Ballot Measures

In Nevada, not a single ballot initiative has managed to qualify for the ballot this year. There were 17 attempts (and four remain alive in the courts). But initiative sponsors ran afoul of changes in state law and requirements that signatures be collected in every county. The Las Vegas Review Journal breaks this down.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen appears to have run out of patience with the legislature and the governor, and who can blame her? They have talked of adding measures to the November ballot as part of a budget deal, but there's been no deal and they've ignored all deadlines. The governor and lawmakers seemed to believe that they could simply waive the deadlines in the law and regulations.

This afternoon, Bowen's office issued a statement in which she closed the door on waiving deadlines to add measures. "We are at the point where that is unacceptable," she said in the statement. She has advised county election officials to move forward with their November general election preparations without the governor and the legislature. Bowen's making the right call--it's essential to get the November ballots right, and that takes time. But it also deepens the state's budget stalemate. The goal of getting measures on the November ballot offered one of the few time pressures that seemed to mean anything to our procrastinating elected leaders. Now, that bit of time pressure is gone. If there are going to be ballot measures as part of any compromise, they would appear on a special election ballot in 2009, if the governor chose to call one, or on the next scheduled statewide ballot, the June 2010 primary.

Shane Goldmacher at the Sacramento Bee has this excellent item about the problems being created for the November election by the legislature and governor's ability to reach a budget deal. Such a deal would likely include a ballot measures, and the deadlines have been blown. State and county officials are worried about the ability to print and ship ballots. A politically important deadline is upon us. Next Friday, Sept. 5, is the day that international ballots go out to troops serving overseas.

All four Alaska ballot initiatives -- on gambling, campaign finance, greater mining regulation and aerial hunting of animals -- were defeated in that state's primary elections Tuesday. The hunting initiative, Measure 2, which would have banned the aerial hunting of wolves and other creatures, had the strongest showing, but appears to have won only 44 percent of the vote, according to the most recent state election results. Measures to establish a gaming commission and public financing of elections did particularly poorly. Reaction here via the Fairbanks paper.

Gov. Schwarzenegger, in a bid to pressure the legislature to adopt a budget, has refused to sign any and all legislation that doesn't have to do with the budget. Yesterday, however, he backed off, telling lawmakers in a letter -- here courtesy of the Sacramento Bee --  that he would make an exception for four bills that have to do with ballot measures. One would make changes to a high-speed rail bond that is already on the November ballot. Another is a water bond that he has long sought. In the letter, he also asked legislators to send him measures related to the budget -- on borrowing against future lottery revenues, and on establishing a rainy day fund -- so they could be placed on the November ballot. The ballot deadline passed more than a week ago, but lawmakers and the governor seem to believe they can  suspend some legal requirements and sneak a few things in. I'm not at all sure they're right. At this point, they are banking on the full cooperation of county officials who administer elections, and the state's habit of failing to reimburse them for the full costs of extra elections and last-minute changes means that some county officials will only be as cooperative as the law requires.

Now California's legislative leaders support Gov. Schwarzenegger's call for a special election in 2009, which came after a call by your blogger for just such an election. Memo to the consultants, pollsters, mail firms, etc.  who profit from ballot measures: As you're writing out your thank-you notes, please remember there is only one "t" in Mathews.

The Swing State Project has an excellent breakdown of the various Oregon ballot measures and their political prospects. Among the highlights: a measure that corrects a bizarre legal flaw that prevents people under 21 years of age from voting in school board elections. I disagree with the site's assessment of Measure 58, which would require English immersion for students instead of ESL. I think that will have broad-based support, not just from people on the far right. And for you political reformers out there, the site predicts a narrow defeat for Oregon's "top two"-style open primary measure, #65.

There's nothing more fun for blockbuster democracy types than a special election. In such cases, the initiatives are the real stars. And, apparently leaping at a suggestion first offered on this blog, Gov. Schwarzenegger on Thursday put the possibility of a special election on the table, saying he might have to call one if the budget drags on.

Why? Because ballot measures changing the budget process -- and perhaps the state lottery -- likely will be part of any budget compromise. And the deadline for adding measures to the November ballot appears to have passed.

Most political consultants I know think that Schwarzenegger would be crazy to call a special election. It would remind people of the 2005 special he called (For you non-Californians out there, it turned into a debacle: all eight measures on the ballot went down to defeat, including four that Schwarzenegger championed). Measures that otherwise might garner support could have a tough time on an '09 ballot simply because they are associated with a special election.

But I think a special could be a healthy exercise. It would force the state to focus on its budget problems. And it also could provide an opportunity for the public to consider badly needed tax reform measures. If there is to be a special, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass ought to insist that any constitutional changes produced by her tax reform effort be a part of the ballot line-up.

The Arizona Daily Star offers up a long editorial on the need to fix the state's initiative process. It's timely. Three measures were knocked off the ballot because of invalid signatures and two others made the ballot despite questions about their signatures. What to do?

The Star offers two ideas, one bad and one good. The first involves getting rid of paid signature gatherers. The problem: volunteer drives are less efficient and more expensive, on a per-signature basis. That's why there hasn't been a successful volunteer petition drive for a statewide measure in California since 1982. True professional petition circulators are a safeguard against fraud. Eliminating them would create more problems than it solves.

The second idea is a better one: loosening the deadline. Arizona has a fairly tight deadline for getting signatures and qualifying for the ballot -- four months. That makes signature gathering more expensive and creates an incentive for fraud. If you want true grass roots signature gathering, the deadline should be lifted entirely. (On this second point, the Tuscon Citizen agrees).

I'd also like to see Internet signature gathering with security measures that allow for independent verification.

Today's LA Times story by my longtime colleague Evan Halper makes one thing painfully clear. California's Republican legislative leaders, for all their championing of direct democracy and the rule of the people when it comes to subjects such as Prop 13 (property taxes) and Prop 22 (same-sex marriage ban), are prepared to violate all sorts of voter-approved initiatives to get a budget deal and avoid a tax increase.

Halper got his hands on a memo that details what Republicans are talking about. As Halper recounts the memo's contents, the Republican proposals involve "diverting money specifically set aside by voters for local governments, road and other transportation projects, mental health programs and early childhood education." To give a little history, voters set aside money for transportation via ballot initiative with Prop 42 (2002), for local government with Prop 1A (2004), mental health programs with Prop 63 (2004), and early childhood with Prop 10 (1998). For Republicans to want to raid such funds is hypocrisy. To borrow against such funds in the name of opposing tax increases is dishonest. The act of raiding such funds creates a debt for the state that must be paid back. The very act of raiding the funds is thus a tax increase in disguise.