I am on my way to a weekend conference on election issues. I am not planning to blog from S.F., so I hope everyone has recovered from the oh-so special session and has a nice weekend, too.

Gov. Christine Gregoire tonight signed the 1 percent property tax cap passed in the special session. She also signed the second bill passed by the Legislature, the property tax deferral program for middle-income families. She said that second bill was part of what she needed to do to secure enough votes to reinstate I-747.

Gregoire said that she didn't think the session had anything to do with Tim Eyman, sponsor of the original initiative. She was not happy with Eyman's claims that she and the Legislature had not done enough.

Gregoire: And my message to him is if he'd like to participate in the legislative process, run for office.

PoP: But why? It seems like he's doing pretty well without having to be governor or run for the Legislature. He passes an initiative, the court throws it out as unconstitutional and the Legislature rushes to put it into law. They did it with 695, too.

Gregoire: I actually don't think he's doing pretty well. He needs to get some help in writing initiatives. We're spending how much money and how much time in court proceedings because the initiatives are not written as they should be? That's what the legislative process is all about — to allow full and complete vetting and amendments and opportunities to do the sorts of things that can clean up a bill and give it a much greater chance of success through the court process.

So I don't know if you can call that success, to be honest with you. And the fact of the matter is, this has nothing to do with Tim Eyman as far as I'm concerned. I think the voters said very clearly what they wanted. And he may have written something. But the fact of the matter is my motivation is what the voters had to say. And the voters said they're fearful about whether they're going to be able to keep their homes.

It's been implemented now for five years or more. It is, in fact, the way we've been doing business. So I don't think this is a rush to judgment by the Legislature. I think it is exactly what the voters want to have done.

PoP: But they only got to have that say and say they want it done because Tim Eyman put it on the ballot. The Legislature has not passed a property tax cap.

Gregoire: You know, I can't say that they wouldn't have, though. They did something today that he hasn't suggested.

PoP: The deferral you're talking about.

Gregoire: Yeah.

Before the Senate takes up the 1 percent property tax cap members are debating a second bill that would create a property tax deferral program for mid-level income homeowners. The bill, SB 6178, comes at the request of Gov. Christine Gregoire and is sponsored by Sen. Claudia Kauffman, D-Kent.

Kauffman says the bill would help those who need it most who are in "real danger of losing their homes." The bill would allow people to defer property tax payments, but they'd have to pay back taxes, with interest, if the property is sold or the owner dies. The deferral would be available to households making up to $57,000-a-year and allow them to defer half their tax payments.

Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, said the bill would push people further into debt because of interest charges that would accrue. Republicans have been describing the bill today as a form of predatory lending that would trap homeowners with large debt owed to the government.

"That's really what this is, payday lending by the state of Washington," Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, said.

The bill passed 27-21

All Republicans in the Senate voted no, as did four Democrats: Tim Sheldon, Brian Hatfield, Steve Hobbs and Jim Kastama.

The Senate is now, at 4:20 p.m., taking up the 1 percent cap bill.

Republican Don Benton also tried to amend the bill. He wanted to prohibit use of unused tax capacity that local taxing districts may have saved up.

"The underlying bill restores half the people's will," Benton said. "My amendment restores the other half."

Democrats challenged the amendment, just as happened in the House, saying that the amendment was outside the scope of the bill.

Lt. Gov. Brad Owen hasn't ruled yet. The Senate is standing at ease.

The Senate went back in about 5:30. Benton's amendment was ruled out of scope and tabled. Senators are now debating the bill and will vote soon.

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, spoke against the bill and said Initiative 747 "should never have been passed by the voters in the first place." She said it has done more harm than good because local services have been starved of funding.

Republicans in the Senate are being more upbeat about the bill than most House Republicans were. Benton said the cap was a "step in the right direction and provides certainty" about increases in property tax rates. And he said how glad he was that the governor called the special session.

Sen. Mike Carrell, R-Lakewood, began his floor speech this way: "I am very happy tonight to be voting in favor of Initiative 747." He said it was a "great move" and that his constituents will be happy to have tax increases restricted even a little.

The bill passed 39-9. Voting no were Democrats Darlene Fairley, Ken Jacobsen, Adam Kline, Kohl-Welles, Joe McDermott, Ed Murray, Craig Pridemore, Harriet Spanel and Brian Weintstein.

Zarelli just told reporters he was happy with the Legislature's work today.

"The point is, where in history has a Legislature come into special session for the purpose of cutting taxes. Has that ever happened?"

The staff of the state Public Disclosure Commission will recommend next week that the commission dismiss a complaint alleging Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi used his non-profit foundation, Forward Washington, as a front for his 2008 campaign.

A staff report says:

Based upon the information gathered during the course of the investigation, as evaluated against statutory provisions and case law, PDC staff believes insufficient evidence exists to support a determination that Dino Rossi was a candidate for governor for the 2008 election prior to accepting his first campaign contribution on October 12, 2007.

Additionally, PDC staff believes that insufficient evidence exists to support a
determination that Forward Washington Foundation acted as a political committee.

State Democratic Party officials filed the complaint in June with the PDC, which enforces the state's campaign finance rules. The staff has been investigating the complaint since then.

Rossi has said he formed Forward Washington last year to offer solutions to the state's most pressing problems. As the foundation's president, he was paid $75,000 a year and traveled around the state speaking and raising money on behalf of the nonprofit.

He stepped down from the foundation in September, and publicly announced his plans to run for governor on Oct. 25.

Democrats said that since Rossi filed papers with the PDC for a 2008 campaign in 2005 — while he was engaged in a legal battle over the November 2004 election — he was a declared candidate and should not be able to take donations for Forward Washington that weren't reported as campaign contributions.

But the PDC staff says:

Mr. Rossi stated that the reports filed with the PDC as being for the 2008 election cycle did not pertain to any campaign for office. He stated that he submitted these reports only on the advice of PDC staff in order to raise funds for expenses related to the election challenge following the 2004 gubernatorial election. PDC staff found no evidence that Mr. Rossi mischaracterized the advice the PDC gave him, or that the expenses disclosed on reports filed subsequent to the 2004 election supported a 2008 campaign effort.

In fact, a thorough PDC investigation "did not find any documents or witnesses to support a conclusion that Mr. Rossi was intending to run for governor in 2008. All his public statements as well as those private ones obtained by PDC staff remain consistent that he had not made up his mind to enter the race for governor" before leaving the foundation post.

Rossi's campaign just issued this statement:

"I'm very happy that after a long investigation the recommendation from the PDC staff is that all charges be dropped. From the very beginning of the Forward Washington Foundation, we bent over backwards to make sure we were complying with all public disclosure requirements.

"This was obviously a desperate attempt by Christine Gregoire's agents to smear me, and it didn't work."

MORE: The state Democratic Party issued this statement from its attorney, Kevin Hamilton:
Democratic Party attorney Kevin Hamilton issued the following statement:

"This decision is seriously wrong-headed. The PDC staff and Republican Dino Rossi have created a huge loophole in the law that allows unregulated campaign activity. Though dishonest about it, Rossi has obviously been campaigning all year, while keeping his financial backers secret.

"Even if the PDC won't force Republican Dino Rossi to come clean, if he believed in transparency and openness he would voluntarily disclose who's been bankrolling him all year. The voters of Washington have a right to know which special interests are funding Republican Dino Rossi's political activities, even if he's skated through a giant loophole in the law.

"We're obviously very disappointed and will be evaluating our legal options."

MORE: Rossi spoke to Ralph Thomas, who sent me this:

Rossi said he thinks Gregoire should have to answer for all the "vile things" party leaders have been saying about him.

"I want her to retract them. I want her to apologize for that because it came from her people," Rossi said.

UPDATE: After the special session today, Gregoire took a few question from the press. Ralph Thomas asked her about the staff recommendation form the PDC.

Click here to hear his question and Gregoire's answer.

A theme in the run-up to today's special session has been the Democratic left's unhappiness with the Democratic governor and legislative leaders for embracing a Tim Eyman-crafted tax cap. At least it's been a theme here, so House Speaker Frank Chopp said he wasn't surprised when I asked him about it at a press conference this morning. He said he'd would vote proudly for the tax cap. And he is prepared to answer criticism from the progressive wing of his party.

"Now if you want a long list of all the progressive things we've done in the Legislature with our strong majorities and a great governor, I'd be more than happy to give it to you. I actually typed it. It's over 50 things that are very progressive, very positive for public schools, for health care — particularly for children — job development, for higher education, for transportation. I can go on and on."

He said later that he compiled the list himself. Unfortunately it's on his home computer and he didn't have a copy here today. This is not to say that Chopp has been inundated with complaints from his liberal friends. He said that as of a few days ago he had heard from all of three constituents. And he represents the 43rd District, one of the most liberal in the state.

The left is trying some new ways to be heard, though. By this morning legislative leaders were to be presented with a petition signed by more than 2,000 people asking them to reject Gregoire's plea to approve the 1 percent cap. Fuse, a political group in Seattle, wanted the governor and the Legislature to take a broader look at property tax reform.

In a plea to supporters to sign the online petition, Fuse's Chris McCullough wrote:

Please sign our petition today — we have to send the Legislature a powerful message demanding real property tax reform in Washington State, not a Tim Eyman stunt.

...

There are other potential solutions as well, but the Legislature is focused on Tim Eyman's approach, and won't seriously consider anything else without a powerful message from their constituents.

I wrote a little about Fuse when they first started last summer.

Speaking out against plans by Gregoire, Chopp and other leading Democrats is one of Fuse's early attempts to exercise what muscle it may have. The group hopes to both push Democratic lawmakers to "uphold progressive values" as well as to add more Democrats in all levels of government in the state.

Fuse's executive director, Aaron Ostrom, told me the other day that in general he thinks Gregoire has a pretty strong record. But tax reform is important to the group and opposing the governor and Democratic leaders now, he said, "is just one of those things we couldn't duck."

"This is just a lost opportunity to make the tax system more progressive and more fair," he said. "We are going to be an honest voice for progressive issues and we have to play it straight."

And Fuse sees Eyman as a bad guy.

This doesn't mean that a lawmaker who votes today for the limit won't get Fuse's support. And it certainly doesn't mean the governor won't. But Fuse hopes to train and deploy volunteers for the campaigns of the group's top-rated candidates. Others could still get votes of Fuse members, but not their labors.

Ostrom said:

"It's one thing to vote for the lesser of two evils, but working for the lesser of two evils is a totally different thing."

That's sort of the point David Goldstein is making today, too. He does so in his inimitable style:

Clearly the governor has no qualms about screwing her party's progressive base, a political miscalculation mired in a profound lack of understanding of what it is, exactly, the base actually does. (Hint: we don't just vote.) But our local representatives, who are, theoretically, more in touch with their constituents... they should know better. I'd wager there isn't a legislative district Democratic organization in Seattle that would endorse reinstating I-747, and yet I'd be surprised if a majority of the Seattle delegation didn't vote to approve the governor's plan. I'll be counting. And I won't be the only one.

Oh, it's not like most of us progressive activists would ever abandon the party, or refuse to cordially work with representatives who cross us, it's just that I want to make it absolutely clear that those who accuse bloggers like me of being "tools of the Democratic Party" have it exactly backwards: the Democratic Party is our tool, and we intend to use it to enact our agenda. And that's how it should be.

I am one of those who thinks some bloggers are party tools. And I think this is a rare occasion where Goldstein and some other liberal writers are nearly as hard on one of their own as they are about the opposition. I can't think of many times where I've read such a clear condemnation of party rulers.

And that takes me back to something I wrote earlier today. I think the special session is a win for Republicans, even if they didn't claim it. There are at least some Democrats ticked off by the special session. They won't vote for Dino Rossi. But for now at least they'll find something other than the governor's race, or boosting Democratic majorities in the Legislature.

Here's a link that will get you to the roll call for the House vote on the 1 percent tax cap. The eight no votes were Marilou Mary Lou Dickerson, Jamie Pedersen, new legislator Sharon Nelson, Eric Pettigrew, Sharon Tomiko Santos, and Helen Sommers, all of Seattle; and Sam Hunt of Olympia and Geoff Simpson of Covington.

The House is in session to consider the 1 percent cap limit. Speaker pro-tem John Lovick ruled out consideration of a Republican amendment that would have expanded the bill to also include "banked capacity." Lovick says the bill is short and simple and it would remain that way.

Rep. Christopher Hurst is the sponsor of the bill. He's up urging members to vote yes, saying that his constituents worry about losing their homes, and echoing Gov. Chris Gregoire, in saying people see home ownership as the foundation of the American dream.

"This bill helps protect that dream and i think that's why we're here today," Hurst said. He said things like banked capacity are "collateral issues" and shouldn't be part of today's debate. He said:

"This bill makes things exactly the way they were prior to the Supreme Court's decision. This will give the citizens exactly what they voted for in 2001. It does nothing more and it does nothing less. ... It would be disrespectful to the voers to add or subtaract to a decison they have already made."

Republican Rep. Ed Orcutt is saying that he wishes the Legislature would go further today that simply reinstating 747. "Even under that 1 percent cap, voters have been concerned about how much their proeprty taxes are going up," he said.

But he said he was glad that at least the 1 percent limit would be saved.

"I think the Supreme Court was a little bit off base, to say the least. ... I'm one of the voters who voted for Intiative 747. I knew what I was doing and I believe that most of the voters knew what they were doing when they voted for Initiative 747."

A half dozen or so members have spoken, so far all in favor of the bill.

Geoff Simpson, who I just wrote about in the previous post, is the first opposition voice heard.

"I feel kind of like the Lone Ranger here. I'm rising in opposition, although I agree the Supreme Court did make a mistake. The people knew what they were doing. They were getting a bargain. I like bargains."

But he says voters weren't given a choice of how best to restrain tax growth. And 747, he said, is bad public policy.

Rep. John Ahern, R-Spokane, said the Supreme Court was wrong to say voters didn't know what they were doing when they voted for 747.

"In other words, it was an insult to the voters, their intelligence, kind of a slap in the face. And it hit me too because I voted definitely for that."

Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee, said what I thought was probably the best approach for Republicans: Declare victory over the ruling Democrats.

"Our side of the aisle is very, very pleased that the governor heard our cry for this special session. We are ecstatic to be here."

He added that the 1 percent cap is just a "finger into the hole in the dike" and the Legislature needs to come back.

The special session is a victory for Republicans, those in the Legislature and the one running for governor, Dino Rossi. They were out front calling for the emergency session and the governor and Democratic lawmakers followed.

My sense listening to the debate, though, is that declaration has been overshadowed by Republican criticism of the Legislature not doing more today. Maybe House Republicans are just modest. We'll see what happens later in the Senate.

The bill passed 86-8. One lone celebrant clapped.

I think the dilemma for many Democratic lawmakers today was summed up in this question to legislative leaders, asked by public radio's Austin Jenkins:

"Do you see the 1 percent cap as good and sensible public policy, or do you see that you're here today to enact the will of the voter?"

Jenkins asked the question at a crowded press conference with Democratic leaders of both chambers. It wasn't meant to be a gotcha. He's an earnest young reporter. But around the room there were nervous chuckles, even from House Speaker Frank Chopp as he thought for a moment before answering:

"I believe very strongly that the voters knew what they were voting on with the 1 percent cap. That's what we're here to do, reinstate the 1 percent cap. I think generally there are people out there in the public who would like us to essentially be able to approve additional property tax increases when it's for targeted things. I mean, if you look at the history around the state, there's been numerous proposals by local governments to raise taxes which have passed the voters.

"So, I think it's a combination of efforts there."

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said her members have differing views of how best to control tax growth, and she added:

"Obviously we also have our differences of opinion about Tim Eyman."

She said that today's vote will be a case of lawmakers reflecting the political realities of their districts.

"There were districts in Seattle, and here I think in Olympia, that rejected 747 and legislators that feel strongly that the best way to represent their constituents is to vote no on the bill. And then there will be others that feel like, and I think Sen. Kauffman expressed this quite well recently, her district wants it and she's happy to be here to be able to speak for them in that regard."

UPDATE FROM THE HOUSE CHAMBERS: Not all lawmakers will look to see how their constituents voted on I-747.

In the House wings, outside the closed doors of the Democratic Caucus Room, Rep. Geoff Simpson didn't need to hear any more of the discussion among his colleagues. He said he'll vote no on reinstating I-747.

"It may cost me my job," he said. Simpson, a Kent fire fighter and a former Covington City Councilman, said he's sure that voters in his southeast King County district supported 747. But he thinks 747 is bad public policy.

"I voted against 747 at the polls and I'll vote against it here. Hopefully I'll be judged on the body of my work and not a principled stand on a tax measure that prevents us from solving murders, fighting fires and saving lives."

Simpson had hoped to offer an amendment to the tax cap bill today. He wanted to index the tax limit so it could rise with inflation. But he said that a House attorney told him that the amendment would be ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill's title. The bill, House Bill 2416 was written with a title designed to keep it identical to what voters approved. It is called, "An Act Relating to reinstating the one percentproperty tax limit factor adopted by the voters under Initiative Measure No. 747 ..."

A little over 11:30 a.m., the House is getting read to debate the bill.

In recent years Tim Eyman has shown up in Olympia as Darth Vader, a gorilla and a prisoner. This morning he showed up pretty much as a politician. He loves costumes, but he didn't dress the part today. He was dressed in Mukilteo casual: khaki cargo pants, hiking boots and a pullover atop a T-shirt.

But he ducked questions like a veteran pol, launched a partisan attack and said even though lawmakers were set to do exactly as he had wanted, it's not enough. And maybe that's only fair given that Democratic lawmakers will codify Eyman's initiative while trying to convince all that it has nothing to do with Eyman himself.

Gov. Christine Gregoire called lawmakers in to special session today to pass a law limiting annual increases in property tax collections. They're expected to do that by day's end, and what they'll pass will be exactly what Eyman has long said state voters and deserve: a 1 percent statewide cap on property tax increases.

The action is needed because the state Supreme Court threw out Eyman's voter-approved Initiative 747, which imposed the limit in 2001.

But for Eyman, it's no longer enough to watch Democrats who once railed against him and his anti-tax ways embrace his policies. Eyman appeared outside the Senate chambers this morning to say what Democrats will pass is a sham because it doesn't deal with so-called "banked capacity." You can see a good explanation of banked capacity in this Q&A in this morning's paper.

"Gregoire and the Democrats don't care about taxpayers," Eyman declared. The bill they're expected to pass, he said, "Is 1 percent in name only."

But he was asked, by me and others, why, if it is so important to restrict use of banked tax capacity, didn't he deal with it in his own initiative? And if the bill does everything his very own I-747 did, did he pull a fast one on voters, too? No answer to that.

The Legislature today is set to do exactly what Eyman wanted voters to do, the same thing he argued that the Supreme Court should do. But instead of declaring victory — and rightfully watching Democrats eat some tax-flavored crow — Eyman says the Legislature is trying to fool the public.

Not all lawmakers are happy about being here to impose an Eyman initiative on the people. As Eyman talked to the press outside the Senate chambers, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, stood nearby with a thick pile of papers in his hand. As Eyman finished his press conference, Kline confronted him.

CNN started the debate among Republican presidential candidates with this, from Arlington, Snohomish County, resident Chris Nandor:

I loved watching the candidates react when Nandor sang about them. Mike Huckabee looked like he actually thought it was funny. Romney, not so much.

Nandor is well-known on Sound Politics, where he comments as "Pudge" and he gives readers there an insider's view of the debate.

An attorney for state Rep. Jim Dunn, R-Vancouver, says the lawmaker's inappropriate comment to a female legislative staffer was constitutionally protected speech. And the punishment handed down by fellow Republicans, he argues, is discrimination against Dunn because of his race and age.

You can read the details here of the ham-handed, barroom, come-on that Dunn says was a failed attempt at humor. Dunn has apologized for the comments. But he's fighting back against the loss of some of his pay and all of his committee assignments, as ordered by House Minority Leader Richard Debolt, R-Chehalis.

Dunn will lose per diem payments because of lost committee assignments. His attorney, Shawn Newman, says in a letter sent to the House counsel today that "a member's compensation can only be suspended if he or she is convicted and sentenced for a felony."

Newman says that not only was Dunn's conduct in the Tri-Cities hotel bar not illegal, it was constitutionally-protected free speech. Newman wrote to House Counsel Timothy Sekerak:

The undisputed facts are that the isolated comment was not made in a "workplace" but in a bar after dinner to someone who does not report to or work for my client. Despite inferences to the contrary, there was nothing illegal about his sarcastic comment. What is illegal is the retaliation against my client for exercising his free speech rights.

Newman also argues that Dunn is a victim of discrimination.

Let me be perfectly clear. My client, who is both a Native American and over 40, has been the victim of disparate treatment based on what you confirm as a "single situation" while other House members who have engaged in illegal and/or unprofessional conduct have not been similarly treated. Consider, for example, those representatives who have been seen publicly drunk, charged with DUI/DWI or subject to on-going investigations by the legislative ethics board for conflicts of interest.

Sekerak told Newman in a letter last week that the ban on travel and loss of committee assignments "was a step taken after discussing the situation with Representative Dunn and his admission to inappropriate conduct below the standards set by the House for a respectful workplace." He said that the state Constitution gives the House authority to discipline its members.

"At this time the House considers the matter closed."

Dunn will keep fighting, though. Newman said in his letter that he is appealing Dunn's punishment to the Executive Rules Committee. He asked for a hearing within 10 days.

There will be two public hearings tomorrow morning on Gov. Chris Gregoire's proposal to reinstate a statewide property tax limit. The House hearing is at 8:15 a.m. before the Finance Committee. It will be in House Hearing Room B, in the John L. O'Brien Building.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing at 10:45 a.m. in Senate Hearing Room 4, in the Cherberg Building.

The House and Senate will also be considering tax deferral bills. The House is scheduled to take the first action on the tax cap. The Senate will do the deferral bill. Then they plan to swap.

A new University of Washington poll shows that in a general election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, voters here would be evenly split between the two New Yorkers. That would make Giuliani the most popular Republican here since Ronald Reagan.

But what may be most interesting in the latest results from the Washington Poll is that among Democrats, Clinton leads Barack Obama 44 percent to 29 percent. But in a hypothetical match between Obama and Giuliani, Obama leads 50-42.

That's because Obama does better than Clinton or Giuliani among independent voters. Matt Barreto, one of the UW political science professors collaborating on the poll, tells me:

Hillary is preferred by Democrats, but overall, Obama has higher favorability ratings among the entire electorate. Notice on the crosstabs, slide 6, that Hillary does better among Dems, but among the Independents, Obama makes up huge ground. Hillary loses to Rudy by 10 points among Independents, while Obama beats Rudy by half a point among Independents.

You can see more on the Washington Poll here.

Barack Obama's campaign tells Eli Sanders that the senator will be here Dec. 11 for a Generation Obama event.

Tonight at 5 is the CNN/YouTube debate with Republican presidential candidates. After the show, at 7 p.m., Danny Westneat and I will host a call-in show so you can talk about what you saw. You can also ask questions of our guest, GOP consultant Todd Myers. The show will be on TVW statewide and you can watch it on the Times Web site.

I can only hope that this question makes the cut:

You can see other submissions here. The questions have been vetted by CNN journalists. And they're looking for a certain sort of question.

"This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates," said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN. "We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates."

So don't expect to see a question about gay marriage. And I'm sure this one about hemp from YouTube user bigfatpothead will be left on the digital cutting room floor.

That question likely falls into what Bohrman told the New York Times qualifies as "lobbying grenades."

"There are quite a few things you might describe as Democratic 'gotchas,' and we are weeding those out," Mr. Bohrman said.

Democrats did their YouTube debate in July. At that time, some of the major Republican candidates said they wouldn't participate when it came time for their party's show, citing a variety of reasons. I think it was a mistake for Republicans to put off the debate until now. Somehow a YouTube debate seems almost passé. If Republicans had followed up quickly, they would have been closer to the head of the curve. And their scheduling conflicts and such that put off the debate until now made the Republican frontrunners look like fuddy-duddy techno-fobes, to use a technical term.

But what Republicans have going for them is a real race. We're just weeks from the first vote of the 2008 primary season and recent days have seen increasing clashes between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza considers how the debate will play out in that environment.

Will that animosity carry over to Wednesday night's get-together? We're betting it will. And, while it will be fascinating to watch how Giuliani and Romney take shots at one another (and who gets the best of the rhetorical back and forth), the more important element of the debate will be how the other candidates react. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has made up considerable ground in Iowa thanks to his "Mr. Nice Guy" routine, and he may get another chance to cast himself as the positive alternative if Romney and Giuliani engage in an extended battle on Wednesday night.

Watch the debate, and then turn to TVW or the Times Web site. Because CNN is aiming the show at Republican voters, I hope we hear from some of the GOP faithful about how you think your candidates did. But everyone is welcome to call.

The Port Townsend City Council voted to raise property taxes last night. On a 4-3 vote, the council decided to raise taxes above the 1 percent cap that is likely to become law again Thursday. To increase property taxes above 1 percent, the council not only rejected the plea Gov. Christine Gregoire made to local governments, but had to rescind a local law that required a public advisory vote before using so-called "banked capacity" to raise taxes more than 1 percent.

The Port Townsend Jefferson County Leader has the story.

Several residents spoke against the increase Monday night, and none spoke in favor. "Everything can't be fixed on the backs of homeowners," said Brigida Knauer.

Jim Hagen argued that rescinding the advisory vote requirement would overrule the trend shown by city voters in three recent elections (approving the advisory vote requirement in 2001, rejecting a 53 percent increase in property tax revenues in 2004, and rejecting a utility tax increase from 6 to 10 percent in 2007).

The Port Townsend City Council will hold a special meeting tonight to consider raising property taxes. The council wants to act before Thursday when the Legislature is expected to impose a statewide tax cap. To clear the way for the increase, the Port Townsend City Council voted Monday night to rescind a law that would have required a a public advisory vote on the tax hike, according to the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader.

Reporter Barney Burke writes in the PT Leader that if the city had stuck to the 1 percent limit it would have been allowed to raise taxes on a $300,000 home by $4.22. Under the city's plan, though, that tax bill would go up $46.40. And Burke reports that it's not clear what happens if the city raises taxes tonight and the Legislature reinstates the 1 percent cap Thursday.

At issue in Port Townsend is what's called "banked capacity." When local governments raised property taxes less than the limit, they were allowed to bank the difference for future tax increases.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has asked local governments to refrain from raising taxes over the 1 percent limit until the Legislature acts. She says that since I-747 passed overwhelmingly statewide, the people have spoken and local taxing districts should not take advantage of the small window of opportunity to raise taxes above the limit.

Port Townsend would use its new tax money to balance next year's budget. The money would go to a trust fund for the city library, to maintain the city pool and to match private funds being raised to build a new pool, according to the Peninsula Daily News.

The vote last night to rescind the law requiring an advisory vote was 4-3. But from what City Manager David Timmons told the Daily News' Evan Cael, it doesn't look like local officials are too worried about the governor's call for tax restraint.

"I understand that it's a political issue in Olympia more than a reality here," Timmons said.

"People have reminded us that the city of Port Townsend did not support any of the Eyman initiatives. They rejected them all."

The editor of The Columbian had a column over the weekend showing readers what it can be like to deal with the governor's press office. Lou Brancaccio wrote that his reporters were looking to get a comment from Gregoire about an investigation they had done into problems with local child care providers. In a column written as a letter to Gregoire, Brancaccio writes:

Erin Middlewood and Stephanie Rice -- our reporters who labored over this excellent series -- tried three times to get in touch with you.

At one point we received this e-mail from your press secretary, Lars Erickson:

"We've completely scheduled all of the governor's media interview time for the next month."

That was before the package of investigative stories, dubbed "Daycare Nightmare," was published. After publication, Brancaccio tried himself, talking with Interim Communications Director Lloyd Brown. He says Brown "wasn't all that happy with our quoting him. Especially after he said you wouldn't talk because our investigation would make you look like you have been 'asleep at the wheel.'"

The Columbian got to talk to Gregoire, just hours after the editor told Brown to let the governor know he would "bring the hammer down" on her for refusing to talk.

(But Lou, you're not really surprised that a "statement from the governor" wasn't really written by the governor, are you?)

You can see The Columbian's reporting project here.

There are many more reasons for the governor to talk to The Columbian than to not. Here's just one: Dino Rossi talked to the paper about the child care investigation and got his name into a headline.
And he issued a press release knocking Gregoire -- not just for what's happening with child care, but for not talking to the paper.

"This story also repeats a pattern of the incumbent â€" she takes credit for good things even if she had no part in them but hides herself from public view when problems are revealed within her government agencies," said Rossi.

I wrote recently about Rossi's refusal to be interviewed about a subject because it wasn't one of his chosen campaign themes. I said that at least Gregoire faces the press regularly at her media availabilities. But The Columbian's investigation is not the sort of thing a reporter wants to ask about in that setting. You don't want to give away an exclusive.

Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver, told me last week that when the Legislature convenes Thursday he would be a certain no vote against reinstating a 1 percent property tax cap.

But he told fellow Democratic senators in an e-mail last night that he's now not sure what to do. His constituents want Initiative 747 codified in law, and Pridemore thinks his vote could decide his political future. The e-mail describes what seems like some uncomfortable political realities facing Democrats in this week's special session.

Fellow Senators: I know a lot of you were interested in finding an alternative to simply reinstating I-747 on Thursday and I had hoped to provide you with one. After profound review and after the past few days of getting hammered (including by close friends and family), it's immensely clear to me that I don't have the political support in my own district to carry out a fight like this. I know I could have survived it under normal crcumstances, but I can't when I'm standing against a Democratic Governor AND against Democratic Senate and House leadership. It's hard to tell people this is bad for local governments when so many Democrats are smiling and saying it's no big deal. :-)

I'm not sure how I'll vote yet. If I vote No to reinstating it, I know my political future will be over after this term (next year). If I vote Yes, I'm not sure I really want to do this any more anyway. I obviously have a lot of soul-searching to do... again. I sincerely just want to get through it without buying a pack of smokes! :-)

For those of you who know this is bad public policy and do vote your conscience, you have my sincere respect always.

Craig

I did not get the e-mail from Pridemore himself. But he told me this morning that he's gotten responses from four colleagues.

One expressed extreme disappointment with me for not standing by sound public policy; the other three expressed sympathy for the situation we've all been placed in.

While Pridemore says that opposing the 1 percent limit means he has to stand against Gov. Chris Gregoire and legislative leadership, he said that Senate leadership has not lobbied him -- or anyone else that he's heard -- to vote for the cap.

MORE: Gov. Chris Gregoire talked with reporters this morning about the upcoming special session. I asked her about Pridemore's perspective and she didn't disagree that there are other lawmakers who feel the same way. And the governor said she knows what they're going through:

"I understand the dilemma. I'm acutely aware of it. I had to go through that mental exercise myself. But I will tell you that I shared with the majority leader and the Speaker of the House last legislative session that I felt that we were going to need to reinstate the 1 percent cap if the state Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. So, I'd already gone through that mentally myself.

"The fact of the matter is, to those who feel that way, I would say to them, "Come with me to town hall meetings across the state.' You can feel the nervousness of people because of the escalating costs of their homes, yet their income doesn't change at all, that they are literally .. going to be run out of their homes, which is to them the American dream."

(Senate Majority Lisa Brown told me this morning that she doesn't recall Gregoire telling her that the 1 percent cap would have to be reinstituted in the court threw out 747. She said there was a more general discussion during the legislative session, but that she didn't remember Gregoire stating her support for a 1 percent lid.)

Gregoire said that before she called the special session she asked Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to poll members on how they'd vote on a 1 percent cap. But the "tipping point" she said that convinced her to call the Legislature into session was a handful of local governments that said they planned to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision and raise taxes above the 1 percent cap.

I asked Gregoire if she was imposing her political judgment for local officials, who in some cases said they felt comfortable that their voters would support a larger increase. She said:

"The fact of the matter is the people spoke. It isn't me. It isn't me. The initiative was voted on by the people of the state of Washington and it passed pretty overwhelmingly. So I think the people of the state of Washington made their point. They passed the one with 2 percent. They passed the one with 1 percent. Now it's up to us to do it right so it withstands constitutional challenge.

"I'm not putting my opinion instead of the local governments'. I'm just saying the will of the voters has to be carried out."

Brown said she thinks Pridemore may be overstating the political dilemma created by the tax cap vote.

"There's no doubt that property taxes are an issue in every district. ... However, as a legislator you have the ability to communicate with your constituents about what you're doing and why."

Brown said she told Gregoire there was not a lot of support for the 1 percent cap among Senate Democrats. In general, the Senate doesn't like to be rushed. Senate Democrats considered some property tax measures last session and had planned to do more next year.

The special session "comes at an inopportune time for our perspective," she said. But even with Democratic opposition, she has no doubt that the 1 percent cap will pass the Senate Thursday.

At TIME.com, Eli Sanders -- moonlighting from his job at the Stranger -- has a story about how a local murder has become an issue in the presidential campaign, particularly on the Republican side. The man accused of killing Brian and Beverly Mauck, Daniel Tavares Jr., was released last summer from a Massachusetts prison by a judge appointed by Mitt Romney.

On the campaign trail former New York mayor Giuliani has called on Romney to explain his decision to appoint Judge Tuttman.

...

Taylor Glasenapp, a spokesman for the victims' families, told TIME that as a conservative-leaning voter, he'll be watching closely to see how Romney and other Republicans handle the law-and-order politics surrounding the tragedy. "This is now a huge issue for me in the presidential election," said Glasenapp. "Something has to be done about this."

I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving. I'm going to take the day off, stay away from the blog, hang out with family, eat leftovers and finish the debates that raged around the dinner table last night.

See you next week.

The state Supreme Court agreed unanimously this morning to uphold increases in tobacco and alcohol taxes approved by the 2005 Legislature. But no substantive constitutional issues were settled. For the second time the court sidestepped the issue of whether the 1993 voter-approved Initiative 601 was constitutional. In 1994 the court declined to rule on a challenge to implementation of the law, saying the plaintiffs could not yet show any harm from the measure.

But there is much interesting debate in four separate concurrences issued in today's case.

For the first time, two justices on the court wrote clearly that they think the limits on spending and tax increases in I-601 are unconstitutional. Two others clearly disagree, but the majority avoid what Justice Tom Chambers wrote is the "elephant in the courthouse."

Opinions from Chambers and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander seem almost like an invitation for more legal challenges to initiatives, particularly Tim Eyman's I-960, which voters approved this month.

Chambers and Alexander say that 1993's I-601 violates the state Constitution because it requires a public vote for the Legislature to raise taxes above limits set by the initiative. That is an intrusion, they say, into the Legislature's constitutional powers.

Chambers wrote that he was sorry the court did not rule on the overriding constitutional questions around 601.

At its core, this case is about that constitutional question. Certainly, we can avoid this question. But we have the undoubted power to decide it. I think we should.

There's no question how Chambers would decide the question.

Answering the underlying question is principled, is definitive, and will serve the public good. I would hold that I-601's referendum requirement is an unconstitutional intrusion into the legislature's plenary power to pass laws. See Const. art. II, § 1; Larson, 156 Wn.2d at 759; ATU, 142 Wn.2d at 242. Our respect for the text and for the checks and balances of our constitutional system of government demands no less.

....

Just like the legislature, the people must conform to the requirements of the constitution when exercising their legislative authority under the Seventh Amendment. I-601 — and its legislative descendents — is unconstitutional because it purports to condition an entire class of legislation on voter approval. That is direct democracy. That is not our system.

Alexander agreed, writing that 601, known as the Taxpayer Protection Act, "is an unconstitutional intrusion into the legislature's plenary power to pass laws." And he too wishes the majority had gone further today.

I agree with the majority that we should decide a case on statutory grounds, rather than constitutional grounds, when possible. Majority at 4 n.7. In this case, though, I believe we must necessarily decide the constitutional issue. I say that because in order to determine whether the Taxpayer Protection Act (TPA) (chapter 43.135 RCW) or Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6896 (the 2006 amendment) are constitutionally valid, it is necessary to determine first whether the people may constrain the plenary powers of the legislature by initiative.

Chambers says 601 is unconstitutional because it takes away the Legislature's constitutionally-guaranteed powers and, by requiring public votes for what the Constitution says is the Legislature's job, is an attempt to amend the Constitution. And that can't be done by initiative.

That is one of the very issues that opponents of I-960 hoped would stop a vote on this year's Tim Eyman-sponsored tax limitation. But the court said that it would not rule on the issue since the initiative had not become law and no one could yet show any harm.

Justice Jim Johnson wrote his concurrence to dispute Chambers' argument. They have a clear disagreement about the power of the Seventh Amendment to the state Constitution, which created the right to initiatives and referenda. Chambers believes:

The power of initiative and referendum does not give the people the power to condition a future state law on future approval of the people, any more than it gave that power to the legislature.

That, he said, preserves the "core aspect" of the Legislature's power. But Johnson says Chambers misses the reality behind the amendment:

Ironically, that amendment, allowing direct legislation by the people, was intended as an antidote to just such thinking (as was the concurrent Eighth Amendment providing for recall of public officials). The amendment's words make this point clear: "The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature . . . but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature."

Johnson also refers to Article 1 of the state Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

He says that makes it clear, with or without the power of initiative, that the representative democracy that Chambers says is paramount is not meant to be absolute.

Rather, our government exists "to protect and maintain individual rights." Wash. Const. art. I, § 1. Representative government is a tool to those ends, and when not fulfilling the purpose of protecting individual rights, the people can protect those rights on their own with an initiative or a referendum.

...

Those campaigning for Washington's Seventh and Eight Amendments undoubtedly would have preferred wise legislators providing them with competent service. "But we seldom get such service, and we many times need the power of Direct Legislation so that we may lock the barn before the horse is stolen."

That last quote comes from the 1912 campaign for the Seventh Amendment. It is from a campaign flyer from the Direct Legislation League of Washington. Johnson provided a link in his opinion to a PDF of the flyer at the Secretary of State's site.

It's pretty interesting to read the campaign material. The rhetoric has changed little in 95 years. Much of it could have been written by Eyman. Here's the passage that Johnson quotes from:

Of course, it is not proposed that the people shall do much of the law making, for all have their private affairs to attend to and do not wish to be unduly bothered with these matters. We shall always need the services of trained legislators, and so long as they give us faithful, disinterested and reasonably wise service, we shall not interfere. But we seldom get such service, and we many times need the power of Direct Legislation so that we may lock the barn before the horse is stolen. Without these powers we are not truly self-governing, but merely elect other men to govern us who have, for the most part, been selected by party bosses and machines.

Under our present system the sole law-making power is vested in the legislature. The great store of integrity and political wisdom that rests in the mass of the people is lost because we allow a few legislators, often controlled by corporate and other selfish interests, to dictate the whole policy of the state. The legislature should advise and lead, but when that body misleads we must have the power to stop it. When this power is once vested in the people, the legislature acts in such a way as to almost obviate the necessity of its use.

Justice Richard Sanders, a strong supporter of initiatives, does not engage Chambers in his concurrence. Instead, he disputes the thinking of the majority. While the majority did not reach the constitutional questions about I-601, it went too far for Sanders in bowing to legislative power. He says, in fact, the majority's thinking is "profoundly un-American in theory."

Sanders wrote:

The majority's unexamined claim in reality invites a totalitarian regime and is inconsistent with the founders' understanding of the social compact.

The state Supreme Court today upheld the Legislature's interpretation of the Initiative 601 spending limit, overturning a Superior Court judge's ruling that lawmakers' manipulation of the limit "trumps the intent and spirit of 601."

Snohomish County Superior Court Judge James Allendoerfer ruled last year that the Legislature's 2005 tax plan had artificially manipulated the spending limit in order to spend more than legally allowed. And he said that was done to avoid having to ask voters to approve the tax increases.

The decision is not on line yet. (It is now; see below) But the majority opinion was written by Justice Mary Fairhurst and signed by Bobbe Bridge, Charles Johnson, Barbara Madsen and Susan Owens. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, Justice Richard Sanders, Justice Jim Johnson and Justice Tom Chambers all wrote separate concurrences.

The lawsuit was filed in 2005 by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Building Industry Association of Washington, the Washington Farm Bureau and the Washington State Grange.

Fairhurst wrote that a legislative fix in 2006 cured any problems with the 2005 tax package. She wrote:

It is a fundamental principle of our system of government that the Legislature has plenary power to enact laws except as limited by our state and federal constitutions. Each duly elected Legislature is fully vested with this plenary power.

The opinions are posted now. Here's the majority and concurrences by Alexander, Sanders, Chambers, and Jim Johnson.

The majority leans heavily on the argument that lawmakers cannot be bound by laws passed by previous Legislatures, or by laws passed by voters.

No legislature can enact a statute that prevents a future legislature from exercising its law-making power. That which a prior legislature has enacted, the current legislature can amend or repeal. Like all previous legislatures, it is limited only by the constitutions. To reason otherwise would elevate enactments of prior legislatures to constitutional status and reduce the current legislature to a second-class representative of the people.

What is true of statutes enacted by the legislature is likewise true of initiatives, for when the people pass an initiative, they exercise legislative power that is coextensive with that of the legislature. A law passed by initiative is no less a law than one enacted by the legislature. Nor is it more. A previously passed initiative can no more bind a current legislature than a previously enacted statute.

There were public records issues at stake, too, in the case. But the court did not rule on that. The plaintiffs argued that e-mails from legislative staff should be public records. The state argued that they should be protected by legislative privilege.

Sanders uses his concurrence to take aim at the majority's deference to the Legislature.

I understand that the majority's view to be the state legislature is virtually unrestrained except insofar as the legislative action countervenes some express prohibition in the state constitution. Although this claim has been repeated by rote in several of our decisions, I am unable to find a single one which explains its rationale, much less critically examines its premise. I challenge the majority to either do so here or dispense with this careless rhetoric.

The assertion seems to be based on an erroneous presumption that state governments have inherent powers — a presumption that contradicts the basic premise of all American governance that all power resides in the people except insofar as it has been delegated to the government.

Sanders argues that the majority ignores the very roots of our form of government. He concludes with this:

I fear for our Republic each step the majority takes toward achieving its counterrevolutionary premise. One cries outrage when the majority purports to recognize "a fundamental principal of our system of government," which is in reality absolutely antithetical to those true principles of our Republic, which are indeed fundamental.

Aside from that, I concur in the remainder of the majority's opinion.

Reaction: Jason Mercier, a spokesman for the Washington Policy Center, a conservative think tank, called the ruling a "punt." He was working for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation when the suit was filed.

"I'm thankful that 601 still exists and by default, 960 still exists. But it's disappointing to learn that the Legislature cannot be held accountable for breaking the law. All they have to do is — a year or two years later— pass a new law that says 'Hey what we did that was previously wrong is now OK.'"

MORE:
Evergreen Freedom Foundation President Bob Williams says in a statement:

"This is nuts. ... The trial court ruled that the legislature had 'gamed' the FY 2006 spending limit and it should be reduced by $250 million. That means the tax increases were over the limit.

..

"So our rights are reduced to mere expectations now. ... It was our right to vote on the 2005 tax increases. That was the law. The legislature broke that law, but the Court is giving it a pass."