Ballot Measures

Thinking About the Colorado Ballot, And About Compromise

Joe Mathews — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:34:00 -0500

Your blogger is spending election day in Colorado, following results of the 18 measures on the state ballot here. I've also been showing around 10 foreign visitors -- academics, journalists, activists -- who study, write about or are involved in the initiative and referendum process in other countries.

Colorado is a crucial swing state in the presidential campaign. John McCain is even campaigning on election day here, holding a rally in Grand Junction, on the western side of the state. But it's also been the site of a bitter business vs. labor battle, with both groups qualifying multiple measures for the ballot. Four weeks ago, however, some business groups and labor unions negotiated a limited peace. Business groups agreed to abandon support for thier measures and even campaign against three of the business-backed measures--most notably Measure 47, an initiative to make Colorado a "Right to Work" state. In return, labor agreed to "withdraw" four measures. But here's the interesting wrinkle.

It was too late to take the measures physically off the ballot. Ballot materials had been printed. But Colorado permits initiative sponsors to withdraw anyway. Any votes cast for or against the initiative are thus void. This is a reform that other states should consider. California's initiative process is particularly inflexible. As soon as initiatve sponsors turn in signatures there, they can't withdraw the measure. But by making withdrawal possible until some time shortly before the election, the state would increase the opportunity for compromise.

State Reports: Connecticut

Joe Mathews — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:42:00 -0400

The big battle is over whether to call a constitutional convention, with the aim of adding initiatives and referenda to the state constitution. But there's also a question of whether voters who are under the age of 18 on the date of a primary, but will be 18 at the general election , should be able to cast ballots in the primary. And of course, a host of local questions. A list is here.

A Great Tool For Tracking Endorsements in California Ballot Races

Joe Mathews — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:38:00 -0400

Fox & Hounds Daily, a California news and opinion web site to which your blogger contributes stories, has a handy new tool for tracking endorsements of the statewide measures on next month's California ballot. It's a grid. Check it out here.

Bee Analysis: 12 California Measures Could Cost Taxpayers $78 Billion

Joe Mathews — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:34:00 -0400

The Sacramento Bee did an interesting analysis of the total expected cost, over time, if all 12 measures on the state ballot next month were to pass. The story is here. Much of the expense is in the four bond measures: Prop 1A (high speed rail), Prop 3 (children's hospitals), Prop 10 (energy) and Prop 12 (veterans' housing). A good rule of thumb for bonds: double the amount that's being borrowed, and you have the real cost.

Bob Stern of CGS is quoted as saying he believes that, at this economic moment, voters are likely to vote no on almost everything. I tend to agree.

Every Ballot Measure Has a Back Story

Joe Mathews — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:28:00 -0400

At least the 12 on the statewide ballot in California. And Robert Greene of the LA Times tells these stories.

Colorado Compromise?

Joe Mathews — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:35:00 -0400

In Colorado, there's a multi-initiative war between business and labor interests. Each side is sponsoring multiple measures. But there are talks underway, with some participation by Gov. Bill Ritter, aimed at avoiding a full war in November. The Denver Business Journal has details. Labor has agreed to drop its initiatives -- which are aimed at business prerogatives -- if business leaders will help the unions defeat Measure 47, an initiative to make Colorado a "right-to-work," or open shop, state.

ADDED, 9/21: More details on the talks from the Rocky Mountain News, which even has some documents on the deal-making.

Will John Chiang Block An Illegal California Budget?

Mark Paul — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:31:00 -0400

There are a lot of adjectives being used to describe the long-delayed California state budget passed in the wee hours of the morning on Sept. 16, few of them printable and none complimentary: “disgraceful,” “stop-gap,” “sham,” to cite just a few. But the most pertinent adjective now is “illegal."

A little history: In 2004, near the beginning of California’s long budget nightmare, newly elected Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and most of California’s leaders, offered voters a two-part deal. Approve $15 billion in deficit borrowing to get the state through the budget crisis, the state’s grandees told voters, and then we “tear up the credit card.” Voters took them at their word. They approved both Proposition 57, authorizing the unprecedented borrowing, and Proposition 58, called “The California Balanced Budget Act,” forbidding the state from further deficit borrowing and making it illegal for the Legislature to pass, or the governor to sign, a budget in which spending exceeds revenue.

“Overspending has led to serious shortfalls which threatens the state’s ability to pay its bills and access financial markets,” Schwarzenegger wrote in the ballot pamphlet. “This proposition is a safeguard against this EVER HAPPENING AGAIN. Proposition 58 will prevent the Legislature from ENACTING BUDGETS THAT SPEND MORE MONEY THAN WE HAVE.” (Emphasis in the original.)

The budget just passed by the Legislature is plainly illegal and unconstitutional under those provisions. Everyone understands that it is unbalanced, and that lawmakers have attemped to make it appear otherwise with gimmicks and borrowing, including forced borrowing from taxpayers by mandating that their wage withholding and estimated tax payments be set at levels that exceed their tax liability.

Most Californians probably have no legal recourse against this illegal act. But one Californian does: Controller John Chiang.

As controller, Chiang took an oath to defend the constitution, and as the state’s chief financial officer, he is the official who actually doles out the money the budget appropriates. He has the opportunity –– and the duty –– to say that the budget is illegal under the terms of Proposition 58, and that he will not recognize or honor it. That would undoubtedly trigger a court challenge, but I doubt that any court in the state would be prepared to override the judgment of the controller and rule that the gimmick-ridden mess passed by Legislature can meet the Proposition 58 constitutional test.

Some will ask why California would want to prolong this year’s budget battle. Legislators are weary of it. (Which perhaps explains why the Democratic leadership of the state Senate committed the greatest act of political malpractice in recent California history by surrendering to the minority Republicans’ budget demands and then graciously permitting most Republicans to vote against the misbegotten result.) The voters are angry. The temptation to turn to other subjects, and revisit the budget next year is strong.

But failing to balance the budget now will only increase the damage to the future. The state’s structural deficit still yawns. With the effects of the housing bust now spreading to the larger economy, a real ––and perhaps very deep –– recession looms, which will widen California’s budget gap. When the voters passed Proposition 58, they were assured that this kind of budget irresponsibility would never happen again.

John Chiang has shown he is willing to stand up and defend the paychecks of state employees. Is he also willing to stand up for the promises made to California’s voters and the integrity of the state’s finances?

A Budget Is Passed, But It's Not Done

Joe Mathews — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:47:00 -0400

Both houses of the legislature passed the budget compromise, giving official sanction to a document full of billions in hidden borrowing and non-existent revenues. The document's budget reforms are also phony, an expansion of a current rainy day fund that has no real protections. I'm told reliably that the governor's top advisors want him to veto it. He should, if only to preserve some credibility on budget issues. It appears likely that the legislature would override his veto. Any lawmaker who votes for this should worry about being struck by bolts of lightning if he or she ever uses the words "fiscally responsible" again.

But even if the state has a budget, this budget fight won't be over. Democrats and activists on the left, after watching the minority Republicans stall an agreement, are beginning an effort to repeal the state's two-thirds super-majority requirements for passing budgets. This would require an initiative that likely would go to voters in 2010 (if not during a 2009 special election). Now comes news that SEIU, the largest union in the country, wants to back a ballot measure to reverse some corporate tax breaks that were part of the compromise. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass has put together a tax reform commission that could produce new ballot measures. At Fox & Hounds Daily, Joel Fox -- longtime initiative warrior -- sees new initiative wars on the rise. He's right, of course. This budget looks like the first skirmish in a much bigger political war.

Florida Supremes Knock Measures Off the Ballot

Joe Mathews — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:59:00 -0400

A sales for property tax swap was taken off the ballot. So were a pair of amendments intended to ease the path for school vouchers. What was the problem? The justices found the ballot description of the measures to be misleading to voters.

The Nevada Initiative Shutout

Joe Mathews — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:45:00 -0400

In Nevada, not a single ballot initiative has managed to qualify for the ballot this year. There were 17 attempts (and four remain alive in the courts). But initiative sponsors ran afoul of changes in state law and requirements that signatures be collected in every county. The Las Vegas Review Journal breaks this down.