About this Blog
Direct democracy -- the Switzerland-inspired system of initiatives, referenda and recalls that allows voters to make and repeal laws in 24 states -- is poorly understood. It isn’t even very direct. Direct democracy has become blockbuster democracy: a half-billion-dollar international industry of signature gatherers, consultants, and election lawyers who use ballot measures less as a method of making law and more as a tool of mega-communications to boost some politicians, hurt others, and supplement lobbying campaigns.
Blockbuster democracy is a decentralized business that practices wide-open politics. This blog aims to provide a center of news, analysis and conversation for and about the industry. We will report from blockbuster democracy’s capital -- California -- but we’ll monitor ballot measures from across the country and around the globe.
Your Blogger: Joe Mathews is an
User login
TUESDAY ROUND UP: Connerly Surrender, and Will Initiative Let the Sun Shine In?
CONNERLY SURRENDER: Connerly gives up in Oklahoma. It was one of five states where he had sponsored measures opposing affirmative action. They didn't collect enough signatures, they tell the Tulsa World. This is a major logistical screw-up by Connerly and his backers; signatures had been turned in in December. The backers had more time to gather signatures, but appear to have done a poor job in collecting valid signatures and in calculating how many they needed.
WILL THE SUNSHINE IN? Margot Roosevelt of the LA Times takes a thorough look at an alternative energy ballot initiative in California, sponsored by the University of Phoenix founder. The solar energy industry is skeptical.
COORS SIGHTING: The Rocky Mountain News reports on Monday's meeting between backers of a "right-to-work" initiative in California and Gov. Bill Ritter. No news from the meetings--lips were tight afterward, and no agreements have been reached. Ritter clearly would like labor and business groups to slow down their move towards a multi-initiative war. The News piece focuses on former Schwarzenegger aide, Jonathan Coors. And yes, he is one of those Coors.
How do you figure that the
How do you figure that the Connerly forces had more time to collect signatures?
i figure...
it looks like from ballot deadlines that they could have started earlier and gone at least another week at the end. Do you know different? Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/
I think that Oklahoma has a
I think that Oklahoma has a non-rolling 90-day circulation period.
Attorney General Repression in OK
Joe,
My understanding is that Ok is a non-rolling 90 gathering period. You start when the state says you can (after approving the petition form) and end 90 days later.
Additionally, OK has one of the few pure residency requires, and enforces it viciously (and I believe unconstitutionally in violation of the First Amendment). During Connerly's drive - just days after or before it started - the Attorney General arrested 3 other petition managers from a different firm and different cause for allegedly "conspiring to defraud the state" by hiring non-Oklahomans in an anti-tax drive TWO YEARS earlier. Now known as the "Oklahoma 3", and including man behind Term-Limits in the 1990s - Paul Jacob - they are going through a criminal trial that could put them in jail for 10 years. Jacob denies that they knowingly hired non-residents and that they complied with a definition of residence the Sec. of State gave them -- but I deny that the law itself is moral or Constitutional and don't even need to get to the factual parts of Jacob's defense. Putting people in jail for petitioning - whether in-state or out of it - is an abomination. It's only purpose - to send a message to petitioners to stop them in the future.
Speak about chilling effects. So Connerly's petition firm crossed its ts and dotted i's on residency, and individuals collecting, even residents, felt the chilling effect knowing that they could land in jail for the slightest misstep.
I don't doubt that the petition firm probably could have done some things better, but we all learn those things in hindsight for any endeavor. The big reason for failure here was the Jacob 3.
Note - I'm a former consultant for the Michigan effort, although I have no relationship to the Oklahoma drive and do not currently work for Ward or any of the state initiatives he is helping.
Great Post
The last two posters are correct on the 90 days. There also was a blocking campaign as well, too. (For the uninitiated, that means that opponents paid to send people out there to try to prevent the gatherers from getting signatures--these blocking campaigns can slow gathering down a bit). It's hard out there for the signature folks, definitely. I'm going to back off my original post a bit. I do wonder about spending all that money without getting the sigs. If you're in for a dime, you should be in for a dollar.
And I'm planning a trip to Oklahoma to watch court proceedings in the Jacob 3. Anyone know when the trial will start, if it gets that far?
Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/
Court Proceedings
There will be a preliminary hearing in Oklahoma City on July 23 for the Oklahoma 3 -- myself, Susan Johnson, head of the petition management firm National Voter Outreach, and Rick Carpenter of Tulsa, head of Oklahomans in Action.
Re: the Oklahoma civil rights measure, from the reports I heard, there was indeed a climate of fear surrounding this petition effort. That is really depressing. I also am told that many Oklahoma residents, who for years have gathered signatures on petitions in Oklahoma as well as in other states, now prefer to do their petition work exclusively out of state. Better safe than sorry.
Mr. Zarko is correct, in my humble opinion, that Oklahoma's residency law is unconstitutional. It is now being challenged in federal court. It was upheld by a district court in Okla and is now on appeal at the 10th Circuit. Also, it is worth noting that a challenge to Arizona's residency law concerning independent candidate petitions -- Nader v. Brewer -- was heard in the 9th Circuit in San Francisco last week. Richard Winger in his Ballot Access News website reported that the justices seemed skeptical of the residency requirement there.
Having said all that about the constitutionality, let me make it clear that everyone I know who worked on the Oklahoma TABOR and eminent domain petition drives in 2005 obeyed the law as it was understood, from what state officials told folks on the ground who were managing the effort. There are far too many unconstitutional requirements in petition drives, but people are wise to either follow the law or to challenge it in court. In Oklahoma, we followed the law. I think we'll prove that in court someday, though it can't be soon enough for me.
It is nice to see this blog. It is needed. Keep up the great work.
Post new comment