Alaska may become the first state to determine the winner of an election by instant runoff.

Robert Prather, editor of News-Portal tipped us off to this "preferential voting" initiative because it is one of his "pet issues." He strongly favors it. We are just reporting on this one --you decide.

What it does: increases the likelihood of a third party candidate being elected

What it is: a change from majority voting to preferential voting

How it works: "Voters would pick their choices for an office in descending order from most favored to least favored.

If no candidate received more than 50 percent of the first-choice vote, then the lowest vote getter would be defeated. Election officials then would count the second choice votes of voters who picked the losing candidate and add those numbers to the totals for the remaining candidates.

The process would continue until one candidate received more than 50 percent."

It would not apply to the election of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

Here's the full text of the Initiative.

Who else uses it: the City of San Francisco, London and Australia.

Who's opposed: The Alaska League of Women Voters because of lack of public debate on the issue, it's more expensive, and it does not conform to the "one person one vote" principle set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Who's In Favor: The Republicans and the third party candidates who believe it provides voters with "more candidate choices and eliminates the need for primaries and costly runoff elections." They also argue that this method will ensure that "every one who gets elected has a majority of the voter support."

Here are the arguments pro and con.

Alaska has a history of very close elections because it has six political parties and a lot of independent voters. August 27 is voting day on the initiative.

Since we haven't yet formed an opinion on this method of voting, we hope those of you more familiar with it will comment.

Whatever Alaska voters decide on the election reform issue, we hope they vote to legalize marijuana on Nov. 5--here's a full report on that initiative.

We also want to point you to Ballot Watch which is the Initiative & Referendum Institute's report on what's on the ballot and what may be headed there. It has a map of all 50 states and it provides information on "what measures have been proposed, what they're about, and where they are in the process.... You'll also find summaries of measures put on the ballot by your state legislature" and comprehensive overviews of upcoming hot issues. It also has a good internal search engine.

Update: See the comments sections for Robert Prathers' corrections to the linked AP article's information. For more information on run-off voting, he also points us to: the Center for Voting and Democracy

The Libertarian Party has issued a press release and news article on their website, Medical marijuana ads play role in defeat of U.S. Rep. Bob Barr

Calling Barr the "worst drug warrior in Congress," the Party says,

"Over the past two weeks, Barr had been the target of a barrage of television ads produced by the Libertarian Party. The ads were run by Carole Ann Rand, the LP candidate for U.S. House in Georgia’s 7th Congressional district."

“Barr’s defeat is a victory for every American who believes that doctors and patients -- rather than politicians -- should be making medical decisions,” said Rand. “Like Babe Ruth pointing to a spot in the bleachers and hitting a home run, we pointed at our target and helped knock him out of Congress.”

"The campaign to bump Bob Barr was the first test of the Libertarian Party’s “Incumbent Killer Strategy,” which is targeting the worst drug warriors in Congress for defeat."

We say, more power to them and keep on fighting, we're behind you on this one.

Congressman Bob Barr, the outspoken ultra-conservative Republican from Georgia lost his primary race Tuesday by a significant margin. Barr, a former U.S. attorney, was swept into Congress in the 1994 GOP takeover, "Contract on America." (our words, not the AP's.)

We're not sorry he's lost. Here's a few examples why:

In November 1998, an initiative in the District of Columbia tried to approve medical marijuana. " For almost a year no one knew whether the referendum had passed, because Rep. Bob Barr (R., Ga.) impounded the $ 1.65 it would have cost to tally the vote. Finally, last September, the courts overruled Barr. Seven out of ten D.C. voters had decided in favor of legalization. Refusing defeat, Barr pushed a bill through Congress that blocked the spending needed to enact the new law. As fallback, Barr has also proposed a joint resolution of Congress to simply overturn by fiat the will of the people expressed freely and fairly at the ballot box. " (Harper's Magazine December 1, 1999, available on Lexis.com )

On April 24, 1997, in a prepared statement to the House Appropriations Committee, again on medical marijuana, also available on Lexis, he said:

"Knowing how hard it is for you as appropriators to find the limited money you have to fund critically important items like the Law Enforcement Commission, I was thunderstruck by a recent proposal from the Administration's Drug Czar to spend $1 million on an absurd study to evaluate the so called "medicinal" uses of marijuana. We ought not to do this ever, especially when we have so many truly pressing law enforcement needs. I have prepared an amendment that would restrict any anti-drug money from being used for such a study. "

He also has been an ardent (to put it mildly) supporter of the death penalty for drug kingpins.

We're not sorry to see Bob leave Congress. We suspect he'll be a political analyst on Fox in no time, just like Newt, probably in time for the November elections.

First Nevada, now Arizona. Both will allow voters in November to decide whether to approve an initiative decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana .

In Arizona, the proposal calls for a $250 fine and no jail time for possessing up to two ounces of pot. The fine can be waived by attending a drug education class. More details.

The Nevada proposal would end arrests and jail terms for those who possess up to three ounces of marijuana.

To make a donation to help with tv campaigns supporting the Nevada proposal, visit Nevada for Responsible Law Enforcement.

A new poll finds that Americans believe that politics and money have eroded trust in the judiciary

Poll results include: "Nearly three out of four citizens are concerned about the fairness and impartiality of elected judges who raise money to finance their campaigns."

and

"Nearly two out of three Americans say they would have more confidence in elected judges without political ties, according to the poll consisting of 1,040 telephone interviews."

The poll was commissioned by the American Bar Association which is still meeting in Washington, D.C.

Jason Rylander runs with our "Deadly Politics" post yesterday criticizing Al Gore for his unwavering death penalty support in a 2000 news interview. Jason adds:

"The best he can offer is a milk-toast defense of "procedural safeguards" ignoring the fact that the courts and Congress have bee chipping away at habeas for years.

Hopefully, Gore will find an opportunity to "revise and extend" his remarks. As it stands, this is an unacceptable position for liberals and progressives. "

"Is executing guilty murderers -- as opposed to incarcerating them without possibility of -- so vital a goal that we must accept the execution of the innocent from time to time in order to achieve it?"

That's the crux of the issue in Roger Parloff's article today "The New Abolitionism" in American Lawyer.

Parloff says that "anyone who is unwilling to answer yes to that terrible question should, as a matter of logic, be opposed to capital punishment."

Which reminds us of Al Gore. In February, 2000, he was interviewed in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. The article was called "15 Minutes of Al." When asked about his support of the death penalty in light of the rising number of innocents on death row, Gore said he is so strongly in support of the death penalty that he's willing to accept a few wrongful executions. Here's a portion of the interview.

"BG: What do you think about the Republican governor of Illinois calling a moratorium on the death penalty because there has been so much evidence that innocent people are on death row?

AG: Well, I support the death penalty.

BG: Well, so does he.

AG: I understand, and I also understand that the high-profile cases that have put a new spotlight on the error in capital convictions have put this issue in a new light. In Illinois, I don't want to make a judgment on what the circumstances are because I don't have the expertise. Nationally, I would not be in favor of a moratorium. The "Hurricane" notwithstanding.

BG: Are there people on death row elsewhere, or federal death row, who are innocent? Isn't that something we should be worried about?

AG: I would hope not. But I'll tell you this: I think that any honest and candid supporter of the death penalty has to acknowledge that that support comes in spite of the fact that there will inevitably be some mistakes. And that's a harsh concession to make, but I think it's the only honest concession to make, and it should spur us to have appreciation for habeas corpus, for the procedural safeguards for the accused, and for the fairness that's a part of the American judicial system and to resist efforts to take away the procedural safeguards. " (emphasis supplied by us)

We repeat this not to bash Gore, but in hope that someone reading this will bring it to his attention so that he can amend his remarks if his opinions have changed during the past two and a half years.

If his views are the same, then we will keep searching for the presidential candidate who comes out for a moratorium on the death penalty. And no, it isn't Nader either. He told us he opposed the death penalty, and we believe him, but at the end of his campaign we asked for and didn't receive his support for a federal moratorium on the death penalty like the one instituted in Illinois.

James Trafficant was sentenced to 8 years today. He was denied bail pending appeal and taken off in handcuffs.

The Judge gave him more time than the prosecutor asked for and fined him more than the jury found to be the amount involved in his fraud.

He became the second congressperson to be expelled from the House of Representatives ever. He got one vote: Rep. Gary Condit.

He has promised to run for re-election from prison.

[comments now closed]

There haven't been too many feel-good stories in the news lately, but this morning we found one.

Phillip Morris LaPier is an ex-felon who is running for the governorship of Maine. His platform: to make Maine a mecca for ex-prisoners. The organization behind him is Felons United.

The principal purpose of Felons United "is to abolish branding/labeling our people and violating their constitutional rights as citizens of Maine and the United States of America."

They stress that " Every person is born free and equal under our government and our laws, and they remain equal members of the society throughout their lives. Prison inmates are equal to all other prison inmates. Citizens not in prison are equal to all other citizens not in prison."

Well said. They have a noble plan to achieve this, some of the highlights of which include their intent to:

ï Assist disabled and needy persons who have been branded/labeled "Felon"; assist their dependents, widows, widowers and the orphans of deceased persons who were branded "Felon".

ï Initiate programs and provide literature to educate those who have been branded/labeled "Felon" and the general public, on the plight, rights and needs of fellow citizens who are branded "Felon".

ï Insure that the graves of those deceased people who were branded "Felon" are properly cared for and that those people branded "Felon" who die in the future receive a proper burial, in a place of their choosing.

ï Bring lawsuits against government entities and private enterprises that discriminate against members who have been branded "Felon", including individual employees of those agencies and private businesses.

ï Oppose the present "drug war" against our citizens.

Their slogans? "Equal Rights Means Good Neighbors" and "Move to Maine - today - bring a friend."

They even have a web store selling Felons United products.

We wish them well.

On a related topic, CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy) has a report out, Every Door Closed: Barriers Facing Parents With Criminal Records.

"Last year, approximately 400,000 mothers and fathers finished serving prison or jail sentences. As these parents struggle to make a fresh start, they will encounter many legal barriers that will make it very difficult for them to successfully care for their children, find work, get safe housing, go to school, access public benefits, or even, for immigrants, stay in the same country as their children. This groundbreaking new report, a joint publication of CLASP and Community Legal Services, Inc., of Philadelphia, documents the legal challenges these families face, illustrated by compelling stories of ex-offenders who are frustrated in their attempts to rebuild their lives and families."

Rocky Mountain News Columnist Mike Littwin takes Colorado Governor Bill Owens to task today for taking a cheap shot at his political opponent Rollie Heath in this fall's gubernatorial race. Seems Owens sent out a letter to Jewish leaders in the community unfairly labeling Heath as anti-Israel because he lives in Boulder and the Boulder City Council passed an anti-Israel resolution.

Heath is not anti-Israel and Owens should retract the unfounded charge. TalkLeft supports Rollie Heath. He has called us several times for his support, offered to read the legislative positions of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and sit down with us to discuss them. We're taking him up on his offer and are in the process of scheduling a discussion.

One of the reasons we don't like Owens is his insistence on only appointing former prosecutors as judges. And of couse his unwavering support of the death penalty.