(1) "Agency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. "State agency" includes every state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency. "Local agency" includes every county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district, or any office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other local public agency.

       (2) "Authorized committee" means the political committee authorized by a candidate, or by the public official against whom recall charges have been filed, to accept contributions or make expenditures on behalf of the candidate or public official.

       (3) "Ballot proposition" means any "measure" as defined by RCW 29.01.110, or any initiative, recall, or referendum proposition proposed to be submitted to the voters of the state or any municipal corporation, political subdivision, or other voting constituency from and after the time when the proposition has been initially filed with the appropriate election officer of that constituency prior to its circulation for signatures.

       (4) "Benefit" means a commercial, proprietary, financial, economic, or monetary advantage, or the avoidance of a commercial, proprietary, financial, economic, or monetary disadvantage.

       (5) "Bona fide political party" means:

       (a) An organization that has filed a valid certificate of nomination with the secretary of state under chapter 29.24 RCW;

       (b) The governing body of the state organization of a major political party, as defined in RCW 29.01.090, that is the body authorized by the charter or bylaws of the party to exercise authority on behalf of the state party; or

       (c) The county central committee or legislative district committee of a major political party. There may be only one legislative district committee for each party in each legislative district.

       (6) "Depository" means a bank designated by a candidate or political committee pursuant to RCW 42.17.050.

       (7) "Treasurer" and "deputy treasurer" mean the individuals appointed by a candidate or political committee, pursuant to RCW 42.17.050, to perform the duties specified in that section.

       (8) "Candidate" means any individual who seeks nomination for election or election to public office. An individual seeks nomination or election when he or she first:

       (a) Receives contributions or makes expenditures or reserves space or facilities with intent to promote his or her candidacy for office;

       (b) Announces publicly or files for office;

       (c) Purchases commercial advertising space or broadcast time to promote his or her candidacy; or

       (d) Gives his or her consent to another person to take on behalf of the individual any of the actions in (a) or (c) of this subsection.

       (9) "Caucus political committee" means a political committee organized and maintained by the members of a major political party in the state senate or state house of representatives.

       (10) "Commercial advertiser" means any person who sells the service of communicating messages or producing printed material for broadcast or distribution to the general public or segments of the general public whether through the use of newspapers, magazines, television and radio stations, billboard companies, direct mail advertising companies, printing companies, or otherwise.

       (11) "Commission" means the agency established under RCW 42.17.350.

       (12) "Compensation" unless the context requires a narrower meaning, includes payment in any form for real or personal property or services of any kind: PROVIDED, That for the purpose of compliance with RCW 42.17.241, the term "compensation" shall not include per diem allowances or other payments made by a governmental entity to reimburse a public official for expenses incurred while the official is engaged in the official business of the governmental entity.

       (13) "Continuing political committee" means a political committee that is an organization of continuing existence not established in anticipation of any particular election campaign.

       (14)(a) "Contribution" includes:

       (i) A loan, gift, deposit, subscription, forgiveness of indebtedness, donation, advance, pledge, payment, transfer of funds between political committees, or anything of value, including personal and professional services for less than full consideration;

       (ii) An expenditure made by a person in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a political committee, or their agents;

       (iii) The financing by a person of the dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of broadcast, written, graphic, or other form of political advertising prepared by a candidate, a political committee, or its authorized agent;

       (iv) Sums paid for tickets to fund-raising events such as dinners and parties, except for the actual cost of the consumables furnished at the event.

       (b) "Contribution" does not include:

       (i) Standard interest on money deposited in a political committee's account;

       (ii) Ordinary home hospitality;

       (iii) A contribution received by a candidate or political committee that is returned to the contributor within five business days of the date on which it is received by the candidate or political committee;

       (iv) A news item, feature, commentary, or editorial in a regularly scheduled news medium that is of primary interest to the general public, that is in a news medium controlled by a person whose business is that news medium, and that is not controlled by a candidate or a political committee;

       (v) An internal political communication primarily limited to the members of or contributors to a political party organization or political committee, or to the officers, management staff, or stockholders of a corporation or similar enterprise, or to the members of a labor organization or other membership organization;

       (vi) The rendering of personal services of the sort commonly performed by volunteer campaign workers, or incidental expenses personally incurred by volunteer campaign workers not in excess of fifty dollars personally paid for by the worker. "Volunteer services," for the purposes of this section, means services or labor for which the individual is not compensated by any person;

       (vii) Messages in the form of reader boards, banners, or yard or window signs displayed on a person's own property or property occupied by a person. However, a facility used for such political advertising for which a rental charge is normally made must be reported as an in-kind contribution and counts towards any applicable contribution limit of the person providing the facility;

       (viii) Legal or accounting services rendered to or on behalf of:

       (A) A political party or caucus political committee if the person paying for the services is the regular employer of the person rendering such services; or

       (B) A candidate or an authorized committee if the person paying for the services is the regular employer of the individual rendering the services and if the services are solely for the purpose of ensuring compliance with state election or public disclosure laws.

       (c) Contributions other than money or its equivalent are deemed to have a monetary value equivalent to the fair market value of the contribution. Services or property or rights furnished at less than their fair market value for the purpose of assisting any candidate or political committee are deemed a contribution. Such a contribution must be reported as an in-kind contribution at its fair market value and counts towards any applicable contribution limit of the provider.

       (15) "Elected official" means any person elected at a general or special election to any public office, and any person appointed to fill a vacancy in any such office.

       (16) "Election" includes any primary, general, or special election for public office and any election in which a ballot proposition is submitted to the voters: PROVIDED, That an election in which the qualifications for voting include other than those requirements set forth in Article VI, section 1 (Amendment 63) of the Constitution of the state of Washington shall not be considered an election for purposes of this chapter.

       (17) "Election campaign" means any campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate for election to public office and any campaign in support of, or in opposition to, a ballot proposition.

       (18) "Election cycle" means the period beginning on the first day of December after the date of the last previous general election for the office that the candidate seeks and ending on November 30th after the next election for the office. In the case of a special election to fill a vacancy in an office, "election cycle" means the period beginning on the day the vacancy occurs and ending on November 30th after the special election.

       (19) "Expenditure" includes a payment, contribution, subscription, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, and includes a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, to make an expenditure. The term "expenditure" also includes a promise to pay, a payment, or a transfer of anything of value in exchange for goods, services, property, facilities, or anything of value for the purpose of assisting, benefiting, or honoring any public official or candidate, or assisting in furthering or opposing any election campaign. For the purposes of this chapter, agreements to make expenditures, contracts, and promises to pay may be reported as estimated obligations until actual payment is made. The term "expenditure" shall not include the partial or complete repayment by a candidate or political committee of the principal of a loan, the receipt of which loan has been properly reported.

       (20) "Final report" means the report described as a final report in RCW 42.17.080(2).

       (21) "General election" means the election that results in the election of a person to a state office. It does not include a primary.

       (22) "Gift," is as defined in RCW 42.52.010.

       (23) "Immediate family" includes the spouse, dependent children, and other dependent relatives, if living in the household. For the purposes of RCW 42.17.640 through 42.17.790, "immediate family" means an individual's spouse, and child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, stepparent, grandparent, brother, half brother, sister, or half sister of the individual and the spouse of any such person and a child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, stepparent, grandparent, brother, half brother, sister, or half sister of the individual's spouse and the spouse of any such person.

       (24) "Independent expenditure" means an expenditure that has each of the following elements:

       (a) It is made in support of or in opposition to a candidate for office by a person who is not (i) a candidate for that office, (ii) an authorized committee of that candidate for that office, (iii) a person who has received the candidate's encouragement or approval to make the expenditure, if the expenditure pays in whole or in part for political advertising supporting that candidate or promoting the defeat of any other candidate or candidates for that office, or (iv) a person with whom the candidate has collaborated for the purpose of making the expenditure, if the expenditure pays in whole or in part for political advertising supporting that candidate or promoting the defeat of any other candidate or candidates for that office;

       (b) The expenditure pays in whole or in part for political advertising that either specifically names the candidate supported or opposed, or clearly and beyond any doubt identifies the candidate without using the candidate's name; and

       (c) The expenditure, alone or in conjunction with another expenditure or other expenditures of the same person in support of or opposition to that candidate, has a value of five hundred dollars or more. A series of expenditures, each of which is under five hundred dollars, constitutes one independent expenditure if their cumulative value is five hundred dollars or more.

       (25)(a) "Intermediary" means an individual who transmits a contribution to a candidate or committee from another person unless the contribution is from the individual's employer, immediate family as defined for purposes of RCW 42.17.640 through 42.17.790, or an association to which the individual belongs.

       (b) A treasurer or a candidate is not an intermediary for purposes of the committee that the treasurer or candidate serves.

       (c) A professional fund-raiser is not an intermediary if the fund-raiser is compensated for fund-raising services at the usual and customary rate.

       (d) A volunteer hosting a fund-raising event at the individual's home is not an intermediary for purposes of that event.

       (26) "Legislation" means bills, resolutions, motions, amendments, nominations, and other matters pending or proposed in either house of the state legislature, and includes any other matter that may be the subject of action by either house or any committee of the legislature and all bills and resolutions that, having passed both houses, are pending approval by the governor.

       (27) "Lobby" and "lobbying" each mean attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by the legislature of the state of Washington, or the adoption or rejection of any rule, standard, rate, or other legislative enactment of any state agency under the state Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW. Neither "lobby" nor "lobbying" includes an association's or other organization's act of communicating with the members of that association or organization.

       (28) "Lobbyist" includes any person who lobbies either in his or her own or another's behalf.

       (29) "Lobbyist's employer" means the person or persons by whom a lobbyist is employed and all persons by whom he or she is compensated for acting as a lobbyist.

       (30) "Person" includes an individual, partnership, joint venture, public or private corporation, association, federal, state, or local governmental entity or agency however constituted, candidate, committee, political committee, political party, executive committee thereof, or any other organization or group of persons, however organized.

       (31) "Person in interest" means the person who is the subject of a record or any representative designated by that person, except that if that person is under a legal disability, the term "person in interest" means and includes the parent or duly appointed legal representative.

       (32) "Political advertising" includes any advertising displays, newspaper ads, billboards, signs, brochures, articles, tabloids, flyers, letters, radio or television presentations, or other means of mass communication, used for the purpose of appealing, directly or indirectly, for votes or for financial or other support in any election campaign.

       (33) "Political committee" means any person (except a candidate or an individual dealing with his or her own funds or property) having the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures in support of, or opposition to, any candidate or any ballot proposition.

       (34) "Primary" for purposes of the limits in RCW 42.17.640 means the ((procedure for nominating)) election that nominates a candidate to state office ((under chapter 29.18 or 29.21 RCW or any other primary for an election that uses, in large measure, the procedures established in chapter 29.18 or 29.21 RCW)).

       (35) "Public office" means any federal, state, county, city, town, school district, port district, special district, or other state political subdivision elective office.

       (36) "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.

       (37) "Recall campaign" means the period of time beginning on the date of the filing of recall charges under RCW 29.82.015 and ending thirty days after the recall election.

       (38) "State legislative office" means the office of a member of the state house of representatives or the office of a member of the state senate.

       (39) "State office" means state legislative office or the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, commissioner of public lands, insurance commissioner, superintendent of public instruction, state auditor, or state treasurer.

       (40) "State official" means a person who holds a state office.

       (41) "Surplus funds" mean, in the case of a political committee or candidate, the balance of contributions that remain in the possession or control of that committee or candidate subsequent to the election for which the contributions were received, and that are in excess of the amount necessary to pay remaining debts incurred by the committee or candidate prior to that election. In the case of a continuing political committee, "surplus funds" mean those contributions remaining in the possession or control of the committee that are in excess of the amount necessary to pay all remaining debts when it makes its final report under RCW 42.17.065.

       (42) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation, including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.

       As used in this chapter, the singular shall take the plural and any gender, the other, as the context requires.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 30. Nothing in this act may be construed by the secretary of state or a county auditor to mean that a voter may cast more than one vote for candidates for a given office.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 31. (1) The legislature recognizes that this act significantly changes the way in which a primary for partisan office shall be conducted, and thus it intends to ease the transition and allow any primary held prior to July 1, 2002, to be implemented with existing systems currently in use by each county auditor.

       (2) Notwithstanding any language to the contrary found elsewhere in this act or in existing statute each county auditor may design a ballot and utilize procedures other than those detailed in this act when conducting a partisan primary provided that the design of the ballot and the procedures are specifically allowed by a rule adopted by the secretary of state under chapter 34.05 RCW, and that the following criteria are met:

       (a) A voter shall have the option to affiliate with a major political party, or to not affiliate with any major political party;

       (b) Voter privacy, including selection of party affiliation, is preserved;

       (c) A voter who affiliates with a major political party may only cast votes for partisan office for candidates that indicated that same-party affiliation when filing a declaration of candidacy, and any votes cast for a candidate that indicated a different party affiliation when filing a declaration of candidacy shall not be tabulated and reported;

       (d) A voter who chooses not to affiliate with any major political party may vote for any candidate regardless of the candidate's political party designation, and votes cast by such voter shall be tabulated and reported; and

       (e) Votes cast for a candidate by voters who choose to affiliate with a major political party shall be reported separately from votes cast for the same candidate by voters who choose not to affiliate with any major political party.

       (3) This section expires July 1, 2002.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 32. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:

       (1) RCW 29.18.010 (Application of chapter) and 1990 c 59 s 78 & 1965 c 9 s 29.18.010;

       (2) RCW 29.18.120 (General election laws govern primaries) and 1990 c 59 s 87, 1971 ex.s. c 112 s 1, & 1965 c 9 s 29.18.120;

       (3) RCW 29.18.150 (Vacancies on major party ticket caused by no filing--How filled) and 1990 c 59 s 102, 1977 ex.s. c 329 s 12, & 1965 c 9 s 29.18.150;

       (4) RCW 29.18.160 (Vacancies by death or disqualification--How filled--Correcting ballots and labels--Counting votes already cast) and 2001 c 46 s 4 & 1977 ex.s. c 329 s 13;

       (5) RCW 29.18.200 (Blanket primary authorized) and 1990 c 59 s 88 & 1965 c 9 s 29.18.200; and

       (6) RCW 29.30.040 (Primaries--Rotating names of candidates) and 1990 c 59 s 94, 1977 ex.s. c 361 s 54, & 1965 c 9 s 29.30.040.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 33. Sections 1, 4, 5, and 8 through 13 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 29 RCW.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 34. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 35. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately."

       Correct the title., and the same are herewith transmitted.

TIMOTHY A. MARTIN, Co-Chief Clerk

CYNTHIA ZEHNDER, Co-Chief Clerk

MOTION

      Senator Tim Sheldon moved that the Senate do not concur in the House amendment to Engrossed Senate Bill No 6183.

MOTION

      Senator Snyder moved that the Senate do concur in the House amendment to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183.

MOTION

      Senator Snyder moved that Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183 be made a special order of business for 10:30 a.m. on Friday, May 18.

REMARKS BY SENATOR HARGROVE

      Senator Hargrove: “Thank you, Mr. President. I would object to that motion. There are a number of people leaving town. This is a very important issue. I think we ought to do it. So, I object to the motion.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR WEST

      Senator West: “Mr. President, I request that the motion be divided. There is a motion to concur and there is a motion to make it a special order of business. What are we doing here?”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Owen: “Senator West, it is not necessary to divide the question. The motion before the Senate is the motion by Senator Snyder to make Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183 a special order of business for 10:30 a.m. on Friday, May 18.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR FINKBEINER

      Senator Finkbeiner: “Thank you, Mr. President, speaking against the motion. I think the Attorney General visited both of our caucuses and urged us to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. What she told us was that the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to for her to argue anything in front of the court. The position that the people who want to put this debate off, that’s going to be harder to argue and the position that those of us who don’t want to put it off, that’s going to be harder to argue also. If nothing gets passed, that’s still going to be hard for her to put something together in the next--what is it--eight days from now that the court is going to make a decision?

      “I think we’ve debated this enough all through the year. I think we’ve put it off enough. We’ve put off committee hearings. We’ve put off debate on the floor. The House has made their position, and I think we’ve made our position. I think we still believe in our position. I think we need to send this back over to the House and let them know today, and quit delaying, because the longer we delay, the more we’re handing this issue from the Legislature, where I think it deserves to be resolved--over to the courts--where I don’t think most of us want to see it resolved. So, I urge a ‘no’ vote on this motion.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR SNYDER

      Senator Snyder: “Thank you, Mr. President. Well, just a few moments ago, the proponents of the bill that left here were saying they got jammed in the House of Representatives. They should have waited a few days over there before they ran the bill. Now, we’re being told that if we postpone this until Friday, it isn’t the thing to do, we should jump up and pass it real fast. So, I think the proper thing to do is just to wait until Friday. We talk about members not being here on Friday and being gone, I think our obligation is to be here. We’re in a special session and there are people gone all the time. I think this is the number one priority for all of us unless they have a real emergency to be gone from Olympia. I think we need to take a look; I don’t even know fully what the House of Representatives passed. I understand they amended 6183 that we originally had over here and made some changes in that and we haven’t even had a chance to discuss those at all. I think it’s just reasonable that we wait until Friday to consider this. Also, I’ll talk about something else later if it comes to that.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR EIDE

      Senator Eide: “Thank you, Mr. President, I too stand in favor of the motion. I would like a chance to read the bill. Unfortunately, I believe it passed the House of Representatives yesterday, and I don’t think it is unreasonable to wait until 10:30 on Friday morning to give each and every one of us a chance to at least read it to see what’s in it, and if there were any changes made.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR CARLSON

      Senator Carlson: “Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. This bill that we passed originally from the Senate two days ago, was passed by the other body in one day and then they sent it back to us. Have they made changes? Sure. I’m speaking against the motion to delay, because I believe that we knew what we voted on two days ago. We had an excellent debate on that issue two days ago. We can still vote the same; we could vote differently. We can understand what we voted on already two days ago, and if I heard the motion correctly before we were asked to consider to delay this until Friday, there was an opportunity to have the differences explained.

      “I know that we have looked at this issue for months. We understand the basic concept of the bill and the revisions of the bill that we voted on two days ago. I believe we’re putting off a very crucial vote that the Attorney General needs to have direction on. I believe we should make it very clear that we understand what we are and what we have already voted on, and therefore, I urge you to vote against the motion to delay.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR ROACH

      Senator Roach: “Thank you, Mr. President. I urge that we do vote for delay and I want to explain to the members why. I think that the Senator that just spoke is definitely correct. We all know the issues and we all know what both the underlying bill that 6183 was, and we also know what it was when it left for the House. Most of us, I think, have a good feeling for what has come back for us to consider. But, that’s not the issue anymore. That’s not the issue for the delay. The issue for the delay is not the content of 6183. The issue for a delay is so that we can now discuss something even more important and that issue is, shall we in fact allow for the courts to take over the responsibility that we have as legislators--and that we will never ever be able to inject our own or the people’s will into this subject.

      “Remember the Boldt Decision--remember when that issue went to the court, it closed off any access that the state of Washington’s Legislature, and therefore the people, had in that debate forever. If we don’t get a bill for the Governor’s desk, we will have no more input on the issue, because it will go to court. So, I would suggest this, that even if we do not like the version that the House is coming back with, and remember I voted for 6183 as it left the Senate--even if we do not prefer that version, it is much preferable in these few remaining days to get a bill to the Governor’s office that he will sign, so that we can, and future legislatures, can, continue to address this. If we don’t, we’ve closed the door.

      “That, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, is the issue before us today and the issue of the delay. Mr. President, I move that the whole debate on 6183 that occurred Monday and today and as it will come up in the future hopefully, be spread upon the record of the Journal for the purposes of easy access for our prosperity to look and understand what’s happening in this extremely historical point.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Owen: “Senator Roach, your motion, at this time, would be out of order. You will have to make it after we dispose of this motion.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR KOHL-WELLES

      Senator Kohl-Welles: “Thank you, Mr. President. I also support the motion to delay the vote until Friday. We have two very different proposals before us. One, that the Senate has passed out and secondly, the amended bill that came over from the House. Now, indeed there may be some resolution to this, where we’re not having to select between these two options. Some people are working on trying to find a compromise here that could be embraced by all of us here in the Senate and everybody in the House. Delaying this for two days would give the opportunity for us all to work on crafting such a compromise. If nothing else, I believe we can wait for two days to see if we can come up with that compromise.”

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Snyder to make Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183 a special order business at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, May 18.

      The motion by Senator Snyder to make Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183 a special order of business for Friday, May 18, failed on a rising vote.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Snyder to concur in the House amendment to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183.

REMARKS BY SENATOR HARGROVE

      Senator Hargrove: “Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to speak against that motion. The bill we have before us here is essentially the same decision we made yesterday. It was whether we were going to have the Washington primary--the people’s choice primary--or the modified Montana plan. I believe there was some very minor amendments made, but the substance of the main debate is still here. So, I would urge that we vote against this motion to concur.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR FRANKLIN

      Senator Franklin: “Thank you, Mr. President. I move that we do concur with the motion, because after watching very, very closely the debate on both sides, and knowing what the outcome has been, it has been one of the toughest votes that members have had to take. So, concurring with the amendment certainly would then answer not only the question which confronts us, but would be most appropriate for the voters. We have been trying to address the issue before it is turned over to the court.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR TIM SHELDON

      Senator Tim Sheldon: “Thank you, Mr. President. I move that we vote ‘no’ on this motion and that we not concur and defeat this motion and then subsequently we pass a motion to not concur and to adhere to our position. Really, this is a battle between the people and the parties. It really gets down to this vote today. You’ve read the newspaper articles, you’re starting to hear from your constituents and I can’t think of a constituent that I have that wants their vote not to count.

      “How would it be in this body if someone was chosen--if someone said, the body said, you in District X or you in District Y, your vote will not count today. You can go to the polls, you can go through the motions, you can take a ballot, you can do that most sacred thing that we do in America--vote, but your vote will not count. That’s the basic difference between these two plans. There’s no changing it. There’s no getting around it. There’s no begging the parties to count the votes. There’s no deal that can be made. It’s all left to someone else to decide and that’s not what we do in America. Our Constitution says, ‘We, the people,’ it doesn’t say, ‘We, the party.’ Please vote ‘no’ on this motion. Bring the next motion up. We’ll send the bill that we passed that favors the people, back to the House where it was defeated by a small margin. Given time, I believe that will also pass, because the power of the people will prevail.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR CONSTANTINE

      Senator Constantine: “Thank you, Mr. President. The bill before us is the one alternative that we have to a judicially imposed primary election system in the state of Washington. The Cajun system is not going to pass the House of Representatives--I’m sorry Mr. President. I know we’re not supposed to discuss deliberations over there, but it’s part of the reality of what we vote on today. If we do not concur, then we say that a federal judge can impose whatever system you will on this state. Instead of a moderate system as represented by the bill before us right now, one which protects individual privacy, one which recognizes the right of people to vote across party lines, we’re going to have a system where it’s likely based on what the Attorney General told us recently, that we’ll go to a convention to choose the candidates for the general election. Do your voters prefer to go to a party convention than to go to the polls and vote?

      “The bill we have before us is the most modern option that is going to pass. Nothing else short of this is going to pass, so you can vote the way you voted last time. You can remain wedded to that position, but you need to recognize you’re not actually going to make a change in the law, you’re not actually going to solve the problem, and you’re not going to do a darn thing for the voters of this state. I would urge you to vote to concur.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR FINKBEINER

      Senator Finkbeiner: “Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Senate. You know the folks that want to denigrate the Washington choice model and call it the Cajun model or call it the Louisiana system, even though it’s clearly not that, even though it’s clearly the same model that we use to elect all of our local folks. Along those lines, I think if you’re going to characterize this bill as what does it in essence really represent? I think this is a Tammany Hall model. This is a let’s go back to the smoke-filled back rooms and pick out who’s going to be the party nominee. Let’s take the votes away from the people and give them to the party. I think we had enough debate on this yesterday, so speaking directly to this motion on whether or not we want to concur. I guess I think that despite some of the claims that have been made today, I think it’s a little early to call this the only version that could be passed.

      “In fact, I think there’s a very slim majority that passed the current bill that we’re currently looking at and I think the Senate gave much more deliberation and debate over the course of the session to this topic. I don’t think anybody was rushed in their decision making. I think we owe it to ourselves to hold the position that we had yesterday--to say that we’re going to place the voters above the party and to give the other body a chance to really consider this debate. In fact I don’t know how many of those of you who listened to the debate yesterday, but something I was very surprised at as I heard over and over again, well let’s really talk to those parties. We’ll just really put a lot of pressure on them. I heard it on the news today, one of the folks who supported this bill saying, ‘We’ll just really tell those parties one more time,’ just like we did in our last presidential election where they threw out over fifty percent of the votes--didn’t count them because people had to pick their parties.

      “It is just like we’ve done all session until now where we’ve said over and over again, ‘Please don’t sue the state, please don’t put us in this position,’ and we’ve ignored it all the way until now. So, I think it’s time and the right time to say ‘no.’ The other body should consider this and we’re going to continue to stand with the people. So I urge a ‘no’ vote.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR KOHL-WELLES

      Senator Kohl-Welles: “Thank you, Mr. President. I speak in favor of concurring in the House amendment. I find it very interesting when I hear people say that voting for the House amendment is tantamount to wanting to go to Tammany Hall and have the situation in our state where the party bosses decide who’s going to be advanced to the general election. I would like to tell you a little bit of background here. The model for this came from a constituent of mine from Queen Anne in Seattle back in early February. He brought the idea to me. He’s been an elections inspector for years and he’s observed what happens at the polling places. He knows that people want to preserve privacy of whom they vote for and which party they identify with, but he also has believed that the parties have some rights to be involved with who goes on to represent the party in the general election.

      “I tried to take this to the democratic party. I tried over and over again to talk about this proposal here. No one really paid attention, because we legislators did not want to deal with the situation. We did not want our constituents to be angry with us for making a change in their beloved blanket primary, which no one has wanted to change. Eventually, this got on the radar screen and I talked with party officials. I asked them to give me input. They didn’t get back to me. This is not something that the parties have put us up to. I think they prefer this over the Louisiana primary approach, but this is not what they want either. They would like full registration by party with closed primary ballots. Now this option--this model--is not ideal. How many times do we vote on a compromise bill in this body that we love? Usually, we don’t love compromises, but a compromise is something that can work--and this can work. It passes constitutional muster according to the Attorney General’s office.

      “Believe me, if this does not go forward and the Louisiana model does, just wait until you hear from outraged constituents when they go to vote in the general election and there are only two people on the ballot from one party. Are they going to have a choice before them? Just wait until there are no minor candidates on the general election ballot. Are people going to be very pleased then and like what we have done? We need to approve the House amendment. The best approach is the one that will work even though none of us loves it.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR DECCIO

      Senator Deccio: “Thank you, Mr. President. I haven’t weighed in on this, but reducing it down to a plain simple fact, that number one, I don’t want the parties telling me what to do, whether I can run, whether I can’t run, whether I get nominated, whether I don’t get nominated. Number two, we cannot disenfranchise anyone. Senator Kohl said that the electorate would be outraged if we don’t go with the House. They will be more outraged when they find out that they cannot vote--that their vote does not count. That’s the bottom line for me. We just went through the Florida fiasco where votes were counted, some were not counted. We don’t want to do that again in the state of Washington. We need to go with the Senate version and let’s get this thing over with. Thank you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR KLINE

      Senator Kline: “Mr. President and members, I’m somewhat offended as a New Yorker to hear Tammany Hall brought into this. Tammany Hall was a political machine comparable in its day to the recent Chicago political machine. If there’s any bill that would make the political machinery work, it’s a bill that would take away from this Legislature the authority to write legislation and give it--not to a group of people around a table in a back room all smoking cigars-- but to one person, a federal judge. If we don’t exercise legislative power, we’re going to have legislative power exercised on us by a judge--a single person. I can’t see any other alternative that could possibly pass both houses of this Legislature that would take it away from Judge Burgess, other than this bill.

      “This bill has more merit to it than simply--well it’s an alternative to taking it away from a judge. There is a point to having both parties, possibly minor parties as well, in the mix, in election day, in November when the largest number of people come out to vote. The real choice is made not in September, but in November. Every other even numbered November, we have a president and vice president to be elected. We have large numbers of people every even-numbered November when our congressional delegation is up. That’s when people come to the polls. That’s when choice matters--choice between ideologically different candidates. This bill, I believe--if we concur--would give us that and it would be our decision to make.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR HEWITT

      Senator Hewitt: “Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday, I voted for the amendment basically because I want the people to have the choice and I think that’s the method to do it. I don’t think any country should allow any vote to be cast out by a handful of people. I want to read you something that I received yesterday and here’s what’s important about this. This came from the treasurer of my campaign last year. He’s

also a party official; his wife is a state committeewoman. I think you’ll appreciate this, I’m going to quote this. ‘Yesterday, our sorry State Senator voted on a striking amendment which gutted Senator Snyder’s Bill No. 6183. Our sorry Senator voted both for the amendment and the final bill,’ which was addressed to the officials of the Republican party in Walla County. That ladies and gentlemen is part of the problem here.

      “We’re not only taking the choice away from the people that we want to make the choice for, but we’re also handing over some of the choices to the people that helped to get us here. I don’t think it’s correct. I spent last night on the phone talking to the county officials, trying to explain my position and why I think it’s so important to allow the people of this state to cast their vote and have their vote counted. I want something to come out of this body. I don’t care what it is. I want something to come out of this body, but I would prefer to have the people of this state have their votes counted. I’m willing to take another risk to get it back to the House to let them have the message a second time. Thank you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR CARLSON

      Senator Carlson: “Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I stand in opposition to the bill before you. In fact, if I had the opportunity, I would request that we adhere to our position and insist that they recede from their position. We are about the people’s business and the legislation that we passed two years ago--sorry, two days ago--is certainly a desire and attempt to recognize the will of the people as they described their view on the issue of a Washington preferential primary vote. The press--you ought to be ashamed of yourselves, ashamed of yourselves for calling it the Cajun system, the Louisiana system. It’s our state’s people’s preference. If you wouldn’t keep calling it Cajun and Louisiana, maybe we’d have an opportunity for the citizens to understand that we’re trying to provide them their choice. They have indicated many times the desire to be able to vote as they choose. We sent, by a majority vote in an excellent civics discussion on this floor two days ago, what we thought was the right thing to do. We sent it to the other body. They had an interesting discussion, but they couldn’t even discuss what we sent them because one person says it’s not going to be allowed.

      “Well, if we’re a representative democracy then we need to stand up for what we believe in, a democratic/republican government and send it back the way we sent it to them, because I believe, if we gave this opportunity for the folks to vote on it in a different body, they would pass this bill-- if they were given the opportunity. Please vote this down and adhere to our position.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR THIBAUDEAU

      Senator Thibaudeau: “Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Senate. I find it somewhat ironic that you’re talking about the people’s’ choice about this particular measure and I’m rising in support of the motion. I want people to have a choice, too, and I want people to have a choice at the general as well as the primary. We all know, relative to the general, how relatively few people vote in the primary. I also find it ironic, and sometimes much to the despair of my party how bipartisan I am, that you cite Tammany Hall. How many of you have been to your district meetings lately, people? How many people are there on a regular basis? How often? I ran against a party candidate and incidently won. I too listened to the debate. There was something like almost twenty votes against it. There were a lot that were excused, but it wouldn’t have made the difference. Over and over and over again, the people said, rather the members of that other body said, ‘We really appreciate the work you’ve all done’--the Co-Chairs that is. Furthermore, in spite of the statements from the other day, the Co-Speakers both voted for it. They gave it considerable thought. It was a long time, because they were in caucus for a long time and I urge you, urge you, to give the people a choice in the general, as well as the other elections. Thank you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR RASMUSSEN

      Senator Rasmussen: “Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I rise to ask you to not support this and one of the biggest reasons is that if we support this, it goes to the Governor’s desk. We don’t get another chance to bring this issue back to negotiate any further. This goes to the Governor’s desk--doesn’t go back to the House. I think that this is so important. We need to send a message to the House that we need to continue to negotiate. I represent one hundred thirty-five thousand people. It’s almost entirely unincorporated Pierce County. They look to their legislators to be their real voice, and they look to voting as their choice. They want to vote. If I told them that I voted for a system that said their vote may or may not count, they would be very, very disappointed and ashamed of me as a legislator.

      “This morning, I was at the Graham Business Association. Forty-five thousand people live in the community of Graham, which is unincorporated. Most of your areas, if you have forty-five thousand people in an area, it’s a city or a town, at least. They pleaded with me to please let their vote count. I cannot overlook their choice. So, I ask you to please send this back to the House and let’s negotiate further, because we have to look at what the people want. They’re the final ones that are going to choose who they want to elect them--to represent them--and I want to give them that choice.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR SPANEL

      Senator Spanel: “Thank you, Mr. President. The word ‘choice’ has been mentioned many times and it’s also been mentioned that it’s not a choice, but I just want to restate that. Yes, in the other system, there is a choice in the first election, which I would hesitate to call a primary choice if you’re talking about the Louisiana system. In that system, there is no choice for a lot of people in the general election and it has been stated many times that is when most of the people are voting. Someone could go to that ballot and there could be two people from one party, no minor candidates in most elections. I think there might have been a couple in this past election, at least on our side where the minority party candidate was on the general election ballot. There is no choice in that system and so I’m asking you to concur with the bill the House has sent back to us, because that does give people the choice in that last election. One of the things that was mentioned the other day is the minority party candidates do add something to our system and those discussions when we’re in the forums in the fall before an election. It is important that they are there. If you have only two people from one party on that general election, it may not be much of a choice at all and there may not be many disagreements on the issues.

      “I also sense from much of the discussion that there’s a big great, fear of the ‘party’ out there. You know the party structure is a few people. The people who identify with a particular party are lots of people and they vote in elections. I guess that’s also what ties in the choice. I come from a swing district, and it could really go either way and it has at various times, so I know that I get elected because people have made a choice to vote for me on that general election ballot in November, whether they were a Democrat or not. I think we forget there are a lot of people out there who consider themselves associated with one party or the other, but they don’t go to the party functions, they vote for a particular party. I think we’re sort of saying to them that you won’t have a choice or you may not have a choice in that November election. Please vote to concur with the House amendment and give everybody a choice in the general election.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR MORTON

      Senator Morton: “Thank you, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. I could not--cannot help but reflect back on the history of our country and on my own mother. How proudly she wore--and there was a whole batch of badges--they strung out probably eight to ten inches in length, of the names of the eleven ancestors on her side of the family that fought in the American Revolution. Why did they fight? And all those since? It’s been mentioned one of their primary purposes was to preserve the right for the individual’s vote, and that that vote be counted. I believe that’s one of the key things before us. Not that a vote be tallied, but that a vote be counted when it is cast. That’s one of the primary differences in these two systems.

      “When I was a young man, my father was in politics and in his last three campaigns, I was his campaign chairman. I was just a young squirt in college, but we lived in a state then where the parties ran the state. I’m telling you we don’t want to go that way. That state has suffered because of it. If you did not have the support of the county political party chairman, you didn’t get anywhere. Then there was the state chairman, and all the precinct committee people and the party members in between. It was a bad system. Now, of the two proposals that we have before us, the one leans very heavily, in my opinion, in that direction--the wrong direction. I would call it the Montana manipulation by masters of politics. We don’t want to go that way. I think rather we would stay with that which our history has prevailed to be the best that each individual citizen’s vote counts. We don’t need, in this Legislature or at the county councils, party pawns. We need those who are individuals representing the people who elected them. I heavily believe that we have the one system which we sent to the House and needs to be returned to them for their further analyzation. That’s the one I would encourage you to vote for.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR ROACH

      Senator Roach: “Thank you Mr. President. Members of the Senate, I completely concur with everything the previous speaker has stated. It is interesting, though, because I come down on the other side of this particular bill that’s before us and I want to explain the reason. First, let me preface that reason by stating that in King County, right now, our King County chairman goes around and appoints district chairs. They are not elected from the PCOs. These appointed district chairs sit on the executive board and this executive board is making pre-primary endorsements without consulting the PCOs. I hope you all heard that, because it’s a new thing we’re seeing, but it’s going to happen all over the state.

      “Now just let me add another little tweak here. Because those appointed district chairs are now going in and appointing precinct committee officers who are given full voting rights just as you had been an elected PCO. So, we have a county chair who is appointing district chairs, the district chair is appointing and filling all vacant seats, and if you don’t think that’s an organization coming out of Chicago, I don’t know what. It’s going to be that way all over the state of Washington. This is an extremely, extremely important issue. Both parties would claim to be the party of the people and the party with grass roots input, right? If I ask Democrats and I ask Republicans--absolutely, we are the party of the people, we are the grass roots party. That will not be the case. No one will be able to claim it because we’ll have big time party bosses again, as I mentioned Monday, walking these wings, telling us what to do up or down, because they control the machine that they have appointed.

      “Now, the reason that I am suggesting we concur with this amendment is not because I think this--or concur with this bill that the House has sent back--is not because I think it’s necessarily the greatest option, but it is an option that will go to the Governor’s desk. Again, if we risk--this is a game, a very high stakes game. If we send a ‘do not concur’ back to the House, we may find that this ends up in the courts and you will have just exactly what I just mentioned to you for sure. There will be no ability for legislators in the future to ever address this area of law in Washington State again, because the courts will have purview over it.

      “Again, this is a strategy issue on how to keep some finger in what’s going on. If you do not do that, then I fear that we will have party control from the top-down, not bottom-up--not bottom-up--not from the people, which many people here today, many legislators here today are saying that they really want to support. If you really want to support the people of the state of Washington, you will allow that they have an input in the parties that they choose to be beholding to. They will not have that input as long as you have somebody at the top in a county appointing district chairs who appoint people that in sixty days have full voting rights as any elected member of the party organization. I urge that we do concur for purposes of sending something to the Governor’s desk. If we want to change this method later on in another Legislature next year, we can do it. If we don’t get something on his desk, there will be no change and we will not have the Washington primary as has been spoken of here, because there will be no opportunity to have it. The parties will have what they want and they will validate the system which I have just mentioned to you and is occurring right now in King County.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR BROWN

      Senator Brown: “Thank you, Mr. President. I haven’t weighed on this issue because I’ve been working on budget negotiations, but I’d like to because I’m not sure if I’m going to have another opportunity. First of all, I agree with the last speaker in that I believe it would be a big mistake for this branch of government to give up our input over these fundamental issues, which is all about why we are here. The other branch of government that would be taking over is not the one I think that should be making the decision. I think we should be making the decision. Second, after giving it a lot of thought, neither of the systems are perfect that have been put before us. Both of them have some fairly glaring disadvantages when compared with our status quo. I will support and move to concur, and the reason why is because I care a lot about the general election.

      “The general election is the place where people make the decision that counts the most, because it’s the one that puts the man or the woman in office who is going to be making the decisions upon which the fate of our state and our country and our communities rest. I believe that the form of that election is absolutely key and that choice there matters more than anywhere else in the process. If I walked up to a fast food restaurant and was asked what I would like to drink, and I said what are my choices, and they said Coke or Pepsi, I would say that’s not enough choice. My concern is that the general election, under the opposing system that passed the Senate floor the other day, could become a Coke or Pepsi type selection process. Frankly, I think that’s what’s wrong with our political system today is that many voters are feeling that they don’t get real choices because they are getting Coke and Pepsi. That’s like two people who convey image and popularity, and not enough about substance and issues and positions and philosophies, because that’s too risky.

      “Frankly, I was appalled that more Americans knew whether Clinton wore boxers or briefs, than what his position on China was. In the general election, I want voters to have not just a couple of people to choose from, but some vigorous, intellectual positions and debates and values to choose from. In the general election, I think people should be able to choose a Libertarian. I don’t support Libertarianism. I believe that, in fact, their philosophy about individual freedom is very appealing, but their philosophy about unrestrained markets is very dangerous and could lead to concentrations of private power that can exploit people. But, I believe having that position represented on the ballot strengthens me and it strengthens the party across the aisle, because we have to debate it and we have to respond to it and we have to say why do I restrain, why am I in favor of restraining freedom in this way, but not in this way.

      “Many of the minor parties, I think, have a healthy, invigorating influence on our process, which in comparison with other countries processes, does not produce as broad a debate as I think voters would appreciate having the options to choose from. So, given that position and given how strongly I feel that the general election should not offer just two choices. Americans want more than two choices. I believe that we should vote to concur.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR WEST

      Senator West: “Thank you, Mr. President. I sat through the debate the other day and sat through the debate today and as the good Senator from West Seattle said, the other day the debate was incredible. It was very much like what we thought in high school and what we all imagined a deliberative body of the Senate--Legislature would be. It’s pretty remarkable and I compliment everybody here--people on all sides of the issues for that debate. There are a couple of points that have been made today and were made the other day and I sat and I listened to them. I did not come to my position on this issue, actually firm, until after the debate and that’s rare. Many times we all come to the floor knowing exactly where we’re going to end up when we come to the floor. I know some of the vote counters were a little disappointed with me from time to time when I wouldn’t--couldn’t--give them a straight answer as to which way I would default on the vote.

      “There’s a couple of points here that have been made, or a couple of statements that have made by many, many Senators that frankly left unchallenged are left to be true. And I don’t believe that they are. First of all, I find it incredibly ironic that Senators who have no opposition at all and appear on the ballot unopposed would stand up and say that they are for choice in the general election, and the choice should not be made in the primary. In fact, for a few of those Senators the choice was made at the primary and it was a very spirited race and a very spirited debate in the primary. Then, once the primary was over, the race was over because there was no opposing party candidate. It is more likely, ladies and gentlemen--it is more likely the Libertarian or Green Party could make the general election under the Cajun or the people’s choice primary, than under the current system, because the major parties will always keep them down. They may make the general election, but they’ll never get enough votes to get elected.

      “It won’t happen, because the major parties won’t let them. Where in the primary election, where you have a wide field of candidates, you can have a popular, independent candidate garner enough support that twenty percent--twenty-five percent--thirty percent, to be number two and advance. Where you may have a Republican and a Green Party on the ballot and the Democrats would swing behind the Green Party and the Green Party candidate would be elected. Or you may have a Libertarian and a Democrat on the ballot and the Republicans would swing behind the Libertarian and you would have a Libertarian elected. That is more likely under this system than under the current system or the system that the House has sent to us--more likely.

      “That argument is fallacious--to suggest that people would come to the middle and rush to the middle for popularity to see who would be more popular. It flies in the face of a memo one of the Senators from Seattle sent us the other day from this distinguished person that studies elections, who said that it’s proven with this type of primary that the Senate passed, you get no, not the middle, you get the extremes. So which is it? Do you get the extremes or do you get a marshmallow middle, because you’re arguing both sides of the argument? You can’t predict what you get. In fact, actually, you probably do get a wider sense of issues. Right now in Louisiana, there’s a Republican Governor--the first Republican Governor elected--re-elected since reconstruction. First one since reconstruction re-elected. He got elected--I don’t know if he was number one or number two in the primary four years ago. When he went to the general election, four Democrats endorsed him for election, because they disliked the candidate over the Democrat, that was on the ballot. They swung behind him. You get that kind of effect when you have a people’s choice election, where people aren’t beholden totally to the party. I know for a leader, these are dangerous words to speak, but when you aren’t totally beholden to the party, you get the people’s choice.

      “When the Senator from the Forty-fifth District got up the other day and made a speech, that was almost worthy of a Philadelphia speech of the convention--the Downing Convention--talking about the people who were sent here to serve, who we should be listening to first and foremost. We come together at caucuses, we come together as parties to strengthen each other around common principles and common sense of ideas, but when the day is done--when the day is done--our responsibility is to our constituents. I’ve got to tell you, telling my constituents that their votes don’t count in the general, their votes don’t count in the final election--that they just don’t count--I don’t think is a very good idea. I just don’t think it’s a good idea.

      “So, you know, it’s really ironic, at the very first press briefing over in the GA building this session, I can’t remember who the moderator was, but he asked about the primary, and as he was going down the line everybody was kind of saying what they thought would happen and this is the furthest thing that I could have predicted. In fact, I think I said it couldn’t happen. Senator Snyder, on the other hand, excuse me for mentioning your name sir--the good Senator from the Nineteenth District--it is legal now, isn’t it? He on the other hand said, ‘Well, I think we’re going to give a good strong look at that Louisiana thing,’ and I about fell out of my chair and said, ‘There is no way in hell we’ll ever consider it--there’s no way, forget it, it’s off the table.’

      “Well, after looking at it and hearing some misrepresentations made about it, I didn’t even know it had come into existence until 1975. I had no idea. When I heard people say, ‘Well it’s a racist system and it’s to keep the minorities down,’ I had our staff call back there and get the numbers. There is a three hundred percent increase in African-Americans in the Louisiana Legislature since they installed the system. And that was designed to keep them down? There is a huge increase in the number of women moving to the Legislature since they put the system in place. These were things contrary to what I was told. These were facts, statistical facts now, but they’re certainly not the facts that I was given when I was first presented with the issue. So, I’ve come to the conclusion that we should not concur. We should send it back to the House and we should continue to work the issue. Thank you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR SNYDER

      Senator Snyder: “Thank you, Mr. President. There’s been another great day of debate on this subject. I don’t like either choice very much. But, we’re in a position that we have to make a choice, and we’ve had a lot of hypothetical situations about what would happen and we might have a Libertarian advance and be on with one of the major parties and the minor parties are going to be better off than before. I just want to mention reality. If the Cajun primary would have been in effect, and this was brought out the other day, in 1996, there would have been two names on the ballot for Governor in the general election--Gary Locke and Norm Rice--two Democrats. Do you think we would have some outcry from the people, if that’s going to happen in the future? You bet your life we will. And it’s going to happen in the future. Maybe two Republicans and maybe two Democrats, but let’s roll back a little further in history. In 1980, when John Spellman was elected Governor. Under the Cajun system, his name wouldn’t have even been on the ballot in the general election. There would have been two names--Dixy Lee Ray and Jim McDermott. Would you have heard an outcry from the people if that would have happened? Oh, I’ll tell you, they would have probably started heating up the tar pot and plucking a lot of feathers to plant on all the legislators that had voted for that Cajun primary. It’s a tough decision to make today, but the correct one is to concur.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR OKE

      Senator Oke: “Thank you, Mr. President, Senators. I really appreciate your comments, Senator West. They really touched me. Those were great comments to be heard on this floor about how important a vote is. Senator Snyder, I appreciate your comments, but I’m more afraid of what’s going to happen in the primary. I’m more afraid that people are going to walk away from the primary, those that should be involved and those cases you brought up, they’re true. They might have occurred, but if they occur, it will be the people’s choice. That’s what we need to do here--very simply--give the people a choice in the primary.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR REGALA

      Senator Regala: “Thank you, Mr. President. This has been a very interesting debate over the last three days, and I am standing to ask you to concur in the House amendment. I’ve heard a lot of things and I’ve made some notes down here. I will make the point that ‘no’ I don’t like either of these systems really well. I do think that the system that has come over from the House is the preferable one. I certainly don’t want to see the party’s control; I want the people to be in control. I believe that happens when there are more choices in November, because after all, November is the final decision. Now, I come from one of those districts where the choice is not between Sprite and Coke and Pepsi. I think that some people would say that the choices are between Diet Pepsi and Pepsi. Yes, Senator West, I’m one of those people who had no opposition this last time, but I do believe that once I am elected I represent all of my constituents.

      “I’ve been hearing from my constituents on this particular issue and what they have said to me is do not support the Cajun primary. We want choices in November. Because I know my constituents fairly well, I know that those messages are coming from the people in my district who are Libertarians, who are Republicans, and who are Natural Law members. They are urging me to please do not support the Cajun primary. Give us choices in November. That’s what the people want. That’s what I’m going to do, and I urge you all to concur.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR KOHL-WELLES

      Senator Kohl-Welles: “Thank you, Mr. President. I’d like to wrap things up here. In summarizing, what is in this House amendment and why we should vote to concur, the House amendment provides for private choice. They provide for an open primary; they provide for a tabulation of all votes cast; they provide for--in fact, require that the political parties promulgate by July 1 what they will do with the votes that are tabulated for the unaffiliated voters. Voters will know in advance and they will know on the primary ballot. The parties would have to live with the consequences if they were to choose not to count all votes cast--not to use all votes cast. Now, the analogies have been given about Coke and Pepsi and Sprite, and I’d like to put another cast on that. Senator Roach and I were talking last week about this and she mentioned it being like a Milky Way bar and a Nestle’s bar, both chocolates. I said, ‘Well, if we can’t have any other choice in the general election, such as jelly beans being offered, then the voters really are short-changed.’

      “Keep in mind, the average voter turnout in the primary election in this state is forty percent. The highest two vote-getters advancing by very few votes cast by the voters of Washington State. The average turnout in the general election is seventy percent, and I would expect that would fall dramatically if voters are not given choices in the general election. One more thing just to bring this home, we all know that in Seattle, Democrats win. We all know that in Eastern Washington, for the most part Republicans win, but things change and things have changed. Thirty year ago--twenty-five years ago--Seattle was Republican. It was the Republicans who represented the Seattle in the Legislature. Yet, by having the opportunity for Democrats to be on the ballot in the general election, there was full discussion of positions and gradually things changed. We need to have that opportunity. Please vote to concur in the House amendment.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR TIM SHELDON

      Senator Tim Sheldon: “Thank you. I can’t let some of those comments be made that probably weren’t challenged, because a lot of people make examples. Let’s say there is a primary election and in the state of Louisiana their average is a fifty-five percent turnout in the primary,

which is very good. But, as the Senator from Seattle mentioned, say the primary is forty percent, what will be the result of that forty percent primary? It will say that the Republican gets two hundred votes, the Democrat gets two hundred votes, and two thousand votes are not counted. That will be the result, so making sure that every vote counts is the thing that really matters in this vote today.

      “Another thing was brought up. In the 1996 election, Gary Locke, Ellen Craswell and Norm Rice were the candidates. Under the two-forward system, Gary Locke and Norm Rice would have moved forward to the general election. Well the headline was when Gary Locke won and went ahead with Ellen Craswell, guess what, he won two elections in one day. He won two elections in one day. Under this system, the people’s choice system, that would be another day and it would be another choice, but it would be two popular candidates, the most popular candidates that would have to win the vote of the people. So, vote ‘no.’ Do not concur in the House amendment. Let’s send this bill back to the House. Given time, I think the people will win.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR RASMUSSEN

      Senator Rasmussen: “Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to state what I have said earlier. If we vote to concur today, we won’t have another chance, another choice to debate to further explore this issue--to negotiate. It’s over. Now we’re a long ways from being over in this special session for what we’ve been negotiating on budgets, transportation, general fund. I would like to make sure this issue is kept open, so that we can further negotiate and further let the people know our opinions and hear from the people of our districts. If we vote to concur, it’s over, no more debate, no more negotiations, no more choice. We’ve made the final decision. I suggest to you that we not concur.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR HOCHSTATTER

      Senator Hochstatter: “Thank you, Mr. President and forgive me, I think we all wanted to try and stop this. Let me give you a line from a song that I think maybe will get us all on board. You might remember the line, Playing solitaire til dawn with a deck of fifty-one. We don’t have all the cards, do we? We don’t have all the cards. The court kept a card. They gave us a rum deck, so we have the opportunity now to disappoint all the people. I’m really sorry for us and I suspect that we’ll deal something out of here that will make us all intensely unpopular. I hope that we can all get on board and say, ‘We didn’t start this mess.’ I hope that the people can get something that pleases them. Thank you for indulging me and all the rest of us. God bless you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR SHIN

      Senator Shin: “Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Senate. Two days ago I made a speech. I wasn’t going to say anything, but both sides have been very convincing. It’s all based upon personal rendition, academia and personal convictions. Those things notwithstanding. I mentioned two days ago, quoting David Hume who says, ‘when I say democracy is good, that means I like democracy.’ I like democracy, in this country particularly. I believe American democracy at least is the best of all so far. If you see better, let me know.

      “This nation stands for government by the people, of the people, and for the people. This is what I learned. This is what I like. Also, in trying to decide which side--both sides are very convincing. I listened to one side and I listened to the other side, but in the final analysis, the Constitution says, ‘This government is governed by consent of the governed, the people’s choice.’ I’d like to support that choice that allows the people to make the final decision, whether for the primary or for the general election. Therefore, this is my conviction. I’d like to convey this feeling to you.”

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Snyder that the Senate concur in the House amendment to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183.

      Senator Snyder demanded a roll call and the demand was sustained.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the motion by Senator Snyder that the Senate concur in the House amendment to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183.

REMARKS BY SENATOR HARGROVE

      Senator Hargrove: “I just wanted to make sure that we knew what we’re voting on now. A positive vote is for Senator Snyder’s motion to concur? A negative vote is to do not concur and send it back to the House, is that correct?”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Owen: “That is correct.”

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the motion to concur in the House amendment to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183 failed by the following vote: Yeas, 21; Nays, 26; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

     Voting yea: Senators Brown, Constantine, Eide, Franklin, Fraser, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McDonald, Prentice, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheldon, B., Snyder, Spanel, Swecker and Thibaudeau - 21.

     Voting nay: Senators Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Patterson, Rasmussen, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Shin, Stevens, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 26.

     Excused: Senators Benton and Fairley - 2.

MOTION

      Senator Tim Sheldon: “Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Message on Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183 be immediately transmitted to the House.”

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

      Senator Snyder: “Mr. President, a point of parliamentary inquiry. The message to the House would be that the Senate did not concur and asks the House to recede, is that correct?”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Owen: “That is correct, Senator.”

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Roach, the debate on Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183, Monday, May 14, and today will be spread upon the record of the Journal.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate advanced to the fifth order of business.

INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING

SB 6186             by Senators Prentice, Rossi, Hale, Spanel, Johnson, Horn, Patterson, B. Sheldon, Gardner, Oke, Winsley, Snyder, Constantine and West

AN ACT Relating to the taxation of grocery distribution cooperatives; amending RCW 82.04.270; adding a new section to chapter 82.04 RCW; creating a new section; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate advanced to the seventh order of business.

THIRD READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 5144, by Senators Winsley, Long, Honeyford, Franklin, Carlson, Fraser and Rasmussen (by request of Joint Committee on Pension Policy)

Creating a supplemental actuarially reduced survivor benefit for qualified law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system plan 1 members who choose to actuarially reduce their benefits.

      The bill was read the third time.

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5144.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5144 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 47; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

     Voting yea: Senators Brown, Carlson, Constantine, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 47.

    Excused: Senators Benton and Fairley - 2.

      SENATE BILL NO. 5144, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

THIRD READING

      ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5237, by Senate Committee on Ways and Means (originally sponsored by Senators Rasmussen, Swecker, Sheahan, Honeyford, West, Fraser, Kastama, Regala, Hewitt, Hale, Parlette, Morton, Hochstatter and Franklin)

Making annual transfers of money into the fair fund.

      The bill was read the third tine.

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5237.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5237 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 46; Nays, 0; Absent, 1; Excused, 2.

     Voting yea: Senators Brown, Carlson, Constantine, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 47.

       Absent: Senator McDonald - 1

       Excused: Senators Benton and Fairley - 2.

      ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5237, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

MOTION

      At 11:50 a.m., on motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate recessed until 1:30 p.m.

      The Senate was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by President Owen.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate reverted to the sixth order of business.

CONFIRMATION OF GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENTS

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Sheahan, Gubernatorial Appointment No. 9050, Kelly Behne, as a member of the Board of Trustees for Eastern Washington University, was confirmed.

APPOINTMENT OF KELLY BEHNE

      The Secretary called the roll. The appointment was confirmed by the following vote: Yeas, 45; Nays, 0; Absent, 3; Excused, 1.

     Voting yea: Senators Carlson, Constantine, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 45.

     Absent: Senators Brown, Finkbeiner and Franklin - 3.

     Excused: Senator Benton - 1.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Eide, Senator Brown was excused.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Shin, Gubernatorial Appointment No. 9101, Parijat Nandi, as a member of the Board of Trustees for Western Washington University, was confirmed.

APPOINTMENT OF PARIJAT NANDI

      The Secretary called the roll. The appointment was confirmed by the following vote: Yeas, 46; Nays, 0; Absent, 1; Excused, 2.

     Voting yea: Senators Carlson, Constantine, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 46.

     Absent: Senator Deccio - 1.

     Excused: Senators Benton and Brown - 2.

MOTION

      At 1:45 p.m., on motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate was declared to be at ease.

      The Senate was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by President Owen.

THIRD READING

      SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6166, by Senate Committee on Ways and Means (originally sponsored by Senators Brown, Snyder, Long, Fraser, Rossi, Constantine, Spanel, B. Sheldon and Carlson)

Restating plan 1 of the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Brown, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6166 was returned to second reading and read the second time.

MOTION

      Senator Brown moved that the following striking amendment be adopted:

       Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

       "NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATION. Plan 1 of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system (LEOFF plan 1) has been closed to new members for nearly a quarter of a century. During that time, LEOFF plan 1 has achieved full funding and has assets which exceed all projected future liabilities and has a surplus approaching one billion dollars. In recognition of the contributions of working fire fighters and police officers to LEOFF plan 1, it is the purpose of this chapter, in part, to provide for an enhanced retirement benefit to LEOFF plan 1 members.

       LEOFF plan 1 also provides substantial postretirement health and long-term care benefits. The financial burden of this benefit, which is an integral part of LEOFF plan 1, falls exclusively on the cities, counties, and fire districts that employed the retired fire fighters and police officers. In recognition of the fiscal burdens facing these political subdivisions, it is appropriate to provide an additional source of funding to ensure the integrity of the benefit without undermining the financial stability of the employing governments.

       The supreme court of the state of Washington, in the 1956 decision Bakenhus v. City of Seattle, established that the fire fighters and police officers, active and retired, have a constitutionally protected contractual right to a secure retirement benefit, funded on a sound actuarial basis. The legislature recognizes that the state of Washington is the ultimate guarantor of the LEOFF plan 1 retirement benefits. While members have a constitutionally protected right to the pension benefits that are provided as part of their contract of employment, there is no such right in surplus assets which are unnecessary to the actuarial soundness of the retirement plan.

       The state retains the inherent power to terminate a retirement plan and, upon the dedication of sufficient resources to ensure the actuarial soundness of the benefits promised, is entitled to a reversion of the surplus assets upon termination of the plan.

       The legislature has determined that, in order to accomplish the foregoing goals and objectives, it is in the best interest of the members and beneficiaries of LEOFF plan 1 that the plan be terminated and that a restated retirement plan with enhanced benefits be created. It is further determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state that surplus assets remaining after adequate actuarial provision for the obligated retirement benefits revert to the state and be allocated for the purposes outlined in this chapter.

       It is the intent of the legislature that the LEOFF plan 1 termination be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the federal internal revenue code and in recognition of the contract rights of the members and beneficiaries of the plan to an actuarially sound retirement program.

       The legislature reserves the right to make such amendments and modifications as may be necessary in the future to accomplish the goals of this section, without any diminution of the rights and benefits of the LEOFF plan 1 members, retirees, and surviving spouses, as they existed prior to July 1, 2001.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. TERMINATION OF LEOFF PLAN 1. Plan 1 of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system (LEOFF plan 1) is hereby terminated. During the transition between the termination of LEOFF plan 1 and the establishment of the restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system, all LEOFF plan 1 benefits, as they existed prior to July 1, 2001, shall continue without interruption.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. RESTATED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' AND FIRE FIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ESTABLISHED. The restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system is hereby established as provided in this chapter. The restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system established by this chapter may also be referred to by statute and rule as the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system plan 1.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. RESTATED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' AND FIRE FIGHTERS' DEFINED BENEFIT RETIREMENT FUND ESTABLISHED. (1) The restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' defined benefit retirement fund is created in the custody of the state treasurer. The fund shall consist of assets transferred from the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' system plan 1 retirement fund, investment earnings, and other amounts deposited to the fund. The state treasurer shall transfer to the restated defined benefit retirement fund an amount equal to the actuarial present value of the fully projected liabilities of plan 1 of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system based on the actuarial valuation for calendar year 2000, adjusted to the transfer date, and the long-term economic assumptions in effect on July 1, 2001, under chapter 41.45 RCW. For purposes of funding the plan 1 lump-sum defined benefit created in section 6 of this act, the state treasurer shall also transfer an amount to the restated defined benefit retirement fund equal to twelve percent of the assets in the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' system plan 1 retirement fund in excess of the actuarial present value of the fully projected liabilities of plan 1, as calculated under this subsection.

       (2) The pension funding council shall conduct an independent audit of the calculation of the present value amount determined by the state actuary. The transfer of these assets to the restated defined benefit retirement fund shall occur as soon as practical after July 1, 2001. The remaining assets in the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' system plan 1 retirement fund shall be invested in the same manner as the restated defined benefit retirement fund until the transfers occur under sections 5 and 8 of this act.

       (3) Expenditures from the restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' defined benefit retirement fund may be used only for the purposes of this chapter. Only the director of retirement systems or the director's designee may authorize expenditures from the fund. No appropriation is required for expenditures.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. STATE SURPLUS ASSETS RESERVE FUND ESTABLISHED. (1) The state surplus assets reserve fund is created in the state treasury. By June 1, 2002, the state surplus assets reserve fund shall receive all assets of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' system plan 1 retirement fund remaining after (a) the distributions to the restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' defined benefit retirement fund required by section 4 of this act; and (b) the distribution to the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' medical benefits risk pool under section 8 of this act and chapter 41.--- RCW (sections 301 through 310 of this act).

       (2) Sufficient assets shall be maintained in the state surplus assets reserve fund at all times to ensure the actuarial soundness of the defined benefits of the restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' defined benefit retirement plan without the necessity of further employee or employer contributions. Any actuarial shortfall in the defined benefit plan shall be offset first from the assets of the state surplus assets reserve fund. The state investment board shall develop an investment policy, taking into account the purposes of the reserve fund and the preservation of capital, for the purpose of accomplishing the objective of this section.

       (3) The office of the state actuary shall perform an annual actuarial valuation of the restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' defined benefit plan to determine its continued actuarial soundness. Such sums shall be transferred by the legislature from the state surplus assets reserve fund as may be necessary from time to time to maintain the actuarial soundness of the defined benefit plan.

       (4) The remaining assets of the reserve fund shall be retained as a budget reserve subject to the actuarial needs of the restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' defined benefit plan. No appropriation shall be made from the reserve fund for any fiscal year unless the office of the state actuary has certified that the restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' defined benefit plan remains fully funded on a sound actuarial basis. No appropriation shall be made from the reserve fund that would reduce the fund balance below two hundred twenty million dollars unless the state actuary has certified that the defined benefit plan assets are greater than one hundred twenty-five percent of the present value of the fully projected liabilities of the defined benefit plan.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. LUMP-SUM DEFINED BENEFIT. (1) The amount equal to twelve percent of the excess assets of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' system plan 1 retirement fund transferred to the restated defined benefit retirement fund by section 4 of this act shall fund the plan 1 lump-sum defined benefit created by this section.

       (2) Law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' plan 1 active members, term-vested members, retirees, and spousal survivors eligible for benefits under sections 226, 227, and 228 of this act shall be eligible to receive the plan 1 lump-sum defined benefit pursuant to the conditions established in this section. All assets identified in subsection (1) of this section shall be allocated to the eligible recipients of the plan 1 lump-sum defined benefit. The allocation to each eligible recipient shall be based on the number of months of service credit earned under chapter 41.26 RCW through June 30, 2000, in proportion to the total months of such service credit earned by all eligible recipients. The allocations for eligible recipients who are spousal survivors shall be based on the number of months of such service credit earned by the deceased member. This allocation shall occur on the date of the transfer of assets to the restated defined benefit retirement fund in section 4 of this act.

       (3) If a member is active or term-vested, interest as determined by the director shall accumulate from the date the lump-sum defined benefit is allocated until distribution to the participant upon retirement from service or for disability. For the purposes of this section, a term-vested member is a member who has rendered five years of service, has not withdrawn his or her member contributions, and who has not applied for retirement.

       (4) The lump-sum defined benefit shall be paid to a retiree or eligible spousal survivor upon application to the department; however no interest shall accumulate on the benefits allocated to retirees or spousal survivors.

       (5) If a member dies before distribution of the lump-sum benefit created in this section occurs, the distribution shall be made according to the member's designation in section 216 of this act.

       (6) The lump-sum benefit created in this section is subject to the provisions of section 209 of this act.

       (7) If this section is held to be invalid, by section 503 of this act or otherwise, recipients of the lump-sum benefit provided by this section shall no longer be entitled to this benefit and shall be required to return any funds received according to the provisions of RCW 41.50.135, 41.50.136, 41.50.137, and 41.50.138.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. INVESTMENT OF FUNDS. (1) The state investment board has the full power to invest, reinvest, manage, contract, sell, or exchange investment money in (a) the restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' defined benefit retirement fund, (b) the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' medical benefits risk pool account, and (c) the state surplus assets reserve fund. All investment and operating costs of the state investment board and the state treasurer associated with these funds shall be paid under RCW 43.08.190, 43.33A.160, 43.79A.040, and 43.84.160. With the exception of these expenses, the earnings from the investment of the funds shall be retained by the funds.

       (2) All investments made by the state investment board shall be made with the exercise of that degree of judgment and care under RCW 43.33A.140 and the investment policy established by the state investment board.

       (3) As deemed appropriate by the state investment board, money in the funds may be commingled for investment with other funds under the investment authority of the board.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. TRANSFER TO LEOFF MEDICAL BENEFITS RISK POOL. By June 1, 2002, the state treasurer shall transfer from the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' system plan 1 retirement fund to the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' medical benefits risk pool account under chapter 41.--- RCW (sections 301 through 310 of this act) an amount equal to the transfer to the restated law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' defined benefit fund made for purposes of funding the plan 1 lump-sum defined benefit required by section 6 of this act. The distribution shall be for the exclusive purposes of chapter 41.--- RCW (sections 301 through 310 of this act).

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Any claim filed challenging the validity of sections 1 through 8 of this act not filed before July 1, 2002, is forever barred, if not already barred by an otherwise applicable statute of limitations. By December 31, 2001, the department of retirement systems shall send notification of the provisions of sections 1 through 9 of this act, by first class mail, to the last known address of each plan 1 active member, retiree, and spousal survivor.

PART I

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 41.26 RCW

       Sec. 101. RCW 41.26.010 and 1969 ex.s. c 209 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: