And this time it's not about federal agents converging on his Alaska home. The Politico reports that Stevens doesn't like the new ethics bill the House just passed and has threatened to block it.

The senator told a closed session of fellow Republicans today, including Vice President Dick Cheney, that he was upset that the measure would interfere with his travel to and from Alaska -- and vowed to block it.

Threatening to block an ethics bill when you are under federal investigation wouldn't seem like a natural move, I know. But I suspect Stevens will blaze all sorts of new trails if his troubles keep multiplying.

ALSO: At the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza asks, "What's the matter with Alaska?" That's a great question and one I hope to spend some time writing about soon.

Cillizza says that the exploding political scandal could force some change in the state's political environment. But he wisely counsels Democrats not to get too excited.

Before Democrats get to far ahead of themsleves, it's important to remember that despite the upheaval in the state Republican party, Alaska remains a strongly Republican state. It's a certainty that whoever Republicans nominate for president will carry the state and likely carry it handily. That should give Stevens and Young or whoever their replacements are a nice boost.

President George Bush is scheduled to be in Bellevue Aug. 27 for a top dollar fundraiser for Congressman Dave Reichert's re-election campaign. An e-mailed invitation says the event at the Hyatt Regency Bellevue includes a VIP reception that will cost $10,000 — given or raised — and a general reception with a $1,000 admission price.

The fundraiser will be the first high-profile event of Reichert's re-election campaign. During the 2006 campaign Democrats made much of Reichert's ties to the president, including a June Bush fundraiser for the congressman.

Any donation that exceeds the $2,300 per election Reichert can collect will go to the state Republican Party.

Democratic candidate Darcy Burner said by an e-mailed statement:

"That George Bush would come yet again to raise big money for Congressman Reichert is not a surprise, given the congressman's unwavering support for the president's disastrous Iraq policies.

"When will it end? The American people know it is past time to end the war. But Congressman Reichert cares more about backing the president than about representing the views of the voters of the 8th District."

The Anchorage Daily News reports this morning on the latest with the federal investigation of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.

Both Taxpayers for Common and Sense and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics today asked Republican leaders to request that Stevens at least temporarily step down until the investigation was resolved.

The Daily News was also at the scene yesterday as feds went through Stevens' house.

The agents were obviously cataloging the house and its fixtures, from light switches and electrical outlets to a big stainless steel barbecue grill on a second-floor deck that neighbors said was hoisted there with a crane. At one point, agents climbed on the pitched metal roof to take pictures of heat tape in the gutters.

One agent carried a full large black garbage bag out of the house and put it in the white truck.

A half-dozen federal vehicles, including a white panel truck with a satellite dish on the roof, were parked in front of the house most of the day. At least 10 more federal vehicles were parked at the ski resort's day lodge a couple of blocks away.

A new progressive political group is getting ready to launch in Seattle. The group, called Fuse, is backed by wealthy donors, a powerful labor union and the political director of MoveOn.org, perhaps the most successful of the new wave of liberal groups. Fuse will be staffed by experienced political operatives and modeled on a similar group in Colorado.

That's an impressive portfolio. But it begs the question: Does Seattle need another liberal political group? Fuse organizers clearly have thought about that and have some intriguing answers. I talked yesterday with Aaron Ostrom. He will be the group's executive director. Today he has that job at Futurewise. He'll go part-time to Fuse next month and full time for the launch in September.

My best summation of what the group hopes to do is push Washington Democrats beyond their dedicated incrementalism. It'll do that through donations to like-minded candidates, recruiting volunteers to help those candidates and producing issue-oriented advertising campaigns. Fuse will have a non-profit arm as well as a political operation.

Ostrom told me:

"I think the Legislature has done a lot of good stuff and lot of impressive stuff. But when you look at the scale of the problems we're facing, it's going to take more and it's going to take bigger and bolder solutions and we have to both encourage and demand that and we have to support that."

(That has been a goal of SEIU, which will be a part of Fuse. The service worker's union has not been afraid to tick off Democrats, for example when it backed a primary challenge to House Appropriations Chairwoman Helen Sommers, D-Seattle. But SEIU has also backed Republican legislators — a move that seems to be at odds with the goal of emboldening and growing Democratic control of the state.)

Democrats have large majorities in both houses of the Legislature. But Ostrom said there is room and reason for growth. It's not enough, he said, to have strong progressive representation from Seattle and King County. He said there needs to be a strong corps of volunteer activists from other parts of the state to push politicians, too.

I asked him if that was a way to encourage legislators from outside King County to take bolder liberal steps. He said it was, but it would also be a way, he said, to reach the governor. Gov. Christine Gregoire largely adheres to Democratic incrementalism. More progressives in the suburbs and in rural Washington could give the governor increased confidence that a progressive agenda would not mean losing her statewide base.

Ostrom says he doesn't like to think of progressive as a partisan issue. But, that said, Fuse wants to build on the already large Democratic majorities.

"Washington is still in many ways a swing state. We're 113 votes away from a very conservative governor, and there are still 12 races a year in the Legislature that are decided by a couple thousands votes. And we're only a few years removed from Republican majorities, at different times, in the House and Senate."

In addition to Ostrom, the group's staff will include political director Chris McCullough, a former aide to Congressman Jay Inslee. Additional staff will be hired as well.

The idea and seed money for Fuse came from a small group of progressive donors in Seattle known as the Progress Alliance. Its members include Jabe Blumenthal, a Microsoft retiree and a board member of the environmental group Climate Solutions; Valerie Tarico, a psychologist and author, and Paul Abrams, a bio-tech entrepreneur blogs at Huffington Post.

Congressman Jay Inslee will introduce tomorrow a resolution calling for impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, according to a statement from his office. Inslee, a former prosecutor in Selah, has lined up other former prosecutors in Congress to join as co-sponsors. As of this afternoon he had five co-sponsors.

The resolution is brief. It says in full:

Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall
investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the
House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales,
Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ThinkProgress has MSNBC's "breaking news" report.

The New York Times editorial page this weekend raised the possibility of impeaching Gonzales.

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales's words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

Some local liberals have been unhappy with Inslee for not supporting impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney and President George Bush. But as soon as the news broke today of Inslee's move against Gonzales, he was hailed by the director of Washington For Impeachment. Linda Boyd wrote to supporters:

Dear Friends of Democracy,

Great news today, Rep. Jay Inslee will sponsor legislation that would require the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation of Atty. General Alberto Gonzales!

.... Thank you to all who have worked so hard to educate Jay Inslee!

We will impeach to restore the rule of law!

AP in Anchorage reports the FBI and IRS searched Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' house today.

The search was still going on 20 minutes ago. The Anchorage Daily News has more.

The New Yorker has a lengthy story in the current issue about the murder of federal prosecutor Tom Wales. The story by Jeffrey Toobin looks at the investigation, a suspect in the shooting, and how the case may have played into the firing of former U.S. Attorney John McKay. (It also gives a well-deserved hat tip to Times reporters Mike Carter and Steve Miletich as being the only two reporters who continued to pursue the story.)

McKay told Toobin that he and the Seattle office had been recused from the Wales investigation — a decision he initially agreed with. But several months later he faced a staff revolt of sorts where his deputies told him "the department was neglecting the investigation of Tom's death."

"My mistake was that I assumed 'recusal' was 'recusal,' " McKay went on. "I had erred in assuming that I was completely recused from even asking questions about the allocation of resources. I assumed it would have the highest priority within the Department of Justice. I once worked at the F.B.I. for a year, and during that time an agent was killed in Las Vegas. They deploy like crazy when an agent is killed. Agents got off the airplane that night from D.C. to investigate. The director of the F.B.I. flew out. That was not the reaction we were getting from the Department of Justice after Tom Wales was killed. Over 2002, I decided that really it should be my job to advocate for appropriate resources to be devoted to the Wales case."

In 2002, at a meeting of U.S. Attorneys at the New York Hilton, McKay approached Larry Thompson, then the Deputy Attorney General, in a corridor and spoke to him about the case. As they were talking, Robert Mueller, the director of the F.B.I., appeared. "It was a little awkward," McKay recalled. "Bob jumped in to kind of defend the F.B.I. I said, 'Bob, we've got to have appropriate agent support for the Wales investigation, and we're not getting it.' He was fairly sharp with me, saying, 'I've done everything I possibly can.' I said, 'I know that's your intention, but it hasn't worked out that way.' Larry was kind of an observer to the whole thing. Bob said he would look into it." (Mueller declined to comment.)

Former FBI Special Agent in Charge Charles Mandigo told Toobin that he got no manpower help from headquarters. If it was a priority case for the FBI, he said, there would have been "backfill" of staff to help.

There was some discomfort from DOJ higher-ups about Wales' work with Washington CeaseFire and his high profile position in favor of gun control. His friends wanted to create a UW memorial foundation focusing on another issue close Wales's heart, civic engagement. "We were really concerned that he would be remembered only for his work on gun safety, and that was just one strand of his life," Eric Redman, is quoted as saying. John McKay's brother, Mike, went to D.C. to see if DOJ would contribute to the memorial. fund.

Mike McKay went to see Deborah Daniels, who was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of research and grants. "I told her that in my opinion Tom was probably killed in the line of duty," McKay recalled. "I said that they should help fund the project at the University of Washington. I don't remember exactly what she said, but I do remember it was off-putting." Redman recalls hearing McKay describe the meeting soon after he returned from Washington. "He said that Daniels said she was concerned that Tom had been so involved with gun control," Redman told me. (Daniels confirmed that she met with McKay but said that she does not remember their discussion and didn't know at the time that Wales worked on gun control.) ...

John McKay, by the way, said he admired Wales' commitment to the issue of gun control, but added, "I personally would not be in full agreement with his organization" ... .

Lou Guzzo, the man behind Dino Rossi's Idea Bank, continues to think outside the box. Guzzo doesn't like the practice of suspected killers escaping the death penalty by cooperating with investigators. But he's no fan of government-run capital punishment, either.

Instead of consigning them to death by injection or by hanging, why not let the families perform the act and dispose of the killers in whatever fashion they should choose? That would really give them the justice they seek.

Let's brainstorm: If the families were required to "dispose of the killers" in a stadium, the state could sell tickets and the money could pay for law enforcement. It's not just justice, it's smart budgeting. Think about the TV rights! Viewers could send text messages to vote for how the execution should be carried out. For hungry wolves, text 19653. There could be teams, a league, cross-town rivalries, bobble-head night. Don't touch that dial. We'll be right back after this word from our sponsor.

Republican presidential candidates are not so sure they want to be part of September's CNN/YouTube debate. There are lots of theories floating around about why that is. (Via The Slog) But each day it seems more are questioning whether they may not be able to fit it in their schedule. See the NY Times blog here and TIME here.

The Rudy Giuliani campaign has cited scheduling conflicts in saying it will skip the Republican version of this week's Democratic debate, while Mitt Romney has mocked the seriousness of the questions and also seems likely to withdraw. John McCain, one of two candidates who had agreed to participate (Ron Paul is the other), has also expressed doubts and aides say he's reconsidering his commitment.

I read this one wrong. After Monday night's Democratic debate I thought Republicans would be better prepared for the format and could come back strong and show an affinity for the new technology. I'm still not sure why Republicans don't want to participate. I don't think any of the Democratic candidates were hurt one bit from anything connected to the YouTubey part of the debate. There were exchanges that produced winners and losers of course. But there were no disasters and no big embarrassments.

I thought of headlining this post, "The evolution of Patty Murray." But really, it is more about the evolution of the D.C. insiders' perception of Washington's senior senator. D.C. is like Hollywood, or maybe more like high school, in quick, easy typecasting. You know, like "McCain is a maverick," "McCain is buddying up to Bush too much," and "McCain's campaign is faltering." The pack generally follows along until a signal comes that it's time to change storylines. (Gore was a boring dissembler, but now he's been unleashed and really is funny, at ease and pretty smart after all.)

So with that in mind, here are six — not always pleasant — phases to winning a reputation any politician would be proud of.

1: Murray is elected in 1992 and D.C. embraces her self-applied appellation.

Patty Murray's outsider, middle-class image — the famous "mom in tennis shoes" — fit the voters' mood. This was a case of image matching reality: Patty Murray really was a suburban mother who came from a distinctly middle-class background. The message and the messenger were one and the same.

2: Murray shows what a she-cardinal can do in the Senate and learns to play party politics, too.

As chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee overseeing highway dollars, Murray has a more direct say than ever over what projects win federal funds. At the same time, she has become the chief fund-raiser for Democrats in the Senate as chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

3. D.C. tires of message and messenger.

On the senatorial side, Patty Murray (D-Wash.) tied for first place with Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) in the "No Rocket Scientist" category ...

4. Suddenly, pork is out of favor and Murray goes from newly minted power player to purveyor of old school politics.

"What is good for the goose is good for the gander," Senator Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat who is set to become chairwoman of the transportation subcommittee, said last fall in a speech defending an Alaska Republican's allocation of more than $200 million in federal money for a bridge to remote Gravina, Alaska, with a population of 50. It became notorious as the "Bridge to Nowhere."

"I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next," Ms. Murray warned. To anyone who might vote against the bridge, Ms. Murray threatened that her subcommittee would be "taking a long, serious look at their projects."

5. Murray's not just powerful, she controls a scary-powerful political machine.

"On the one hand, she's the soccer mom in tennis shoes," said a Washington state GOP operative who asked for anonymity. "On the other hand, she's created a political machine that scares the heck out of everybody — including me."

6. Murray "has earned a reputation as a bastion of common sense in the Senate." That's from a story in Roll Call (subscription required) yesterday.

The three-term lawmaker has quietly transformed herself from the chamber's lonely everyman willing to use personal stories in the "world's greatest deliberative body" into a key member of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) leadership team and a tough-nosed legislator who leaders and "old bulls" alike have come to lean on.

The story is all good for Murray. I'm sure some senators would prefer to be thought of as master players of the inside game, or the one to be feared, or the intellectual one. But to me, a "bastion of common sense" would be hard to beat. Says Roll Call:

That role also has often come through in public. For instance, during one of the Democratic leadership group's regular "pen-and-pad" sessions with reporters, Schumer, Reid and Durbin took turns railing on Republican "obstructionism" and their inability to pass legislation over GOP roadblocks. A clearly exasperated Murray interrupted her colleagues, saying "this is not about process" and went on to discuss the substance of their proposals.

Former state Republican Chairman Chris Vance posted his second piece at Crosscut yesterday. After saying earlier what's wrong with Republicans in the state, here Vance says what to do about it. His formula for success calls for Dino Rossi to run for governor and a dose of luck.

The ACLU of Washington, which helped represents felons in their suit, will now push to get the Legislature to change the law. Spokesman Doug Honig said:

"The reality is people who have served sentences and get back into the community typically don't have a lot of money and don't have an easy time getting high paying jobs.

"To say that a citizen can vote when the pay off all their fines, basically says that if you have more money you'll be able to vote, and that if you don't, you won't, or it will be a long time until you can."

The Right To Vote Project at the Brennan Center at New York University School of Law, filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the felons. The director of the group, Erika Wood, said in a statement:

"Washington is one of only eight states that requires full payment of fees and fines before a person's right to vote can be restored. The system results in the permanent disenfranchisement of many low income individuals and it is now up to the Washington State legislature to fix this injustice.

"Put simply, Washington's law and others like it create a poll tax for people who have served their time and are living, working and paying taxes in their communities. Whatever form they take, wealth qualifications are simply incompatible with democracy.

"The law upheld by the Supreme Court presents two fundamental problems: the unfairness of making wealth a condition of voting, and the enormous practical problems of administering the current system. We will continue to work with local advocates and Washington lawmakers to dismantle this last remnant of the poll tax."

Secretary of State Sam Reed said in a statement:

"Our state Legislature has determined felons should complete all the terms of their sentences before winning back the right to vote. It is the Legislature's place, not the court's, to decide whether or not to change state law."

And Attorney General Rob McKenna:

"The Supreme Court's decision upheld our argument that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme did not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution."

Earlier: What happens to felon voters now and Supreme Court says no to felon voters.

If there are average Americans who know about campaign donation "bundlers," the head's up may have come from this exchange in Monday night's Democratic presidential debate.

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel: And I want to take on Barack Obama for a minute, who said he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is?

And, besides that, he has received money from a Robert Wolf, the head of the USB (sic) bank in the United States, who raised $195,000 -- from this bank -- wait a second -- who has lobbyists in Washington...

CNN host Anderson Cooper: Your time is up.

Gravel: ... and it's a foreign-owned bank.

Cooper: Senator Obama, I'm going to have to let you respond.

Obama: Absolutely.

Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money.
And the bundlers -- the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that.

And that's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States.

Gravel: Wait a minute...

Bundlers are fundraisers who gather contributions from others and turn them over to a candidate. The law says the names of those bundlers must be disclosed if they had ever taken possession of the checks themselves and turn them over to the campaign. If they instead just ask people to donate, and hold an event, but have the checks go directly to the campaign they can get around that disclosure requirement.

Public Citizen wants more disclosure requirements for what they say are the 1,893 bundlers at work this campaign season. The group had a Web site that went live today, whitehouseforsale.org, that lists all the bundlers disclosed by campaign.

Public Citizen found 19 bundlers in Washington, with a majority of those for Democrat John Edwards. His bundlers include some prominent attorneys, such as Paul Luvera and Yvonne Kinoshita Ward .

The list shows developer Cynthia Stroum as a bundler for Edwards and Obama and says she has already raised at least $50,000 for Obama. But Stroum tells me she is only bundling for Obama. She serves on his national finance committee and has been a committed supporter for months.

But in February she co-hosted a fundraiser for Edwards. She said Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, are "dear friends and I adore them" and she helped out as a friend. The Edwards campaign may be listing her as a bundler from that event, but Stroum is clear that while she was on the fence earlier in the year she is squarely in Obama's camp today.

Arizona Sen. John McCain is the only Republican presidential candidate that is listed as having any Washington state bundlers. There are six, including Chris Fidler, who for the second time is a key McCain organizer here, former U.S. Attorney Mike McKay and former Slade Gorton aide and now lobbyist, Tony Williams.

McCain, Edwards and Obama are the only candidates with bundlers in the state. You can do your own search here.

A liberal group whose workers submitted fraudulent voter registration forms has agreed to a legal settlement with King County that says if the problem is repeated in the future the group could face criminal prosecution.

Keith Ervin has a story here that says people working for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, admitted to filling out registration forms with names they took out of phone books while sitting in the Seattle Public Library. The phony names were purged this morning by the King County Canvassing Board.

But ACORN has also agreed to a lengthy agreement with King County about how it will work to avoid allowing any fraudulent signatures in any future voter registration drives. ACORN has agreed to a series of safeguards to monitor signature drives and to alert officials to any suspect registrations. The organization will also pay $25,000 to King County by Aug. 10 to reimburse for costs of the investigation.

The agreement governs ACORN's activities until 2013 and covers training, oversight, management issues, quality control, how to handle suspect registrations. The agreement says:

a. ACORN agrees that submission of registrations that have been fraudulently collected by an ACORN employee and not reviewed pursuant to the quality control procedures, or willfully turning in fraudulent cards, may constitute grounds for criminal prosecution of ACORN as a corporate entity unless such cards have been segregated by ACORN pursuant to the requirements of section 7 of this agreement.

b. ACORN agrees that violations of the terms of this agreement may be used as evidence in the State of Washington in future criminal prosecutions against ACORN employees, ACORN management, or ACORN as a corporate entity.

The state Supreme Court says a dentist who stuck boar tusks into the mouth of an anesthetized employee/patient, pried her eyes open, and took photographs, was conducting a "business practice" and his insurance company must pay his attorney fees and court costs. That means dentist Robert Woo will get more money from his insurance company than his employee did when she sued him for "outrage, battery, invasion of privacy, false light, public disclosure of private acts, nonpayment of overtime wages, retaliation for requesting payment of overtime wages, medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and negligent infliction of emotional distress."

The majority opinion in Woo v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., was written by Justice Mary Fairhurst and signed by Tom Chambers, Susan Owens, Richard Sanders and Bobbe Bridge. Fireman's had refused to defend Woo in the suit brought by Tina Alberts, the employee he was performing a dental procedure on.

Fireman's refused to defend under the professional liability provision on the grounds that the acts alleged in Alberts' complaint did not arise out of the provision of dental services. It refused to defend under the employment practices liability provision on the grounds that the complaint did not allege sexual harassment, discrimination, or wrongful discharge as those terms were defined by the policy. It refused to defend under the general liability provision on the grounds that the alleged practical joke was intentional and was not considered a "business activity."

The Supreme Court ruled that Fireman's "had a duty to defend under the professional liability and general liability provisions but not under the employment practices liability provision."

That brought a sharply worded dissent from Justice James Johnson; also signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander.

Today's majority decision rewards Dr. Woo's obnoxious behavior and allows him to profit handsomely, receiving a total of $750,000, triple the damages paid to the real victim of his intentional offensive and likely tortious conduct. I would hold that Fireman's Fund Insurance, as his professional practices insurer, does not have a duty to defend Dr. Woo for this intentional tortious behavior. Any reasonable person would not define his actions as a dental procedure or an employment practice covered under Woo's insurance policy and our dental practices statute.

There is also a separate dissent from Justices Charles Johnson and Barbara Madsen:

In her complaint, Tina Alberts alleged that Robert Woo devised a scheme to humiliate her, ordered the boar tusks, placed them in her mouth when she was unconscious, took pictures, had them developed, and told Alberts that she had a trophy to take home.

By these facts, Alberts unambiguously alleges that her injuries were the consequence solely of Woo's intentional conduct, none of which involves providing dental services. Even under the most liberal construction, the complaint's allegations are not conceivably covered.

This morning's state Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on felon voters raises the question of what happens to felons who registered to vote in the 16 months since a lower court said the law was unconstitutional.

Will they be grandfathered in and allowed to continue voting? Can those registrations now be cancelled? And is there any way to even know how many felons are covered by the law?

State officials don't yet know the answers. Assistant Secretary of State Steve Excell told me this morning that attorneys are still going through the pile of opinions in the Madison case. But he has already asked for advice on what to do about felons registered to vote.

As of now, the only felons that the state can accurately track -- and keep off the voter rolls -- are those still in custody of the Department of Corrections. Excell said:

"That's the only rock solid list that we know we can implement now in the short term. ... We have no way of finding the felons that are voting today."

The Secretary of State's office was in the process of working with other state agencies last year to find a way to keep better track of those felons who had yet to pay off all their financial obligations. But when King County Judge Michael Spearman ruled the felon law unconstitutional, the effort was put on hold. There's no way to know how many felons with outstanding financial obligations registered to vote since that March 2006 decision.

Excell said Secretary of State Sam Reed will restart efforts to track felons who are once again ineligible to vote.

Here's a statement from Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna.

The state Supreme Court just released its decision upholding the state law that says felons must pay all fines and court fees before having their voting rights restored. The majority opinion was written by Justice Mary Fairhurst:

We hold that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme does not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. We also hold that respondents lack standing to bring their cross-appeal, and we deny respondents' request for attorney fees because they are not the prevailing party. We reverse the trial court.

MORE: There are five opinions in the case and I'm still making my way through them. The majority opinion was signed by Fairhurst, Susan Owens and Bobbe J. Bridge.

The case comes from three convicted felons who were trying to get their voting rights restored. But state law says they have to complete all the terms of their sentences, including what's called legal financial obligations, before being able to vote. The plaintiffs argued that violated their state and federal constitutional rights because it denies them the right to vote based on wealth.

The majority wrote:

The privileges and immunities clause does reflect, in part, our framers' concerns with "undue political influence exercised by those with large concentrations of wealth" and "avoiding favoritism toward the wealthy." Grant County II, 150 Wn.2d at 808. However, such concerns are not triggered by Washington's felon disenfranchisement scheme because it grants the "privilege" of restoration of voting rights "upon the same terms . . . equally . . . to all citizens." Const. art. I, § 12. The Washington Constitution grants the right to vote to all Washington citizens on equal terms. Additionally, the Washington Constitution disqualifies voters on equal terms -- that is, when individuals have been convicted of committing a felony. Finally, Washington's statutory disenfranchisement scheme provides for the restoration of voting rights to felons on equal terms -- that is, only after individuals have satisfied all of the terms of their sentences.

...

We hold that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme does not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. It is the province of the legislature to determine the best policy approach for re-enfranchising Washington's felons.

Here's the majority opinion, a concurrence by Barbara Madsen, a concurrence by James Johnson, a dissent by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, and a dissent by Tom Chambers.

Alexander's dissent, which was signed by Chambers and Charles Johnson, says the Legislature has already set a policy of trying to get convicted felons to return to the rights of full citizenship.

As a society, we should encourage, rather than discourage, felons to rehabilitate themselves. As members of this society, we all benefit when those who have failed in the past to fully live up to their responsibilities as a citizen become full-fledged citizens who again can exercise the cherished right to vote. We should all rejoice when they achieve that goal. Indeed, the legislature has indicated that it is the policy of this state "to encourage and contribute to the rehabilitation of felons and to assist them in the assumption of the responsibilities of citizenship." RCW 9.96A.010. Having set this laudable goal for felons, we should not prevent them from achieving it simply because they lack ability to pay legal financial obligations (LFOs).

More from Alexander:

The injustice this works is obvious. As respondents point out, "If the state
sentencing guidelines said that judges should sentence wealthy felons to five years incarceration followed by immediate restoration of rights and sentence poor felons to five years incarceration followed by lifetime disenfranchisement, the equal protection problem would be apparent."

Madsen has several disagreements with the case law cited by the majority. She also wrote that she disagrees with Alexander's "unwarranted emphasis on wealth."

The State does not, contrary to the dissent's view, create inequities between the rich and the poor by tying voting to the ability to pay. The plaintiffs were convicted of felony crimes and for this reason were disenfranchised; this is why they cannot vote. Regardless of whether they are rich or poor they will continue to be disenfranchised until they complete their sentences, including their legal financial obligations. They have no constitutionally protected right to vote. The legislature can change the requirements for reinstating a felon's right to vote if it concludes that requiring felons to pay all financial obligations before regaining the vote is too harsh a condition to place on such a precious attribute of citizenship, but it is not constitutionally required to do so.

SOME BACKGROUND: The case stems from a 2004 lawsuit.

The case was filed on behalf of five convicted felons who served their sentences, completed their community supervision and have begun paying off their fines and fees. In 2002, the Department of Correction estimated there were 46,500 Washingtonians who were prohibited from voting based solely on outstanding financial obligations, according to the lawsuit.

One of the plaintiffs, Daniel Madison of Seattle, was convicted in 1996 of third-degree assault. He was sentenced to probation and required to pay $583 in restitution and fees. He is disabled and indigent, and said he is on a payment plan of $15 a month. So far, he has paid $260, but, because the court has assessed interest, he doesn't foresee catching up.

In March 2006, a King County Superior Court judge ruled the law unconstitutional.

"It is well recognized that there is simply no rational relationship between the ability to pay and the exercise of constitutional rights," Judge Michael Spearman wrote in a ruling backing the challenge of three indigent felons.

... He said "discrimination on the basis of wealth and property has long been disfavored."

State Attorney General Rob McKenna and Secretary of State Sam Reed announced soon after they would appeal the decision.

"We believe a rational basis does exist for the Legislature to deny felons the right to vote until they have completed their entire court-ordered sentences, including payment of criminal penalties, victim's restitution, and legal fees, rather than separating out various sentencing aspects," they wrote.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in June 2006.

Arguing for the American Civil Liberties Union, attorney Peter Danelo told justices that the group doesn't disagree with Washington's right to disenfranchise convicted felons, or the requirement that they pay court-ordered fines. But the right to vote should not be tied to those fines, he said.

"What this case is about is whether the state, once it decides to restore the vote to former felons, can make the right to vote turn on whether particular felons are wealthy enough to pay financial obligations immediately," he said.

The percentage of Americans who think the initial invasion of Iraq was a good idea is going up. A New York Times/CBS poll found that number "increased modestly compared to two months ago." That doesn't make much sense to me, given the stumbling progress of the surge, recent headlines and congressional debates that have even Republicans thinking it is close to time for U.S. troops to get out.

It didn't make sense to the people who commissioned the poll, either. Janet Elder, the New York Times editor of news surveys and election analysis, wrote today that when those results came back in a poll mostly about Hillary Clinton, another survey was commissioned.

We wanted to make sure we had gotten it right.

They had. At least a follow up poll found similar results. Here's what the question was:

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the United States have stayed out?"

Forty-two percent of those polled said the United States did the right thing, and 54 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. The last time the question was asked, in May, 35 percent said taking military action against Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.

...

When the second round of results came back, the numbers were nearly identical to the ones found in the poll about Mrs. Clinton. In the poll conducted over the weekend with 889 adults, 42 percent of the respondents said the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out.

There was also a drop in the number of people who said the war is going badly. In the latest poll, 66 percent of Americans said things are going badly for the United States in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq. That is down from 76 percent who said the same thing in May.

Thoughts on what would be driving this?

The Seattle City Club is being picky about which candidates get invited to its school board debate Aug. 16. No candidates in the West Seattle District Six made the cut, though candidates in districts one and three will appear even though they have no primary.

Only three of five candidates in District two were invited, incumbent Darlene Flynn, Sherry Carr and Lisa Stuebing. Left out were the United Way manager Patrick Kelley and recent high school grad Courtney Hill.

City Club Program Coordinator Jessica Jones told the Times' Emily Heffter that the club has a policy that guides which candidates get invited. Heffter tells me this includes candidates' standing in polls, whether candidates are up to date in their Public Disclosure Commission filings and how much money candidates have raised outside of their own families and workplaces.

That leaves me to wonder how David Blomstrom earned an invitation. He's running for the District 3 seat now held by Brita Butler-Wall. On his Web site Blomstrom calls the incumbent "a lying, conniving whore" and adds, "which pretty much describes everyone else on the Seattle School Board."

Blomstrom tracks what he calls the Seattle Mafia.

The city of Seattle is effectively ruled by a group of shadowy characters who are as rich and powerful as they are corrupt.

...

By extension, the term Seattle Mafia can also include people who work for Bill Gates and his cronies, including an army of media whores, phony activists and other operatives.

Jones said City Club limits the number of candidates because members want "quality interaction — we want to make sure we have a quality discussion." Blomstrom certainly should help get that done.

Even some who made the cut are unhappy with invitation list. Said Flynn:

"Since they're being so discerning about the candidates, I might want to be discerning about the forums I participate in."

Are Washington Republicans becoming Democrats? That's the conclusion Darryl Holman comes to at his blog, hominidviews. In addition to his liberal blogging, Holman is an anthropologist, demographer and UW associate professor.

He takes a pretty careful look at available state and national polling data that includes whether respondents consider themselves Democrats or Republicans. You should read all his charts, graphs and talk of "correlation coefficients." But this is the summary:

In other words, at the national level, people abandoning the Republican party tend to identify themselves as either independent or "other." This is largely good news for Democrats, although I am sure they would prefer to see their numbers climb as people abandon the G.O.P. There is not much evidence for that right now.

But he says that is what's been happening in Washington since 2005.

Both Republican and Independent identity have declined since about the time of the election contest. The fraction of people who identify as Democrats is clearly increasing over time.

There are a couple of qualifiers worth mentioning. The state numbers come from SurveyUSA data. The company uses automated telephone calling which has been somewhat controversial in the polling world. SurveyUSA keeps its own scorecard to show the accuracy of its methods.

I also wonder if any of the differences between the state and national trends can be attributed to the fact that voters here don't register by party. I think that makes it easier for people to slide back and forth in how they identify themselves, where in a party registration state one actually has to go change the paperwork to really go from Democrat to Republican.

Gov. Chris Gregoire hasn't been happy with her speechwriters. Austin Jenkins writes at Crosscut that Gregoire just ran through her third wordsmith in two years.

Adam Vogt, who had worked for U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., is out after less than eight months on the job. "It's very difficult to put words in someone else's mouth," says Vogt, explaining his short tenure. "I think most of what I wrote worked well, but again, so much of public speaking is about delivery, it's about emphasis, it's about storytelling ... and that's rarely the same among two people."

Vogt's predecessor, Peter Jackson, lasted in the job six months. "It was sort of a mutual agreement that I no longer fit there and I was not able to capture the governor's voice in a way that she found satisfactory," explains Jackson.

I don't think it's unusual for speechwriters to have short tenures in the governor's office. I know Gov. Gary Locke struggled in that department, too. It's a tough job under the best circumstances. I do think it's particularly tough under Gregoire, as this quote from chief of staff Tom Fitzsimmons shows:

Fitzsimmons acknowledges the governor has been frustrated with the caliber of speeches written for her. "I think sometimes she's feeling that we've not given her all of what could be given to her to be more effective," says Fitzsimmons.

Gregoire is a perfectionist and an attorney. That makes for a tough customer when it comes to having things written for her. I imagine she could question every word, every comma even. She doesn't have a naturally comfortable speaking style. I once wrote: "In a Gregoire speech, even 'my friends' can at times sound like a reprimand."

I'm not sure what Gregoire is looking for in a speechwriter, other than that Fitzsimmons says they want the perfect person -- perfect words for the perfectionist governor. But the problem may not be the words or the delivery. Writes Jenkins:

The lesson, says Jackson, is speechwriters are expendable and sometimes take the fall if the governor is unhappy with how a message is being received.

I linked yesterday to the Seattle Weekly report on fundraising for House Democratic and Republican campaign committees. That showed Democrats with about $450,000 in the bank and Republicans with just $40,621.

It may not be quite that dire, though a big gap exists. Kevin Carnes Carns, staff director of the House Republican committee, pointed out to me today that House Republicans have three fundraising committees associated with it, the House Republican Organizing Committee, the Speaker's Roundtable — which is being phased out — and the recently formed Reagan Fund. In those three accounts, Republicans show a total of about $70,000 in the bank.

Carnes Carns said Republicans deposited another $17,500 last week and he got another $5,000 check yesterday. With two fundraisers this week, he said:

"By the end of the week we should have over $100,000 in the bank."

Carnes Carns acknowledges the obvious fundraising advantage the Democrats have with their solid majority. Carnes Carns doesn't expect Republicans will be able to match Democrats dollar-for-dollar, but he is confident there will be $200,000 in the bank by the end of the year.

Carnes Carns said one thing that is making it hard to raise money from the Republican base is the uncertain nature of Dino Rossi's run for governor. Rossi hasn't decided yet and says he won't do so until the end of the year. Carnes Carns says that has some of the Republican base — the type that gives $50 to $150 — holding off donating to legislators in the hope that instead they can use their money to help Rossi.

NOTE: Apologies for the bad spelling on that name.

Former state GOP Chairman Chris Vance writes at Crosscut today about what Republicans are doing wrong in Washington state. He has Part II coming, where he says he'll tell them what to do about it.

Vance covers the fairly well-known "structural" problems Republicans face in Washington. But he says that in legislative races, Republicans have done a poor job recruiting the right kind of candidates. He likes the sort of candidate Democrats have been successful with — mayors and local office holders ready to move up.

The Ds are recruiting candidates who are qualified, experienced, and, without fail, portray themselves as fiscally conservative and small-business-friendly. They get elected to the House, and then often move up to the Senate or other offices.

The GOP has fielded a few impressive candidates in recent elections, but far too often Republican candidates have little on their resume other than the fact that they are Republican activists. Running a small business and attending Republican district meetings is not seen by independents — or editorial boards — as sufficient training to serve in Washington's quasi-professional Legislature. When you have an unknown person running against the mayor, it's not really a fair fight. Elections are about candidates, and the Republicans are being outperformed by Speaker Chopp's candidate recruitment machine.

At the Seattle Weekly, Aimee Curl looks at the Public Disclosure Commission reports from the state House campaign committees. Yikes. She finds that Democrats have $450,000 in the bank compared to the Republicans $40,621. Yes, the Democrats have more than 10 times what Republicans have.

Today is the first day that same-sex and older, unmarried heterosexual couples can register their domestic partnership with the state. As I drove in to work I passed a growing line of people outside the Secretary of State's office waiting to sign up under the law that went into effect yesterday. Andrew Garber has a story in this morning's paper with updates from the growing line.

Each partner will get one of these official cards:

UPDATE: So far, 93 couples have registered since 8 a.m. today. The Secretary of State's website lists them all here.

I remain a skeptic that tonight's CNN/YouTube debate of Democratic presidential candidates signals any kind of revolution in political dialogue. Hearing Cokie Roberts, arbiter of all things conventional, on NPR this morning say how new and exciting it'll be didn't help either.

But I have to keep at least a little bit of an open mind because after the debate I will host a call-in show about the big event. It'll air on TVW at 6 p.m. — right after the debate ends — and be webcast right here at seattletimes.com. You can call toll-free during the program at 866-511-1103 or 866-511-1107. You will also be able to submit written questions from the Times homepage beginning at 4 p.m.

Times columnist Danny Westneat will be in the co-host chair. We have two guests lined up: Sandeep Kaushik, a Democratic political consultant, part-time aide to Ron Sims and former Stranger writer and Mike Davidson, CEO of Newsvine. (Newsvine is a news site that allows readers to pick their favorite stories and discuss the news.) Mike will help us decide how revolutionary the debate really was. I see from his blog he's an Al Gore guy, so I'll have to ask him how long he plans to wait before finding another candidate.

The rest of the hour will be taken up with insightful commentary and probing questions from you. And I see that at least the local Obama crowd is ready for a little post-game action.

Part of what originally had me questioning the importance of tonight's debate is that the real power comes from selecting the questions. And that power remains in the hands of big media, not the masses. Last week the Washington Post talked with CNN's Anderson Cooper about the debate. He said:

These are smart questions, and people are clearly living these topics. It's not just theoretical question, or an academic discussion. These are people that are very passionate about this topic. I want to make sure that this debate honors them, and honors the time they took to make these questions.

What makes YouTube so popular scares CNN a little.

"It's dangerous," says executive producer David Bohrman. "With the anonymity of the Internet, you can cross the line. There's a small, good gatekeeper function we still need to play."

Some 'Tubers are unhappy that they don't get to decide what gets asked tonight.

"Our expectation was that they were really going to use the Web and let the wisdom of the crowd help drive politics in a more democratic way," said David Colarusso, a Massachusetts physics teacher.

So, while on sabbatical in Edinburgh, Scotland, he tweaked his political site to allow anyone, YouTube user or not, to vote on what questions they want to see asked Monday. It can be reached at www.communitycounts.us.

At Colarusso's site he tells people:

Remember you are voting for the questions you want answered, not the