Ballot Initiative

Somebody named Lee Olson of Huntington Beach, Calif., filed four ballot initiatives with the state attorney general Tuesday. The most interesting one is entitled the "California Freedom From Slavery Act." What does Olson mean by slavery, given that slavery was formally abolished with the 13th Amendment? Why, taxation of course.

At least, taxation on the old. Olson's one paragraph constitutional amendment would exempt California residents from all forms of state income and property tax once they turn 55.  If that sounds familiar to elderly Californians, it should. In 1938, California voters narrowly rejected the so-called "ham and eggs' initiative -- a public pension proposal that would have guaranteed a $30 check, every Thursday, to each Californian 50 or older. The campaign for that initiative remains arguably the most expensive, when controlled for inflation, in the history of the state. Ham and Eggs was mocked, but it was fairer than Olson's idea, which would provide much more for the rich than for the poor. (Since Olson would appear to be a wing nut, someone might want to point out that this initiative -- unlike, say, federal health care legislation -- has no provisions that would prevent undocumented immigrations from benefiting from the tax break).

Olson's initiative also would add even more to the burdens of younger Californians, who already subsidize their elders because of Prop 13 protections that favor longtime homeowners. 

That state is Washington, where the veteran initiative activist Tim Eyman has succeeded in qualifying a tax limitation measure for the ballot. Eyman's proposes to put caps on general fund spending at the state and local level, and require that any extra money be used to reduce property taxes.

Ballot Access News has a handy overview of several proposed constitutional amendments, now in the California legislature, to reinstitute the indirect initiative. Before a constitutional revision in the 1960s, California permitted voters to gather signatures as a method of putting an idea before the legislature.

I tend to think the indirect initiative is a waste of time. The process was almost never used before the 1960s, and it would not be used much even if any of these amendments were to be approved by the legislature and voters (All face uphill battles). Why would an initiative sponsor submit to a process that permitted the legislature to change her proposed statute or constitutional amendment?

Those who think next year's California elections are going to be about constitutional reform should think again. In addition to facing divisive initiatives on same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana, voters will confront an initiative assault on legal immigrants.

Today's Los Angeles Times reports on a campaign to qualify initiative that seeks to deny benefits to unauthorized immigrants and their children (even those born here, who are legally citizens). This is part of a nationwide campaign against "birthright citizenship." For an analysis of the legal history and issues involved, please check out this piece from James C. Ho, an originalist legal scholar who now serves as solicitor general of Texas.

At long last, fresh meat for petition circulators in California. An initiative to make the legislature part-time has just been approved for circulation. If the measure were to be approved, the legislature would meet for 30 days starting in January and another 60 days beginning in May. The legislature also could meet for another 5 days to reconsider legislation vetoed by the governor.

In today's Sacramento Bee, columnist Dan Walters corrects some misunderstandings about Prop 13. Bottom line: Prop 13 underlies California's problems, but its limits on property taxes are not the fundamental problem--it's the way that the initiative changed governance in the state.

New America senior scholar Mark Paul, writing at Calbuzz, makes a very strong case for making sure that Prop 13 is considered by a constitutional convention.

Given its centrality to governance in California, it's shocking that drafts of the initiative to call the convention specifically keep Prop 13 out of it. And pointless, too. Like putting together a meeting to discuss football but saying you won't mention the passing game.

In California, statewide initiatives have been slow to hit the streets. So where are our signature gatherers? A few are in other states. But judging by my sources, an army of gatherers seems to have convened in the eastside city of Walnut Creek.

Why? Money, of course. There's a huge fight between two mall owners -- one a company, Taubman Centers, that owns a mall in nearby Concord, and the mall giant Macerich, which supports establishing a Neiman Marcus in Walnut Creek's downtown Broadway Plaza. And each side has multiple measures working. The group opposing Neiman Marcus has circulated two referenda to reverse actions of the city council supporting the project. The pro-Neiman Marcus side has an initiative that could trump the referenda. Such fights between economic interests have become more and more common in California and other states, as disputes that once were fought in city councils and planning commissions spill onto the ballot.

What does this mean for petition circulators? A windfall. Gatherers in Walnut Creek say they are being paid $4 for each signature they collect outside retail establishments -- and $10 (yes, you read that right) a signature for door-to-door work. Those are among the highest payments for work on a local petition that I've ever seen in California. In the East Bay, it's Christmas in July.

Call it the Ward Connerly bailout. By putting an amendment to eliminate affirmative action programs in state government on the ballot itself, the Arizona State legislature will save Connerly's dysfunctional political organization from the expense -- and logistics -- of qualifying a ballot initiative in the state. Connerly's attempts to qualify just such an initiative faltered last year because of his group's failure to manage the petition process properly. (One lesson: don't trust Maricopa County signature gatherers, some of whom engaged in massive petition fraud). Connerly also failed in attempts to qualify anti-affirmative action initiatives in other states.

Republicans seem to think this issue will be a winner for them in Arizona. I suspect they may find that the issue boomerangs, and offers an opportunity for the left there to organize Latinos in opposition -- and make long term political gains that turn Arizona into a blue state in 2012.

Florida's "Hometown Democracy" initiative, now headed for the 2010 ballot, may be the most important measure on an American ballot next year.

The initiative would turn land use into a thoroughly democratic exercise. If the measure is approved, any Florida city or county that wants to adopt or amend its land use plan would have to put the change to a vote of the people. That's right -- any change in a land use plan would require a referendum. (Advocates say the initiative would exempt specific decisions on zoning, variances, or building permits).

This is not a new phenomenon--cities and counties all over the country have been adopting similar rules for the past 25 years. In general, such requirements act as an effective shield against major development. That's good for environmentalists who oppose development, and for political consultants who need campaign business. But it's at best a mixed blessing for local economies. Cities and counties with such restrictions typically have far less new development than those without them.

Florida's initiative has already sparked an all out war between development, community and environmental interests. Expect this election to be nationalized, as real estate and development interests from around the country come to see this initiative as a possible precedent that must be strangled in the crib.