Scanning email and the news from Bern, here's a bit of d.d. news.

PALIN AND PROPS: The Washington Post takes a look at Gov. Sarah Palin's last-minute intervention on behalf of mining interests against a ballot initiative this August. The Post suggests she may have broken state law barring the use of government resources to support or oppose a ballot measure.

FIRST 'YES ON 8' AD: It's brutal but effective. The supporters of the same-sex marriage ban in California debut a clever TV advertisement that stars Gavin Newsom, a same-sex marriage supporter. They don't make an argument against the marriage. They make an argument that you're being forced to accept same-sex marriage. (Newsom is quoted as saying that such marriages are coming whether you like it or not). It's not an idea pulled out of thin air. The state Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage this spring declared that gay couples had a constitutional right to acceptance of how they form families. It was a strong moral argument, but, in my reporting, some same-sex marriage supporters worried that it might be vulnerable politically (and perhaps legally).

Governors are not supposed to use the state government to advance their side of a political campaign. And Alaska governors, under state law, are not supposed to take sides in ballot initiatives. But Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, appeared to do both those things in a recently concluded ballot initiative campaign you'll likely be hearing more about.

Measure 4, which went down to defeat in last Tuesday's Alaska elections, would have put new regulations on mining -- it was aimed at one particular mine -- in the name of clean water. Whatever its merits, it's clear that the state's Department of Natural Resources, which Palin supervises, set up a web site and had staff advocates against the measure. And Palin, as a point of "personal privilege," came out strongly against the measure. Expect to see Democrats and the press make much of this. The issue is a twofer--Democrats will use it to argue that she doesn't support the environment AND is not the good government reformer she's been billed as.