Ballot Initiatives

Tribal gaming has been a frequent subject of initiative and referenda in California for the past decade. Back in February, labor forced referenda on four new gaming compacts between the state and Indian tribes. One of those tribes, Sycuan band, based in El Cajon, has failed to ratify the compact internally (despite approval from the U.S. Department of the Interior). This is shocking, because Sycuan spent millions to defend its compact (which would have authorized up to 5,000 slots and a second, off-reservation casino) and those of other tribes before voters. What's behind the decision? The economy and tribal politics. The Union-Tribune has details.

A new law in Guam requires that an initiative measure rejected by voters can't appear on the ballot again for at least three years. California and most other direct democracy states don't have laws like this. Perhaps they should.

The headlines from this morning's new Public Policy Institute of California poll all focus on Prop 8. But there isn't much surprising in those numbers. Evangelicals and Republicans overwhelmingly supported Prop 8. No kidding. The poll also documented the intensity gap between Prop 8's supporters (74 percent considered the outcome of Prop 8 very important) and its opponents (59 percent considered the outcome very important).

Bill Sizemore is an Oregon activist who has been engaged in fighting teachers' unions at the ballot for years. But he's been less than devoted to filing proper tax forms for the non-profit group he uses to wage initiative battles. The unions have fought him successfully in court. Because of his intrasigence, Sizemore has been barred by court order from pursuing initiatives, but he's found it impossible to stop. This week, he was sent to a jail for contempt of court (this is the fourth time he's been held in contempt).

His crime? Defying earlier court orders by using a Nevada charitable foundation he controls to pursue initiatives on the 2006 and 2008 ballots. He backed five measures on this year's ballot--all five lost.

Sizemore was released Tuesday after 24 hours when he signed state and federal tax forms for the foundation. But he was unrepetenant, arguing that he's a political prisoner. A more accurate description of Sizemore? He's an initiative addict. He doesn't need time in jail. He needs an intervention.

The conservative Weekly Standard takes a look at Prop 107, the 2006 Arizona initiative that failed to ban same-sex marriage, and Prop 102, the 2008 Arizona ban that passed. What was the difference? The 2006 ban would have barred domestic partnerships. The 2008 initiative protected domestic partnerships. Also, the Standard quotes a leader of the no campaign as saying that fundraising was weak because California's No on Prop 8 campaign soaked up so much money. If that's true, it means the disastrous No on 8 campaign in California was responsible not only for the setback for marriage equality in California but also for the defeat in Arizona.

Let's try to have this blog do some reporting for me. I've been intrigued by ads like this one for signature gatherers that suggest the process is dirty. At the same time, the ad says there's lots of money to be made. (That's a new approach). The ads reference this site, http://www.petitionright.com/, which says its mission to eliminate the "for profit" initiative industry. The site identifies itself as part of a company called Green Economy Associates, with an address of Mesa, Arizona. The site is registered with a Nicholas Guillermo of same address. Mr. Guillermo explains himself a little in this separate blog. I've been hearing from signature gatherers asking, is this guy for real? Anyone know the answer to that question? 

Macleans offers its own look at the results of major American ballot measures this fall.

Rex Babin, cartoonist for the Sacramento Bee, offers up this take on the lack of fiscal discipline of California voters, who love to approve new, extra-budgetary spending at the ballot.

I live in Los Angeles' Miracle Mile, a short walk from the city of West Hollywood, which is both a mecca and haven for gays. I've been to my local movie theater twice since the passage of Prop 8, the California initiative to ban same-sex marriage. Each time, the feature came with a preview of the new Sean Penn movie, 'Milk,' about the life of the openly gay San Francisco County Supervisor Harvey Milk, who, along with Mayor George Moscone, was killed by fellow supervisor Dan White in 1978. And each time, after the "Milk" preview, the theater erupted in loud applause and a few shouted derogatory references to Prop 8.

The New York Times reported this weekend that supporters of same-sex marriage intend to use the December opening of "Milk" in their efforts to repeal Prop 8. That's a good idea--organizing needs to be done, so why not piggyback on the millions of marketing for a movie? But the Times treats this connection between a movie and direct democracy as news. It isn't.

In an opinion in a case on a particular initiative, the Arizona Supreme Court urged broader reform of the initiative process, particularly with regards to signature gathering. The court argues that signature gathering has become too big and time-consuming a process. From the opinion, written by Justice Andrew Hurwitz and issued yesterday.

it would clearly be preferable for the legislature to modify the

statutory scheme in light of today’s realities to avoid such

structural problems. Our election officials are required to

process large numbers of initiative and referendum petitions.

The growth of the state’s electorate means that the number of

signatures submitted in order to qualify for placement on the

ballot has also steadily grown. And, even when the Secretary

and county recorders complete the verification process within

the statutory deadlines, the time for judicial review has been

shortened by the need to prepare ballots for early voting.

It is, of course, not within our constitutional

assignment to suggest specific legislative solutions to this