Moderator: Welcome to Capitol Chat. Our guest today is Paul Berendt, chairman for the Washington State Democratic Party who recently was re-elected to a sixth, two-year term. The Olympian's moderator is Political Editor Brad Shannon and Statehouse Reporter Adam Wilson.

Moderator: Since Berendt took over in 1994, his party has seen its fortunes rise, winning control of both the state House and Senate as well as a majority in the state's congressional delegation and election of two U.S. senators. On the other side, the party's favorite for governor, Christine Gregoire, narrowly won by 129 votes, and as we all know, runner-up Republican Dino Rossi is challenging the results in court.

Moderator: Tell us a little about yourself, Paul.

Berendt: I grew up in Washington State. I was raised on a farm in northeastern Washington. My father was a County Comissioner and we spent a lot of time talking politics and public policy around the kitchen table. I attended Eastern Washington University and had an interneship with the state Democratic Party in 1979. I eventually graduated from The Evergreen State University. I ran for state party chair because I was angry the right wing had become so powerful in our state after the 1994 election. As chair it has been my goal to just make incremental gains for our party and consolidate the victories we achieved. I believe parties are in the information management business and it's our job to make that info available to our candidates.

Moderator: We're hearing dismay that you and your party have not expressed more concern about the incidence of illegal votes in the 2004 election. What is your view of that? Do you think it's OK that ineligible felons might have voted or that votes were cast on behalf of dead people?

Berendt: What we are shocked about is that the Republican Party has been so sloppy in making public these lists that are inaccurate. In the lists that have been made public there are instances of individuals who were charged with a felony and convicted of a lesser crime. There are instances of individuals who were juveniles when charged with felonies and who didn't have voting rights taken away. There are instances of individuals who the Republicans say are dead peole who have voted when the invesitagation shows the poll worker wrote the word "deceased" across the signature line, the poll worker had done his job and caught the deceased vote. We belive the Republicans have created a lot of unnecessary pain for individuals. In the election contest and prior to the recounts, we have been steadfast in the philosphy that every legitimate vote should count and we have been consistent in that. It's been the Republicans flip-flopping around to change positions to suit their objectives.

Moderator: Apart frome these GOP exagerations, what about those instances where it appears inelligible felons did vote? Aren't you concerned about that?

Paul Berendt: In due course, corrections are made and should be made as they are identified, and what we're seeing is that that process is taking its course. But the what we believe is that if they've identified 1,000 peolpe and 100 of them had the right to vote, we should actually be more concerned with protecting the rights of those 100 legitimate voters than the other issue. The Republican Party has developed a strategy of intimidation, making people who have every right to vote feel they don't or shouldn't.

Moderator: Do you have any examples of voter intimidation?

Paul Berendt: Actually the Republicans went to court numerous times in November and December, saying that votes shouldn't count and people shouldn't stand up for their rights to have their vote counted. The Republicans went to court to block their votes from counting and I consider that intimidation. I consider legal action a form of intimidation.

Pete, Olympia: There is no doubt in my mind that, if the governor's race outcome had been reversed and Rossi was certified, the Democrats would be marching in the streets, led by you. Why should the Republicans be expected to behave differently, to accept the outcome and "move on"?

Berendt: This election has been the most deeply scrutinized election in our state's history and perhaps in United States history. We have gone before the courts several times to address issues that both the Republicans and Democrats have brought forward, and the courts have sorted them out in an orderly fashion. And actually, I think that the few issues that have been identified are very commonplace in elections everywhere, but at some point the Rossi campaign has to ask itself "are we doing the state more harm than good" by continuing what I consider to be a futile battle. We believe, for the good of the state, he should throw in the towel.

Moderator: What is the harm?

Berendt: His strategy is a political one more than a legal one. It's like the military vote issue. In the entire state of Washington so far, the Republicans have one supposedly disenfranchised military voter. The person received their ballot the day after the election, and if he had just voted the ballot and mailed it in he would have had the vote counted, and I wish he would have done that. But I think what this illustrates is that from the press conferences and PR machine the republicans generated, you would have thought there were legions of disenfranchised military people, but they've only produced one. It's detrimental to the political process and the elctoral process to create the illusion that this is a huge problem, when in fact they've only identified one individual out of 3 million voters that this was a problem for. Similarly with the so-called dead people. Many, many, many of the peole they've accuseed of being dead voters have not panned out, so by pressing these illusionary issues in the courts and the press it degrades the public discourse.

Moderator: You say illusary, but the King County prosecuttor is looking into 100 felon voters and filing charges.

Berendt: The prosecutor has removed those people from vote files, but he has not prosecuted any. There were 99 people he announced he was going to do; the list the press provided to him was much larger than that. So in this process, their were six people accused of being felson by a respected news agency who were not felons and had every right to vote. When I talk about disenfranchisement, those six individuals have been harmed possibly irreprably by having their names dragged through the mud and being accused of felonies they didn't commit.

Phil, Forks: Why would the Democrats elect Howard "AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH" Dean as National Chairman?

Berendt: The primary reason is because we want to win the White House. The election of Dean provides a fundamental shift in direction for our party. Many will look back on this time and they will see this as a turning point. What the grassroots of the Democratic Party has said is "we want a national party chair we own." One that isn't owned by special interests or powerful Washington D.C. interests. And Dean represents that to us. I belive Dean is going to reshape the face of the party and he's going to turn it upside-down. The machinery he's building isn't aimed towards D.C. insiders or grand party poobahs like myself, but he's targeting his message to individual Democrats living in neighborhoods all across the United States.

Jacob, Yelm: I am doing a debate in my history class on the question "Should the United States of America's president be able to detain U.S. citizens during war times?" I would really like to know anything I can about it so I pick the best side to fight for.

Paul Berendt: Our party opposed the first and second U.S. Patriot Acts -- I should say the Patriot Act and it's reauthorization. There's a fundamental belief in our party that with emerging technologies and the rising strength of security agencies that there is a real threat to our civil liberties. We will continue to be vigilant in protecting the civil rights of individual Americans.

Moderator: The Democratic Party faces a potential penalty of $100,000, imposed by the Public Disclosure Commission, for failing to fully disclose a number of its financial transactions related to the 2004 campaign cycle. Cara of Olympia asks: "In the 2000 election the state democratic party was fined by the Public Disclosure Commission for violations in reporting campaign contributions & expeditures; it again was fined in the 2004 election. Given that Gregoire was Attorney General in 2000, do you see a conflict of interest? And do you assume responsibility for the problem and the task of fixing it?"

Berendt: The buck stops here. I am ultimately responsible for insuring that this is done correctly. The issues that we're facing this year are two things. One was that the debts after the election over the bills we owed were not fully disclosed. What was fully disclused was all of our contributions to candidates and all of the contributions we received. We requested from the PDC money that transferred from the state account to the federal account and that permission was granted. The contributions that were made for that were always recorded on the federal account. Essentially all contributions to us were fully disclosed and all contributions to candidates were fully disclosed.

Moderator: Do you expect to pay the $200,000 penalty?

Paul Berendt: There have been no discussions with the PDC about that whatsoever. We have certainly increased compliance resources many times over. When we had the problem before (in 2000), I made the decision that I was going to take full responsibility for that occurrence. I made sure all of the staff was trained, including the comptroller, who had increased training. In this instance we were monitoring it closely, but some information didn't come to me. But when it did we took immediate action to correct it.

Travis, Manchester: If it turns out that the courts decide that there were more than 1,000 illegal votes cast in last year's Governor's election, isn't the requirement that Republicans show exactly for whom those were cast an impossible standard to meet? Should the state even bother having a law that allows an election to be contested if the standard of proof is impossible to achieve? Or should we just accept the line from Oliver Stone's movie Nixon, "they stole it fair and square?"

Berendt: The statute is very clear that the Republicans need to prove that Rossi won the election. And that it is a very high standard to meet. They are nowhere near proving that. The Republicans, we believe that they haven't come anywhere close to it in any statistical challenge either.

Brad: I'm having trouble understanding then ... if they don't have a case, what is their political benefit in continuing this if it's only going to make them look bad in the end?

Berendt: I believe they have a strategy of nipping at the legitimate governor's heels. There have been many press conferences and political agendas are at stake. The more they can attack Gregoire, the more they hope to accomplish in meeting their objectives in Olympia.

A.R., Chimacum: Judge Lum's decision allowing political parties to go out and gather provisional ballot affadavits and new voter registration cards after the election was quite controversial. You personally brought in 400-plus affadavits. Are you now aware of any that may be illegitimate? Were you aware that your Party asked these provisional voters who they voted for before taking action? How does this reconcile with your repeated statement that you wanted "every vote " to count?

Berendt: Judge Lum's decision dealt more with the transparency of the election process than it did with affidavits. What the judge ruled was that the only way you can have a fair and open election is if the local officials publish lists of whose votes count and whose votes don't count. One of my proudest moments was when we went to 1,000 people's doors and asked them to defend their legitimately cast ballot. I am confident that every affidavit counted was a legitimate vote.

Jared, Olympia: How can you be Catholic when your job is to get pro-abortion candidates elected?

Berendt: I belong to an enlightened church, and they didn't require any litmus tests of me when I decided to join the Catholic Church.

Helen, Olympia: How will the Democrats be able to stop Bush from dismantling Social Security and other programs that benefit those struggling to survive? Also, how will there be any security in mail-in voting ballots? Since the last two presidential elections have been fraught with corruption I don't know how we can stop the abuse. Hope you have the answers.

Berendt: Regarding mail-in ballots, I believe if we can have a statewide mail-in ballot, with a consistent ballot from county to county, that security will actually increase. Regarding social security, there has been a giant outcry that has largely doused the president's private accounts debate, but I believe there will be a continuing debate about raising the social security tax for wealthy americans and increasing the age of eligibility.

David, Sammamish: Why hasn't King County released the tallies for each precinct? It has been months since the election and they have yet to release the data. When will this be released so we can view the raw data to determine the true number of voters that were not duly recorded as voting?

Berendt: I'm sorry, I don't know whether that's true or not. A lot of data has been available to both parties, but I don't know what the questioner refers to.

Jay, Olympia: What are the benefits of Instant Runoff Voting?

Berendt: Our party is on record supporting it for non-partisan offices, but we don't support it for partisan offices because we believe parties should choose their nominees.

Moderator: There's a new primary system coming in September. Can you explian how your party will handle that, will you challenge the system in court?

Berendt: What I have recommended to my party is that this year, in the handful of special elections taking place, that the precinct committee officers of the party nominate the party standard-bearers. I'm further recommending that next year, in 2006, during the major election year, that the party go through a caucus convention cycle to nominate candidates through the caucus convention system. I assume that we will go to court to defend our right to nominate our candidates under any scenario if needed.

Moderator: Are you collaborating with the Republicans on that?

Berendt: Collaboration is too strong a word. We have talked to the Republicans and we are happy to work with all the other parties.

Steve, Mercer Island: Why didn't the Gregoire experience with Libertarian Ruth Bennett, who pulled so many votes from Gregoire, convince you that the top-two primary is just not in the best interest of the voters or the party?

Berendt: I am aware of no legitiame research that supports Steve's claim. Most research indicates that the Libertarian part undercuts the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party. So we believe as a core principle that Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and other parties should be able to nominate their standard-bearers.

Jamie, Olympia: I don't like your comment about how angry you were about the right wing. Instead of slamming the Republicans and the conservative base, I thought this was going to be about sharing ideas about making Washington a better palce. My question is: How are you working with your party to help make this a better state in terms of employment, economy, public services, etc.?

Berendt: It has always been a core value of the Democratic Party to fight for economic justice. And we've already seen Gregoire make some important moves along these lines. She has made the promotion of the health sciences a centerpiece of her campaign. She has made the protection of children on the basic health plan a centerpiece of her first month in office. It's important for Democrats to fight for a safety net for our vulnerable citizens regardless of whether it's popular or not. I believe that with the growing strength of the grassroots we are going to become stronger in crying out for social and economic justice.

Moderator: We have time for one more question.

Jason, Marysville: What are a few of the things you know from your deep involvement in politics that you would want to pass along in this forum to interested readers. What do you wish more state leaders understood better?

Berendt: I wish more policy makers understood more deeply the challenges people have in their daily lives. Every day I see people who have economic challenges, health care challenges, family challenges, who really struggle to just get by. And, it's a constant challenge for legislators and policy makers to be fully connected with the way people need help and to act upon that. I think it's an ongoing challenge to educate policy makers and legislators to how people are hurting in society and to keep them motivated to make progress in addressing those issues.

Moderator: Thank you for your time Paul.

Berendt: Thanks, it's been fun.

Moderator: Tune in next Wednesday when we talk with state Republican Party chair Chris Vance, and on Thursday, March 17, when Gov. Christine Gregoire will answer readers' questions.