After spending the day Saturday writing about Naveed Haq I had a hard time thinking of him as a symbol of anything other than of the ravages of mental illness. I was the rewrite guy on the profile of Haq. The picture that emerged from reporting largely done by reporters Michael Berens and Jonathan Martin was of a guy who spent at least a decade battling mental illness.

At the time of the shooting he was awaiting trial on a lewd conduct charge that came after he was arrested in a Kennewick mall, standing on a fountain, shouting at women at the Macy's cosmetic counter and, allegedly, exposing himself to a young woman. In the court papers, Haq denies he exposed himself, saying he only unzipped his pants.

I left the newsroom that night thinking that those who wanted to attribute any deeper meaning to the shooting must also find a way to fit the lewd conduct charge into the picture. To be absolutely clear: There was no doubt he was intent on killing Jews. It was not random in any way. He searched the Internet for a good target and traveled from Pasco to launch his attack. But was it a sick vein of hate in a deluded mind, or a political act? Did it matter?

Everything is politically loaded at a time like this. I had a message on my phone yesterday from a woman who said she hadn't read the Haq story in Sunday's paper, but she was disturbed the paper ran a photo of Haq's parents home in Pasco. She said it was irrelevant where Haq or his parents lived, saying in closing:

"To me you all just want to harbor some hate, some more hate, and that is just totally unnecessary. So you really need to check your Zionism. Thank you."

I should say now I don't have a solid answer for any of this. So be warned if anything short of ideological certainty puts you on edge. By Friday night, you could find commentators from all sides of the political spectrum engaged in the debate and showing none of the doubts that still burden me.

I was struck dumb in the immediate aftermath of the shooting by a post at Sound Politics that tried to draw a connection between the murder of Pamela Waechter and a headline on a letter to the editor in The Seattle Times. Michelle Malkin, one of the county's most popular bloggers, was on the story from the start with a running political commentary insisting it was an act of terrorism.

From Malkin's site I found one of the more disturbing posts on the shooting. Christopher Cantrill, a Seattle writer blogging at The American Thinker, suggests Seattle invited the killing.

You would expect that an angry American Muslim would choose Seattle to perform his outrage. Progressive Seattle legitimizes and condones the outrages of the self-described oppressed peoples. It rewards them with reduced responsibility for their actions. It encourages them to experience themselves not as equal citizens but as violated victims.

Cantrill also pointed out that the shooting happened in "the very heart of the congressional district of 'Baghdad' Jim McDermott." In his ham-handed condemnation, Cantrill rewards the victim culture by saying Seattle is socially engineered to welcome cold-blooded killers. Isn't Haq to blame, not Seattle?

This search for blame is not confined to the right. Daniel Kirkdorffer posted Friday night to connect the Seattle shooting with Israeli aggression, which he says has:

been way out of proportion to the transgression they claim to be avenging. ... Those in Lebanon that have lost loved ones and family, on either side, will grow up with hatred in their hearts, and in turn will seek a revenge of their own. They may be the future suicide bombers on Israeli buses, or shooters such as the one in Seattle today.

That is why an immediate cessation of hostilities must be brokered, and the USA needs to urge both sides to come to the table again. To be honest I think it has been left far too late now. The damage has already been done and the clock has been turned back 40 years. So many lives in Lebanon, Israel, and now in Seattle, have been lost as a result. When war is made to be the only solution there can be no winners.

It may be a stretch to even call Haq a Muslim. He was recently baptized. He declared himself a Muslin, I know. But is the bigger meaning muted by that bit of contradictory evidence?

With the news of the baptism, Darryl, filling in at horsesass.org, tried a turn at satire:

By now you have heard about the shooting of innocent people last Friday in downtown Seattle by a Christian terrorist. And what I want to know is what are we going to do about the rise of Christian terrorism in this country?

Do we need deeper meaning in every horrific event? Certainly the Old Media is always quick to pick up that thread as a follow-up to a disaster. Did the shooting expose some debate in Seattle about the Middle East that simmered unseen until Haq and his guns rolled into town? The PI points out that there have been numerous public demonstrations in Seattle about the Middle East, so I guess the answer is no.

I truthfully am not sure what to think. And this morning, as I sat trying to write this, I got a call from a woman in Brooklyn with a story to tell.

"I read your story," she said. "I see he is being treated as a lone gunman who is crazy. It is eerily similar to my son's case."

Devorah Halberstam's son, Ari, was murdered on the Brooklyn Bridge in 1994 as he was driving with a van load of fellow Hasidic students. He was killed in a barrage of gunfire from Rashid Baz. In the days following the shooting, police said Baz, a Lebanese immigrant, acted alone and, according to the New York Times, "they had no evidence to connect Baz to terrorist groups or activities."

Baz's attorney said at the time that people were calling the killer a terrorist because "he is an Arab Muslim charged with a violent crime." At trial, jurors rejected Baz's insanity defense that had been based on a claim that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from growing up in Lebanon. His attorneys argued his disorder was triggered the day of the shooting because he was upset by the massacre of Muslim worshippers in Hebron, Israel, a few weeks earlier by a Jewish settler from Brooklyn.

Baz at first said it was a case of road rage, not politics.

But there were signs of politics, too. Police had a statement from a man who said Baz had said he was "very angry" about the Hebron killings and that he said, "We're supposed to kill all those Jews."

Law enforcement officials said Baz committed a hate crime, but not terrorism.

"The way they portrayed him in court, they made him like he was crazy and really he wasn't crazy," Devorah Halberstam told me. "We can't just hide it under the rug and have it go away; say this is one case, one crazy guy, a lone gunman. We have to protect each other, we are all Americans."

I told Halberstam that just as she called I was thinking about writing about the debate about whether Haq was a terrorist. She stopped me mid-word:

"It's not a debate," she said. She said people are too quick to label such shootings a hate crime. She says that hides the true nature of the crime. "It is terrorism, terrorism hiding behind something called a hate crime."

It took almost seven years, but Halberstam and others convinced the government that Baz was a terrorist. And that it mattered to label him as such.

According to a letter quoted on a memorial Web site to Ari Halberstam, the U.S. Department of Justice wrote Devorah Halberstam on Dec. 5, 2000, to say:

It is fair to conclude on the basis of this evidence that the murder of Ari and the shooting at the van were motivated in significant part by Baz's views and his desire to retaliate against Jewish people and, as such, were, in our view, the crimes of a terrorist as described by the state prosecutor at the time of Baz's sentence: All of these things culminated on the morning of March 1 with the defendant committing an act which, based on the psychiatric testimony that we've heard in this case, can only be considered as an act of terrorism.

A second letter assured her that the shooting would be included in all subsequent FBI summaries of terrorism incidents in the United States. You can see it there along with pipe bomb attacks by American Front skinheads, attempted fire bombings by the Mexican Revolutionary Movement and the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building.

Devorah Halberstam says it's important for journalists and others not to jump to conclusions about a killer's state of mind or motivation. That certainly should be heeded. As I was reading stories today about her son's murder, I found a piece by the late, great New York City columnist Murray Kempton, about how fast the police arrested Baz. And it tells me we shouldn't be too quick to assume that we know what a terrorist is, either.

Deeds like his always surprise us with the speed and the ease with which the doer or the doers get caught. We ought long ago to have ceased laboring over a puzzle with so little mystery in it. Terrorism is inspired rather less often by the service of a cause than by self-involvement in the ugliest of aesthetic pursuits. More frequently than not, the commanding impulse of the terrorist who kills the innocent is not to avenge the wronged but to reap sensual pleasures from killing the innocent.

I see at the Slog they pose the question: "Why Aren't We Appealing the WA Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage?" It's pointed out, there's no state appeal possible, but it could be reconsidered. (Gov. Chris Gregoire last week suggested it'd be legally possible to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

To get the court to reconsider the decision, any party to the case has to file a motion within 20 days of the decision. There generally needs to be new information that would convince the court to re-hear the case.

Reconsideration is rare. People I've talked in recent days can only think of one case where the court took a reconsideration and reversed itself. And coincidentally, that is a case that played a major role in the gay marriage decision, Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 vs. City of Moses Lake.

The case involved city annexations. In the initial decision, issued March 14, 2002, the court issued a split decision -- six justices signing the majority, two signing a concurrence with partial dissent, and one justice dissented in full. The court ruled that the petition method of annexation was unconstitutional, violating Article 1 Sec. 12 of the state Constitution, because it gave an "impermissible privilege" to owners of the most valuable land.

The cities of Moses Lake and Yakima filed for reconsideration and the court re-heard arguments March 25, 2003, and issued a new decision January 29, 2004. The second time around, the court reversed itself, saying the annexation system used by the cities was constitutional. And it was a more unified court, unanimous in the result with Justice Richard Sanders concurring but disagreeing with some of the majority's analysis.

Grant County II, as it has become to be known, was a key piece of the gay marriage case. The case defined how the court analyzes the privileges and immunities clause of the state Constitution. In writing the lead opinion in the DOMA case, Justice Barbara Madsen said the clause was not meant to protect minorities, but to protect the majority from railroads or other moneyed interests from getting deals from the Legislature, as attorney and law professor Hugh Spitzer explained to me last week. The Madsen view, Spitzer said, is that the state constitution's clause was designed to "protect the majority from a privileged minority."

In DOMA, Madsen instead relied on the U.S. Constitution for an equal protection analysis. In his dissent, Justice Tom Chambers said Madsen was misreading Grant County II and should not have deferred to the federal constitution. The state's privileges and immunities clause, he wrote, "may provide greater protections than its federal counterpart." It also is debated in the concurrence written by Justice James Johnson.

UPDATE: Here's what Chief Justice Gerry Alexander told The Stranger last week: "I would be astounded if we didn't get a motion for reconsideration."

I'm away from the blog this morning, but will be on KUOW at 10 a.m. to talk about all things political.

From this morning's paper, here's the roundup of Supreme Court candidates, with an interview with Michael Johnson. He says he won't raise any money or seek any endorsements and is in the race to draw attention to the "special interest money" going to back Sen. Steve Johnson.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has bought air time over the next two weeks for an ad praising Congressman Dave Reichert's support of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, known as Part D. The chamber wouldn't talk about how much was spent on the ad buy. KING 5's director of sales and marketing, Ann Sobel, confirmed for me that the ads will run on her station from July 27 through Aug. 9.

Renee Sinclair, a Northwest regional official for the U.S. Chamber, said the ads will talk about Reichert's support for the prescription drug plan. In other parts of the country the chamber is running ads thanking members of Congress for their vote for the act in 2003. But Reichert wasn't elected until 2004, so the ad will be different. I haven't been able to get a copy of the ad yet.

"It's a thank you to Congressman Reichert," Sinclair said.

The 8th District, where Reichert faces a strong challenge from Democratic newcomer Darcy Burner, is the only Washington congressional race the U.S. Chamber has made an endorsement in. The group also endorsed Republican Mike McGavick in the Senate race.

Two years ago the chamber funded ads criticizing Democratic attorney general candidate Deborah Senn. The ads were sponsored by the Voters Education Committee, which through most of the campaign refused to say where its funding came from.

When the group did reveal its funding, all of it, $1.5 million, had come from the chamber. A King County Superior Court judge said the ads were "express advocacy" against Senn, not merely educational, and the Voters Education Committee was required to register as a political committee and report its donations. The case is on appeal to the state Supreme Court. The chamber is not a party to the suit. But it was criticized by local business groups for its anti-Senn ads. Not out of any disagreement about Senn, but because the locals felt blindsided by the chamber effort and embarrassed by the brouhahah over the attempt to keep the funding source secret.

No such issue this year. The chamber is not using any local group as a go-between. The ad will clearly state that the U.S. Chamber is paying for it and tells people to contact the chamber for more information.

State Supreme Court Justice Tom Chambers has an opponent. Former King County Superior Court Judge Jeanette Burrage filed this afternoon and so far is the only challenger to Chambers.

Burrage is a former state legislator and served five years on the court before losing a close re-election race, and has run unsuccessfully for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

If the name's not ringing a bell, Burrage was the judge who threatened to sanction two female attorneys for failing to follow her dress code which required them to wear skirts in her courtroom. The King County Bar Association has consistently rated her "Not Qualified."

The Times reported in 2002 that during her tenure on the bench, "she held the record for being the judge with the most affidavits of prejudice, requests filed by attorneys for their cases to be transferred to other judges."

UPDATE: Burrage just told me that she had been thinking about getting in the race for several weeks. She was not prompted, she said, by Wednesday's court decision upholding the Defense of Marriage Act. Chambers was in the minority on that, arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

She said several other people had been considering getting in the race and they told her they'd endorse her if she ran.

"I think people are ready for someone who is more for protecting regular people from government bureaucracy and someone who is not in the good old boys club with the attorneys."

Burrage said that like the other conservative court challengers this year, she will not participate in the bar association's ratings process, saying, "I've had my fun there already."

SIDEBAR: For those like me who wanted to be a fly on the wall at The Stranger yesterday, the audio of at least part of the editorial board meeting with Chief Justice Gerry Alexander is here.

Secretary of State Sam Reed just announced that "Initiative 917 did not qualify for the November ballot based on the 4 percent random sample prescribed by state law." It could still make it, though.

The initiative is Tim Eyman's latest attempt at cutting car tab taxes. Eyman has claimed signatures were lost or stolen, which Reed has said is ridiculous. Eyman submitted 266,006 signatures but claimed he had submitted more than 300,000.

The sampling found an invalidation rate, including 24 duplicate signatures, of 17.96 percent. State law now requires Reed to to do a full signature count of the petitions submitted by Eyman.

A Smith has joined the Johnsons in challenging Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens. But again, the candidacy raises questions in my mind.

Richard Smith filed this morning to run against Owens, state Sen. Steve Johnson, and Seattle attorney Michael Johnson.

Smith is an environmental attorney in Seattle. So why at the last minute did he get in the race against Owens, an incumbent already endorsed by Washington Conservation Voters, the state's leading green political group? WCV is the "legislative partner" of the Washington Environmental Council. Smith has served on the board of the council and chaired its legal committee. Has he had a falling out? Does he disagree with the group's endorsement?

History shows that common names do well in court races. It is also true that a singular female candidate in a race with several men gains an advantage as well. Four people in the race all but guarantees Owens will make it to the general election.

UPDATE: On the Michael Johnson issue, Richard Pope put this in the comments on the below post but it is worth moving up. It is against the law , in fact it is a felony, for somone to file a declaration of candidacy using "A surname similar to one who has already filed for the same office, and whose political reputation is widely known, with intent to confuse and mislead the electors by capitalizing on the public reputation of the candidate who had previously filed."

UPDATE UPDATE: Smith's partner, Knoll Lowney, confirms Smith has joined the Supreme Court race. Lowney is the attorney who represented groups that successfully challenged Tim Eyman's I-747 and is a longtime Eyman critic.

My colleague Ralph Thomas talked to Lowney, who said that Smith would make an excellent justice and has been "particularly concerned about the problem of special interests attempting to take over the Supreme Court." That's certainly the rallying cry of Owens supporters who have been critical of business backing of Steve Johnson. But does Smith have a beef with Owens in that regard?

"I guess you'd have to ask him that," Lowney said.

Clifford Traisman, the lobbyist for Washington Conservation Voters and the Washington Environmental Council, said he hadn't heard that Smith had joined the race against WCV-backed Owens. Traisman said Smith is a "cracker jack lawyer" and said, "I'm sure he's outraged at what's happening with the buying of the Supreme Court."

Does he think it's a serious campaign?

"One would wonder, getting in so late without doing the kind of outreach that's necessary," Traisman said.

UPDATE: There's another candidate in the race, Norman J. Ericson of Olympia. He's a $500 donor to Chris Gregoire.

UPDATE: Just finished a chat with Ericson. He is a state administrative review judge. A job he has held for 31 years. He used to be a clerk on the state Supreme Court.

He says he decided to get in the race in part because of what he sees as the "slippery slope" of special interest money in court races. He said that involves money going to challengers and incumbents.

But Ericson has nothing against Owens.

"I was looking at the positions that were up for election and settled on that position. There was nothing that Justice Owens did one way or another."

He says he's not a stalking horse and not running in any way to help Owens beat her best-known opponent, Sen. Steve Johnson.

"I decided to run so I could win."

Seattle attorney Michael Johnson just filed with the Secretary of State's office in the race against Justice Susan Owens. What's most enticing about this is that already in the race is a well known Johnson, state Sen. Steve Johnson.

I don't know Michael Johnson, but we're trying to reach him. His secretary said he was busy and unavailable until tomorrow.

Anyone know who he is? He was admitted to the state bar in 1998, the year he graduated from UW law. He's 46 years old, and has a firm specializing in elder law.

There are already two Johnsons on the court, Charles and James, so it's a winning name. And in a race with a well-known Johnson, Michael's entry certainly raises the prospect of an interesting and perhaps confusing race.

UPDATE: Michael Johnson has been tough to reach tonight.

His practice specializes in elder law and guardian cases. He and his firm are listed with the Greater Seattle Business Association, the gay chamber of commerce. He is somewhat politically active, having donated at least $910 to Victims Advocates, a trial lawyer PAC. The PAC gave $9,000 to Citizens for Upholding the Constitution, a PAC that is supporting Owens.

So why is a guy who supports the gay community and gives to an Owens-friendly PAC running against Owens, something of a hero to many in the gay community for her stand yesterday on the gay marriage decision?

There's a good chance it's a monkey wrench candidacy; an effort to confuse people, take votes from Steve Johnson and help Owens make it through the primary at least.

"What you'd have to think is if he runs and people think he is the other Johnson in the race — Steve — Susan gets to the general election," said former Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge.

And in the general election, Talmadge said, there will be more voters than in the primary and a voting demographic likely more inclined toward Owens. Talmadge told me he and Michael Johnson were co-counsel on a case but he did not know that Johnson had gotten in the Supreme Court race.

My colleague Ralph Thomas will have more on the Supreme Court races in tomorrow's paper.

Talmadge points out that other unknowns have run for the Supreme Court. Justice Charles Johnson was certainly one when he ran in 1990, beating incumbent Chief Justice Keith Callow. Many people think Johnson's name helped, with voters knowing little about court candidates it may have just seemed more familiar, and friendly, than Callow.

Chuck Johnson only spent about $1,000 on his chief-beating campaign. It may have been a crapshoot or a lark, but Johnson wasn't in the race to help another candidate. He has been re-elected twice since and has matured into a respected member of the court.

Is Michael L. really hoping to join Charles W. and James M. on the bench? I hope to hear from him soon so he can convince me.

Others are checking him out, too. See Stefan Sharkansky's post and this at Northwest Progressive Institute Official Blog.

The King County Bar Association is out with its ratings of appeals court judges and their challengers. On the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Tom Chambers are given the highest rating, "exceptionally well qualified," while Justice Susan Owens gets only a "qualified." That is on a four-step scale, exceptionally well qualified, well qualified, qualified and not qualified.

The opponents running against Alexander and Owens, John Groen and Steve Johnson, have said they will not participate in the ratings process. The bar association is reviewing them anyhow, but so far has not issued ratings.

Alexander and Owens are due today at The Stranger's office for endorsement interviews. News editor Josh Feit says he'll be watching to see what the chief has to say to Stranger Editor Dan Savage. "I hope he's ready to tell Dan why Dan and and his boyfriend of 10 years aren't qualified to raise their kid."

In The News Tribune Peter Callaghan digs through the six opinions released yesterday to say the justices were split on the issue of gay marriage like society at large, but they "have to place into legal terminology what is at its core an emotional, personal and acrimonious debate."

Danny Westneat doesn't temper his words at all.

The ruling blithely sanctions discrimination and is oblivious to the complexities of modern families. It's also absurd — frightening even — if carried to its logical ends.

UPDATE: You can see a brief summary of the Alexander/Savage meeting here.

UPDATE: And here's Eli's take on what seems like a pretty intense meeting.

In reviewing the comments that included guesses for what the Supreme Court would do, I find two that look like winners. Both have 5-4 decisions upholding DOMA with some details on how the opinions would splinter. Maybe we need to declare a tie, but first I thought I'd see what you all think. Which of these do you think came closest?

Prediction: 5-4 decision to uphold. This isn't based on my own political beliefs (I actually support throwing out the DOMA), but the trend and out look this court has upon similar personal rights issues.

To throw out DOMA:
Justice Owens
Justice Fairhurst
Justice Bridge
Justice Chambers

To uphold DOMA:
Justice J. Johnson
Justice Sanders
Justice Madsen
Justice C. Johnson
Justice Alexander

I believe that Justices Chambers, Owens, Bridge, and, Fairhurst will vote to throw out DOMA on equal protection and rights grounds. I pretty sure that Justices Sanders, J. Johnson, and Alexander will vote to preserve the DOMA based on state rights and a broad definition of the power of the state legislature that passed the DOMA. I really see Justices Madsen and C. Johnson as the swing votes on this one. I don't know how these two and perhaps Chief Justice Alexander will rule, but I think they will vote to preserve the DOMA.

This court has shown a reluctance for sweeping and controversial decisions. This will be a close decision. Close enough that regardless of the decision that this issue will be brought up again under different grounds. I just don't see this court going out on a limb at the present time. Then again, I would be glad to be wrong.
Posted by Dan at 05:07 PM, Jul 25, 2006

Uphold DOMA:

1. Madsen
2. C. Johnson
3. Alexander
4. Sanders

Concurring separately:
1. J. Johnson
2. Sanders

Dissenting:
1. Fairhurst
2. Owens
3. Bridge
4. Chambers

Dissenting separately:
1. Bridge
Posted by Plessy Ferguson at 11:07 PM, Jul 25, 2006

AND THE WINNER IS: Plessy. Almost scary how close PF was, missing only a few things. Either he/she had a tip, or has an uncanny ability to read the court. Either way, we should talk Pless. And send me an e-mail with your mailing address and I'll send along a nice gift for playing our game. (And if the address is the Temple of Justice I promise not to tell.)

The main thrust of conservative campaigns against Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Susan Owens is that the current court is run by activist judges who legislate from the bench with disregard for the constitution and the voters.

That view is summed up best in this quote from a speech by Alexander's opponent, attorney John Groen:

"These decisions are the result of a willingness to engage in contorted legal analysis that avoids clear precedents and that alters the plain language of the statute and goes beyond the proper bounds of the court."

But wait. On the steps of the Supreme Court this morning, Gary Randall, president of the Faith and Freedom Network, a conservative evangelical lobbying group helping court challengers this year, issued an endorsement of the current court that undermines the argument that this court is out of control:

"I was afraid they might depart from ... the tradition of neutrality that the court has always taken. We're in a highly politicized environment and it seems that they cut through all that and made the decision as it should have been."

Of course conservatives don't always have to agree, but which is it? A "tradition of neutrality" or "a willingness to engage in contorted legal analysis"?

There is no majority opinion in the Supreme Court's gay marriage case. There is a lead opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen and that's how we'll refer to it here.

Because there is not a majority for the legal arguments behind the decision, some caution is called for in drawing conclusions about the long-term impact of the ruling. Madsen told me she wishes there had been a strong majority because that would have set a clearer precedent and reduced confusion in all the analysis that will go on. She does, however, think there were majorities for certain pieces of her decision.

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander told me the next time a similar case comes before the court "we will probably have to revisit this difference of opinion over what analysis we apply." And Justice Richard Sanders said in an interview, "What the lead opinion says in support of its conclusion is not binding precedent."

With that caveat, one of the notable things in the Madsen opinion is the lengths she went to say that homosexuals are not a "suspect class" for the purposes of an equal protection argument.

To be considered a "suspect class," Madsen wrote, "the class must have suffered a history of discrimination, have as the characteristic defining the class an obvious, immutable trait that frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society, and show that it is a minority or politically powerless class."

She says gays and lesbian fail on two of the three tests. She does say there is no dispute that gays and lesbians have been discriminated against. But she sides with the state's argument that homosexuality is behavioral.

The plaintiffs do not cite other authority or any secondary authority or studies in support of the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. They focus instead on the lack of any relation between homosexuality and ability to perform or contribute to society. But plaintiffs must make a showing of immutability, and they have not done so in this case.

The piece that really jumped out at me, though, was the discussion about how gays and lesbians are not politically powerless.

Finally, with regard to the ability to obtain redress through the legislative process (the political powerless prong), several state statutes and municipal codes provide protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and also provide economic benefit for same sex couples. Recently, the legislature amended the Washington State Law Against Discrimination to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Engrossed Substitute H.B. 2661, 59th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash.2006). In addition, the Intervenors point to evidence that a number of openly gay candidates were elected to national, state, and local offices in 2004.

The enactment of provisions providing increased protections to gay and lesbian individuals in Washington shows that as a class gay and lesbian persons are not powerless but, instead, exercise increasing political
power. Indeed, the recent passage of the amendments to chapter 49.60 RCW is particularly significant given that, as the plaintiffs point out, the legislature had previously declined on numerous occasions to add sexual
orientation to the laws against discrimination. We conclude that plaintiffs have not established that they satisfy the third prong of the suspect classification test.

So, because the Legislature passed a gay rights bill — presumably because gays and lesbians face discrimination — that shows that homosexuals have political power and can't be a "suspected class" deserving of equal protection. Is that a little Catch 22ish?

The state Supreme Court has upheld Washington's ban on gay marriage.

The two cases before us require us to decide whether the legislature has the power to limit marriage in Washington State to opposite-sex couples. The state constitution and controlling case law compel us to answer "yes," and we therefore reverse the trial courts.

The decision on Andersen, et al. v. King Co., et al can be found here.

More from the majority opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen:

Finally, DOMA does not violate the state constitution's equal rights amendment because that provision prohibits laws that render benefits to or restrict or deny rights of one sex. DOMA treats both sexes the same; neither a man nor a woman may marry a person of the same sex.

Concurring in the majority opinion are Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Charles Johnson.

(Note: The time stamp on this post is wrong. It went up at 8 a.m.)

There are six opinions. In addition to the majority opinion, Alexander wrote a short concurrence saying "there is nothing in the opinion that I have signed which should be read as casting doubt on the right of the legislature or the people to broaden the marriage act or provide other forms of civil union if that is their will."

Justice Jim Johnson wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment only, but disagreeing with the majority's reasoning.

From the dissent by Justice Mary Fairhurst:

The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington's gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests. With the proper issue in mind — whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry will encourage procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, or child rearing in households headed by opposite-sex parents — I would hold that there is no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

The Madsen majority tries to keep the decision narrowly focused and goes out of its way to say the ruling should not be read as opposition to gay marriage.

We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington.

It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be.

MORE:
Justice Bobbe Bridge agreed with the reasoning of Fairhurst's dissent, but wrote her own as well. She says the majority allowed religion and morality to sway critical thinking and that the gay marriage ban smacks of state-sanctioned religion.

What we ought not to address is marriage as the sacrament or religious rite — an area into which the State is not entitled to intrude at all and which is governed by articles of faith. What we have not done is engage in the kind of critical analysis the makers of our constitution contemplated when interpreting the limits on governmental intrusion into private civil affairs; what we have done is permit the religious and moral strains of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to justify the State's intrusion. As succinctly put by amici the Libertarian Party of Washington State and the Log Cabin Republicans of Washington: "To ban gay civil marriage because some, but not all, religions disfavor it, reflects an impermissible State religious establishment." Amicus Curiae Br. of the Libertarian Party of Washington State et al. at 11. After all, we permit civil divorce though many religions prohibit it — why such fierce protection of marriage at its beginning but not its end?

If the DOMA is really about the "sanctity" of marriage, as its title implies,
then it is clearly an unconstitutional foray into state-sanctioned religious belief. If the DOMA purports to further some State purpose of preserving the family unit, as the plurality would interpret it, then I cannot imagine better candidates to fulfill that purpose than the same-sex couples who are the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions.

UPDATE: The majority takes a hard shot at Fairhurst and her argument that DOMA was motivated by anti-gay sentiment. Madsen wrote that's "demonstrably incorrect" and points out that 15 lawmakers who voted for DOMA in 1998 also voted for the gay rights bill this year:

In assuming that everyone who voted for DOMA is a bigot, Justice Fairhurst's dissent is not only wrong, it sadly oversteps the bounds of judicial review.

Washington, D.C., it is said, is Hollywood for ugly people.

But there's more than just inner beauty inside the Beltway. And to prove it, otherwise grown-up, though mostly young, people submit to The Hill's report on the "50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill." The search happens every two years for those with "delicate features," the "touch of gray for gravitas," the "light-eyed, Jodie Foster look-alike" who "loves spontaneity, surprises and flowers" or the manly man who is "attracted to women who are passionate about their interests."

Only six members of Congress made the list, including one of our own:

The glow you see in Rep. Cathy McMorris's face is that of a bride-to-be who will marry a former Navy pilot Aug. 5 in San Diego.

Morris, 37, will marry Brian Rodgers, a Naval Academy graduate and retired Navy pilot who flew submarine-hunting F-3s. Asked if they ever watched "Top Gun," the 1986 film about Naval fighter pilots, McMorris says, "we've never watched it together."

McMorris, the freshman representing the Fifth District is the one true Washingtonian on the list. But there's an important disclaimer: Apparently if you were on the list in 2004, as Sen. Maria Cantwell was, you couldn't be on this year's. (Could you imagine the Republican attack ad? It would be the deep-voiced, scary narrator, saying, "An influential newspaper says Maria Cantwell is no longer beautiful" as her photo morphed into Abe Vigoda.)

There are two others with Washington connections on the list. Brooke Adams, who is now the spokeswoman for the House Veterans Affairs Committee, was once former Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn's press secretary. She also ran for governor of California in that wild 2003 recall election that saw Arnold Schwarzenegger beat out more than 100 candidates. Adams finished 45th, according to The Hill. We knew she was destined for bigger things.

And Steve McBee, a lobbyist originally from Bellingham, sounds like Perfect Man when The Hill says, "More than his own physical beauty, lobbyist Steve McBee prefers to discuss how seriously beautiful his 2-year-old son, Brody, is."

Isn't that the soft side you're looking for in a defense lobbyist?

You can use the comments below to tell me how I should be covering more important things. But to save time, I'll tell you here I don't think this is more important than the war in Iraq, the Middle East crisis or the genocide in Darfur. It may be more important than CAFÉ standards.

UPDATE: There is another person among the 50 beauties with Washington ties, Staci Maiers, congressional liaison for the National Education Association.

Maiers grew up in Moses Lake and, says The Hill, her list of what she doesn't like in men include "a guy who takes longer to get dressed than I do" and "someone who talks politics or name-drops on a date; we get enough of that in our line of work."

Republican Senate candidate Mike McGavick wants nine debates with Sen. Maria Cantwell — one in each congressional district. I'll go out on a limb here and say it's not going to happen. Challengers always want more debates than incumbents, and frankly have more free time to fit them in.

In fact, that is such a truism I was sure if I checked the clips there'd be stories about Cantwell wanting some huge number of debates against the man she beat for the job, former Sen. Slade Gorton. What I found was Cantwell pushed for just three debates, though she insisted they all be televised. (I guess in case anyone didn't know Gorton was much older than she was.) There were eventually three, though only one was televised.

In a letter to Cantwell, McGavick said there is plenty of time for nine debates.

"I take seriously the obligation of the political process to make myself available to the voters so that they may examine and compare my ideas with my opponent's."

He'll get his chance. But nine of them? We'll see what Cantwell's opening bid is.

Ken Lisaius, special assistant to the president and deputy White House press secretary, is leaving after more than five years as part of George W. Bush's communications team. Lisaius is a born and bred Washingtonian and ended up with Bush after a stint with former Congressman George Nethercutt, R-Spokane. He's one of the high visibility Washingtonians in the administration.

Friday is his last day. I'll be sorry to see him go. It's been nice to have a local guy in the White House who I can get on the phone for an official "no comment."

Lisaius worked for the first Bush campaign in 2000 and then spent more than a month in Florida as a Bush spokesman during the recall battle. He met his wife, Jennifer, on the job, and proposed to her in the Rose Garden. She's deputy communications director for the Small Business Administration.

In March he was promoted to one of two deputy press secretaries. He has worked with all three White House press secretaries and had nothing but good things to say about the latest, Tony Snow. He says he wants to do something different, but hasn't decided exactly what that will be. He's off soon on the first real vacation in a long time and insists there is no political message in his destination: France.

The state Supreme Court will release the long-awaited decision on the state's Defense of Marriage Act tomorrow morning. The case was argued March 8, 2005.

The decision should be available online after 8 a.m.

The court usually releases opinions on Thursdays. But Chief Justice Gerry Alexander has the authority to release opinions as soon as they are ready.

The decision will not only set the stage for another round of political wrangling over gay marriage, it will give court-watchers a great opportunity to see how the justices handle the most contentious issue this court has dealt with.

UPDATE: We can no longer speculate on when the court will act. And I don't know enough to speculate about what it'll do. (I do think we'll see more than two opinions tomorrow as justices draw nuanced positions. And that could explain the long gestation period.) But don't worry, there's still some speculating to be done.

If after 8 a.m. it can be said that gay marriage could soon be legal in Washington what does that do to the broad political climate of the 2006 elections? There are candidates who say they don't want to talk about state issues. But gay marriage is a galvanizing issue and candidates at all levels would be asked for their position.

The decision will be made public two days before the filing period ends for this fall's election. As of now Justice Tom Chambers is the only incumbent on the court up for re-election this year without an opponent. If the Defense of Marriage Act is thrown out and Chambers is with the majority, will he attract a conservative opponent?

Some people have already been surprised that Chambers hasn't drawn an opponent cut from the same conservative cloth of Steve Johnson, running against first-term Justice Susan Owens, Alexander and John Groen, running against Alexander first-term Justice Susan Owens. Of course if the case goes the other way, and Chambers votes to uphold DOMA, he could draw an opponent from the left. But I think that's less likely.

There's lots of discussion about what judicial candidates can and cannot say about issues before the case. But there's no doubt that if Alexander and Owens vote to overturn DOMA that will become a big part of the campaigns against them -- if not by their opponents directly, certainly by third parties.

If DOMA is tossed out, my guess is a Republican lawmaker will call for a special session within an hour of the decision being made public to push for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

If the law is ruled unconstitutional, there would likely be legislative action necessary before gays could marry. I doubt Democrats would be in a big hurry to do that and would likely wait until next year's legislative session.

What do gay marriage supporters do if DOMA is upheld? I suppose there could be a legislative push for civil unions.

And no matter what the court says, Gov. Chris Gregoire has promised that once the decision is out she'll say what her position is on gay marriage.

Anyone want to guess which justices will vote which way? Let's have a contest. Tell me which way the court will rule and who signs the majority and minority opinions. I'll find a swell Seattle Times prize to give to whoever comes closest. Guesses have to be posted in this comment thread by midnight tonight. Earliest correct guess wins.

UPDATE: As for what sort of political climate will exist in the state if the court throws out DOMA, we just got an e-mail from Joseph Fuiten, a leading conservative and politically active pastor who was an intervener in the case, saying he'll have his response to the decision by 9 a.m. tomorrow.

But he's not waiting until then to stir things up:

Unlike Massachusetts, Washington State does not have a residency requirement. If the court strikes down DOMA it would allow homosexuals from all over America to come to Washington State to form a legal marriage.

But maybe it has taken so long for the court to rule that the issue of gay marriage is losing steam. A column up on the Governing magazine site says "Gay marriage may soon run out of steam as a political issue in the states." Marriage is so last year. The big fight now is gay parenting.

Folks at Sound Politics may think I made too much of their own Eric Earling's post on Tim Eyman. But as denizens of SP work to downplay the idea that conservatives are tiring of Eyman, some of the city's biggest voices in talk radio are making it clear they are at best skeptical about Eyman's story of stolen petitions for I-917, and at worst think he's a liar.

Michael Hood, who follows talk radio at blatherwatch, listened yesterday to Eyman being grilled by 710 KIRO's Dori Monson — who Hood describes as an ordinarily loyal libertarian and I-917 supporter — and 570 KVI's John Carlson. Hood says neither seemed to be buying Eyman's tale or purloined petitions.

Monson asked: did you make copies of the initiatives you turned in?

Perhaps showing a sudden twinge of confidence in the government he says he distrusts and abhors, but Glib Timmy said, "No, we didn't think you'd have to."

You can hear Monson's interview with Eyman and Secretary of State Sam Reed here.

The exchange with Carlson was even more testy, particularly interesting given that they have often been allies in initiative battles.

But Carlson isn't buying this one; and he told Eyman: "I know the government can screw up, but I also know you can screw up; I know the government can be dishonest; but I also know you can be dishonest."

In one amazing exchange, Eyman struck out at Carlson, accusing him of opposing his anti-car tab (which is really anti-Sound Transit) initiative because it, he said, would endanger the transportation package Carlson and others, including former Governor Gary Locke, are trying to hammer out in a bipartisan effort for next year's ballot.

One of the things that struck me yesterday about Earling's post was that he took Eyman on directly and called him a liar. Carlson agrees, according to blatherwatch:

Carlson summed up for Eyman what he said, "makes me think you're lying."

They were:

~ Nothing like this, on this scale, with this volume of signatures has ever happened in the Secretary of State's office, and it strains credulity that it could.

~ The "time stamped receipt" for the petitions was a letter Eyman brought in and got a receptionist to time stamp.

~ He astoundingly made no copies of the petition sheets before he turned them in — a minor expense, relative to its importance.

~ And our personal favorite: "You took a third of a million bucks from a donor, spent his money — and that's not going to make him very happy."

Of course, so far the donor is not at all unhappy and is ready to write Eyman a $100,000 check.

Gov. Christine Gregoire wants the state to increase the amount of contracts it gives to businesses owned by women and minorities. Working within the confines of Initiative 200, which rolled back state affirmative action programs, Gregoire told state agencies in a letter sent last week to do more and "help turn this record around."

In the past six years there has been a dramatic decrease in state contracts given to minority- and women-owned businesses. Numbers from the Office of Minority and Women Owned Business Enterprises shows contracts with minority-owned firms dropped from $50.2 million a year to $21.6 million a year, and contracts with women-owned businesses went from $49.4 million a year to $33 million year. In that time overall spending on state contracts rose from $1.7 billion to $2.8 billion annually.

Gregoire wrote:

"Clearly, our state contracting laws prevent awarding contracts on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender. At the same time, they require agencies to communicate bid opportunities to historically underused businesses, be they owned by women or African Americans, Latinos or veterans, persons with low-incomes or rural business owners."

State officials say that I-200, passed by voters in 1998, still leaves room to help minority-owned firms get state work as long as there are no mandatory goals or preferences based on race, gender or national origin.

Gregoire's cabinet and staff have come up with proposals for boosting minority contracting that they say comply with I-200. They include having state agencies name a "supplier diversity change agent." That person must be "committed to supplier diversity" and will report directly to the agency director.

A presentation given to Gregoire's cabinet also says that minority- and women-owned businesses will be recruited for "informal bids" of purchases from $3,100 to $43,900. Those bids will include one solicitation from a woman-owned business and one from a minority-owned business.

The state says it can do that under I-200, but can't give a preference to the minority- or woman-owned business when deciding which company to award the contract to. The state also will move to "unbundle" larger contracts to come up with more jobs that fall into the informal bid category.

Carolyn Crowson, director of the minority contracting agency, said the statistics on minority contracting "are an indication we're in a situation that is unfair. We're trying to turn it around without violating any of the rules."

(Why in the PowerPoint presentation given to Gregoire's Cabinet is there a photograph of the governor? It seems kind of obsequious. Gregoire should issue an executive order barring any state official from putting her photo in a PowerPoint presentation given to her.)

A major state business lobbying group has endorsed Chief Justice Gerry Alexander for re-election, passing over property rights attorney John Groen. And it's not just that the Association of Washington Business backs incumbent judges. The group endorsed Republican Sen. Steven Johnson in his challenge to Justice Susan Owens.

The AWB said that while it disagreed at times with Alexander, the chief's record shows "we can get a fair shake in front of him and that is the hallmark of a good judge." Groen, who has the backing of other business groups, has accused Alexander of being an activist judge who does not support private property rights.

In backing Johnson, the group was restrained in anything that could be perceived as criticism of Owens, saying "AWB believes the court would benefit greatly from Senator Johnson's legislative experience tempered by his philosophy of judicial restraint."

Tim Eyman's patron has no doubt that Eyman is right about the number of I-917 signatures he turned in, and says Eyman's enemies may have made off with the missing petitions.

Michael Dunmire, who has contributed more than $232,000 to the campaign so far, says he will soon donate about $100,000 to the "compensation fund" that goes to pay Eyman and his partners, Jack and Mike Fagan. He said he sees weekly reports on the number of signatures collected and he is confident there were more than 300,000.

"They keep track. They live and die by them. They're not wrong."

So what happened to the signatures?

"I know they were there when they were handed in. And if you look at the last election you have ballots coming in weeks after the election. Get serious, if people don't believe Washington state has ballot counting problems."

And who's the culprit?

"There are a lot of entities that don't want I-917. They have their own techniques. They send out goon squads to intimidate petitioners. That never gets covered. We play it straight up."

Dunmire has been Eyman's No. 1 financier since last year's successful performance audit initiative, giving Eyman more than $1 million so far.

I asked Dunmire how much he had given this year, and he said he wasn't sure. In fact he said:

"Haven't a clue. When I get a compulsion and think that's a good place to make a contribution, I write a check. And I don't keep track."

It is not difficult to find critics of Tim Eyman, particularly among local liberal bloggers. One even got his start dogging Eyman. But it is of note, and should be reason for concern for Eyman, that the area's most prominent conservative blog leads this morning with this headline:

TIM EYMAN YOUR 15 MINUTES ARE UP

At Sound Politics, Eric Earling, though, doesn't just write that Eyman is running out of gas and has turned "himself into a traveling carnival of various costumes in a spiraling attempt to garner media coverage. I suppose that makes him a new kind of Carny."

Earling says Eyman is also a liar. Earling says Eyman recently lied to 710 KIRO host Dave Ross about how I-917 would mess with regional transportation votes and denied what the language of the initiative makes clear: It would take power away from local voters.

Putting the transportation component of this discussion into perspective, the Legislature approved the gas tax package, and the public solidly supported it in a statewide vote. Now Eyman, wants to revisit part of that decision and limit the future ability of local voters to decide on their own taxes that would go straight to the transportation improvements this region desperately needs. Again, if the idea is really "Give the Voters More Choices" then Eyman would be better served actually letting the voters of those three counties do that when they get the chance next year, rather than using a statewide vote to limit that region's options in advance.

If I-917 doesn't make the ballot, especially after the Referendum 65 failure earlier this year, Tim Eyman will have lost a lot of credibility, even with his supporters. Despite that, I realize Tim Eyman really wants car tabs to be $30. I'm half convinced he won't rest until he receives a car tab notice from the state that reads $30.00. It seems voters, particularly in the Puget Sound region, increasingly disagree, and probably tend to agree instead that the whims of one publicity-hungry individual are not the basis for sound public policy.

Eyman will have a hard time dismissing Earling as part of the establishment that has served so well as a foil for Eyman's campaigns. But I don't doubt he'll try.

UPDATE: Also at Sound Politics today, Stefan Sharkansky digs in to what Eyman claims is his smoking gun to prove the Secretary of State's office lost thousands of his petitions: a receipt showing he turned in, as he claimed, 300,353, signatures. But as I figured, the receipt was something Eyman asked for, it is unofficial in any meaningful way, and based only on Eyman's assertion that he was turning in that many signatures. From an e-mail Sharkansky got from Elections Director Nick Handy on how Eyman got his receipt:

At the front desk, he asked our receptionist to date stamp his letter as received. After she did this, he turned to the press and announced that the Office of Secretary of State had just acknowledged receipt of 300,353 signatures. Of course, we were just acknowledging receipt of a letter written by Tim Eyman claiming he was submitting 300,353 signatures. We had not counted teh (sic) pages or the signatures on his petitions at that time.

So, to be clear: Eyman brought in a pile of petitions, told the receptionist they included 303,353 signatures and asked for a piece of paper saying that; the Secretary of State's office counted the signatures and found far fewer, leading Eyman to wave his receipt as proof that someone had pilfered his petitions.

Also, as David Goldstein graciously points out in the comments, he's not the only blogger who got started by dogging Tim Eyman, so did Andrew Villeneuve.

UPDATE: And even more Sound Politics? Stefan has posted a response to what I said above about Earling on Eyman, pointing out that Earling's father is David Earling, the former Sound Transit board chairman. (My guess is any Eyman response leads with that fact.) He points out that Earling only writes for himself, not some official voice of Sound Politics, and otherwise tries to downplay any significance to, as I said, the area's most prominent conservative blog taking Eyman on so squarely. OK Stefan, it's not important, but it sure is interesting. Whether you or a majority of your readers agree with Earling, the post jumped out at me because it was different from what we hear from the usual sources.

UPDATE: You can see the smoking gun here, and read the latest on Eyman from the Spokesman Review's Rich Roesler.

Speculation about the state Supreme Court's gay marriage decision has been going on so long it's apparently given some people a chance to reconsider their view of the court. Here are two comments from Jamie Pedersen, an attorney for gay couples in the case and a Democrat running in the crowded Democratic primary for the 43rd District House seat.

May 13, 2006, The Associated Press:

A number of participants think justices will sit on it until after the election, just because it's such a hot-button issue, bound to anger the losing side and segments of the voting public.

"It's the classic seepage of politics into the process," Pedersen says. "They'll see the controversy and some will worry about re-election, and that's a shame."

July 20, 2006, The Associated Press:

Jamie Pedersen, a lawyer representing the gay couples in the case, said he doesn't fall into the camp of those who believed the court might delay the opinion for political reasons, and that he appreciates the care the court appears to be taking with the ruling. As a former law clerk, he said he knows how complex opinion-writing can be.

"Anytime somebody changes something in one opinion, the others get a chance to change what's in their opinions," he said. "They'll issue the decision when they're done writing it."<