Taking a few moments away from the main events of the Global Conference on Direct Democracy, an interview:
More to come.
Category: ballot access
Why call it “political correctness,” when it’s simply “political” and so terribly incorrect?
Whatever we call it — “a totalitarian impulse” comes to my mind — placing Angela McCaskill on administrative leave from her job at Gallaudet University is just flat-out wrong.
“It recently came to my attention that Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer,” Gallaudet President T. Alan Hurwitz wrote, last week, on the University’s Facebook page. McCaskill’s alleged transgression was to sign a petition to refer the Legislature’s same-sex marriage law to the ballot for Maryland voters to decide, and potentially overturn.
Hurwitz didn’t mention any specific policy violated by McCaskill. Worse, while acknowledging her “right to sign a petition,” Hurwitz added, as if in clarification, that “many individuals at our university were understandably concerned and confused by her action.”
There appears to be much confusion at Gallaudet … about the meaning of freedom.
President Hurwitz, who faces criticism from both proponents and opponents of the same-sex marriage referendum that started this fracas, claimed to be confident that a “resolution of this matter can be reached,” hazarding that it “will require that she and the university community work together to respond to the concerns that have been raised.”
A “resolution”? McCaskill has an attorney, and the greater likelihood is a large lump sum settlement for violating her civil rights.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Washington State has a long history of popular antagonism to political parties. For years, the state enforced an open primary, which meant that Republicans could vote in Democratic primaries and Democrats in Republican primaries. This was very popular, because it led to widespread strategic voting.
Well, that’s a euphemism. In open primaries, what you get is not mere strategic voting so much as sabotage. I have heard of Democrats and others boasting of voting in Republican primaries, for example, supporting Pat Robertson. Why? They believed Robertson to be unelectable, and hoped putting Robertson ahead would undercut the GOP in independent voters’ eyes, and make running against the party easier in the general election.
Well, a few years ago that system was thrown out as unconstitutional, as an abridgment of free association rights.
But instead of allowing party members to select candidates, Washington State movers and shakers cooked up something else altogether. They set up a system wherein anyone could use a party’s label — even if that party’s members don’t know said candidate or despise him. Robbing parties of any control over candidates offered in their name is far worse on the very constitutional issue that nullified Washington’s traditional open primaries. Though Top Two has been legally challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court just this week refused to hear arguments.
The name “Top Two” comes from the fact that only the top two vote-getters in this super-open primary are on the general election ballot. The new system has completely removed minor party candidates from the general election ballot, when most folks vote.
Top Two has had the same impact in California. Arizona voters will decide the issue this November, on their ballot as Prop 121.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
“Democracy should be for everyone,” says Michelle Romero of the Greenlining Institute. That sounds right.
She also argues that “California speaks 200 languages, but our initiative petitions speak only one. We can bring millions of voters fully into our democratic process, and it will only cost about a penny per person.”
Romero is talking about Senate Bill 1233, authored by Sen. Alex Padilla (D‑Pacoima), which mandates that the California Attorney General translate every citizen initiative or referendum or recall petition into nine languages: Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Spanish, Tagalog, Thai, and Vietnamese.
More people able to get involved politically? I like that.
Still, it was strange to see California legislators, who regularly scheme to wreck the initiative process, passing legislation to enable more participation. Well, it was strange, until I learned that SB 1233 doesn’t simply provide citizens with petitions in various languages, as an option. No, this legislation would force citizens to carry petitions not only in English, but also in those other languages.
Accordingly, SB 1233 forces initiative proponents to spend the money to print their petition in ten languages. Of course, for well-heeled political groups that’s a minuscule cost, but it makes it that much more difficult for less well-financed grassroots groups to participate.
Cesar Diaz, Legislative and Political Director of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, said, “It’s just common sense to give all voters an equal say in deciding what goes on the ballot.”
Forcing cumbersome requirements onto citizens petitioning their government won’t give voters a say. It’s just another sneaky measure devised by political insiders to make sure citizens have less input, not more.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
California’s Democratic legislative majority is anything but lazy. On July 3, when most politicians had long-since left their posts to begin vacationing, California legislators kept their collective nose to the grindstone, busy trying to grind down the right of citizens to petition their government.
Again.
Last year, California’s initiative process withstood multiple attacks. One would have required petitioners to wear signs on their chest stating whether or not they were paid. Another would have outlawed paying petitioners per signature.
Nary a Republican voted for these bills; thankfully, Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, vetoed both. He suggested government shouldn’t force citizens to wear signs on their chests and noted, “It doesn’t seem very practical to me to create a system that makes productivity goals a crime.”
Undeterred, the Assembly Elections Committee passed ACA 10, which would require constitutional amendment initiatives to qualify by running petition drives in 27 state senate districts. This, on top of the current requirement to gather more than a million voter signatures statewide,
Well-heeled interests would be able to afford the higher costs. Grassroots groups? Not so much.
Further, ACA 10 mandates that constitutional amendments proposed by citizens through the initiative must garner a supermajority of 55 percent to pass. This would allow big spending-unions or wealthy individuals or big corporations to defeat reform measures even when a majority of voters favor the measure.
Legislators claim the constitution should not be changed by a slim majority. Yet, ACA 10 doesn’t increase the simple majority currently required when it comes to amendments that legislators propose.
Legislators are working overtime to get those pesky citizen reformers out of their way.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Party politics is often underhanded.
Many of our country’s founders knew this all too well, and tried to avoid the factionalism of party politics. But still, two political factions emerged, and our politics has been dominated by two parties ever since.
And believe me, the two insider parties work mightily to rig the system in their favor. The presence of “sore-loser laws” is a case in point.
Now, political parties are private entities. They can choose whomever they want. Ideally, the ballots wouldn’t even list party affiliation. But “sore-loser laws” stretch in the other direction, preventing individuals from running in one party after losing a primary as a candidate for another party.
In this way, the parties use the law to secure their own positions. It has nothing to do with “democracy” or “voting rights,” everything to do with privilege.
In Michigan, whilom New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson ran in the primary as a Republican candidate for the presidency. Now, the Secretary of State is disallowing him from running as a Libertarian. You see, he’d filed some paperwork withdrawing his candidacy three minutes too late last November.
An amusing work-around may be in the offing, with a Texas businessman named Gary Johnson being groomed for the Michigan nomination. Take that, partisan insiders!
But regarding the Secretary of State’s ruling, the Libertarians smell a partisan rat, and are suing. It turns out they may have precedence on their side, since John Anderson had technically run afoul of the same law back in 1980, but nothing had been done to exclude him.
This time, Johnson’s more feared than Anderson was then. And, this time, the Secretary of State is a Republican.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.