The Blockbuster Democracy Blog

Here's how bad ballot box budgeting has become in California.

In 1998, the director (and Meathead from "All in the Family") Rob Reiner sponsored a successful ballot initiative to impose a 50-cent a pack tax to fund early childhood programs. In effect, Reiner created his own program with his own funding source, walled off from the rest of the budget by the only-in-California rule that laws and programs established by initiative may only be changed by another vote of the people.

Back in May, lawmakers asked voters to repurpose some of that money to the state's budget deficit. Voters refused, forcing cuts in more basic health programs.

Now comes former state senate president pro tem Don Perata with an initiative to fund cancer research. Perata's eight years in the senate, including four as leader, weren't apparently enough time for him to get that done. Where is he getting money--Reiner's cigarette tax money. Josh Richman has the details here.

This sets up another California initiative war: the cancer research advocates vs. early childhood advocates. And don't bother asking the legislature to be involved. As with so much of the budget, they have nothing to do with it.

You may have read about the controversy. An aide (now former aide) to California Attorney General Jerry Brown was taping reporters. (My take on the taping is here).

The interview that disclosed the taping was about the title and summary that Brown gave a ballot initiative sponsored by an insurance company. Today, the site Calbuzz, which focuses on the California governor's race, has a useful pro-and-con debate on the measure.

Today is the deadline for sponsors of two initiatives in Utah -- one to impose new rules on legislative ethics, the other to create an independent redistricting commission -- to turn in enough signatures to force the legislature to act on their ideas. But backers tell the Deseret News they don't have enough sigs to do that.

That's not the end of the initiatives, however. Sponsors of each initiative have until April 15 of next year to produce enough signatures to qualify the measures for the November 2010 ballot.

Jennifer Garrison, a state representative in Ohio, has introduced legislation that, to fight fraud in signature gathering, would force petition firms to be licensed. Some details are here, via the Marietta Register.

Independent columnist Tom Elias surveys the various reform measures circulating for signatures and suggests that voters should refuse to sign everything.

A University of Kansas professor, Don Haider-Markel, has compiled this list, a full accounting of ballot measures involving gay rights that goes back to 1972. The record is not good for those who support gay rights.

Local governments across California have been moving to public power. Writing at Fox & Hounds Daily, John Wildermuth explains how one big utility is attempting to use the initiative process to stop them.

The Seattle PI web site makes that argument, after another defeat for Washington state's leading initiative sponsor, Tim Eyman, last week.

State Sen. George Runner, sponsor of a ballot initiative requiring citizens to show government-issued photo ID before voting, is so angry about the title that Attorney General Jerry Brown gave his measure that he's gone to court to get it changed. Republican operative (and friend of the blog) Tom del Becarro makes Runner's case here (along with a few gratuitous swipes at ACORN--ignore those and read to the place where the title Brown gave the measure is compared with a previous title on a similar measure).

The problem here isn't Brown, it's the system. California gives the attorney general -- an elected official and, in most eras, the state's second most prominent statewide politician -- the authority to write titles and summaries for ballot initiatives. And naturally, there have been constant complaints about the titles -- and suspicions about the political motives of attorneys general writing those titles. 

Both races are formally close to call. But right now, it looks like a split decision on questions of gay unions. In Maine, the so-called "people's veto" of a new state law legalizing same-sex marriage leads by 4 points with more than half of the votes counted. If that holds up, the veto succeeds -- thus voiding the same-sex marriage law.

In Washington state, however, a referendum on a law there granting all the rights of marriage (except the title) to registered domestic partners appears likely to fail. That is, the law is being upheld, currently by a two point margin.