Mayor Adrian Fenty failed in his eleven-hour bid to open up September's DC Democratic Primary to voters that are unaffiliated with a party, but the attempt could spur a change in the way the District elects local officials in the future... and it should.
Whoever wins the mayoral contest, the issue of open primaries may have finally found its legs.
Fenty's challenger, DC Council Chairman Vince Gray, who has a slight lead in the latest polls, is now on record as supporting an open primary. We're fine with the notion of the Democratic Party opening up to an open primary-type system," Gray said, "but this is something that should be discussed after the election."
The Washington Post's editorial board also chimed in to express support, stating "Enfranchising as many people as possible is the right goal."
There are thousands of voters who are locally disenfranchised in our already federally disenfranchised city because they feel compelled, as a matter of principle, their jobs, or other sensitivities, not to register as a Democrat. It's adding insult to injury.
We all know that the election that matters most in the District is the Democratic primary. Aside from two seats on the D.C. Council that are set aside for members of a minority party, there is no time in recent memory that an individual elected in the Democratic primary did not go on to win the general election.
That's because 3 out of 4 of the District's registered voters are Democrats. Yet, that leaves 72,000 unaffiliated voters, 30,000 Republicans, and about 700 other voters without a meaningful vote in local elections.
Thousands of them engage in charade every election cycle in which they switch their party affiliation to Democrat one month before the primary, then switch right back the days after the election. This year, 2,600 voters did the 'ol swicheroo.
The District's Democratic party, not surprisingly, strongly opposes open primaries. The local GOP has no official position at this time, according to its Executive Director Paul Craney.
I'm a Democrat. I've run for election as a Democrat. I might not support open primaries nationally or in other states, but our unique situation in the District calls for enfranchising all voters.
When I went door-to-door campaigning in 2008, I found it enfuriating how many residents were either registered as independents or with another party, or had specifically chosen to remain registered in another state because of the lack of meaningful representaton in D.C. "You have a nice day" . . . next door.
Our current situation weakens the influence of the District on the national stage. Since the District has no vote in Congress, and those who are not Democrats have very little say in local elections, transient Republicans and Independents have all the reason in the world to keep their registration elsewhere. If you have the option, why register as a DC voter when it means almost completely losing your vote?
It also drowns out the views of over 100,000 District residents, about 25% of the voting population, who have registered in the District despite its lack of federal representation in local affairs. Other than those who occupy the two at-large seats on the D.C. Council that are set aside for members of minority parties, other local officials have less motivation to outreach to residents who are not registered Democrats, and involve them in local affairs, since they have no say in their selection. Open primaries would allow more a more diverse range of views, both on the left and the right, make their way onto the Council. It would energize the electorate, which the District desperately needs if it is every to achieve full representation in Congress and greater Home Rule.
Are Fenty's actions, Gray's response, and the Washington Post's op-ed simpy political maneuvering for the September primary? Quite possibly, but I'm going to take their statements at face value.
Let's end the pre-election party affiliation musical chairs nonsense and let everyone vote in 2012.
Showing posts with label Election Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election Reform. Show all posts
Friday, August 27, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Burying the Lead
A front page headline on today's Metro Section reads: "2,600 D.C. voters switch to the Democratic Party ahead of mayoral primary." But aside from the lead paragraphs, most of the article is about how a wholly different issue - Mayor Adrian Fenty's "pocket" veto of legislation passed by the D.C. Council that outlawed vote buying.
This is why the Washington Post has a reputation as a cheerleader for the Fenty Administration. A more accurate headline for the story would have been "Fenty blocks vote-buying bill." That's not my invention, its what the Post called it when they posted the story online at D.C. Wire. Instead, they buried that not-so-nice-sounding press in the print edition.
That 2,600 voters changed their registration to Democrat on the eve of the District's primary is indeed newsworthy, but it's not adequately covered by the story, which might have explored questions such as how many voters typically switch parties for the DC primary, was this year more or less than usual, or how many voters who switch immediately switch their registration back to Repubican or Independent when it's over? The reporters could have interviewed a handful of voters who switched their registration this election (names and addresses publicly available from the Board of Elections) or who routinely do so each election season, to ask why they do it and how they feel about needing to do so. The article might have considered calls for an "open primary" and the ridiculousness of a system in the Nation's capital - a place with already limited representation - that requires thousands of voters to switch their party, then switch back, in order to have a meaningful vote in local elections. Alas, the article doesn't get into it.
Which just shows the true story. It's not every day that Mayor Fenty vetos legislation. And the fact that it was a bill to prohibit vote buying that was apparently spurred by accusations that Peaceoholics, whose founder Ron Moten has handed out money to youth to vote in a straw poll in Ward 8, a charge he denies. Moten, who, in the words of the article, has become a "chief strategist" for the Fenty campaign, also organized several go-go concerts to entice young people to register to vote. It was supported by every member of the D.C. Council, including those who back the Mayor's reelection, aside from Tommy Wells and Jim Graham who abstained (most likely because they are up for reelection in challenged races) and Marion Barry who was absent.
Here is what the bill actually says:
This is why the Washington Post has a reputation as a cheerleader for the Fenty Administration. A more accurate headline for the story would have been "Fenty blocks vote-buying bill." That's not my invention, its what the Post called it when they posted the story online at D.C. Wire. Instead, they buried that not-so-nice-sounding press in the print edition.
That 2,600 voters changed their registration to Democrat on the eve of the District's primary is indeed newsworthy, but it's not adequately covered by the story, which might have explored questions such as how many voters typically switch parties for the DC primary, was this year more or less than usual, or how many voters who switch immediately switch their registration back to Repubican or Independent when it's over? The reporters could have interviewed a handful of voters who switched their registration this election (names and addresses publicly available from the Board of Elections) or who routinely do so each election season, to ask why they do it and how they feel about needing to do so. The article might have considered calls for an "open primary" and the ridiculousness of a system in the Nation's capital - a place with already limited representation - that requires thousands of voters to switch their party, then switch back, in order to have a meaningful vote in local elections. Alas, the article doesn't get into it.
Which just shows the true story. It's not every day that Mayor Fenty vetos legislation. And the fact that it was a bill to prohibit vote buying that was apparently spurred by accusations that Peaceoholics, whose founder Ron Moten has handed out money to youth to vote in a straw poll in Ward 8, a charge he denies. Moten, who, in the words of the article, has become a "chief strategist" for the Fenty campaign, also organized several go-go concerts to entice young people to register to vote. It was supported by every member of the D.C. Council, including those who back the Mayor's reelection, aside from Tommy Wells and Jim Graham who abstained (most likely because they are up for reelection in challenged races) and Marion Barry who was absent.
Here is what the bill actually says:
It shall be an offense for any person to knowingly or willfully:Does the bill properly draw sufficiently clear lines as to what is permissible and what is criminal? Obviously, giving out money in exchange for a vote is and should be illegal. What about other types of practices that our local politicians routinely use? Free dinners at straw polls? Get-out-the-vote concerts? Free t-shirts for supporters? Campaign-funded shuttle buses for seniors to the polls on election day?
(A) Pay, offer to pay, or accept payment of any consideration, compensation, gratuity, reward, or thing of value either for registration to vote or for voting;
(B) Give false information as to his name, address, or period of residence for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, that is known by the person to be false;
(C) Procure or submit voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent;
(D) Procure, cast, or tabulate ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent; or
(E) Conspire with another individual to do any of the above;
(2) A person who violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $ 10,000, be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Friday, July 9, 2010
And the nominees are...
At 5pm on Wednesday, the deadline expired for filing nominating petitions, petition supplements, and Declaration of Candidacy and Affirmation of Qualifications with the DC Board of Elections for the September 14, 2010 primary. And the Democratic candidates are....
Seven of the thirteen candidates who picked up nominating petitions to run for mayor actually filed. In addition to incumbent Mayor Adrian Fenty and Council Chairperson Vince Gray, other candidates for mayor include former reporter Leo Alexander, Whitehouse party crasher Carlos Allen, Sulaimon Brown, Michael T. Green, and Ernest Johnson. In a very tight race between Fenty and Gray, could these challengers pull away enough votes to effect the outcome? Should DC require runoff elections where no candidate receives 50% of the vote?
In addition to Kwame Brown and Vincent Orange, Dorothy Douglas and Calvin Gurley are also running for DC Council Chairperson. I've seen a few signs up for Calvin Gurley, who lives in Takoma Park. He apparently pushed for a voting initiative he entitled the "Mr. Bill Cosby’s Age 18 House Rule" in 2004, which would have cut off a parents' obligation to make child support payments at 18, rather than 21. Dorothy Douglas is an activist who lives in Deanwood and is currently a member of the State Board of Education.
At Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson faces a strong challenge from former Parks and Rec Director Clark Ray. Two others, Will Rossand and Michael Brown, are running. Michael Brown? I'm confused. Is another Michael Brown seeking a seat on the Council? Yes, it is Michael D. Brown, the District's "Shadow Senator." (the current at-large member, Michael A. Brown, obtained the seat as an independent and is not up for reelection until 2012). New rule: 2 Browns on the Council is enough, and if Gray and Orange get elected... we'll probably have the more colorful legislative body in the nation.
In Ward 1, incumbent Jim Graham, a popular councilmember who has nevertheless been plagued with controversies from limiting the hours of Jumbo Slice to his chief of staff being indicted for excepting bribes from the taxi cab industry, faces two challengers: Jeff Smith and Bryan Weaver.
Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh, after completing her first term, is unopposed. Seems that folks on the western side of town like her focus on healthy foods and animal rights, and her tough talk to Attorney General Peter Nickles.
Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas, also a first term councilmember who replaced Vincent Orange after he decided to run for Mayor, faces four opponents: Kathy Henderson, a former Historic Preservation Review Board Member and ANC Commissioner; Delano Hunter; Kenyan McDuffie, and Tracey D. Turner. I'm disappointed to see that George “Action” Jackson did not file his nominating petition. You know what they say... all talk...
Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells faces two opponents - Randy Brown and Kelvin Robinson.
Finally, Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton faces a challenge from Douglas Sloan. After ten terms in office and the most recent failure of voting rights for the District in Congress, will residents opt for new blood?
These aren't necessarily the people you'll see on the September ballot. The Board will make a preliminary determination of their eligibility this Monday, July 12 and consider any challenges to petitions until August 3.
Seven of the thirteen candidates who picked up nominating petitions to run for mayor actually filed. In addition to incumbent Mayor Adrian Fenty and Council Chairperson Vince Gray, other candidates for mayor include former reporter Leo Alexander, Whitehouse party crasher Carlos Allen, Sulaimon Brown, Michael T. Green, and Ernest Johnson. In a very tight race between Fenty and Gray, could these challengers pull away enough votes to effect the outcome? Should DC require runoff elections where no candidate receives 50% of the vote?
In addition to Kwame Brown and Vincent Orange, Dorothy Douglas and Calvin Gurley are also running for DC Council Chairperson. I've seen a few signs up for Calvin Gurley, who lives in Takoma Park. He apparently pushed for a voting initiative he entitled the "Mr. Bill Cosby’s Age 18 House Rule" in 2004, which would have cut off a parents' obligation to make child support payments at 18, rather than 21. Dorothy Douglas is an activist who lives in Deanwood and is currently a member of the State Board of Education.
At Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson faces a strong challenge from former Parks and Rec Director Clark Ray. Two others, Will Rossand and Michael Brown, are running. Michael Brown? I'm confused. Is another Michael Brown seeking a seat on the Council? Yes, it is Michael D. Brown, the District's "Shadow Senator." (the current at-large member, Michael A. Brown, obtained the seat as an independent and is not up for reelection until 2012). New rule: 2 Browns on the Council is enough, and if Gray and Orange get elected... we'll probably have the more colorful legislative body in the nation.
In Ward 1, incumbent Jim Graham, a popular councilmember who has nevertheless been plagued with controversies from limiting the hours of Jumbo Slice to his chief of staff being indicted for excepting bribes from the taxi cab industry, faces two challengers: Jeff Smith and Bryan Weaver.
Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh, after completing her first term, is unopposed. Seems that folks on the western side of town like her focus on healthy foods and animal rights, and her tough talk to Attorney General Peter Nickles.
Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas, also a first term councilmember who replaced Vincent Orange after he decided to run for Mayor, faces four opponents: Kathy Henderson, a former Historic Preservation Review Board Member and ANC Commissioner; Delano Hunter; Kenyan McDuffie, and Tracey D. Turner. I'm disappointed to see that George “Action” Jackson did not file his nominating petition. You know what they say... all talk...
Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells faces two opponents - Randy Brown and Kelvin Robinson.
Finally, Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton faces a challenge from Douglas Sloan. After ten terms in office and the most recent failure of voting rights for the District in Congress, will residents opt for new blood?
These aren't necessarily the people you'll see on the September ballot. The Board will make a preliminary determination of their eligibility this Monday, July 12 and consider any challenges to petitions until August 3.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Elections Roundup
Join me for a Q & A session with DC Council Chairman and Mayoral Candidate Vince Gray this Tuesday, June 29. The forum will be held at the Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church, 900 Massachusetts Avenue NW. I will be co-moderating with Convention Center Community Association President Martin Moulton. Later on the agenda is Peaceoholics Executive Director Maia Shanklin Roberts. More details are available here.
Talk about a little pre-fall cleaning... The DC Board of Elections has released a list of 93,773 inactive registered voters who will be removed from the voter registration database [press release]. It's a large list - 1,737 pages. These are folks who have not voted in any election in the past eight years and did not respond to repeated notices from the Board. In other words, they live in Maryland or Virginia.
On Thursday, Councilmember Mary Cheh will hold a public roundtable on the Board's implementation of reforms mandated by the DC Council following the 2008 election debacle. According to Cheh, "my Omnibus Election Reform Act has made significant changes to improve the administration of elections and to make voting more accessible. At the roundtable, I expect that the Board will be able to provide detailed information about their preparations to date and specific milestones that need to be reached before the election. I also anticipate discussions about the Board's new voting machines, its efforts to clean the voter rolls, its new pilot program for overseas and military voters, and its preparation for convenient voting methods." The public roundtable will be held in the Wilson Building, Room 500, at 10:30am. Are they ready for 2010? Given that its website continues to prominently advertise "Election Year 2008" information only months before the September 2010 primary, I'm going to go with... not quite yet.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
SOLD: Whitman, Unit 610
Unit 630 is now under new ownership.
According to building residents, Joseph Honaker, who had rented his unit in The Whitman to anti-gay marriage leader Reverend Harry Jackson, has sold the property. The move closes a chapter for residents of the Convention Center condominium, many of whom were surprised to learn that the leader of the anti-marriage iniative claimed to live in their midst.
The arrangement facilitated Bishop Harry Jackson's ability to claim District residency and serve as the primary proponent of an initiative to reverse a D.C. law recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
According to documents we filed with the Board of Elections prompted by a Washington Blade investigation, Jackson owned 2 homes in Silver Spring, and he worked and voted in Maryland. Whitman residents, including those living in adjacent units, reported that they had not seen Jackson in the building or that he would only stop in occasionally. In addition, the rental agreement appeared to be in violation of condominium's bylaw that placed a cap on the number of units that could be rented in the building.
Honaker purchased the condo for $669,900 when the building first came online in May 2007. The recent sale price has not yet been reported.
Jackson traded his $3,700.00 per month (yes, that's what the lease says) one-bedroom unit at the Whitman for a posh new apartment located near National's Park, according to documents filed with the D.C. Board of Elections to maintain his voter registration. The month-to-month lease is a relative steal at $2,082 per month. In fact, the apartment has thrown in three months of free rent and parking.
Jackson states that he "moved into" the Whitman on April 10 and "moved out" by June 20. I guess he just packed up his petition and left. Reverend Jackson, we hardly knew you.
The "move was precipitated by Mr. Honaker's decision to resume living in the District and my concern for protecting my family from the threats prompted by my involvement with the recent Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009," according to a letter to the registrar of voters filed by Jackson's Alliance Defense Fund attorney and an affidavit signed by Jackson.
But Honaker's sale confirms that he had no intention of moving back into his Whitman condo. Were Whitman residents so threatening to Reverend Jackson?
According to building residents, Joseph Honaker, who had rented his unit in The Whitman to anti-gay marriage leader Reverend Harry Jackson, has sold the property. The move closes a chapter for residents of the Convention Center condominium, many of whom were surprised to learn that the leader of the anti-marriage iniative claimed to live in their midst.The arrangement facilitated Bishop Harry Jackson's ability to claim District residency and serve as the primary proponent of an initiative to reverse a D.C. law recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
According to documents we filed with the Board of Elections prompted by a Washington Blade investigation, Jackson owned 2 homes in Silver Spring, and he worked and voted in Maryland. Whitman residents, including those living in adjacent units, reported that they had not seen Jackson in the building or that he would only stop in occasionally. In addition, the rental agreement appeared to be in violation of condominium's bylaw that placed a cap on the number of units that could be rented in the building.
Honaker purchased the condo for $669,900 when the building first came online in May 2007. The recent sale price has not yet been reported.
Jackson traded his $3,700.00 per month (yes, that's what the lease says) one-bedroom unit at the Whitman for a posh new apartment located near National's Park, according to documents filed with the D.C. Board of Elections to maintain his voter registration. The month-to-month lease is a relative steal at $2,082 per month. In fact, the apartment has thrown in three months of free rent and parking.
Jackson states that he "moved into" the Whitman on April 10 and "moved out" by June 20. I guess he just packed up his petition and left. Reverend Jackson, we hardly knew you.
The "move was precipitated by Mr. Honaker's decision to resume living in the District and my concern for protecting my family from the threats prompted by my involvement with the recent Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009," according to a letter to the registrar of voters filed by Jackson's Alliance Defense Fund attorney and an affidavit signed by Jackson.
But Honaker's sale confirms that he had no intention of moving back into his Whitman condo. Were Whitman residents so threatening to Reverend Jackson?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
DC Government 2009 Wish List - Top 10
The top 10 areas that I'd like to see progress on in 2009 -- or at least the top 10 that come to mind at the moment....
10. DDOT addresses dangerous intersections, such as the crosswalks at New York Avenue NW at 4th and 5th Streets NW where pedestrians have 20 seconds to cross 6-10 lanes of traffic.
9. DC government disposes/better maintains the hundreds of vacant property it OWNS throughout the city, such as properties in the Home Again program.
8. MPD provides assurance that ShotSpotter (detects the location of gunfire instantly) is fully operation and producing results in the Third District.
7. Election reform ensures every citizen's vote is actually counted (no more touch screen ballots without a paper trail). Consideration of eliminating set-aside seats for minority parties on the DC Council and authorizing open primaries through a referendum vote.
6. Generally, more consistent enforcement of DC laws -- all of them -- and applying the law equally to all, i.e. permitting/construction and "quality-of-life crimes."
5. An effective, well-managed Advisory Neighborhood Commission representing the Shaw, Mount Vernon, and Penn Quarter neighborhoods.
4. Tax relief and other support for small businesses in areas that were hit by high property tax increases over the past decade so that they do not go under and find themselves replaced with more Starbucks and Subways.
3. The DC Council stops giving away public property (i.e. the Southwest waterfront for $1 a year for 99 years) without a transparent, open competitive bidding process. Next up: Franklin School?
2. Renovation of abandoned and neglected parks, such as Carter G. Woodson Park, 2nd and Massachusetts Avenue NW, 6th and N Street, or the Chinatown Park at 5th and Massachusetts Avenue NW. Let's see at least one more forward in 2009! Also - more dog parks.
1. When federal legislation to provide DC with a vote in the House fails yet again (or is declared unconstitutional), I hope the DC Council will restart discussion of true Home Rule issues (as opposed to license plates and billboards at the baseball stadium). Potential action items include having our own prosecutors and judges, an elected attorney general, placing federally-controlled small parks (aka "reservations") under DC control, and legislative and budgetary autonomy. DC Council passes a resolution urging Congress to move forward in one or more of these areas.
10. DDOT addresses dangerous intersections, such as the crosswalks at New York Avenue NW at 4th and 5th Streets NW where pedestrians have 20 seconds to cross 6-10 lanes of traffic.
9. DC government disposes/better maintains the hundreds of vacant property it OWNS throughout the city, such as properties in the Home Again program.
8. MPD provides assurance that ShotSpotter (detects the location of gunfire instantly) is fully operation and producing results in the Third District.
7. Election reform ensures every citizen's vote is actually counted (no more touch screen ballots without a paper trail). Consideration of eliminating set-aside seats for minority parties on the DC Council and authorizing open primaries through a referendum vote.
6. Generally, more consistent enforcement of DC laws -- all of them -- and applying the law equally to all, i.e. permitting/construction and "quality-of-life crimes."
5. An effective, well-managed Advisory Neighborhood Commission representing the Shaw, Mount Vernon, and Penn Quarter neighborhoods.
4. Tax relief and other support for small businesses in areas that were hit by high property tax increases over the past decade so that they do not go under and find themselves replaced with more Starbucks and Subways.
3. The DC Council stops giving away public property (i.e. the Southwest waterfront for $1 a year for 99 years) without a transparent, open competitive bidding process. Next up: Franklin School?
2. Renovation of abandoned and neglected parks, such as Carter G. Woodson Park, 2nd and Massachusetts Avenue NW, 6th and N Street, or the Chinatown Park at 5th and Massachusetts Avenue NW. Let's see at least one more forward in 2009! Also - more dog parks.
1. When federal legislation to provide DC with a vote in the House fails yet again (or is declared unconstitutional), I hope the DC Council will restart discussion of true Home Rule issues (as opposed to license plates and billboards at the baseball stadium). Potential action items include having our own prosecutors and judges, an elected attorney general, placing federally-controlled small parks (aka "reservations") under DC control, and legislative and budgetary autonomy. DC Council passes a resolution urging Congress to move forward in one or more of these areas.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
A Democracy-Enhancing Reform Package
Marc Fisher's column in this morning's Washington Post advocates for elimination of the set-aside seats provided for the DC Council for members of minority parties included in the Home Rule Charter and mandated by Congress. As you may know, 2 of the 4 at-large seats on the DC Council are designated for non-Democrats, leading to the Michael Brown situation/lawsuit. I agree with Fisher wholeheartedly, but I believe there may be another element necessary for DC election reform, particularly if we get rid of the set-aside seats: open primaries.
While in other jurisdictions, I might not support open primaries, in DC, the closed primary system further disenfranchises the already largely disenfranchised. Those who are not registered Democrats are effectively precluded from a say in mayoral and city council races -- and eliminating the set aside positions will render their votes almost completely irrelevant. It will lead even more people to remain registered in their prior home state, stay home on election day, or engage in the silliness of our DC system in which numerous independents, Green/Statehood, and Republicans switch their registration to Dem to vote in the primary, then switch is back for the general (it would be interesting if the DCBOEE could give us statistics on the number of switcharoos).
I can't tell you the number of independents I ran into on the campaign trail, many of which were relatively new to the city, who didn't realize that by choosing to be unaffiliated with a party for whatever reason, they would effectively have no say in our local elections.
Should open primaries be part of an election reform package that eliminates the set asides?
While in other jurisdictions, I might not support open primaries, in DC, the closed primary system further disenfranchises the already largely disenfranchised. Those who are not registered Democrats are effectively precluded from a say in mayoral and city council races -- and eliminating the set aside positions will render their votes almost completely irrelevant. It will lead even more people to remain registered in their prior home state, stay home on election day, or engage in the silliness of our DC system in which numerous independents, Green/Statehood, and Republicans switch their registration to Dem to vote in the primary, then switch is back for the general (it would be interesting if the DCBOEE could give us statistics on the number of switcharoos).
I can't tell you the number of independents I ran into on the campaign trail, many of which were relatively new to the city, who didn't realize that by choosing to be unaffiliated with a party for whatever reason, they would effectively have no say in our local elections.
Should open primaries be part of an election reform package that eliminates the set asides?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)