The 50 State Strategy is Good for Democracy and the Poor

I have to confess that I have not read Kos’ book. I actually went to buy it once but it was not in stock. All of this may be in his book but I have no idea. What I am going to write about is the effect of the 50 state strategy not on the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party but on the effect on the American Democracy as a whole. When politicos talk about electoral strategy and where to commit resources they take into consideration where they can make the best use of them to get their candidates and future candidates elected. What people do not seem to realize is that the expansion of the electoral map in a presidential campaign makes for a better democracy.

Kos has actually touched on this when he talks about the benefits of the primary. The benefits he cites are increased registration and the building of party infrastructure. What those two things represent is involvement. Those two things are about people becoming involved and engaged in the political process. The long and contested primary built up excitement and involvement in every state and territory it touched. The side effect of this increase in involvement is better knowledge and the increased likelihood of future participation. Once the initial barrier to involvement is breached the resistance becomes less each cycle until participation becomes the habit and not the exception.

One benefit that goes unremarked upon is an increase in voting among the lower income demographics.

“As acknowledged by political scientists and pundits alike, American voters comprise an unrepresentative sample of the nation; they are older, more affluent, better educated, and more likely to be white than they would be if everyone were to participate at equal rates”. (Gimpel et al 2007 787)

The problem with having this group make the decisions for everyone is that more often than not they make the decisions out of their own self interest. For people who do not fit this narrow cross section of America they are being left out of the process. These people are people who need the most help as they are typically at the bottom of the food chain, the poor, the minorities the young. These voices and interests were being neither herd nor represented. Having large segments of a countries population go unrepresented is not good for Democracy and does not contribute to a healthy polity. There are fewer people interested in keeping the government honest and holding it accountable.


More and more people were being left behind in the 90's because the prevailing electoral strategy and tactics were reinforcing the negative habits instead of correcting them. There are three basic reasons why people do not participate in politics. The reasons are that they can’t because they

lack necessary resources, they don’t want to because they lack sufficient interest or knowledge, and nobody asked them to because they fall outside of the traditional networks that rally voters (Gimpel et al 2007 787). The failure of the 90's affected all three of these reasons. The 90's saw the rise of large media ad buys and the atrophication of local and state party infrastructure. There was a focus on appealing to those voters with a solid reputation for turn out ignoring any idea of growing the base or targeting less traditionally vocal groups. The 50 state strategy is changing this.

Modern campaign tactics use technology to great effectiveness. Computerized voter lists, demographic patterns, the internet and email allow savy campaigns the ability to contact and organize more voters more efficiently than ever before. Combine these with grass root efforts to get everyone, lower income voters included, involved allows for increased political participation and thus a better democracy.

The premise is simple enough. The more people are involved with political campaigns and the political process the better citizens they become. Presidential campaigns are the biggest, most interesting, and best equipped to get people involved. Thus the more states the Presidential campaign is heavily active in the more people will become better citizens. This is why the 50 state strategy is better than the typical DLC Ohio-Florida-Penn strategy. Limiting the Presidential campaign to a very few states greatly reduces the contact voters out side of these traditional battleground states will have with the campaigns. Over the period of a few cycles these effects will accumulate and reduce the breadth of the voting demographic.

The recent research bears this difference between low income voters in battle ground vs non-battleground states out. 2004 might be considered the early development of the internet and computer campaigning combined with grass roots effort.

The conditional effects indicate that poor voters who live in battleground states report significantly
higher political interest levels than their low income brethren in safe states, particularly so in 2004. (Gimpel et al 2007 791)

On a 100 point scale they found a 9 point difference between the low income voters in bg vs nbg states when it comes to political interest. They also found that the contact levels for the low income voters in 2004 was different between those with traditional voter profiles and those without. The difference in contact between bg and nbg states for low income voters was a spectacular 36% in 2004. In competitive states the poor are being brought into the voting public but not in states considered safe. This obviously reduces their over all voice and representation weakening our Democracy.

There are other findings that reveal the importance of the campaigns presence in the state. Campaign involvement is 7 to 8 percentage points higher among low-income voters in the most competitive states in 2004 than it is in the safe states. An eight percentage point increase in turn out or participation in a group could have a major impact on an election. A consistent increase would more than likely lead politicians to consider the wants and needs of this group in a very serious way.

The divide between the bg and nbg states cannot be stressed enough. In the states where resources are committed people become more interested and participate more. In those bg states we get closer the classical picture of the citizen as an informed and enthusiastic participant in Democracy. In nbg states we see the apathy among the lower income citizens continue unchecked. The 50 state strategy will go some way towards changing this. What has started out as a means to get more and better democrats will bring with a better democracy simply by including and engaging a wider segment of the populace.

It all seemed very intuitive and yet the effect of the 50 state strategy on our Democracy was not something i had thought about. Sure if it gets the Republicans out of office then it is good for our country but it also increases the type of people the democrats will represent. It will give us a progressive majority. Corporate Dems will have a harder time getting elected if the poor actually become a political force. Our Democracy will be better of when it truly represents all of us and not just the rich old white Americans.

Ok, so this really is my last diary before my vacation.

Cite
James G. Gimpel, Karen M. Kaufmann, Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz (2007) Battleground States versus Blackout States: The Behavioral Implications of Modern Presidential Campaigns
The Journal of Politics 69 (3) , 786–797

Read more...

McCain paying price for past soft treatment

Much has been said about the way John McCain does not understand modern technology. He does not understand the internet or youtube or google. This aspect of McCain’s campaign is not due to his age. No, instead this is simply a sign of how little he has had to worry about campaigning in the past. McCain has developed a confidence is his campaign ability built upon his lauded 2000 campaign and his return from the near politically dead last year. He has fallen victim to his own hype. He has such confidence that the media will treat him wonderfully, after all he is John McCain.

The Republican Primary was not an especially great test of skill. Without the Reagan heir apparent George Allen the different wings of their coalition were split. The candidates were flawed and not that compelling. In addition, they lost a great deal of oxygen to the Democratic race. Also missing was any challenge to the ideas being presented. None of those candidates went out on a limb they all wanted to claim the Reagan mantle. McCain claimed the mantle of Reagan and proclaimed himself a conservative. McCain rode the division between the Romney and Huckabee sectors of the Gop to win the nomination.

McCain has really come to rely on the light treatment from the media. When he was campaigning in New Hampshire all we heard about where John McCain’s vaunted campaign skills. He was lauded for his ability to hold town hall after town hall to win support. It might be revisionist but I have to wonder just how good those town halls were. If they were anything like the town hall described in multiple diaries yesterday they could not have been very good. Digging at all beneath the surface of a town hall like that reveals how fragile the McCain mythos is.

McCain relies on never having to answer followup questions on his statements. It is what has come from soft media treatment. The followups are where the scrutiny is. When he is asked to clarify his answers are usually as bad as the original. That happened with his statement about it not being too important when troops are coming home and it happens with his 100 years in Iraq comment. When asked for any depth or insight on his statements McCain cannot offer any. He has never needed to before.

Now he does. In this race his opponents do not care that he is supposed to be a straight talker. His opponents do not care that he claims to be independent. In this cycle Dems will be hitting him on all of the stupid things he says. They will force the media to pay attention. Even if the tm never gets around to announcing McCain is unqualified people will pick it up because every day he will have to respond to another of his stupid statements. Stupid statement like this one

“I will look you in the eye and promise you that I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice,” McCain said in response to a direct question from one of the 2,000 people in attendance at the college’s Pemberton campus gym.

McCain said the key to ending the long search for bin Laden was to increase the number of human spies abroad.

“We need better human intelligence. We need people who can swim in the water,” McCain said.

That is a really, really stupid statement.

McCain now has to answer for those types of statements in a way he never has before. Yes the internet has played a role but so has the soft media treatment. It has made him overconfident and sloppy. He bought his own hype and now he is going to pay the price for that.

Read more...

Will the Iraqis Kick US Out?

Every one should be following the story of the US-Iraqi SOFA. This agreement has major implications for the future of the US in Iraq and has some constitutional implications in both countries. As the self-imposed deadline over the completion of the agreement nears several important question are being asked. The most interesting of these is, “Will the Iraqi’s kick us out?”

In lithiumcola’s diary, he talks about the idea that the possible rejection of the SOFA by the Iraqi government is a positive sign for Democracy in Iraq. The problem is that once the people in Iraq start thinking that they should be running their own country agreements like SOFA where they are forced to fully subvert themselves to our will become very unpopular. A part of this thought is that the Iraqi people might very well decide to kick us out before we can get around to deciding we should leave.

Here is a brief summary of what the US is asking for in the agreement.

...the US wants its troops to have complete freedom of movement in the country, whereas the Iraqis want it to be limited. The Americans are said to be seeking to retain the right to dominate Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, and to gain open access to the land, air and water of Iraq. The US wants to retain the right to arrest and detain any Iraqi whom the US believes represents a security threat. Washington desires the right to launch military operations to chase terrorists without seeking Iraqi government permission. The US wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for American troops, contractors and corporations in Iraq.

The US also wants to retain the right to define terrorism against Iraq. It does not want to give any undertaking that it will defend Iraq from any outside attack unless it is convinced about the nature of that attack. Likewise, it is not offering to safeguard the democratic regime in Iraq. -Juan Cole

These terms would definitely end any hope of Iraq gaining true democracy or becoming a functioning nation state. In addition, these terms would have had the effect of perpetuating our presence and control in Iraq far beyond the end of President Bush’s term. It was this aspect of the SOFA that sparked outrage here in the US. With the possibility of a coming Democratic administration and the possibility of withdrawal from Iraq, Bush sought any means available to cement our presence.

There is another reason beyond the possibility of an Obama administration that requires the SOFA between our two countries. In December, the UN mandate that provides the legal framework for our presence there will expire. The last time the UN mandate expired the US and al-Maliki went to the UN and got an extension. That will not be happening this time.

...the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution earlier this year, in May, stating that any United Nations renewal that doesn't come back to the parliament is illegal and unconstitutional. And they sent a letter one month before that to the Security Council to this effect. One hundred and forty-four Iraqi parliamentarians, which is more than half of the parliament, sent this letter saying that any renewal without coming to the parliament is unconstitutional. And they demanded to set a timetable for a withdrawal of all the multinational forces. Source

The Parliament has no interest in renewing the mandate. This includes members of al-Maliki’s own party. As the LAT describes

Officials in Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's ruling coalition are questioning whether Iraq needs a U.S. military presence even as the two countries press forward with high-pressure negotiations to determine how long American forces will remain.

Snip…

Maliki's advisors are now asking aloud whether the American presence creates more trouble for Iraq with its Arab and Iranian neighbors or whether it safeguards the country's sovereignty, the Western official explained.

The recent campaigns in Basra, Sadr City and Mosul have emboldened the Iraqi’s confidence in their own abilities. While these beliefs may be totally unfounded, their presence combined with the beliefs of some that the US should not have been authorized previously and those who want a role more limited than the current US government is willing to accept has led to the formation of a coalition who just might do what our own legislators have been unable or unwilling to do, get us out of Iraq.

Opposition in Iraq has brought together the forces of al-Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Sadr’s supporters have been marching in the streets in opposition for some time now. Sadr has also decided to fight the agreement in a military fashion. He has formed a new militia dedicated to fighting the Occupier (Us). Sistani has sent his supporter into a Mosque in Karbala order to foment opposition to the agreement.

Opposition here at home has been mostly on the Democratic side.

Six senators, including the chairmen of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees and their ranking minority members have written Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the past week asking for transparency in the negotiations and more briefings. White House, State Department and Pentagon officials briefed lawmakers and staff members on the talks Tuesday.

"There's a tremendous amount of concern up here about the state of these negotiations. ... It's been expressed repeatedly," said a senior congressional staffer, who requested anonymity. He noted that their appeared to be growing talk in Iraq of simply extending the U.N. mandate.

A spokesman for Obama (D-Ill) said any long-term U.S. security commitment to Iraq must be subject to Congressional approval; alternatively the administration should seek an extension of the current UN mandate. Obama wants a new administration to make it "absolutely clear that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq," said spokesman Bill Burton. Source

This does not mean that the Republicans are totally on board. When this was, being talked about in April even some Republicans realized that reaching the agreement without getting approval from congress is just a bad idea.

Senator George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, warned Satterfield that the level of congressional concern could jeopardize the pact.

"From my perspective and from what I am picking up from my colleagues, it is not going to happen, and it is going to turn into a big political thing between now and the election, and I think in the long run could even hurt the situation rather than help the situation," said George Voinovich. "I'm saying, 'look at reality.'"

Voinovich suggested the administration ask the United Nations to extend its mandate authorizing the U.S.-led military mission for several more months, after a new U.S. president is seated. Source

We already know that the UN thing is not going to happen. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans treat this going forward. What will they do when the mandate runs out any we are left without a justification for our being there. Will they demand we stay there in defiance of international law? McCain is on record as saying

"I am confident that I can convince the American People that the consequences of a date for withdrawal are catastrophe and Al Qaeda trumpets that they win. I believe I can convince the American people that after nearly four years of mishandling the war, that we're now doing the right thing and are succeeding. I think I can convince the American people that by continuing with this strategy, we will be able to withdraw more troops" and then proceeded to say he didn't think it was an issue whether or not Bush went to Congress on a plan to say in Iraq long-term, saying, "We have status of force agreements with countries that have never been approved by Congress." [ABC's This Week, 2/17/08]

Will al-Qaeda claim to have won if Iraq decides to use their sovereignty over their own country to kick us out? Under the rhetoric of McCain and Bush we would have to really take over Iraq and have a real occupation. I cannot see how this would pass muster even with the craziest of the right wing. Therefore, if we cannot reach an agreement then we are looking at being kicked out of Iraq.

It would be poetic Justice to have Bush and the Republicans shown up by the Iraqi people themselves. The rhetoric of the right is never truly concerned with the Iraqi people. The discussion of Iraq has always been conducted based on the assumption that we can stay as long as we want. It turns out that our puppet regime is not such a puppet after all.

Read more...

McCain Win Bad for GOP?

In the pundit links presented on the DKos front page there was an article on theorizing on the effects of a McCain win for the GOP. I read that article and have to say it was not all that good. The biggest issue I had with it is that it rested on some very poor assumptions. It required assumptions like McCain would not govern as a conservative and that the Obama loss would not hurt Dems so bad. As I read the piece, I could not help but think, “Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.” A McCain win would be a disaster for everyone so if it is worse for the GOP (which i contend it is not) it is only worse in the way losing your health, house and your job is worse than losing your house and your job.

The title of the article is Why a McCain Win May Be Bad for GOP, Good for Democrats. That alone should start up that skepticism. Here is the premise for the article

In the worst-case scenario, a McCain victory in November could likely lead to a Republican bloodletting that would tear apart the GOP well before 2012, contribute to another good Democratic election in 2010 and hand Democrats such a strong advantage during redistricting that Republicans wouldn't be able to recover for years.

What I think is immediately absent here is that the GOP needs a little bloodletting. They have grown stale and old relying on the same old worn tactics and strategies. They need new blood and new ideas and the only way to get those is through some strife and a little upheaval. The type of change needed in the GOP will not come easily just as the change in the Dems from DLC to Dean/Obama was not an easy change.

I also think that the premise misses the fact that the current climate for the Republicans is so bad that it is hard for it to get worse. That is the basic theory of the article that McCain would make it so bad that no one would ever want to vote Republican and that the party itself would be fractured. That might be true but I think that a McCain win would just be postponing the GOP shakeup and rebuilding. The Republicans are playing out a cycle where their ideas and programs have been in power since Reagan. They have had the same players and leaders for the last 20 odd years with people like McCain being one of them. A McCain win would be bad because it prevents the GOP from performing any self evaluation and making the changes it has to in order to compete in the future.

The article really goes down hill from there because it is predicated on the idea that McCain really is a Maverick.

The scenario is simple: McCain wins and immediately follows his own instincts - meaning he tries to patch together a series of coalitions on ethics, immigration, spending and global warming.
Snip…
The one thing that is sure is that a McCain presidency wouldn't merely be a "third Bush term." That's a smart campaign slogan for Democrats, and it should be effective.

But anyone who knows McCain and has followed his efforts over the years - including his 2000 campaign against George W. Bush - knows that, if the Arizonan gets to the White House, he'll follow his own instincts, not the current president's road map.

What this overlooks is that McCain has spent the past eight years moving to the right and cozying up with Bush. McCain has sold out on numerous issues to make his run for the presidency. Almost everything people ever thought McCain stood for has been thrown aside in his quest for the presidency. McCain is not the McCain of 2000 and he is not a Dem in Republican clothing. McCain really will run a third Bush term on the things that matter like the war in Iraq. He has also shown that he is not really committed to ethics as his campaign is run by lobbyists and he has a zero rating on the environment so how much work he will do on Global Warming is not clear.

The article refers repeatedly to the idea that McCain is closer to Dems than the Republicans are but he is not proving that in his campaign. I guess it is not out of the question that once in power he will flop back the other way to some other position on issues like immigration or campaign finance or ethics or not torturing people.

This is how the article treats the effect of the Obama loss on Dems.

Of course, Democrats won't want to lose the '08 presidential race and a chance to end the war in Iraq in the hope of solidifying themselves for a decade. And an Obama defeat surely would produce its own round of Democratic recrimination and finger-pointing. But ultimately, an Obama defeat wouldn't damage Democrats the way it eventually would Republicans.

That is it? I think that this is a vast understatement referring to the consequences of an Obama loss. At the very least the 50 state strategy that Dean and Obama and the net roots has advocated and fought for would be thrown out. An Obama loss would also set back the cause of African American politicians for a long time. It would prove the nay sayers right that America is just not ready for a Black president. It would allow Clinton a big, “I told you so.” This vindication would vault her to the top of those candidates for 2012. It would destroy the enthusiasm and commitment of the young voters and activists who have fought for Barack in every state across the county. An Obama loss would not be a small thing for the Democratic Party.

If the Dems cannot win now would we really expect them to win in 2012? The situation is as good as it has ever been for the Dems. To think that if they blow it now they will get a better shot in 2012 is nonsense. We have the most money, the worst president, the most energizing candidate, we oppose the oldest candidate, the country is ready for change. If not now when? No, a loss to McCain would not simply be setting us up for a bigger win later.

An Obama loss would not only be a devastating tragedy for Dems but it would also be a tragedy for our county. McCain has no intention of ever getting us out of Iraq and all of his policy ideas now seem to be straight from the GOP playbook. The country cannot withstand another four years of these devastating policies designed to raid our treasury and create true class separation in our country. McCain would not do anything about the corruption that pervades the executive branch, as he would more than likely retain many of those people. McCain would be a disaster. So yes, a McCain win would be bad for the GOP because it prevents it from starting the rebuilding process. However, his win would be a disaster for our country and for Democrats.

Read more...

No Ceremony for Those Who Marry in Kings, Kern, Butte

Three counties in California will not be performing ceremonies for Gay couples who wish to marry. A previous diary on Kos detailed that Kern County Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Ann Barnett has stopped performing ceremonies for couples who want to marry with a civil service. Not reported was that the symbolic gesture appeared to be spreading as Merced, Butte and Kings Counties also said they will cease performing ceremonies. However, an in depth look at the situation reveals the possibility that only Kern and Kings appear to be refusing out of anti-gay sentiment.

The official reason cited by these counties is budgetary concerns. If we examine the budget for Butte county, we find that Butte did in fact have an $8,447 difference in the amount budgeted for services and supplies and the amount requested for the 07-08 fiscal year. Also denied was a request for two additional positions. A search around the net reveals that the situation in Butte seems to be a legitimate decision in response to budgetary concerns. Dagon at pamshouseblend.com spoke to Candace J. Grubbs, the elected Clerk-Recorder, on Monday June 9, 2008. She reported that

After the Primary Election, her office found itself in a budget crunch. They had to leave positions unfilled. She had to look at all the duties of her job and see what she could NOT do and get by. Wedding ceremonies are a "may" ,not a "must do" for Clerk-Recorders. Plus, Ms. Grubbs sees herself as in competition with the private sector ... not only religious folks, but also non-religious folk AND the "deputies for a day."

In California, for a small fee through Ms. Grubbs office, ANYONE may officiate at a single wedding. They apply, get trained in how to fill out the paper work, and officiate at the one wedding. Way cool. Ms. Grubbs thinks this is so much more personal and pleasant an option than one of her staff, unknown to the couple, officiating at the nuptials.

Dagon is of the opinion that Grubbs is sincere and not doing this out of some desire to symbolically thwart the marriage of same sex couples. In response to that question about Ms. Grubbs, Dagon said,

But I spent a good 15+ minutes on the phone with Ms. Grubbs this morning. I probed this way and that. She sure had all the correct answers of a good business woman and a non-homophobe. I did not pick up ANY bias at all in her decision to stop the ceremonies ... none at all. And I was looking for it.

She did not know me from Adam. She knew I was not a reporter and did live in the county. That is all she knew about me. But we had a most pleasant time on the phone ... well I was migraining and not speaking very clearly so I had the sympathy thing going for me. But I really and truly did not pick up any bias.

And at Chico Pride Fest on Saturday, there were fliers around from Wedding Planners ready to provide you with a male or female officiate for your ceremony. There is a private sector in Butte County to provide wedding ceremonies.

And the "deputy for a day" for wedding ceremonies is "must" for the Clerk's office ... she has to provide that service.

I am almost convinced that budgetary problems are not a fig leaf to hide the real intent of Ms. Grubbs. Still, I remain somewhat skeptical. The services cost $37 each and it seems like it would be a way of making money to help cover some of the budget shortfall. It is possible however, that Ms. Grubs duties do not allot enough time to perform the ceremonies and complete her other duties. Cursory research found that ceremonies took anywhere from 10-30 minutes to perform. Ms. Grubbs estimated 200 ceremonies a year. That does not seem like an inordinate amount of time, especially as there is not likely to be more than two on any given day.

Something that may or may not lead credence to the actions of Ms. Grubbs is what happened in Merced. Stephen Jones, the clerk for Merced had originally declared he too would cease ceremonies over budgetary concerns. He received immediate pressure to reverse his decision. He eventually did so after receiving another clerk position to perform weddings and some additional space. His office performs 500 weddings a year. Note though that he too is suspected of acting initially out of anti-gay sentiment but being undercut when his excuse was erased.

Jones sent an e-mail Thursday morning to Dee Tatum, county chief executive officer, and the Board of Supervisors outlining his decision to stop performing weddings.

In his response, sent before Jones announced plans to stop performing marriages, Tatum wrote, “If space is a problem, then certainly we can make (room) 301 available and 310, as well as the board chambers when it is not in use.”

Tatum added, “I would suggest before you take this step to see if this is legally defensible. I place no value on whether marriages are right or wrong or should be conducted or not. We, the organization, will certainly be asked why after all these years we have taken this step.”

The same article that gives the information on Jones also includes a quote from another clerk regarding the financial implications of performing the ceremonies.

Contrary to the claim from Kern County that the ceremonies are a drain on resources, Weir, the clerk in Contra Costa County, said they make money.
"It is a financial plus," said Weir, whose office makes $72,000 a year solemnizing marriages at $60 a pop. "It's something you can do fairly easily, pays its own way and is a service you are providing to your customer."

There are a couple possible sets implications from this information. The first is that Butte is not charging enough for the ceremony or that the private sector there is forcing them out of business by undercutting them. The second is that Ms. Grubbs is using the cessation of ceremonies as leverage for more resources in her budget battle with the county. If enough pressure is applied to start up the ceremonies, she may get the money for the positions she wanted. The last possibility is that Grubbs was simply lying and fooled Dagon.

Circumstantial evidence suggests that the last possibility is not highly unlikely Proposition 22 was passed in Butte 69-31. In comparison, Kern County was 80 and Merced County voters supported it with 77 percent voting in favor. The proposition passed statewide with 61 percent of the vote.

What is not in dispute is that the Kern County Auditor/Controller/County Clerk Ann Barnett is definitely doing this out of a desire to symbolically thwart same sex couples right to marry. She went as far as she could to avoid aiding the couples in any manner and when that failed, she canceled all the services. She ended up canceling 25 heterosexual ceremonies that had been scheduled after June 13 to prevent the same sex couples from getting their ceremonies.

Kern County is a notoriously conservative place and that someone in this county would refuse to abide by the law when it comes to equal rights for homosexuals should have almost been expected. I do not expect that the end to ceremonies will last particularly long. There is enormous pressure, if not in Kern, from the State that wants to see the courts ruling enforced as a matter of precedent and keeping law and order. Ann Barnett will have to do the ceremonies or resign. Her budgetary excuse is utter nonsense.

Little information exists about the situation in king county. the most commonly cited information is this

The clerk in Kings County has indicated he does not plan to grant the new licenses until the Court of Appeals takes that step, said Stephen Weir, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials.

Kings County has a notice on its Web site saying it does "not anticipate any changes in our current marriage license procedures until such time as the lower court's implementation rulings take effect."

The legal question Kings County is using is a question over the Supreme Court's decision ordering a lower-level court, that had upheld California’s law on traditional marriage, to issue a new order favoring gay marriage. There is debate about when that appeals court must comply. Kings County is taking the position that it does not have to issue gay marriage licenses until that court issues the revised order. Not sure how long that will hold up.

Read more...