Here is the Associated Press story on the latest federal court ruling on the legal challenges to the Top-Two primary.

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A federal judge in Seattle has refused to dismiss a legal challenge to Washington’s top-two primary system.

Secretary of State Sam Reed had asked the court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties.

Even though the state’s top-two primary was upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge John Coughenour ruled Thursday the parties can continue to challenge how the primary is conducted.

The secretary of state’s office says the ruling means a new round of litigation that could change how candidates are listed on the ballot or in the voters’ pamphlet.

State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz said the ruling means the state will have to amend the current law.

The City of Federal Way has released a more complete copy of an investigative report into whether Municipal Court Judge Michael Morgan operated a hostile workplace.

We went all the way to the state Supreme Court recently to win release of the report. We feel voters are entitled to see it, especially as Morgan pursues reelection this year. To see a copy of the original, redacted version released by the city, click here. To see our story about the report, click here.

The more complete report goes into much greater detail about comments that Morgan allegedly made to court staff about his former colleague, Judge Colleen Hartl.

It's easy to see why Federal Way took its time before releasing the extra material. The things Morgan allegedly said about Hartl are unflattering and salacious. We have decided not to write a story about them or post them to our Web site.

The new information might be of interest to voters as they consider Morgan's reelection. But we had to weigh that public interest against the potential of doing further damage to the reputation of Hartl by publishing unsubstantiated claims. Hartl is no longer a public figure and isn't running for elected office.

Even so, we are happy to have spent the time and money to secure the full report as a public document. You can make a request in person at City Hall, 33325 Eighth Ave South, or you can e-mail city clerk Carol McNeilly at carol.mcneilly@cityoffederalway.com.

An electronic copy is free; a printed copy will cost 15 cents per page.

That apparently is the issue now before the Washington Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on the case tomorrow.

Below is an e-mail news release from the American Civil Liberties Union Washington. So, it's not exactly balanced, but you can get the drift of the issue. And it's not every day you've got the First and Second Amendments teaming up on the same side of a lawuit. (Check out who the plaintiffs are.)

The ACLU wants the Internet filters (which prevent the user from visiting certain sites) removed at the request of adults. Probably has some key words that are verboten. I wonder if "Political Buzz, the Naked Truth" would be filtered out.)

Washington Supreme Court Considers Suit Seeking
Access to Information on Internet for Library Patrons

Tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. the Washington Supreme Court hears oral argument in an ACLU of Washington lawsuit to defend the rights of adults to access information on the Internet on public library computers. It is challenging a filtering policy that hampers adults in researching academic assignments, locating businesses and organizations, and engaging in personal reading on lawful subjects.

The ACLU is representing three library users and a nonprofit organization in the lawsuit (Bradburn v. NCRL) filed in 2006 to ensure that patrons of the five-county North Central Regional Library (NCRL) in eastern Washington have access to useful and constitutionally protected information. The lawsuit challenges the library system’s policy of refusing to honor requests by adult patrons to temporarily disable a filter on public computers for sessions of reading and research.

=> Read more!

This week's oral arguments in Federal Way School District v. State of Washington were about one issue – whether the fact that some districts get more state money than other districts is constitutional.

But just below the surface was a bigger issue – whether the state is meeting its constitutional duty to make "ample provision for the education of all children." Lower courts said this case isn't about adequacy, just fair distribution. But the lawyers last week kept coming back to whether districts get enough to do the job.

Here are the briefs in the case. (Put case number 80943-7 in the search window)

TVW has video of the arguments here.

I take a look at the oral arguments and the underlying issues – both legal and political – in my column Sunday.

The Washington Supreme Court just came out with a unanimous ruling this morning that says a police officer overstepped his bounds by squeezing a suspect's pockets and finding drugs.

Basically, the purpose of a frisk is to find out whether a suspect is armed with some sort of weapon. After the officer found the knife (which the suspect voluntarily told the officer he had in his back pocket) there was no need to search further, the court ruled.

But the Union Gap police officer testified he kept frisking the suspect and felt what he thought was a baggie when he "squeezed" the guy's front pocket. In the baggie was some meth.

As a result, the high court overturned the conviction which had been upheld by an appellate court, and threw out the drug evidence because it was obtained from an unlawful search.

It was a 2005 case out of Yakima County.

Here is the majority opinion, written by Justice Richard Sanders.

There is no minority opinion. It was 9-0.

From Les Blumenthal in our D.C. bureau:

WASHINGTON - Calling her "unquestionably qualified," Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said Tuesday in nominating Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court President Barak Obama picked someone who was an "unparalleled example of the true spirit and determination of the American dream."

In a statement, Murray lavished praise on the federal appeals court judge, though she didn't come right out and endorse the nomination. Murray, as she has with previous Supreme Court nominees, said she wants to wait and listen before making a final decision.

"I will evaluate Judge Sotomayor's nomination based on the same standards I use for all judicial appointments," Murray said. "Is she ethical, honest and qualified? Will she be evenhanded, fair and independent and will she uphold our rights and liberties?

"I want to know that when an individual comes before the court, that he or she will receive a fair hearing and that justice will be rendered according to the law."

Washington state's other senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, also praised Sotomayor.

=> Read more!

A 9-member substitute panel had to hear the case because Justice Richard Sanders obviously could not rule on his own appeal, and it might be awkward for his brethren and sistren to rule on it, too. All 8 of them bowed out of the case, which was on appeal from the state Court of Appeals.

Anyway, the Replacements, without the services of Sanders or Keanu Reeves, ruled against Sanders. We don't have to pay for his defense on the ethics charge because he wasn't acting in his capacity as a Supreme. But it was close, a 5-4 ruling.

This all stems from Sanders' visit to the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island and his ex parte conversations with some of the sex offenders who were committed there.

Here is a link to the majority decision, which was signed by 5 replacement judges, including three former homies from Pierce County, Stanley Worswick, Waldo Stone and Donald Thompson. They used to be Superior Court judges on the Pierce County bench.

Here is a link to one of the dissenting opinions.

Here's another dissenting opinion.

We'll have a more detailed story on our Web site from Curt Woodward of The Associated Press.

Here's what Woodward wrote after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his appeal:

Top U.S. court won't review justice's case
In a no-comment response, the U.S. Supreme Court says it won't look at the appeal of a Washington justice who was rebuked for visiting McNeil Island offenders.

By Curt Woodward; The Associated Press
Tuesday,October 2, 2007

=> Read more!

In its story on the possible retirement of David Souter from the U.S. Supreme Court, the New York Times ventures into heavy speculation on President Obama's first appointment.

No sources are listed but the reporters suggest that since Obama once praised former California Gov. Earl Warren's service on the Supreme Court that he might be looking at a politician rather than a legal expert.

"During the campaign, Mr. Obama spoke of his admiration of former Chief Justice Earl M. Warren, citing as a special virtue his practical political experience as a former governor of California. If Mr. Obama were to look to a political figure with a strong legal background, he could turn to an old friend, Deval Patrick, now the Massachusetts governor, Christine Gregoire, governor of Washington, or Jennifer M. Granholm, governor of Michigan."

Let the speculation begin.

"C.D." a prisoner civil status individual civilly confined at Washington's Special Commitment Center for sexually violent predators on McNeil Island, filed an interesting lawsuit in federal court yesterday.

As with most of these cases, the details of his particular case and legal battles are knotty and not of much general interest.

But he's asking the federal court to consider two interesting (at least to me) points.

First a little background to help clarify the situation.

In 2001, C.D. was sentenced to spend more than 5 1/2 years in prison for indecent liberties with forcible compulsion. He earned good time credits that gave him an earned early release date of May 23, 2005.

The state of Washington, wanting to having him civilly committed rather than released into the populace, held him beyond that release date, until July 7. He was then taken to the SCC. (SCC is run by the state Department of Social and Health Services, not the Department of Corrections.)

In 2008, C.D. filed a petition in state court to have the three-year community custody portion of his prison sentence terminated (which, as I understand it from these filings, he would still have to serve upon his release from the SCC). The state Appeals court and Supreme Court have said such a move was premature because he wasn't serving any community custody time yet.

C.D. is asking the federal court to look at:

1. Whether his community placement term started to run upon the completion of his prison term.

2. Whether the state Department of Corrections can place him back under their full custody after he has spent more time at the SCC than he would have spent on community custody -- and "whether that punitive control and supervision can be so initiated with no new charge, warrant, arrest, conviction or further adjudication of any kind."

The coalition of school districts that thinks the Legislature is short-changing them when it comes to money for special education is appealing the adverse ruling it got last month from an appellate court.

The coalition filed its appeal to the Washington Supreme Court yesterday in Tacoma.

I'm not sure yet how special ed funding is going in the 2009-11 state budget, but I do know that Congress gave Washington a bunch of money to do more for special education in schools. However, I'm not sure how much of that money will be used to supplant previous state funding. (It doesn't always matter that Congress will say "no supplanting." It happens sometimes anyway.)

This is one of the first issues I covered when I was assigned to cover the state operating budget. As I recall, at one time, the Legislature had a formula for how much money it would give school districts to take care of their special education students. The formula assumed that in each district 12.7 percent of the students were in special needs students.

That was the limit, with another pot of money for districts that became magnets for special ed students. That formula has been modied some. But the bottom line is this: The state gives a school $6,000 for a regular student, it gives almost $12,000 for every special ed student. (Don't hold me to those numbers. They probably are different today.) The point is, schools want to get the extra money from the state and they think the Legislature has imposed an articifial limit on the percentage of special ed students.

Here's the news release the school alliance, which includes Federal Way (and its very best friend, Tacoma), put out today. Below that are previous news releases that I hope will better explain the issue.

Group Vows to Continue Fight for Special Education Funding in Washington State

=> Read more!

That is, budget-writers spent almost $3 billion in federal stimulus funds, took $800 million from building projects and plowed the money into other state programs and spent most of the $700 million Rainy Day savings account.

"We are using federal money, which has been a godsend," said Rep. Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham, chairwoman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

She said the House budget proposal would be balanced, but she expects a tax package to be put to voters at some point, perhaps providing additional funding for education and-or long-term care.

"It's very likely that a proposal will come," Linville said. "(But) the revenue package is not something we're pinning all of our hopes on."

=> Read more!

You heard that collective sigh of relief at about 11:30 a.m. today, didn't you?

Think about it. If the Supreme Court had ruled that it takes only a simple majority vote in the House and Senate to raise taxes, the unions, poverty lobby and every other group that is getting its lunch eaten by the $8 billion budget shortfall would be all over the Democratic majorities.

Democrats outnumber Republicans 62-36 in the House and 31-18 in the Senate, so their allies would press them to raise taxes by $1 billion to $1.5 billion BECAUSE THEY COULD to avoid making those deep budget cuts. And Democratic leaders would have to say "No!"

Or, they could raise the taxes. Yeah, right. And in November 2010, Democrats would get their collective butts kicked and might lose their majorities in both chambers.

Whew! I heard it.

UPDATE: (I should have added this viewpoint to my post yesterday, but I got distracted). Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown said the ruling had no bearing on the direction Democrats are heading.

"That decision doesn't change the outcome of where we're heading..." Brown told reporters right after the ruling came out. "Any major revenue option would have been presented to the voters anyway, regardless of the ruling."

She did, however, say that some smaller tax increases, such as the liquor tax surcharge that was the subject of the I-960 test case, are things the Legislature might have done on its own.

Anyway, Democrats get to put their bigger tax package on the ballot, which puts it at arm's length when it comes to blame for raising taxes. "Will of the voters," and all that.

The Associated Press' Rachel La Corte wrote the story for our main page, but I'm providing that story and additional links here, for those of you who go to Political Buzz first. (I'm really late, too. Sorry. Got busy.)

Here is a link to the 9-0 Supreme Court Ruling.

=> Read more!