Ballot Initiative

In the United States, ballot initiatives usually appear "naked" on the ballot. That is to say, voters decide yes or no on a particular statute or constitutional amendment, and that's it. There's only one choice.

Most of the rest of the world doesn't do things this way. In Switzerland, where modern direct democracy was invented, voters get more of a choice. They not only can vote yes or no on an initiative, but they also get to pass a judgment on a legislative counter-proposal to each initiative. And they can decide which of the two meausures-- the initiative or the counter-proposal--takes effect in the event that both are approved by voters.

But change may be coming in Oregon. The possibility of a counter-proposal is part of state legislation, now being debated, that would require that initiatives go to the legislature first before they appear on the ballot. If approved, the legislation would give lawmakers the option of approving the initiative, doing nothing and letting the initiative go on the ballot, or offering a counter-proposal.

Here's an interesting bit of news from Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The city needs to borrow money -- about $38 million -- to pay for levee repair and other flood control programs. But there's an initiative on the local ballot to cut sales taxes. What does one have to do with the other? The city's financial advisor says that the borrowing will be more expensive because bond investors, jittery over municipal finances around the country, could worry that Sioux Falls would have less revenue to pay off the bonds.

In California last year, the rights of a small minority were the target of a ballot initiative campaign. The minority rallied, but its campaign was overwhelmed by a better-run campaign on the yes side, and by what the minority saw as bias and misinformation.

I'm not talking about Prop 8. The minority in this case is California's farmers, who were on the losing side of Prop 2, an initiative backed by the Humane Society to impose limits on how chickens and other animals can be confined. The farmers are furious at the result, and they're gathering together to figure out how to combat misinformation and get out the word that farmers are just like everybody else. Details on a recent post-Prop 2 meeting of farmers are in this Visalia Times-Delta editorial.

Freda Poundstone, a Colorado politician and lobbyist best known as author of a constitutional amendment that limited Denver's ability to annex land, has filed a ballot initiative that would reduce state taxes on cars and income, bringing the latter down -- bit by bit -- from 4.5 to 3.5 percent. The initiative has received a less than friendly reception by state leaders who are trying to balance an out of whack budget, the Rocky Mountain News reports.

The most prominent member of the Oklahoma Three, now freed, speaks out on the experience of being charged for the crime of trying to qualify an initiative for the ballot. Via This Is Common Sense.

I think it's safe to call this a trend: there is momentum, across the country, for putting new restrictions on the ballot initiative process. In Oregon, top state officials are trying to clamp down on the number of initiatives. The same is true in Arizona.

Now comes the Missouri legislature, where bills have been introduced to require a 60 percent vote to pass an initiative -- and to raise signature requirements for qualifying measures. The super-majority requirement, if adopted (and Missouri came close to adoping limits on the process last year), would almost certainly to reduce the number of initiaties on the ballot. The signature requirement's impact would be different: it probably would merely add to the costs of qualifying initiatives, ensuring that only the  wealthiest people and interest groups can sponsor measures. In California, I've supported raising initiative signature requirements -- but only as part of an effort to reduce signature requirements for referenda. The Missouri bills seem directed at denying the public access to the ballot. More details on the Missouri legislation via Ballot Access News.

Nashville voters rejected an "English only" ballot initiative, according to returns Thursday night. A second measure, Proposition 2, which would have made it much easier to qualify initiatives for the city ballot (the current signature requirement is 10 percent of voters; this would have dropped that to 1 percent), also went down to defeat.

It appears that even those who believe in space aliens are optimistic about President Obama.

Readers of this blog know your blogger has been closely monitoring the effort to qualify a ballot initiative in the city of Denver to establish an extraterrestial commission. It's being pitched as a sort of civil defense thing--preparation for attack (and Denver is at some altitude, so the aliens would probably go their first).

Now the initiative's sponsor, Jeff Peckman, says he's putting the measure on hold. He tells the Rocky Mountain News that the initiative isn't needed because he's confident Obama will take the ET threat seriously. Perhaps this is part of the new Obama diplomatic strategy of engaging our adversaries.

That advocate is of course Pete Seeger, who has endorsed Mike Gravel's plan to introduce a ballot initiative into the U.S. constitution. Above, Seeger and some guy from New Jersey sing "This Land Is Your Land," including all the blasts at private property during the concert at the Lincoln Memorial earlier this week. I've only heard the full song at the annual Woody Guthrie Festival in Okemah, OK, hometown of Guthrie and most of my mom's family. (Hat tip: elephant journal).

Who is the next victim of the ugly campaign for and against Prop 8? Perhaps immigrants who don't speak English and live in middle Tennessee.

Backers of Prop 8 have gone to court, saying that public finance disclosure rules was a threat to the security of their financial supporters. The same argument has now surfaced in Nashville, which is in the middle of a campaign over a citywide English-only ballot initiative. Backers of the initiative have refused to comply with financial disclosure rules, saying that such disclosure would subject backers to intimidation. This is nonsense, and shows a lack of respect for the law that the courts must stop--now-- and that the voters should punish.