reprieve to continue a little longer, though he couldn't say exactly how much longer. Eventually it came to a vote by show of hands, and the resolution was passed 20-9. I noticed that those voting against were all the younger participants.

That done, nearly everyone was getting up to leave. Someone pointed out that we weren't properly adjourned, so that was hurriedly moved, seconded and passed as the crowd dispersed.

On the whole, this caucus was a bit nastier than either of the precinct ones. Still not as partisan as the sort of debate one sees among political bloggers or television pundits, not to mention talk radio, but my sense is that the higher one goes up the ladder, the more partisan it gets. There were quite a few snide anti-Democrat jokes, especially from the chairman. The two guys who had run the precinct caucus (in attendance tonight, and on the slate, but not in charge) were much more inclusive and mild-mannered.

I expect that this will be my last caucus for the year. The county caucus is scheduled for a time when we're tentatively planning to be out of town, and Karen seems to have had her fill of political participation anyway. I'm a little more interested in seeing what the Democratic district caucus is like, but that too is scheduled for when we plan to be in California.

First Caucus Report (Democratic district caucus)

Second Caucus Report (Republican district caucus)

1:49:30 AM  [permalink]  comment []