Veto

A Bad Veto in Oklahoma

Joe Mathews — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:21:00 -0400

Oklahoma has been one of the worst states to practice direct democracy. The short, 90-day time period for gathering signatures is a particular problem, making it difficult for anyone but the richest initiative sponsors to qualify a measure. (Such tight time limits, I would argue, also encourage petition fraud, though I've not seen enough data to say so for sure).

But this year, the Oklahoma legislature -- with only one dissenting vote -- opened up the process by passing legislation that would protect petition circulators and lift the 90-day limit. Now, Gov. Brad Henry has vetoed the measure after the legislature has left town (making it next to impossible to override the veto).

Henry argues that the bill's limitations on harassing signature gatherers (which has been something of a problem in Oklahoma) would infringe on the speech rights of others (essentially to scream at petition circulators, grab their paperwork, etc.). This is an interesting argument, and it may be a cynical one. In effect, his veto is an attempt to defend blocking campaigns, and puts the governor on the side of those who would limit access to the ballot.

Henry's veto message is below:

This is to advise you that on this date, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution to approve or object to legislation presented to me, I have VETOED House Bill 2246. While HB 2246 is designed to strengthen the initiative petition process and contains several good provisions, the bill is fatally flawed because of Section 3, a provision that grants additional rights to petition circulators at the same time it takes away the rights of other citizens. For example, Section 3 would make it a crime for a person to interrupt a conversation between a circulator and a potential signer, touch a petition or promotional material without the consent of a circulator or shout in the presence of a circulator to express opposition to their initiative. Such prohibitions have the effect of discouraging and even criminalizing such basic constitutional rights as free speech and freedom of assembly. Section 3 also provides unscrupulous circulators with a cash incentive to report such offensive speech or assembly by requiring offenders to pay the complaining circulator $500 in statutory damages for each violation. It is critical to have a fair and accessible initiative petition process available to the people, but the meritorious proposals in HB 2246 cannot overcome the harm caused by Section 3. In an effort to enact fair and responsible petition reforms in the next legislative session, I will appoint an interim task force to review the issues addressed in HB 2246 and work on language that strengthens and improves the process without eroding the constitutionally guaranteed rights of individual citizens.

Budget To Be Vetoed; Veto To Be Overriden

Joe Mathews — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:41:00 -0400

Not exactly a fighting veto. Schwarzenegger declared today he would veto the budget -- and expected to be overriden. It's an acknowledgment that he was ultimately irrelevant in the process. He took a few swipes at Republicans, noting -- correctly -- that the "no new taxes" budget is in fact a tax increase in disguise. The budge will be delivered to the governor tomorrow. He will veto, then the Assembly votes on override Thursday.

Arnold Expected To Veto Budget

Joe Mathews — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:13:00 -0400

He has called a press conference for 3 p.m. Pacific, apparently to do just that.

The Lie of a 'No New Taxes' Budget, or Why Arnold Should Use His Veto

Joe Mathews — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:44:00 -0400

Details of the budget deal reached today by legislative Democrats and Republicans have not been officially released, but the leaks have begun. Republicans are saying the budget is a "no new taxes" budget. Of course, that's not the truth.

Tax rates don't increase under this budget, but that doesn't mean the budget doesn't raise taxes. Instead, this budget will rely on borrowing and gimmicks that inevitably force tax increases in the future. In fact, this unbalanced budget will add to the state's debt and debt service costs, which cuts into the amount of the budget that can be spent on actual government services. In the end, people will pay the same tax rates, but they will get less in services. That's right -- less services for the same money. That's a tax increase in disguise.

And if you want to maintain services -- and the public wants to maintain levels of services, eventually taxes will have to be raised to cover this borrowing and the service level. Bottom line: it would be more accurate to call this a "No New Taxes While The Current Republican Lawmakers Are Running For Re-Election" budget.

I would bet that Schwarzenegger will embrace this budget compromise and be done with it. But I'd like to see him use his veto pen. He could call the budget a "fraud." Perhaps he could even make a few campaign appearances around the state and remind Republican voters, in particular, that these legislators just raised their taxes.

Ritter Vetoes Signature Gathering Bill

Joe Mathews — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:53:00 -0400

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter has been a strong critic of direct democracy. But he vetoed a bill that would have stepped up regulation of paid signature gatherers, arguing that it was unconstitutional because it would have treated paid gatherers different than volunteers.