 |
|
OCTOBER 2003 |
|
Washington
State Grange Disappointed with Blanket Primary Appeal Decision
Washington
State Grange leaders expressed disappointment with the recent decision of the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to side with the political parties on the blanket
primary appeal. The Washington State Grange and the State Attorney General (representing
the Secretary of State) had argued in February that Washington's blanket primary
should remain intact.
"The
Ninth Circuit justices made a fundamental mistake in deciding to go against the
will of the people in Washington," said State Grange President Terry Hunt. "Our
blanket primary allows voters to choose whomever they want, in complete privacy,
without picking a party."
The Grange vowed to protect the primary system, either with an appeal to the courts,
to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, or through the Legislature. Hunt said
he will work with Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Christine Gregoire
to resolve the problems. "We
will appeal and convince the courts that Washington's blanket primary system is
basically different from California's old system," said Grange attorney Jim Johnson.
"Indeed, Washington's Constitution protects more basic privacy rights than theirs."
The
Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties sought to overturn Washington's
primary election system after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2000 found California's
blanket primary unconstitutional. In March 2002, U.S. District Judge Franklin
D. Burgess agreed with the Grange and the Secretary of State and the political
parties appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
As
the Grange pointed out at the Ninth Circuit appeal hearing, California's "open" primary differed from Washington's blanket primary because Washington does not
require voters to register by party affiliation, and has never done so. The
blanket primary withstood two previous challenges in the Washington State Supreme
Court, one in 1936 and the other in 1980. The Washington State Grange wrote the
original blanket primary initiative in 1934, which was adopted by the State Legislature
the following year. "The Grange recognizes that Washington citizens want to vote for their choice,
not just the choice of the political party bosses," said Hunt. "We will continue
to fight for the constitutional rights of Washingtonians." This year's blanket
primary will be unaffected, with the decision going into effect for the 2004 primary.
top Resolutions
for the 137th National Grange Convention Set Grange Policy
Now comes the
season for the National Legislative office to be busy dealing with a flurry of
resolutions received from State Granges, which will be considered at the 137th
Annual National Grange Convention to be held in Burlington, Vermont November 10-15,
2003. By September 30th, fifty-five legislative policy resolutions had been submitted
to the National Grange office from Delaware, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, Washington,
Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, and West Virginia State Granges. Before the
National Grange convenes in Burlington this November, we expect to receive more
than 200 separate policy recommendations from 36 State Granges and Potomac Grange
#1 in Washington D.C. This
year's resolutions represent a broad range of policy issues for consideration
by the National Grange delegates in Burlington. Conservation and Natural Resources
issues, with twenty resolutions so far, represent the highest priority issue of
policy interest and will address concerns about and make recommendations on issues
such as alternative energy resources, water supply, timber logging and wildlife
management. Agriculture issues include new policy proposals on international trade,
food safety, food labeling and the definition of milk definition. New policy recommendations
in the area of Citizenship and Public Affairs include proposals on reforming retirement
plans, social security number control, and telemarketing. Health issue policy
recommendations consist of calls for affordable prescription drugs and medical
information. In the area of labor and judiciary issues, there are new policy recommendations
related to Habeas Corpus, computer viruses, and immigration. Transportation issues
proposed so far include truck safety, uniform school bus laws, postage stamps,
and support for free mail delivery.
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 2004. 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 2003
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 Burlington this November!
top National
Grange Supports Free, Over-the-Air Broadcasting
The National Grange has
launched a campaign to protect free, over-the-air television. Earlier this year,
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted new regulations to update
old media ownership rules. These updated regulations, supported by the National
Grange, would provide a much needed regulatory incentive to keep free over-the-air
television available to millions of Americans, especially rural Americans who
rely on this service. However, a coalition of groups who would profit from the
eventual demise of free, over the air television have been working hard to convince
Congress to repeal the FCC's new media ownership rules. The
FCC's new rules were initiated over 50 years ago, when television viewing was
limited to the "big three" networks to ensure diversity of information. Because
of the increase in the number of on-air information sources such as cable, satellite
TV and Internet access, today's viewers are exposed to a wide variety of philosophical
perspectives that make these rules unnecessary. With some services providing over
200 channels, any restrictions placed on free, over-the-air TV will put it at
an even greater disadvantage to the point where it could be phased out. This
causes not only a disparity between pay TV versus free over-the-air programming,
it also creates a gulf between those that have access to these services and those
who do not. Because roughly 15% of television viewers do not have access to pay
TV services due to lack of accessibility or lack of funds, free TV must remain
viable in order for everyone to have universal access to information. This is
especially true in rural areas, where populations are too small for deployment
of pay services, such as cable TV, to be considered profitable; where there may
be geographical barriers to setting up the necessary infrastructure; or high prices
for the few choices that are available to the rural population. With the growing
market in cable and satellite TV programming, free, over-the-air, broadcasting
faces fierce competition. Many pay TV networks are attracting the highest quality
programming, making valuable sources of entertainment and information available
only to those who are willing or able to pay for programming. In order to survive,
free TV must improve its competitive position by having as few restrictions as
possible; it must find a way to innovate and offer personalized TV experiences
that audiences have come to expect.
On
September 17th, the National Grange hosted a coalition of rural, labor, taxpayer,
and senior citizen organizations at the National Grange headquarters in Washington
DC in order to learn more about the issue and to coordinate strategies. The group
heard from Mr. Richard Russell, Associate Director for Technology in the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Mr. Russell informed the coalition
that the Bush Administration strongly supported the revised FCC regulations, in
part, because they would help preserve free over-the-air television. He reported
that President Bush has threatened to veto any legislation that attempts to roll
back the new FCC regulations. Following Mr. Russell's remarks, the attending organizations
agreed to send letters members of the U.S. House of Representatives urging them
to support the President's veto of any legislation to repeal the new FCC media
ownership rules. "Bringing
free television into a more hostile regulatory environment will continue to drive
investment to pay television and drive more sports and creative programs to pay
television. It may just drive free television to pay television altogether," said
FCC Chairman Michael Powell, "Free television has been an important service to
the American public for over 50 years. If our efforts do not provide free television
with the ability to better compete in today's vibrant media marketplace, we risk
losing its services for the next 50 years."
top President
Bush Signs "Do Not Call" Bill
Despite recent lawsuits hindering its enactment,
President Bush officially signed the "do not call" registry. The "do not call" registry was created as a database containing the phone numbers of those who did
not want to receive telemarketing calls. When it was first introduced three months
ago, over 50 million phone numbers registered to be on the list. Telemarketing
groups protested this new registry claiming that having such a list violates their
free speech rights while threatening their livelihood. As a result of these complaints,
two lawsuits were passed. The first lawsuit, initiated by the Direct Marketing
Association, claimed, and Judge Lee West agreed, that the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) did not have the authority to enforce the "do not call" registry. Another
lawsuit brought about by two telemarketing companies and the American Teleservices
Association soon followed, claiming that the list was unconstitutional. Judge
Edward Nottingham in Denver ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Despite these objections,
Congress passed the legislation and the President signed it into law. "While
many good people work in the telemarketing industry, the public is understandably
losing patience with these unwanted phone calls, unwanted intrusions. And given
a choice, Americans prefer not to receive random sales pitches at all hours of
the day. And the American people should be free to restrict these calls" said
President Bush prior to signing the legislation.
top National
Grange is CLEAR About the Need to Reform the Universal Service Fund
On
August 24, the National Grange hosted the first meeting of the Coalition for Equitable
and Affordable Rural Service (CLEAR). The CLEAR Coalition is a broad-based alliance
of agricultural, rural, consumer, business, labor, educational and public interest
groups working together to reform the Federal Universal Service Fund program to
ensure an equitable distribution of funds and better, more affordable telephone
service in rural areas across the nation that need it most - without raising telephone
rates or surcharges and without increasing federal spending or taxes. The
Universal Service Fund (USF) is a federal program, administered by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) that is designed to ensure that all Americans,
including rural Americans, have affordable, high-quality telecommunications services.
Because the cost of providing basic phone service to rural Americans is much higher
than the cost of providing the same services to residents of high-density, urban
areas, a significant portion of the USF is used to help defray the costs of providing
basic phone service to rural areas. Other important programs supported by the
USF provide reduced rates for basic telephone service to low-income households,
telemedicine programs for rural healthcare providers and affordable telephone
and Internet access for schools and libraries across the nation. Revenues for
USF programs are generated through assessments of telephone companies that provide
local, long distance, wireless, paging and pay phone services. Many of these companies
then list their USF charges on their customers' monthly bills. The
rural access portion of the USF was established to ensure that rural phone customers
had equitable rates and adequate access to telephone services, regardless of where
they live. The rural portion of the USF program is administered in two parts,
depending on which type of telephone company serves a particular rural customer
in a given state. The portion of the USF that provides funds to rural customers
served by smaller, primarily independent or cooperative rural telephone companies,
generally provides an equitable distribution of USF funds across the nation. But
a majority of all rural phone customers across the nation in high cost areas are
actually served by larger "non-rural" phone companies that provide phone service
to a combination of rural, suburban and urban customers. A special portion of
the USF is set aside to provide financial assistance to help these "non-rural" phone companies provide telephone service to their high-cost, rural customers.
However,
under current formula for distributing USF funds to non-rural phone companies,
almost 85% of these funds go to support rural phone service provided by large, "non-rural" phone companies in just three states (Mississippi, Alabama and West
Virginia). Another 15% of the USF rural assistance funds for "non-rural" phone
companies are distributed to just five other states (Maine, Vermont, Kentucky,
Wyoming and Montana). The remaining 42 states, and all of the high cost rural
telephone customers in those states who are served by larger, "non-rural" phone
companies, currently receive no financial support under the USF program. This
situation is unfair. It was the intention of Congress in passing the USF to ensure
affordable telephone service for every American living in high cost rural areas,
not just those who live in eight states. That's why the National Grange is working
with the CLEAR Coalition to correct this situation. H.R. 1582, introduced in the
House of Representatives by Rep. Lee Terry (NE) and Rep. Bart Stupak (MI), would
require the FCC to correct the USF program in a fair and equitable fashion. Senate
bill S.1380, introduced by Sen. Gordon Smith (OR), also enjoys bipartisan support.
Both of these bills would direct the FCC to revise the distribution formula for
rural USF funds equitably across all of the states with high cost rural phone
customers without raising taxes or assessments on individual phone bills. Click
Here for more information on the Universal Service Fund and the Clear Coalition.
top "Ax
the Proposed Phone Tax" Grange tells Congressional Rural Caucus
On a related
issue, during testimony presented at a briefing for members and staff of the Congressional
Rural Caucus on September 9, National Grange Legislative Director Leroy Watson
urged Members of Congress who represent rural areas to strongly oppose the new
connection based fee or "phone tax" that is being considered by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). The proposed "phone tax" or a flat rate, administrative surcharge
on every telephone connection in the United States, would replace the current
revenue based assessments that are paid by telephone companies on their customers'
long distance charges that provide revenues for the Universal Service Fund. "The
FCC's proposed 'Phone Tax', possibly exceeding $1.50 per month per phone connection,
will discriminate against rural customers who make few long distance calls as
well as phone customers who are required to have basic phone service for safety,
health or security reasons," Watson told the Rural Caucus. "It will shift the
burden for funding the Universal Service Fund away from phone companies who profit
from high volume and business telephone customers on to consumers who can least
afford to pay additional taxes of for their basic phone service." Watson was joined
by representatives of the Alliance for Public Technology, the American Association
of Retired Persons and cellular phone company TracFone in urging the Congressional
Rural Caucus to oppose the FCC's proposed new Phone Tax.
top |
