Category: initiative, referendum, and recall

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall international affairs social media

Somebody . . . to Squelch

Punjab, Paul Jacob, Facebook, censorship

I AM . . . somebody!

. . . with an officially “restricted” Facebook account.

I’d like to thank my family and friends for always believing in me — even many decades ago when it was unclear if I had what it takes to even get arrested. And now, after repeated validation per that previous metric, comes my crowning Internet-era achievement: running afoul of the information-squelching policy of massive Meta censorship. 

I’m deeply humbled by the recognition. 

“Your post didn’t follow our Community Standards” was all the information provided. It flagged a post of nearly a month earlier.

“Tomorrow is the big day for the first city — London — to take part in the Punjab Referendum organized by Sikhs for Justice,” my October 30th post read. “It will be a long day . . . but so glad to be part of the international commission advising on best practices, monitoring the actual voting and issuing a report.” Five photos of a meeting and a handout promoting the referendum adorned the post. 

An “Account Restricted” label appeared on my homepage with the note: “Only you can see this.” 

The ban stops me from personally “going live” or “advertising” for 30 days. Two things I don’t do. 

But let’s not allow the absurdity of it all to mask what’s happening: Voices that do not fit the official government-induced corporate narrative are harassed and silenced in a major avenue for communication. 

The too-often-violent situation in the Punjab region of India, what many Sikhs call “Khalistan,” is tense. The non-binding, non-governmental referendum I posted about has been outlawed by India’s government. 

Blocking and punishing posts that speak truthfully about a democratic approach to that ugly division hardly solves the problem.

It works in this case (and others) to prevent a peaceful resolution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall media and media people

Democracy Fail?

California, recall, democracy

“California recall fails,” The Visalla Times Delta explained. As did KSBY, the NBC affiliate in San Luis Obispo. Not to mention The New York Daily News and The Chicago Sun-Times.

FiveThirtyEight analyzed “the failed California recall” at length. Even the South China Morning Post proclaimed the apparent democratic malfunction (reprinting an Agence France-Press report).

Yet the recall did not fail.  

Sure, voters decided not to jettison Governor Newsom mid-term. But that’s not a failure of this century-old democratic check on power — not unless a whole bunch of the 64 percent voting to keep Newsom filled in the wrong oval on their ballot by mistake.

I almost wish that were so; it would be easier to correct going forward.

“In a state famous for its acts of direct democracy,” a New York Times feature informs, “detractors of this year’s special election say the recall process is democracy gone off the rails, a distraction from crises that require the government’s attention, and a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Some folks never complain about government spending until it comes to the cost of holding an election. Funny, that’s precisely when our money might actually be well spent.

“No one in the state’s Democratic leadership is suggesting the elimination of recalls,” The Times notes, merely “vowing to make it more difficult for them to qualify for the ballot.”

In other words, legislators intend to raise the cost . . . so as to fight wealthy interests, they’ll argue. With a straight face.

“In a sharp piece of political irony,” that Times’ piece bemoans, “it will take a referendum to decide whether to change this particular referendum.”

Which is a feature of the system, not a bug. That is, no fail there. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall judiciary

The 6 Percent Solution

Idaho, initiative

The Idaho Supreme Court has stated the obvious.

The question was whether legislation passed by the Republican-dominated Idaho state legislature making it prohibitively difficult to run a successful initiative campaign is consistent with the state constitution.

In August, the court ruled that requiring petitioners to obtain signatures from at least 6 percent of voters in every single legislative district of the state — 35 districts — would usher in “tyranny of the minority.”

It said that the new law “conflicts with the democratic ideals that form the bedrock of the constitutional republic created by the Idaho Constitution, and seriously undermines the people’s initiative and referendum powers enshrined therein.”

As the Idaho Statesman observes, the law would have enabled voters of a single district to prevent a question from reaching the ballot.

The Statesman also smashed the silly argument that the current initiative process somehow burdens specifically rural voters in any quest to post a question.

Under current law, petitioners must obtain signatures from 6 percent of all registered voters in the state and also reach that threshold in at least 18 districts, not all 35 districts. The all-35 mandate would have made the job of running a petition drive massively harder no matter what regions petitioners happen to reside in.

Foes of citizen initiative rights also tend to ignore the fact that getting a question on the ballot hardly constitutes its enactment. Every voter, from whatever part of the state, can then decide Yes or No.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall judiciary

The Ultimate Legislature

California, AB5, gig work, freelance driver

Proposition 22 was supported by 59 percent of California voters last November.

The statutory initiative partly reverses the destructive effects of AB5, a law that forced many California gig workers or freelancers to be treated as regular employees who must receive benefits — whether these gig workers like it or not.  

One notices at Ballotpedia that all the listed opponents of this measure were politicians, including our current Vice President (then Senator) Kamala Harris as well as socialist Bernie Sanders, while the diverse list of Prop 22’s supporters included: the California Chambers of Commerce along with the Black, CalAsian, and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Crime Victims United of California, California Farm Bureau Federation, California NAACP State Conference, California Small Business Association, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The benefits of the so-called gig economy are politically opposed and diversely appreciated. 

Unions funded the opposition, though far outspent by the prosperous app companies: Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc. Those same unions, having failed to win over voters, then filed suit to block implementation of Prop 22.

‘The Court finds,” reads Judge Frank Roesch’s opinion, “that Section 7431 is unconstitutional because it limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.”

Simply. Not. So.

A statutory California initiative can only be changed via a vote of the people, whether that vote happens because the legislature places the change on the ballot or citizens do so through the initiative petition process. 

The voters are the ultimate legislature. 

Therefore, nothing prevents the elected California Legislature from providing a change to ultimately be decided by the people of California, i.e. the whole legislature, at the ballot box.

For good reason, the judge’s decision is being appealed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Recall Legal Scholars?

Governor Gavin Newsom, California, recall

“For weeks, legal scholars have debated whether the recall election of [California] Gov. Gavin Newsom could be found unconstitutional,” The Los Angeles Times reports, “if Newsom failed to realize a ‘no recall’ majority of the ballots cast and was ousted by a candidate who received fewer votes than he did.”

By “failed to realize a ‘no recall’ majority,” writer Maura Dolan means — in normal lingo — that Newsom gets booted out of office by majority vote. But following that phrase with “ousted by a candidate who received fewer votes than he did” ignores precisely who just did the “ousting” or, if you prefer, “booting” — voters.

Her confusion was mightily assisted by University of California at Berkeley academics, Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Aaron S. Edlin, economist, arguing in The New York Times that the recall is “nonsensical and undemocratic.” Oh, and “unconstitutional,” too, because more votes could be cast to keep the incumbent than for the incumbent’s replacement. 

“Every voter should have an equal ability to influence the outcome of the election,” they contend.

A Golden State recall petition results in two separate elections: (1) the voters’ up-or-down decision on keeping or recalling the official in question, and (2) a second election for voters to choose among candidates running to replace that official should the recall succeed. 

Every Californian casting a ballot on these two separate issues indeed has an equal vote. The recall is automatically decided by majority, while the replacement could win with a plurality.

The equal protection angle has been raised unsuccessfully before. In fact, Chemerinsky acknowledged, according to the LA Times, “that courts could decide that the recall proposal itself amounted to a separate election from the second question on the replacement candidates.”

No duh.

The authors should be glad that recalling academics isn’t a thing — even so, they’re not as awful as Governor Newsom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Blast from the past: This column addressed opposition to the 2003 recall of California Gov. Gray Davis.

PDF for printing

Photo by Gage Skidmore

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

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

To Do Item #1

It’s been a while.

In the early 1990s, citizens in a slew of states succeeded in term-limiting their state legislators. In a few of those states, politicians or the courts managed to kill the term limits despite the popular support for them. Nevertheless, today 15 state legislatures are term-limited.

The last legislature to be term-limited was that of Nebraska, where voters imposed two-term (or eight-year) limits on their unicameral legislature in 2000.

Since then, progress has been slower than we’d like. 

Why? Because many politicians work so very hard to keep term limits from being established. Their dastardly tactics include undermining the right of citizen initiative where it exists and blocking statewide citizen initiative rights from being enacted in states that currently lack such rights.

Now North Dakota is about to show us how limiting terms gets done: with the help of widespread public support and dedicated signature gatherers.

A term limits measure has been approved for distribution by North Dakota’s secretary of state. Petitioners need to collect more than 31,000 valid signatures in order to get a constitutional term limits question on the November 2022 ballot.

If the amendment gets to the ballot, it will pass. If it is passed, it will establish term limits of eight years on state representatives, state senators, and the governor. And lawmakers would be barred from proposing a change or repeal of the term limits themselves — only citizens through the initiative process could do so.

Signatures first. 

Maybe yours. If you live in North Dakota, you know what to do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall repeal

Voters, Govern Thy Governor

Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Covid, emergency powers, Unlock Michigan

Is the epidemic of gubernatorial abuse of power ending in Michigan?

During the last year and a half, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been widely criticized for prescribing and proscribing all manner of conduct in the name of combatting the COVID-19 pandemic.

Whitmer claimed that her authority to do so was justified by the Emergency Powers of Governor Act of 1945. On this basis, she promulgated many silly and counterproductive edicts.

These ranged from commandments to stay at home except for certain urgent forms of sallying forth (a lockdown also mandated in other states) to banning the sale of gardening equipment. Among other injunctions, Executive Order 2020-42 prohibited advertising of sundry “unnecessary” goods and ordered stores to shutter sections selling carpets, paint, furniture, and gardening materials.

In October of 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the 1945 Act unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority. Now voters have weighed in with a citizen initiative. The group Unlock Michigan collected enough valid signatures— “more than 500,000 signatures in just 80 days” — to send a measure repealing the Emergency Powers of Governor Act to the legislature.

Had lawmakers failed to approve the petition, its fate would have been decided by voters at the ballot box. But last week, in a 68 to 40 vote, the Michigan House joined the Senate to certify it — saving a lot of time and money.

In Michigan, a law presented to the legislature thanks to a citizen initiative and then enacted cannot be vetoed by the governor. So that’s it. Governor Whitmer’s access to this autocracy-enabling law is gone. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Initiative-Crippling Law Clobbered

constitution, voting, speech, initiative, freedom

The right of citizen initiative is the right of voters to petition to get a measure on the ballot; then, if that happens, to vote on it and pass it. 

Many politicians hate this right and work to weaken it.

A few years ago, Florida’s Constitution Revision Commission considered sending a measure to the state ballot to treat voters who abstain from voting on a ballot question as having voted No. The proposal died on the vine, thankfully. But this is the kind of encroachment politicians fantasize about.

The latest attack on Floridians’ right of citizen initiative — a law to cap donations to such campaigns at $3,000 during the signature-gathering phase — has just suffered a less definitive setback.

Federal Judge Allen Winsor in the Northern District of Florida halted the new law from going into effect on the very day it was scheduled to do so. (Cutting it a little close, aren’t you, judge?) He ruled that contributions to an initiative campaign are obviously a form of political expression and that the law would inflict irreparable harm if even briefly in force.

True. 

If petition organizers can’t raise the funds needed to collect the required 891,589 signatures, it becomes enormously harder to get a measure on the ballot and let voters have their say. A say that foes of citizen initiative rights certainly do not want voters to have.

The ruling blocks the law only until the court reaches a final resolution on its constitutionality, so this legal battle isn’t over yet. 

What is most certainly determined, however, is that Florida legislators don’t care about the Constitution. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

speech

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

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Amazing Vanished Rights

Governor, Brad Little, Idaho

Suppose you have the right to walk across a room.

Yet you’re legally chained to a chair. 

By your rights, you may get up and walk across the room. But you can’t, because of the chains. You could if only you could. Why, there’s even a document specifying your right to do so. You physically can’t exercise this right; that’s the only problem. 

But your right to walk across the room is enshrined and protected.

Or is it?

In fact, we have no right in the sense of a legal ability to do a certain thing if its exercise is, by law, thwarted. 

Recently, Idaho lawmakers passed and Governor Little signed a law making it almost impossible for citizens to place a question onto the ballot. Until now, Idaho required that 6 percent of registered voters in 18 of 35 legislative districts sign the petition to send a question to ballot. Gratuitously onerous, but at least possible to comply with.

That possibility was a big problem for opponents of citizen initiative rights, however. Hence the new law, requiring signatures from 6 percent of registered voters in each of 35 districts.

Reclaim Idaho challenged the law. The Idaho Supreme Court is currently hearing the case.

According to Reclaim Idaho co-founder Luke Mayville: “If you claim that the people ought to have a right to put something on the ballot [but] make it impossible to exercise that right, it’s not really much of a right at all.”

Do justice, justices.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

You’re Sued!

Arkansas, term limits

Firing politicians is what democracy’s all about.

But politicians don’t like being fired. Even when “You’re fired!” is a signature line. It definitely explains why incumbents tend to oppose term limits. 

As shown in the long history of term limits in my home state, Arkansas. 

In 1992, an all-volunteer petition drive placed the initiative on the ballot and a grassroots campaign beat the Good Ole Boy network and their $500,000 in paid media warnings of “outsiders.” 

The victory sent shockwaves through the Arkansas political establishment; term limits received more YES votes than President-Elect Bill Clinton had garnered in his home state.

Arkansas pols have been at war with term limits ever since. The latest assault came in April, when legislators passed an “emergency” measure now known as Act 951. 

The Act bans people found guilty of minor misdemeanors (trespassing, vandalism, any violation of drug laws) at any time in their lives — even many decades ago — from working as paid petitioners. The new law also limits the pool of petitioners to state residents, something not done for any other political job, or for those carrying Arkansas’s candidate petitions.*

That’s why Arkansas Term Limits, Liberty Initiative Fund, U.S. Term Limits, et al., filed a complaint in the federal Eastern District of Arkansas alleging constitutional rights violations under the legislature’s Act 951. 

“I was never a supporter of term limits until this bunch got in office,” offered Arkansas Times editor Max Brantley in response to our lawsuit, “and gave themselves essentially unlimited terms and set about running roughshod over human rights.”

Cries of “You’re fired!” are coming soon. But first, to pry back petition rights in Arkansas, the catchphrase is, “You’re sued!”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

* In recent years, similar residency requirements have been unanimously struck down in rulings of the 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. Earlier this year, a federal judge enjoined enforcement of Maine’s similar law.

PDF for printing

meter / JG

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