The Blockbuster Democracy Blog

Trash contracts and direct democracy have a long history in California cities. The awarding of lucrative contracts is one of the bigger decisions city councils stil make, in the post-Prop 13 world where the state, not local communities, make the big tax and spend decisons. And thus, there's a long history of smelly pay-to-play deals on local trash contracts. But in a state with such a long tradition of direct democracy, a council vote is usually just the beginning of the story. There have been dozens of recall campaigns launched over the awarding of trash contracts. And in some cities, the contract itself can be put to a referendum. Now, in the Los Angeles suburb of Montebello, it appears that the new trash contract may produce both a recall and a referendum.

The conservative writer Steven Malanga asks whether Prop 13-style tax revolts are even possible anymore.

Unintentionally, Barack Obama may have delivered a blow to political reform in California. Various news reports say former Congressman and Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta is Obama's pick for CIA director. In California, Panetta has been a leading voice for budget and political reform, most recently as the leader of the reform coalition California Forward. 2009 has been shaping up as a year for reform, as various groups try to capitalize on the state's budget crisis and political stalemates to push big ideas (including the possibility of a constitutional convention). For those folks, losing Panetta is not good news. He can't be easily replaced. 

Frequent initiative sponsor Tim Eyman is scheduled to announce a new initiative Monday that would limit how much revenue can be collected by state and local governments. Any excess money would be used to reduce property tax bills. Look for this to be pitched as a response to the collapse of the real estate market and the economic crisis. But it's a high-risk policy. With economists of all kinds calling for public investment to stimulate the economy, the state, cities and counties of Washington would instead have to spend less.

To the south, in neighboring Oregon, the business community is preparing an initiative that would guarantee more funding for higher education.

West Patterson has become Woodland Park. Local voters approved the change in a referendum.

Last fall, Arkansas voters approved an initiative that would ban adoption by unmarried couples. The targets of the measure are gay couples. This week, opponents of the initiative filed suit to overturn it, on the grounds that it violates federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal treatment and due process. It appears to be a well-constructed case. Among the plaintiffs are a married, heterosexual couple. Their complaint is that the initiative statute infringes on their own rights. How? In their will, they would leave custody of their own children to a cousin, who is gay and lives with her partner.

Another bit of good news for the legal challenge. The case has been assigned to a judge who struck down a previous effort to remove gay couples from the state's foster care program. A few more details from a local newspaper story are here.

During the Prop A campaign in Missouri, voters were told that the measure, which loosened restrictions on gambling, would produce money for a "tamper proof" education fund that couldn't be tapped for any spending other than schools. But now, with the state budget a mess and the economy heading south, Missouri lawmakers are preparing to do some tampering.

Missouri is hardly alone in this. Dozens of states are breaking into voter-approved funds. In California, going after funding sources the voters set aside for other purposes has become the state sport. Gov. Schwarzenegger, who rose to power by championing a ballot initiative to set aside for after-school programs, has joined the bandwagon, calling for raids on voter-approved funds for mental health and children's program in his budget proposal this week.

The holiday surprise in California this year was that Gov. Schwarzenegger didn't wait to the usual date -- often January 9 or 10 -- to release his budget proposal for the 2009-10 fiscal year. Instead, the proposal was released on Dec. 31. And in another departure from protocol, the governor wasn't there to do the releasing. He was at his vacation home in Idaho with his family. Finance director Mike Genest handled the chore.

The release seems to be a way to accomplish two political goals: 1) to show urgency (we're releasing the budget early) while 2) burying the news of a horrible budget proposal that includes big spending cuts, borrowing and tax increases, many of which represent a reversal from previous Schwarzenegger positions. Shaking things up is a good thing, but I'm not sure if this early budget release accomplished much. The proposal itself is unlikely to spark fast action by a dysfunctional legislature. But it's not clear if there's any force in the universe that can force consensus in the California legislature.

The new secretary of state and attorney general in Oregon, both Democrats, have been making it clear that they don't care much for ballot initiatives and are going to make it harder to qualify measures for the ballot. They intend to scrutinize initiative filings more closely, and are seeking to enhance penalties for fradulent signature gathering.

Phony signatures have been a part of the political process as long as signatures have been sought by initiative sponsors and candidates. A good validity rate for signatures in an initiative campaign is about 70 percent. But in Arizona this year, several measures had validity rates of 50 percent or lower. That's alarming, and suggests there was widespread fraud.

But there's reason to worry that the elected officials are thinking more about politics than the law. It's noteworthy that the attorney general-elect, John Kroger, hired an attorney who has represented the teachers' union in years of initiative battles with Bill Sizemore, an Oregon activist who, a court recently suggested, is addicted to the filing of initiatives. The state should be careful that it doesn't limit political rights. A new state law already raises the bar considerably for filing petitions, with the signature requirement merely for submitting a petition (as opposed to qualifying it for the ballot) rising from 25 to 1,000 signatures.

A Utah lawmaker has introduced a bill to reduce the length of ballot measure titles from 100 words -- too lengthy apparently for voters in Utah -- to 75 words. 100 words isn't much in an era when complex ballot initiatives often exceed 5,000 words. This story suggests that state and local governments also might save money on printing costs with fewer words.