Tag: Initiative Rights

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders

Democratic Notion for Gotion

Ji Jinping, battery plant, protest, Michigan

One problem with American politics? Far too many decisions get made by the federal government. 

Not only is the Washington Leviathan removed geographically from most citizens, it’s also completely devoid of the direct democratic checks available to voters in most American cities and roughly half of U.S. states: initiative, referendum, and recall. 

At the state and local level, we can often respond directly to unpopular government actions with a ballot measure or a recall campaign. And these local efforts can at times impact our national government —  even international policies. 

That’s what happened last Tuesday in Green Township in Mecosta County, Michigan, when voters recalled their entire township board — sending all five remaining board members packing after a sixth member had already resigned.

Back in April, spurred on by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s cheerleading, Michigan lawmakers approved $175 million in “taxpayer incentives” [read: subsidies] to help Gotion Inc. “build a $2.4 billion electric vehicle battery plant.”

Public uproar was not merely over the subsidy but also because the company’s parent company, Gotion High Tech, is based in China.

“We don’t want it here. It’s dangerous. We’re zoned agricultural, and they’re trying to re-zone our property,” said resident Lori Brock. “There’s nothing that’s been truthful about this.”

When it became clear that, in addition to state legislators not listening, local officials showed more interest in making a deal than being transparent with citizens, Brock filed a petition to recall the board.

And the rest is hist . . . well, not so fast. Township officials continue to say the deal is done. To which Brock pledges, “We’re moving forward with lawsuits against Gotion.” 

Because voters were able to express themselves, there is hope.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E2 and PicFinder

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

Categories
education and schooling initiative, referendum, and recall tax policy

Taxing Panicsville

Earl G. Jaques

There is a big problem with Delaware school districts asking voters for additional tax money via ballot referendums. You see, sometimes the people don’t vote the way school officials and politicians want.

Have no fear: Rep. Earl Jaques (D-Glasgow) has authored House Bill 129 to solve this thorny problem. 

“This bill creates a mechanism,” its official summary reads, “by which school boards may increase funds for a school district both with and without a referendum.” 

Meaning, of course, without a referendum . . . since current law requires a public vote. 

“That way, [school districts] know the money is there if they need it, and they don’t abuse it because they know it’s there,” explained Jaques. “The problem with the referendum system is that they have to ask for more than they actually need, because they know it’s going to be a long time before they can come back.”

“Despite his assurances that the system would not be abused,” the Dover Post reports, “technically, school districts could raise taxes by 2 percent each year.” Or by any increase in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is higher.

Inexplicably, three stories — in the Dover Post, Newark Post and Delmarva Now — told readers it was the “lower” of the two. The bill clearly says the “higher.” Odd that media outlets would not grasp the ever-so-subtle difference between the words “higher” and “lower.”

“Everybody’s in ‘Panicsville,’ but it’s really not that way at all,” offered Jaques. “We, my colleagues in the legislature and I, could raise your income tax right now, and what’s your recourse? Vote us out at the next election.”

Excellent advice.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Earl G. Jaques

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


Categories
Accountability general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers term limits too much government U.S. Constitution

Fear and Freedom

Protect Yourself, limited government, meme

“If Libertarian Gary Johnson doesn’t win the presidency,” I posted to Facebook last Monday, “I’m leaving the country.”

Well, Johnson didn’t win. And I wasn’t kidding. I’m writing this from a Parisian café.

Of course, I was also tongue-in-cheek, since — spoiler alert! — I am coming home next week.

This week, I’m speaking at the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy in San Sebastián, Spain — a gathering of pro-initiative folks from all over the world. We want people’s votes to count, even if we disagree with their candidate or issue.

Which brings us back to Donald J. Trump’s surprise victory. Protests have broken out in several cities — some violent. And some folks say they’re scared of what Trump may do as president. Sure, one can snicker at these fearful responses as liberal whining. And to the extent they’re talking about university professors canceling tests and coddling “traumatized” students . . . well, no argument here.

Still, I don’t just sympathize when I hear people fear a politician with power, I empathize.

For a long time, I’ve been worried by out-of-control presidential power — from unconstitutionally making laws through executive orders to making war without any real check on that power. Scary. Whether that president is George W or Obama or Hillary or Trump.

Government is a monopoly on force. Therefore, by definition, government is frightening.

Democracy is often an antidote to tyranny, a check on power, but not always. That’s why folks who truly appreciate democracy believe in individual rights that transcend any vote-getting public decision mechanism.

Scared by President-Elect Donald Trump? Protect yourself: enact greater limits on government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Ask the next question.

Questions Answered:

Is fear a natural byproduct of government?

Which presidential powers lack sufficient checks and balances?

What is more important: individual freedom or democratic decision-making?

Is democracy a check on power or an enhancement?

The Next Question:

How do we go about creating greater limits on political power?

Printable PDF

Protect Yourself, limited government, meme

 

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom individual achievement obituary

A Life Too Short

ElizaBeth Garrett

One lesson from the classic film, It’s a Wonderful Life, is that “Every man’s life touches so many others.”

Every woman’s life does, too.

On Monday, I was stunned and saddened to read in my morning paper that Cornell University President Elizabeth “Beth” Garrett had died, barely a month after being diagnosed with colon cancer, at only 52 years of age.

“Being the first woman president of Cornell, just as I was the first woman provost at U.S.C., puts me in the position of being a role model — not just for young women, but also for men,” she told an interviewer.

While at the University of Southern California, Beth “was the driving force behind the Initiative and Referendum Institute becoming part of USC,” according to my friend, Dane Waters, founder of the Institute.

I met her in the late 1990s. While we certainly were not in full agreement politically, my respect for her intellectual honesty grew and grew. She produced top notch research on the initiative process

And she cared. Years ago, when the Oklahoma Attorney General unsuccessfully sought to persecute myself and two others, Beth Garrett, an Okie native, reached out to lend her moral support.

Reason magazine mourned her passing by calling her “a staunch defender of free speech on campus.”

“There isn’t any idea that ought not to be tested and questioned,” Garrett once told students. “Because that’s how we get closer to the truth. . . . So if you disagree with someone, the answer isn’t to shut them down.”

Beth Garrett lived a wonderful life, leading by example. We’ll miss her.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

ElizaBeth Garrett

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall Regulating Protest responsibility too much government

Fake Emergencies & Genuine Democracy

initiative, legislature, Colorado, Oregon, emergency, emergency clause

Legislators aren’t honest.

Or maybe in Colorado and Oregon they just don’t understand the meaning of words . . . like “safety” and “emergency.” (Heck, there was once a politician unsure of what the meaning of the word “is” is.)

“The state constitution gives Coloradans the power to challenge news laws through citizen initiative,” explains the Independence Institute’s Mike Krause in a recent Freedom Minute video.

In order to force a popular vote, the referendum process requires citizens to submit petitions before the “effective date” of the new law. If a law is deemed truly “vital to public peace, health and safety,” however, the legislature may add what’s known as a “safety clause.” That puts the law into immediate effect . . . thereby blocking the people’s referendum power to petition that new law to the ballot.

Krause discloses that a majority of 2015 bills passed in Colorado contained so-called safety clauses — 68 percent in the Senate and 55 percent in the House.

In Oregon, the tactic is referred to as an “emergency clause.” There, too, most bills are passed as emergencies to block any citizen response.

Tired of legislators using fake emergencies to disenfranchise voters, attorney Eric Winters drafted an initiative mandating a two-thirds vote of both House and Senate for legislation with an emergency clause. Now a grassroots coalition has formed to petition his “No More Fake Emergencies Act” onto the ballot.

Last year, The Oregonian warned that by “abusing the emergency clause” and “attacking the prerogatives of voters,” legislators were inviting “a backlash.”

Taking the initiative, citizens will stop fake emergencies with genuine democracy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

initiative, legislature, Colorado, Oregon, emergency, emergency clause

 

Categories
Common Sense initiative, referendum, and recall too much government

Rich Mischief

Government Scold, collage, montage, Paul Jacob, Jim Gill

The SFGate.com headline was clear: “State ballot initiative fee raised to $2,000 to prevent mischief.”

It just wasn’t accurate.

Assembly Bill 1100, introduced by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), passed by Democrats in the legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, doesn’t do anything to address “mischief.” Which, incidentally, abounds in California government — especially in the legislature.

The new law raises the cost for citizens to file a ballot initiative from $200 to $2,000. Now, if the mischief-maker has $2,000 to spend, this new law accomplishes . . . nothing.

Only five of the 26 states with initiative and/or referendum charge citizens any filing fee. California’s is now the highest by far.

“There are some lunatics out there and for $200 we encourage them to put measures on the ballot that say we should put a gun to the head of someone who is gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgender,” argued Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). AB1100 was about “clearing out what’s nonsense.”

The senator was referring to an initiative filed by an Orange County attorney, called the “Sodomite Suppression Act,” which, if passed, would establish the death penalty for homosexual conduct.

“This reform is overdue,” argued Assemblyman Low, calling it “a threshold for reasonableness.”

Reasonableness? Those with $2,000 are more reasonable than those with just $200?

The anti-gay measure was a stunt. No signatures were collected. It wasn’t going to be on any ballot. Still, the Attorney General went to court to have it declared unconstitutional. Case closed.

So, why pass AB1100?

To make it harder for voters to go around legislators via the ballot initiative. Just more mischief.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Government Scold, collage, montage, Paul Jacob, Jim Gill

 

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Finished Business

Nebraska Win

The civil war is over!

I mean Nebraska’s civil war, a 23-year schism between its unicameral legislature and what’s known as the state’s “second house” — that is, the people, acting through the initiative and referendum process, often checking the power of the first house.

Hero of the day? State Senator Mike Groene of North Platte, who championed Legislative Bill 367. Kudos also to the 42-0 vote of the Nebraska Legislature that enacted the measure, as well as to Governor Pete Ricketts for signing it into law.

Groene, who has been politically active for years with the Western Nebraska Taxpayers Association, got into office as a result of term limits. His LB 367 reverses the state’s seven-year ban on paying petition circulators according to the number of signatures they gather. He convincingly argued that the ban had “really broken the back of people trying to take part in their government through the petition process.”

“It’s time for this body to call a truce,” Groene told fellow lawmakers, declaring that since term limits were first passed, citizens and their representatives had been locked in a “civil war.”

During that war, State Sen. Diane Schimek, a 20-year legislator about to be term-limited, successfully pushed legislation to restrict citizen petitions. Part of her measure was struck down as unconstitutional in Citizens in Charge v. Gale.  Now the rest has been unanimously repealed by the state legislature.

Sen. Paul Schumacher of Columbus favored Groene’s bill, saying that legislators could use a more viable initiative check on their power. The unicameral’s attacks on citizen petitions were, he said, “reflective of a government that was afraid of its people.”

Now it’s peacetime in Nebraska.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Nebraska Win

 

Categories
Accountability ballot access Common Sense First Amendment rights general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall

Really Protecting Our Rights

Incentives matter. Which is why Ohioans have much to celebrate
this week.

Federal District Judge Michael Watson turned his previous temporary injunction against enforcement of Senate Bill 47 into a permanent injunction. That statue outlawed non-residents from helping Buckeye State residents by gathering petition signatures for an initiative or referendum.

The case is Citizens in Charge v. Husted. Citizens in Charge — where I work — protects initiative rights. Jon Husted is the Ohio Secretary of State.

But Judge Watson went further, declaring Sec. Husted’s office liable for damages to one of our co-plaintiffs, Cincinnati for Pension Reform. The judge found that “a reasonable official would have understood that enforcement of the residency requirement would violate plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to engage in political speech.”

Public officials have what’s known as “qualified immunity,” which protects them from liability when acting in good faith. A spokesman for Husted offered a defense: they were acting “on the assumption that the law is constitutional.”

“Some qualified-immunity cases are difficult,” countered election-law expert Daniel Tokaji. “Not this one.”

Ohio’s residency law was ruled unconstitutional in 2008, after Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign sued. In 2009, the previous secretary of state officially acknowledged the law unenforceable regarding all petitions. Yet, seeking to block citizen petitions, legislators passed it again, and Husted was quick to enforce.

Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, our attorney, cheered the “deterrence” this decision provides.

“If public officials from the governor down through the police know that they will be liable for enforcing an unconstitutional law,” he explained, “they are far more likely to take Ohioans’ constitutional rights seriously.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
Common Sense

Opposed to Answers

A Daily Oklahoman editorial laments the killing of a bill that would have created a task force to study the state’s initiative process, writing, “The initiative petition process in Oklahoma is in need of a fix.”

That’s why Representative Randy Terrill sponsored the bill. Which passed the House 86 yays to only 11 nays. But in the Senate, evenly divided between the parties, the Democrats stopped it.

As Norma Sapp, head of Oklahomans for Initiative Rights said, “This bill would simply allow legislators to find out the facts . . . and to discuss possible solutions. How can anyone be against having more information?”

Does seem a bit odd, no?

The editorial suggested, “That the bill got shelved is evidence the status quo on this issue suits some policy-makers just fine.”

Turns out, as a Democratic senator admitted, it was Attorney General Drew Edmondson who furiously lobbied behind-the-scenes against the task force.

Yes, this is the same Drew Edmondson who is persecuting the Oklahoma Three – that is, Yours Truly and two colleagues – seeking to imprison us for ten years for working on a petition drive. There’s more on our case at FreePaulJacob.com.

Edmondson also refuses to investigate instances of real petition fraud that have been brought to his office. Why? Well, it could be that the facts would hurt his case in a court challenge against Oklahoma’s petition law.

If you oppose answers, you don’t want any questions.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.