 |
|
AUGUST 2004 |
|
Grange's "Peoples Choice Initiative" will send a Clear Message to the Political Parties
and the Government." in Washington State
Recently, the Washington State
Grange collected and submitted more than 308,000 signatures to the Washington
Secretary of State's office supporting the "People's Choice Initiative", I-872.
I-872 would create a modified, "blanket primary" system for primary voting in
Washington State, replacing the original statewide blanket primary method of voting
in primary elections that had been in place for nearly 70 years. The original
blanket primary system, which was also championed by the Washington State Grange
in the 1930's, was found to be unconstitutional by the federal courts.
So
called "blanket primaries" place the names of all the candidates for a particular
elective office on the same primary ballot received by the individual voter on
primary election day, regardless of the political affiliation of either the individual
candidate or the individual voter. This allows the individual voter to select
the best person to nominate for the office in the general election and not just
the best person affiliated with a single political party. Under the original blanket
primary system in the State of Washington, the top vote-getter among each of the
political parties' candidates on the primary ballot went on to face the voters
again as their respective party's nominees in the general election. However, the
major political parties sued the State of Washington in federal court claiming
that the old blanket primary system violated their constitutionally protected
rights of freedom of association. The federal courts agreed with the political
parties, essentially finding that it was unconstitutional for the state government
to "compel" the respective political parties, as private, distinct associations
of like minded citizens, to accept and support as the nominees of their parties,
individual candidates who could be selected by majorities of voters who were either
political independents or were voters affiliated with another political party. In response to
the federal court rulings, the Washington State Grange worked with the state legislature
to reform the blanket primary system to address the constitutional concerns raised
by the federal courts. The solution arrived at was a modified blanket primary,
where all of the candidates for a particular office would continue to be on the
primary ballot. However, instead of the top voted getter for each political party
moving on to the primary election, now the top two vote getters in a primary election
would move on to the general election, regardless of their individual party affiliation.
Thus, under the modified blanket primary, the primary voters would no longer choose
the nominees of the individual parties but would instead simply select the top
two candidates to face each other in the general election. After furious lobbying
by the Washington State Grange during this year's legislative session, the modified
blanket primary system was passed by the state legislature. But at the end of
the legislative session, the provisions establishing a modified blanket primary
were stripped from the legislation when Gov. Gary Locke, who is not seeking reelection
this year, exercise a line item veto to remove the modified blanket primary from
the bill.
In
response the Washington State Grange decided to attempt to "override" the governor's
veto by taking the issue directly to the voters of Washington State on a ballot
initiative this November. Under Washington State law, 197,734 valid signatures
were required to be collected to place I-872 on the ballot. So by submitting 308,000
signatures, the Washington State Grange exceeded the minimum requirement of signatures
needed to place I-872 on the ballot by more than 55%! As a result the Secretary
of State's office has confirmed that the Grange has collected enough valid signatures
to place this issue before the voters of the State of Washington. I-872 will appear
on the November ballot in Washington State and will give the votes of that state
a clear say in how candidates for public office are selected at the primary level
and then advance to the general election. Opinion polls have indicated that the
vast majority of Washington voters support the blanket primary system. However,
supporters of the major political parties in Washington State still oppose the
blanket primary system and would prefer to establish a primary system in that
state that segregates voters by forcing them to choose among candidates of a particular
political party during the primary election. The political parties are expected
to work hard to defeat I-872. In
response, the Washington State Grange is organizing its own statewide campaign
to convince the voters of Washington State not to surrender their rights to choose
the best candidates in a primary election to the political parties when they come
to the polls on election day this November. ""This sends a clear message," said
Washington State Grange President Terry Hunt, "to the political parties and the
government that the primary election process should represent the interest of
the voters, not the agendas of the state or national political parties. Voters
should not be required to affiliate with a party in order to vote. Our initiative
will allow individuals to vote for the person, not the party. It will also provide
the greatest degree of choice and competition in both the primary and general
elections, rather than just one or the other." "The people of Washington State
have rallied around this issue with a sincere passion," Hunt explained. "They
know their freedoms have been stripped away from them."
top A
New Bridge Across the Digital Divide
Today broadband Internet access is
available to over 65 percent of the people living on metropolitan areas with populations
of more than 250,000. But only about five percent of rural towns with populations
less than 10,000 have access to broadband. However, thanks in part to the efforts
of the National Grange, space age technology will help bring new cost-effective
competition to the market for high speed internet service Ka-band satellite technology,
which is capable of download speeds of up to 3 megabits per second (Mbps) and
upload speeds of up to .5 Mbps (that is 25 times faster than 56k dial up), offers
a solution for U.S. homes that would not have access to high-speed Internet service
otherwise. Ka-band technology does not require infrastructure and is accessible
to virtually every home and small business in the continental United States. In
the year 2000, the National Grange was instrumental in convincing the FCC to license
Ka-band satellite technology in order to bring high speed internet service to
remote and rural areas of our nation that are currently underserved by traditional
Internet service providers such as DSL and cable modems. kA-band
satellite technology uses "spot" beam signals to cover areas as small as 200 miles
in diameter. This allows the same satellite frequencies to be used across the
country without interference, increasing subscriber capacity and lowering costs
per user. One
such technology provider is Wild Blue Communications, which launched their satellite
in late July. Wild Blue is a subsidiary of the National Rural Telephone Cooperative,
a traditional leader in providing rural America with consumer owned telecommunications
services. This technology would cost around $45 per month in rural areas of Colorado
for example.
top
Federal Program Leaves Rural Customers in Horse and Buggy
on Information Superhighway
Imagine the uproar that would have arisen
if, after Congress created the National Interstate Highway System, the federal
agency in charge of leading that system had decided to spend all of the money
in just 10 states. It
sounds like a ridiculous scenario, but that is exactly what is happening today
on the Information Superhighway, where most rural communities are being left on
the side of the road without an on-ramp. The
cost of providing telephone service to rural communities is generally much higher
than it is in high-density urban areas. To address this disparity and to foster
a national economy with telephone service for all Americans, Congress established
the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) to ensure affordable, modern telephone
services in rural areas where the cost of maintaining lines and facilities would
otherwise be too high to justify private investment. The program is supposed to
ensure comparable phone rates and services for high-cost rural areas, including
such basic features as two-way phone lines, digital touch-tone service, access
to long-distance operators, and 911 services. Almost all telephone customers pay
into this program through a modest surcharge on their bills that is tied to their
long distance usage. Rural
communities served by co-ops and small telephone companies receive their fair
share of federal benefits. But under the USF program for communities served by
large telephone companies - which serve about 70% of rural Americans -- the $277
million in annual federal support is being spent in just 10 states. Almost 90%
of that funding is consumed by only five states. High-cost rural communities in
40 states receive zero assistance from this key component of the USF program.
The list of excluded states includes many with significant high-cost rural areas,
such as Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington.
And don't forget: Consumers in the 40 excluded states -- including rural families,
farms and businesses -- contribute millions of dollars a year into this fund even
though they receive zero assistance in return. For instance, California consumers
contribute nearly $20 million a year into the USF account for large telephone
companies that serve both urban and rural areas, but zero dollars come back to
the rural California communities served by those carriers. Why
in the world are 40 of the 50 United States excluded from a federal program designed
to hold down the cost of rural telephone service? It is because the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) devised a funding formula that is dramatically skewed toward
a handful of states. Under current rules, the FCC decides each state's eligibility
for aid based on the statewide average cost of providing telephone service. But
as any math student can tell you, averaging tends to flatten out extreme numbers,
which in this case represent the high-cost rural communities that the program
is supposed to help. In other words, it doesn't matter to the FCC if the cost
of phone service in a given community is 10 or 20 times higher than in urban areas.
As long as the statewide average cost falls below an arbitrary threshold, that
rural community is out of luck.
Fortunately, support is growing to fix this unfair program. The Universal Service
Equity Act, proposed by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), would
require the FCC to decide funding levels based on actual community needs, not
statewide averaging. The bill would redistribute existing funds more fairly, without
increasing federal spending or requiring new revenues. All rural high-cost communities
would become eligible for support.
To date, more than 110 U.S. Senators and Representatives from both political parties
have cosponsored these common sense solutions. And more than 80 independent groups
and state leaders have called on Congress to act, including the National Grange
and other ag/rural organizations, as well as groups representing consumers, business,
labor, seniors, and state and local public officials from across the nation. The
US Senate Commerce Committee may vote before the November election on legislation
to fix this key component of the USF. Everyone concerned about the economy in
rural America should contact their elected representatives to urge a "yes" vote
on the Universal Service Equity Act. Time
is running out. If Congress fails to pass legislation this year, thousands of
rural communities will remain on the wrong side of the "digital divide." We must
not wait, as some have proposed, for comprehensive telecom policy reform, which
is likely to take years. Congress should not allow rural Americans to be saddled
with a horse and buggy Internet
Top Grange
Comments on New Telephone Technology
The National Grange joined with the
Alliance for Public Technology (APT), in submitting comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regarding a proposed rule to regulate a new kind of telephone
service known as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). VoIP is a new telecommunications
technology that uses high speed, broadband Internet technology to make telephone
calls as opposed to the circuit/switch technology that has been the basis of telephone
operations since the days of Alexander Graham Bell.
In the comments to the FCC, the National Grange has called on the FCC to find
an appropriate balance between minimal regulation that would spur increased access
and deployment of this new telecommunications technology and the need to safeguard
the public interest. The Grange comments further called on the FCC to ensure that
all providers of telephone voice services, regardless of the technology over which
the service is delivered, meet the same social obligations of universal service,
disability access, public safety and consumer protections
The
Grange's comments called for the FCC to adopt the following principles in drafting
any final rule regarding VoIP telephone service: -
Regulations must be technology neutral.
- Carriers
should be subject to social obligations regardless of service definition.
- Universal
Service should apply to VoIP Services.
- VoIP
Services Should Meet Obligations to Ensure Access by People with Disabilities
- VoIP providers
should meet public safety requirements.
- FCC
should require VoIP providers to meet consumer protection obligations.
- Regulations
must promote access and deployment of telecommunications services, especially
in rural areas.
The
National Grange believes that VoIP will create vast new possibilities to enhance
the way Americans communicate and participate in our political, economic, and
civic life. As telecommunications evolves in the broadband world, we support public
policies that ensure that all Americans reap the benefits from these new technologies
by protecting programs that ensure universal service, access for people with disabilities,
public safety, and other consumer protections.
Top New
Resolutions Will Set National Grange Policy in 2005
Its now the season
for the National Legislative office to be receiving new resolutions from State
Granges, which will be considered at the 138th Annual National Grange Convention
to be held in Rochester, New York on November 9-13, 2004. This year we expect
to receive more than 200 separate policy recommendations from 36 State Granges
and Potomac Grange #1 in Washington D.C.
There is still time for your local Grange's policy resolutions to be part of this
year's National Grange convention. Policy resolutions adopted by the National
Grange delegates in November will form National Grange legislative policy for
2005. Local Grange resolutions must be adopted by their State Grange before being
considered by the National Grange delegates. If your State Grange has not yet
held its 2004 Convention, check with your State Grange Secretary to determine
if there is still time for your local Grange's resolution to be adopted at your
State Grange convention and then sent on to the National Grange convention in
Rochester this November!
top |
