Eminent Domain

A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California finds that the two competing eminent domain measures, Propositions 98 (backed by conservatives, anti-tax groups) and Prop 99 (backed by cities), have less than 50 percent support. Less than two weeks before an election, that often spells doom for both measures. As such, this would be a victory for the backers of Prop 99, who qualified the measure in order to beat Prop. 98. Qualifying your own measure to defeat one you don't like is a time-tested tactic. In most cases, both initiatives go down. Each initiaitve purports to restrict the ability of governments to take property for private purposes, though Prop 98's protections are stronger--so strong the initiative also would eliminate rent control.

In other findings, the poll shows that Gov. Schwarzenegger's lottery plan is unpopular with the public--and his back-up proposal, a one-cent sales tax increase, has support from a narrow majority.

NEW SPEAKER MAKES BALLOT INITIATIVE A PRIORITY: Here's another example of how thoroughly California has become a blockbuster democracy: the state's new Assembly Speaker, the formidable Karen Bass, has announced three priorities for her time as speaker. One is a ballot initiative to set aside funding for foster care. That's right, the speaker of the assembly, with considerable power, must look to the voters for a budget item. And her other two priorities -- balancing the budget and reforming the tax system -- almost certainly would require voters to sign off on constitutional changes at the ballot. 

ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION: A $42 billion transportation tax initiative is expected to be filed in Arizona this week. And The Republic has a preview.

LEAGUE OF CITIES INVESTMENT: The California League of Cities has now put more than $4 million into its no on Prop 98/ Yes on Prop 99 campaign on eminent domain. The campaign's goal, which includes the counter measure Prop 99, is to stop an effort by property rights and taxpayer groups to limit municipalities' ability to take property. Hat tip, Election Track.

Take a look at ElectionTrack, which provides daily updates on donations to major California campaigns, including ballot measure ones. For example, here are reports on the two competing eminent domain initiative campaigns for the June ballot: No on 98/Yes on 99 and Yes on 98

This Associated Press story from Missouri tries to turn what is routine into a scandal. A reporter watches signature gathering in St. Louis on multiple ballot measures, and interviews a man who signs his name three separate times, not realizing he is signing three separate petitions -- including a Ward Connerly-backed anti-affirmative action initiative he doesn't like -- instead of just one. It appears the gatherer talked ot him only about the first petition, an eminent domain measure, and not the others, including the affirmative action one. This is treated as an outrage.

Yes, it would be nice if gatherers patiently explained everything they are doing, but this is typical behavior and -- in the next phrase I'm practicing law without a license -- doesn't violate misrepresentation laws, despite the claims of the AP. Signature gatherers -- who are paid by the signature -- typically carry all of the better paying petitions in a state on their clipboards, and love to get signatures on multiple measures. It is not the gatherers' job or responsiblity to explain what voters are signing. It's the responsibility of voters. The gentleman in the AP story could have simply taken the time to read each of the things he was signing. It is not too much to ask. Signature gatherers are there to collect signatures, not to protect you from yourself.

NO REVOCATION IN FLORIDA: A Florida appeals court ruled that voters cannot revoke their signatures on ballot initiative petitions. The court struck down as unconstitutional a 2007 on signature revocation, saying that such revocation was not part of the state constitution and could "serve to burden" the initiative process. The context: Florida, more than any other state, has taken measures to restrict direct democracy and signature gathering--this ruling could undermine part of that move.