<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.newamerica.net/blog" xmlns:dc="
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Jesse Unruh</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/blog/topics/jesse-unruh-0</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Big Daddy and Dual Measures</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/2008/weekend-history-big-daddy-3343</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;For the weekend, here&#039;s a little bit of blockbuster democracy history, and a lesson about dual measures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What do I mean by dual measures? It&#039;s a proven tactic in the ballot initiative game. If you oppose an initiative that&#039;s headed for the ballot, it may not be enough simply to fight the initiative directly. You may want to qualify your own initiative -- ideally, something that sounds similar and covers the same topic, but does something different than the initiative you oppose. Why bother with a counter initiative? Voters, faced with two like-sounding measures -- usually vote &amp;quot;no&amp;quot; on both. And so the initiative you opposed is defeated. The drug industry did this expertly in 2005 in California by qualifying its own, faux-drug discount measure to defeat a drug discount measure. For this June&#039;s ballot, cities and counties qualified a counter measure on eminent domain to counter a more aggressive initiative, qualified by property owners, that would restrict the ability of governments to take property for any sort of private use. (The LA Times &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-props20apr20,1,6581178.story&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;sorts&lt;/a&gt; this out today). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But in his fascinating new &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10965.php&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;biography&lt;/a&gt; of Jesse Unruh (the legenday California Assembly speaker known as Big Daddy), Bill Boyarsky tells a crucial and forgotten story of how this strategy backfired. Before 1952, California candidates for state office had been able to cross-file--that is, to run  in both the Democratic and Republican primaries. This created a political culture of bipartisanship, but the minority Democrats didn&#039;t like it. So in 1952, they qualified an initiative, with financing from a Democratic oil magnate, to eliminate cross-filing. The Republicans in the legislature responded with their own measure to counter it, retaining cross-filing but forcing candidates to list their own party affiliation on the ballot. Boyarsky calls this a &amp;quot;strategic error&amp;quot; because instead of both measures going down to defeat, the Republican counter-measure won. The measure heightened partisan identification and helped Democrats, who had the lead in voter registrations. Within a decade, the Democrats had won back the governorship and broken the Republican grip on the legislature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/2008/weekend-history-big-daddy-3343#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/blog/which-blog/blockbuster-democracy">Blockbuster Democracy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/blog/topics/ballot-initiatives">Ballot Initiatives</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/blog/topics/bill-boyarsky-0">Bill Boyarsky</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/blog/topics/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/blog/topics/cross-filing-0">Cross Filing</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/blog/topics/jesse-unruh-0">Jesse Unruh</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:09:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Joe Mathews</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3343 at http://www.newamerica.net/blog</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
