Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Tellingly Two-Faced

The Attorney General’s office in Washington wants it both ways.

That’s Washington the state, and I’m referring to an important case about the language state officials must use on the ballot to explain initiative measures to voters. The case (Arthur West, a citizen, v. Steve Hobbs, the Secretary of State) is now before the state’s highest court.

Democrats legislated that any initiative decreasing taxes must contain this wording on the ballot: “This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).”

In fact, that assertion, by law, must be placed right before voters are asked to vote: Yes or No?

Even though it isn’t, well, true.

Consider Proposition 645, the initiative to repeal an income tax hike on “evil” millionaires: it doesn’t specifically cut any of these government service categories that voters are being told it does. That’s not even in dispute.

What spending legislators cut to compensate for decreased tax revenues is at the discretion of, obviously, those legislators.

Last week, the AG’s office argued in a different case heard in the same courthouse on the same day: “Indicating how funds in the general fund will be allocated in the future would be both inaccurate and misleading to the voters.”

Wait . . . that concedes Mr. West’s whole point in seeking an injunction against the now admittedly “inaccurate and misleading” anti-tax cut language.

On Monday, Citizens in Charge Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Washington Supreme Court explaining that the Evergreen State’s constitution permits only legislative acts “facilitating” the process.

“Misleading the public about the consequence of a ballot measure does not ‘facilitate’ its consideration,” we argue, “it undermines it.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* As president of Citizens in Charge Foundation, I made a legal declaration in this case, previously, surveying ballot language policies across the ballot initiative states and pointing out that this law makes Washington state an outlier.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Thought

Odd Thomas

Recognizing the structure of your psychology doesn’t mean that you can easily rebuild it.
Dean Koontz, Odd Thomas (2003), chapter 34, musing of the title character.

Thought

William J. Locke

I believe half the unhappiness in life comes from people being afraid to go straight at things.
William J. Locke, Simon the Jester (1910).

Today

The War’s End

On August 20, 1866, President Andrew Johnson formally declared the American Civil War over.

education and schooling ideological culture Internet controversy

A Scandal’s Arc

Jason Arday, scandal, plagiarism, Cambridge, DEI, race

When did you first hear the story of Jason Arday?

In 2023, Mr. Arday became something of a public sensation in Great Britain, where his claims to being autistic, mute till age 11, and illiterate till 18 made a striking rag-to-riches/up-from-racism story upon his appointment as Professor of Sociology of Education at the University of Cambridge.

The youngest Black professor at that institution ever.

But few in America heard much about him.

Last September, Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove documented what he alleged to be plagiarism in Arday’s 2015 PhD thesis and academic publications. Grove contacted Arday for comment; Arday responded with a letter from his lawyers. The story was not published.

Then, a month ago, philosopher Nathan Cofnas published his exposé, which began with a litany of Arday’s autobiographical whoppers, not including the one I heard most bandied-about: that at age 7 the young Jason had been interviewed for the famous documentary Seven Up! — a glaring fib because the movie came out 21 years before Prof. Arday was born.

Cofnas compared passages in Arday’s 2018 paper to someone else’s 2012 paper. One sentence can serve to illustrate: “In particular, I seek to make a direct association between the tools of normative Whiteness and the deployment and consequences of racial microaggressions.” The italics indicate the one word Arday added.

A key contribution.

The Telegraph and The Times published stories on July 24th. On August 1, The Guardian got into it; four days later, the university opened an inquiry; the next day, Arday resigned.

Eight days later, Jason Arday was found dead in his apartment. Suicide? That’s what many surmise, but police have only said his death was “unexpected but is not believed to be suspicious.”

For some, a cause célèbre! Vigils, ongoing. But his mourners downplay the lies and plagiarism. It’s all about racism.

But whose? Could it be those who rushed to promote a man beyond his merit merely because of race?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags Cambridge, DEI, Jason Arday, plagiarism, race, scandal

Thought

Brian Aldiss

Carnage added to carnage does not equal peace.
Brian Aldiss, “Basis for Negotiations,” Who Can Replace a Man? (1965), p. 152.

Today

Patriotism & Protest & Ousting

Post author By Redactor
Post date August 19, 2026
No Comments on Patriotism & Protest & Ousting

On August 19, 1919, Afghanistan gained full independence from Great Britain. Earlier, British attempts to maintain an imperial presence in this region elicited an infamous essay in protest by English sociologist and anti-imperialist Herbert Spencer (pictured), “Patriotism” (Facts and Comments, 1902).

On this day in 1991, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was placed under house arrest, a crucial event leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In 1999, a mass rally of Serbians demanded the resignation of Slobodon Milosevic.

election law political challengers

Who Rigged Alaska’s Senate Race?

Post author By Redactor
Post date August 18, 2026
4 Comments on Who Rigged Alaska’s Senate Race?

On today’s Alaska primary ballot, U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, faces an inconvenient challenger in the person of . . . Dan Sullivan.

The president of the United States is not pleased.

“Because of the trickery in the Voting, the Crooked, Radical Left Dumocrats have put up another man named ‘Dan Sullivan,’ and they did this to take Votes away from our Great Senator of the same name,” Donald Trump wrote on Truth.social. “Democrats are trying to ‘trick’ Alaskans, and treat Alaskan Voters with contempt.”

Is it contemptuous of Alaska voters?

“His primary purpose is not to win an election,” contends the Senator, “it’s to confuse Alaskans and rig the vote for my opponent, the Democrat.”

Challenger Dan J. Sullivan’s run against the incumbent with the near-identical name, one Dan S. Sullivan, doesn’t quite pass the smell test. He sure appears to be gaming the election. Still, the rigging occurred when the state went to an open primary where anyone — regardless of party membership — can vote for anyone on the ballot.

Regardless of party.

Many people think this sort of thing is a great advance, and voters did approve it (by a whisker) in 2020 and voted to keep it (by an even slimmer margin) in 2024. But this “Nonpartisan Top Four Primary” (sending four candidates to the General Election) is open to malign voting and, yes, candidacies. When former Independent Party member and current Republican Party member Daniel J. Sullivan of Petersburg, Alaska, threw his hat into the ring, confusion was a natural (and likely intended) result.

Election officials cooked up a halfway reasonable response: they list on the ballot “Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) Incumbent” and his possible vote-splitting challenger as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” unadorned.

To prevent sneaky campaigning and voting, however, Alaskans should go the opposite direction, allowing — no, requiring — political parties to privately select their candidates. And at their party’s expense, not the taxpayers’.

Hold the General Election after political parties have freely chosen their nominees . . . confining all game-playing and election-rigging to the smoke-filled rooms. Which voters can then judge accordingly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags Alaska, open primary, Sullivan

Thought

Amy Levy

Death, as a general statement, is so easy of utterance, of belief; it is only when we come face to face with it that we find the great mystery so cruelly hard to realise; for death, like love, is ever old and ever new.
Amy Levy, The Romance of a Shop (1888), chapter 17.