Tag: referendum

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
initiative, referendum, and recall

Swampy Moves

Florida, Governor, Ron DeSantis, initiative, referendum,

Late Friday, in the closing hours of Florida’s legislative session, an amendment “was thrown onto the lifeboat of a different, unrelated bill in a last-​ditch effort,” reported the Miami Herald, “to limit citizen-​driven ballot initiatives.” 

With poisonous provisions appended, House Bill 5 rushed through both chambers in mere hours with party-​line GOP support. It’s now headed to the desk of Republican Governor Ron DeSantis ® for a signature.

Or, better yet, a veto.

The legislation forbids campaigns from paying more to petition circulators who work harder and gather more voter signatures. Years ago, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed an identically ridiculous and mean-​spirited prohibition passed by that state’s Democratic-​dominated legislature, writing: “It doesn’t seem very practical to me to create a system that makes productivity goals a crime.”

Surely, Gov. DeSantis is as adverse to government regulations and red-​tape as was Governor Moonbeam. 

HB 5 also mandates that a bold statement be placed on the ballot next to any measure estimated to have “increased costs, decreased revenues, a negative impact on the state or local economy, or an indeterminate impact for any of these areas.” Wait … if this information is so important to voters, why only inform them when the message is “negative” or “indeterminate,” but not when positive? 

The sneaky maneuver “goes to show,” Florida Conservation Voters Director Aliki Moncrief noted, “how little respect [legislators] have for Florida voters.” The leader of one ballot measure effort called it the “ultimate of swampy moves.”

Ask Gov. DeSantis to defend the voters by vetoing HB 5 — call (850) 488‑7146 or email him.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Florida, Governor, Ron DeSantis, initiative, referendum,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
Accountability incumbents initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption local leaders political challengers term limits

Sneaky Lobbyists Prefer Sneakiness

time expired, time limit, term limits, Arkansas, politicians, referendum, vote, lobbyists

The Arkansas Chamber of Commerce’s CEO and chief lobbyist, Randy Zook and Kenneth Wall, have formed Arkansans for Common-​Sense Term Limits. 

The Chamber has a burning hatred for term limits — Common-​Sense or otherwise — just like every other lobbyist and special interest. But Zook and Hall are fibbing in their name because they realize that voters love term limits. 

The ballot committee’s stated purpose? To “advocate for the disqualification or defeat” of the Arkansas Term Limits Amendment, which citizens just petitioned onto the ballot, collecting 129,000 signatures.

Defeating such a popular ballot measure isn’t likely. Instead, these politically-​experienced lobbyists are preparing to sue, hoping to disqualify valid voters’ signatures on some ginned-​up technicality, feigning confusion over the clear ballot language — anything that might keep democracy from coming this November.*

At issue? The difference between real term limits and ridiculous ones.

That is, between term limits set by citizens and those set by legislators themselves. 

Currently, legislators can serve for 16 years in a single seat under the state’s “limits.” And because two-​year Senate terms aren’t counted at all, senators can stay as long as 22 years. 

Legislators snuck this past voters in 2014 with a ballot title claiming only to “establish” term limits … amidst other lies. Politicians thereby turned Arkansas’s toughest-​in-​the-​nation term-​limit law into the nation’s very weakest — a significant 50 percent longer than limits in any other state.**

Unfazed by all the corruption in the Arkansas Legislature, Chamber lobbyists are focused on putting politicians in their pocket for as long as possible. 

But those pesky Arkansas voters are once again in the way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* After recently threatening to challenge the signatures of another initiative petition, Zook had to admit that he was not aware of a single problem or deficiency in the petition. But he quickly added, “It’s a very complicated process.”

** Arkansas’s term limits were the same as Michigan’s until 2014, three terms, six years in the House and two-​terms, eight-​years in the Senate.

PDF for printing

 

Original photo by Jeff Kubina

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders national politics & policies political challengers term limits

The Other Maine Thing

ranked choice voting, democracy, initiative, referendum, election, voting, Paul Jacob, voting reform, Maine

Tuesday’s biggest election news was the victory for Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Maine. This is the second statewide vote for this reform, which allows voters to rank the candidates by first choice, second choice and so on.*

Voters first passed it in 2016, but the next year the voters’ “representatives” in the legislature repealed the law, overturning their vote. 

Undeterred, RCV supporters filed a referendum and again went out and gathered enough petition signatures to refer the legislature’s repeal to a vote of the people. On Tuesday, Maine’s voters vetoed the legislature, keeping Ranked Choice Voting. 

Initiative and referendum sure are helpful.

RCV is not partisan; it requires the winner to have some level of support from a majority of voters and fixes the wasted vote problem. In Maine, however, the Republican Party opposed. On election day, Republican Gov. Paul LePage even threatened not to do his duty and certify the results.

“Paul Jacobs (Vice chair of the [FairVote] Board) whom I once knew and thought was a good American,” a Republican friend posted on my Facebook page, “has helped unleash the hounds of Hell” … adding that “now the voters are so confused by the terrible procedure that voting will be a nightmare this Tuesday!”

Yet voters used the new voting system for the first time Tuesday in candidate primaries before deciding Question 1 on their ballot — about keeping RCV. As one Portland voter put it, “It’s pretty easy to do, despite the negative publicity.”

We need more control over government with our vote. And when voters speak, politicians should listen. 

It wouldn’t hurt political activists to listen, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* I’ve discussed the idea in this space many times — there’s more information on how it works here.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders national politics & policies political challengers U.S. Constitution

Free to Choose

Milton Friedman, democracy, initiative, referendum, Free to Choose, public interest,

“I think that the most effective way one could possibly move toward greater freedom in the United States, toward a smaller role of government, would be if we could only have a more democratic society.”

Who said that? A Democrat? 

No.

The speaker quickly added, “I don’t mean a capital‑D, I mean a small‑d.”

“That is, I mean if we could have referenda,” the late Milton Friedman explained back in 1987. 

The Nobel Prize winning economist — and co-​author with wife Rose of the bestselling Free to Choose* — was referring to the initiative and referendum process, whereby citizens vote on laws, and in the case of initiatives directly place measures onto the ballot. 

Citizens enjoy initiative and referendum rights in twenty-​four states and roughly 60 percent of cities throughout the country.

“The public at large has always shown itself,” Dr. Friedman observed, correcting himself, “has almost always shown itself to be more libertarian in its views than have their elected representatives.”**

Friedman was not suggesting that a bad law becomes good because it was passed at the ballot box. He simply weighed the odds between two distinct sets of voters. Legislators are a small group, the personal power of each one so closely tied to government that politicians’ personal interests often compete against the public’s. Conversely, the much larger group of voting citizens almost defines the public interest.

Perhaps I was channeling the great doctor of economics when I was once asked, “Do you trust the people?” 

My reply?

“No. But I trust the people a whole lot more than I trust the politicians.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul of Jacob.

 

* The book was first published in January 1980, in tandem with PBS’s airing of the popular “Free to Choose” series.

** He spoke this at a California Libertarian Party conference. Tough crowd.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders moral hazard porkbarrel politics responsibility too much government

Go Nats?

stadium, Potomac Nationals, pork, free markets, taxes, referendum, crony, welfare

Just a few miles away from where I live sits the stadium of the Potomac Nationals. I’m a fan. I’d hate to see the team we call the P‑Nats leave. 

But … Hasta la vista.

The owner of this minor league affiliate of Major League Baseball’s Washington Nationals is demanding a new stadium. He threatens to move out of Prince William County, Virginia, if he does not get it. 

The Prince William County board of supervisors has already expressed interest in floating bonds to raise the $35 million the fancy new stadium would require — with the privately owned team paying the money back, with interest, over the next 30 years. 

Compared to other crony-​ish deals around the country, not such a terrible taxpayer swindle. Still, zillions of wrongs don’t make this right. County taxpayers would be on the hook in case of default. And if the marketplace believed the team could actually make such payments, a bank or other investors would come to the rescue.

Thankfully, a monkey wrench has been thrown into the deal. A county supervisor has proposed that voters should get a chance to decide, via a November referendum. The board of supervisors will consider the referendum tonight. 

Voters should get the final say. But if there is a referendum, as much as I love having the team here, I will vote NO. I don’t cotton to forcing others to pay for my preferred entertainment. 

Government has certain legitimate roles. Subsidizing sports is not one. 

Even if the new stadium would be closer to my home than the old one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF