Ballot Measures

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.