Arizona's new governor, Jan Brewer, who took over when Janet Napolitano joined President Obama's cabinet as homeland security secretary, is seeking to limit initiative power in the state. Among other changes, she wants to undo a constitutional amendment that makes it next to impossible for the legislature to change a law enacted by ballot initiative.

As the Arizona Republic explains in this thorough history, Brewer is re-opening an argument that is as old as the state. 

Direct democracy came to Mississippi recently -- in 1992. And the initiative process hasn't been used often there so far. But now Republicans in Mississippi are preparing to qualify an initiative that would require citizens to show a government ID before they could vote. The initiative would be a constitutional amendment and could appear on the ballot in 2010.

Given Mississippi's singular history of denying people the right to vote, this initiative is likely to draw national attention -- and controversy -- if it goes forward. Republicans want the initiative because a voter ID requirement has thus far failed to gain support in the legislature.

If you've been reading this blog, you've noticed mentions of and posts by Kevin Norte, the thoughtful attorney who is active in the Log Cabin Republicans and who advanced the legal theory behind the effort to get the anti-gay marriage initiative in California removed from the ballot. (The theory is that, because of the state supreme court decision legalizing same sex marriage, the initiative is no longer a constitutional amendment but a constitutional revision that can't be done by initiative).

Now the LA Times looks at the origins of the argument and talks about Norte. It's here.

A Colorado constitutional amendment to make it harder amend the constitution is advancing through the legislature there. It would have to be approved by voters as well. Colorado, unlike many direct democracy states, makes it no harder to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot than it is to qualify an initiative statute. The amendment would change that, and also add a distribution requirement, requiring at least 5 percent of the required signatures to come from each of the state's Congressional district.

One caution: Colorado politicians, deluged by ballot measures this year, have expressed unhappiness about the growth of the industry. This measure, by adding requirements, will make that industry stronger. When you have to gather more signatures in more places, those who want to qualify measures will have to rely more on consultants and paid signature gatherers. If you don't like the industry and paid gatherers, you'd be better off drastically reducing the number of signatures required to qualify a measure.

So you watched Wisconsin's elections Tuesday. What did you learn? Voters in this swing state are wary of executive power. They stripped their governor of the so-called Frankenstein veto (which permitted governors to cross out words and numbers to create new sentences). The vote was overwhelming, 71-29.

Your blogger married a Wisconsin girl, who requires an annual summer trip to the Dairy State (Chippewa Falls, hometown of Annie Hall and the DiCaprio character in Titanic). As a result, he has had many occasions to marvel at the wonders produced by the state's Progressive tradition.

One not so Progressive fact of life in Wisconsin is the so-called "Frankenstein veto." Governors are permitted to delete individual words and combine phrases in legislation, thereby creating law that the legislature never intended.

A measure on the April 1 ballot gives voters the chance to do away with Frankenstein. Here's a look at how the current governor used the measure to increase transportation spending all by himself.