Tag: referendum

Exemplary Rejections

Lately, Americans have been distracted by a federal-level election. But we’ve also had important state-level matters to attend to during the recent election cycle, including some legislatively referred questions about citizen initiative rights.

In my experience, whenever many politicians push for a ballot measure in order to supposedly “fix” an already-established right of citizen initiative, the goal is usually to make it harder for people to get a question onto the ballot.

Three questions on state ballots this November exemplify the pattern. Fortunately, voters have rejected the sly politicians’ gambit in each case.

In Arizona, Proposition 136 would have let opponents of a ballot question force a doubt about its constitutionality to be adjudicated before the measure can be placed on the ballot. (Nothing prevents a measure from being challenged in court after passage.) Of course, sometimes litigation, whether sincere or not, can’t be entirely resolved before proposed urgent deadlines, like the deadline for submitting signatures to place a question on the ballot.

Arizona voters clobbered Prop 136 with about 64 percent of the vote.

In North Dakota, voters had to again defeat a lawmaker-referred measure to weaken citizen initiative rights. Among other arbitrary burdens, Measure 2 would have increased the number of signatures required to send a question to ballot.

Voters killed it by about 56 to 44 percent.

Lastly, Colorado’s Amendment K sought to impose an earlier deadline for submitting initiative signatures. This, too, voters declined by about a ten point margin.

Good results. Voters tend to see the elite’s designs and react appropriately.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags and recall, initiative, referendum

initiative, referendum, and recall judiciary

The 6 Percent Solution

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

Tags Idaho, initiative, recall, referendum, voting

initiative, referendum, and recall

Pols Don’t Like Recalls

California State Senator Josh Newman has, for now, withdrawn a bill to let elected officials facing a recall see the names of petition signers so that they may be asked if they really mean it.

The Democrat complains that critics call his bill “an attack on not just the recall but on them and their constitutional rights. It wasn’t a good context to have a conversation.”

So unfair!

The willingness of defenders of petition rights to speak up does sound pretty inconvenient for foes of this popular democratic check on power.

Perhaps we’re supposed to believe that under Newman’s legislation, the interviews would go like this: “Did you mean to sign the petition to recall me?” “I did.” “Just checking. Bye.”

Obviously, the targeted official’s opportunity and authority to quiz petition signers would enable his team to intimidate existing and prospective signers. The aim? Try to prevent a question with enough valid signatures from reaching the ballot.

Years ago, in other states, opposition campaigns sent retired FBI agents to knock on doors. Legal, but very intimidating. Which is why California does not make the names public.

The legislation would not have applied to the current petition drive to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom, an effort going splendidly with more than 1.5 million signers. But Newman’s bill was clearly motivated by the success of this campaign.

Or perhaps it’s residual animosity toward the recall process … from Sen. Newman himself, having been recalled by voters in 2018. (He came back to win election once again in 2020.)

Of course, signing a petition in itself says “I want this question on the ballot.” If a petition signer changes his mind, there is a process to retract it. No bullying follow-up needed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo by Gage Skidmore

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags California, Gavin Newsom, recall, referendum

general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall

Today’s Trifecta

vote, election, initiative, referendum, Washington, New York,

Three measures on ballots today are particularly worth watching.

Two issues in Washington State represent the only citizen-initiated measures out of 32 propositions voters will see in eight states: Washington Referendum 88 allows voters to re-decide the issue of racial and gender preferences, so-called “affirmative action,” while Washington Initiative 976 offers voters a chance to cap their vehicle taxes.

More than two decades ago, in 1998, Washingtonians passed Initiative 200 to end racial and gender preferences in state employment and education. This year, the state legislature enacted a virtual repeal of I‑200, by allowing the state to employ such a preference provided it was not the “only factor” used.

Washington’s vibrant Asian-American community, which stands to be discriminated against should affirmative action return, rose up to petition Referendum 88 onto the ballot. A “yes” vote upholds the legislature’s new pro-preference policy; a “no” vote restores the prior voter-enacted policy prohibiting such preferences.

Initiative 976 is yet another effort from Tim Eyman, the state’s most prolific initiative practitioner. “This measure,” as the official summary states, “would repeal or remove authority to impose certain vehicle taxes and fees; limit state and local license fees to $30 for motor vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less, except charges approved by voters …”

Like virtually every Eyman initiative, powerful opponents have dramatically outspent supporters — by greater than a 6‑to‑1 margin — funding ads that have been less than truthful. Additionally, government officials have broken campaign laws in pushing a “no” vote.

Nonetheless, a mid-October poll showed 48 percent of voters support I‑976 against 37 percent who oppose it. Could Eyman again thwart the state’s behemoth Blue Establishment?

Lastly, New York City voters will decide a ballot question on whether to use ranked choice voting in future primary and special elections for mayor, city council and other offices. It would mark a major victory for a reform growing in popularity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags election, initiative, New York, referendum, vote, Washington

initiative, referendum, and recall subsidy

Subsidizers May Be Checked

Post author By Redactor
Post date August 5, 2019
No Comments on Subsidizers May Be Checked

Ohio, referendum, control, stop, emergency button,

“FirstEnergy Solutions might not want to spend its bailout money just yet,” warns a story in Crain’s Cleveland Business.

At issue? A possible statewide referendum on House Bill 6.

HB6 would, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, “gut Ohio’s green-energy mandates and set up customer-funded subsidies to nuclear and coal power plants.” It passed the majority Republican state House “thanks to key support from several House Democrats.”

Passage of HB6 through both houses of the Ohio Legislature and its signature by Governor Mike DeWine would force Ohio ratepayers to fork over roughly $150 million in subsidies to FirstEnergy Solutions for its two nuclear power plants.

Except for one thing — in Ohio, voters possess a powerful political weapon: the referendum.

Already a diverse coalition of opponents to the bill has formed Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, filed a referendum and kicked off a petition drive that has “until October 21, 2019, to collect the 265,774 required signatures.”

“HB6 has created some strange bedfellows,” the Plain Dealer notices, including bringing together “environmental groups, the fossil-fuel industry, renewable energy companies, and some small-government activists” in opposition.

“Many of the forces that fueled the Trump presidency, before 2016 — I’m talking the Tea Party and others — could be supportive in undoing this bill,” explains Paul Beck, former chair of Ohio State University’s political science department. “And so could people on the left. You may find an incredible divergent group of people aligned with each other.”

“Liberals hate that it subsidizes dirty coal plants,” reports Crain’s. “Many conservatives hate that it picks winners and losers by subsidizing one industry over another.”

Thankfully, the fate of the giveaway rests in the hands of Ohioans, not their subsidy-loving representatives.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags control, emergency button, Ohio, referendum, stop

initiative, referendum, and recall political challengers term limits

A Different Conversation

billionaire, Tom Steyer, candidate, president, election, campaign,

“Here’s the difference between me and the other candidates,” says billionaire investor-turned-presidential aspirant Tom Steyer. “I don’t think we can fix our democracy from the inside. I don’t believe Washington politicians and big corporations will let that happen.”

Of course, if this Democrat becomes president of these United States, that’s hardly the outside.

“For me,” Steyer continues, “this comes down to whether you trust the politicians or the people.”

Well, I certainly trust the people a whole lot more than I trust the politicians.*

“If you say you trust the people, are you willing to stand up to the insiders and the big corporations and give the people the tools they need to fix our democracy?” Steyer asks.

Which tools? “A national referendum, term limits, eliminating corporate money in politics, making it easy to vote.”

The toolkit’s a mixed bag.

Eliminating corporate money means repealing part of the First Amendment, and silencing non-profit corporations such as U.S. Term Limits, MoveOn.org, the NRA, Planned Parenthood, National Right to Life, etc., etc.

Mr. Steyer also worries that, without reform, “We won’t be able to … pass any of the great plans proposed by the Democratic candidates running for president.”

We should be so lucky.

Still, here is another Democratic presidential candidate endorsing congressional term limits. And we do need a direct democratic check on Washington, the ability for citizens to initiate reforms such as term limits and take unpopular legislation to a referendum.

I’m not sanguine that Steyer will get the policy details right, but as fellow Democratic candidate Sen. Kamala Harris is fond of saying, “Let’s have that conversation.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Constitutional protections for our basic rights, as in The Bill of Rights, mean we do not have to trust government, directly democratic or representative.

PDF or printing