Referendum

In referendum elections Sunday, Swiss voters approved an 0.4 percent temporary increase in the country's value added tax, with the money targeted to shoring up the finances of the country's disability insurance system. The referendum prevailed with 54 percent of the vote. Opponents had claimed that the system's problems stemmed from fraud by people in other countries who pretend to live in Switzerland. More here.

Late word today from the Washington Secretary of State: Referendum 71 -- the measure that would ask voters to reverse legislation granting all the rights of married couples to couples registered as domestic partners -- has "more than the bare minimum" of signatures needed to qualify for the ballot, according to preliminary tallies.

The signature verification process on Referendum 71 has been an unusual public spectacle because referendum backers turned in only 137,000 signatures, only 16,000 more than the 121,000 required to qualify. That's not much of a cushion: validity rates of 70 percent for campaigns are common. But the rate for this measure appears to be higher--just barely high enough to qualify.

The Secretary of State's own in-house blog says that, with counting expected to be finished tomorrow, the measure will qualify with less than 1,000 votes to spare. "The final margin is the closest in recent history and undoubtedly one of the closest in state history," state Elections Director Nick Handy is quoted as saying in the blog.

For the referendum's backers (mostly conservative groups that oppose gay rights and same-sex marriage), it's a close call, and perhaps a lesson: if you want to spare yourself heartburn in direct democracy, get more signatures.

Florida's "Hometown Democracy" initiative, now headed for the 2010 ballot, may be the most important measure on an American ballot next year.

The initiative would turn land use into a thoroughly democratic exercise. If the measure is approved, any Florida city or county that wants to adopt or amend its land use plan would have to put the change to a vote of the people. That's right -- any change in a land use plan would require a referendum. (Advocates say the initiative would exempt specific decisions on zoning, variances, or building permits).

This is not a new phenomenon--cities and counties all over the country have been adopting similar rules for the past 25 years. In general, such requirements act as an effective shield against major development. That's good for environmentalists who oppose development, and for political consultants who need campaign business. But it's at best a mixed blessing for local economies. Cities and counties with such restrictions typically have far less new development than those without them.

Florida's initiative has already sparked an all out war between development, community and environmental interests. Expect this election to be nationalized, as real estate and development interests from around the country come to see this initiative as a possible precedent that must be strangled in the crib.

Friend of the blog Dennis Engbarth, a Taiwan-based journalist, writes with news of a threat to that country's new direct democracy: the party of President Ma Ying-jeou's, the Chinese Nationalist Party or Kuomintang, is trying to purge leadership of the Taiwan Democracy Foundation.

The foundation promotes democracy and has funded efforts to study direct democracy, which have led to the establishment of the referendum in Taiwan. Ma opposes direct democracy.

More details via this story at Taiwan News Online.

Until the Irish (and perhaps the British, if conservatives have their way) vote again on the Lisbon Treaty, the most interesting international ballot measure out there is New Zealand's referendum on spanking.

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" is the question voters will confront in a three-week-long, non-binding referendum beginning in late July. Another reason the vote is worth watching: it's the first referendum in that country to be conducted entirely by mail.

California's meltdown has been so all-consuming that it's been awhile since this blog checked in on direct democratic goings-on overseas. So here goes.

IRISH VIEWS SHIFT ON LISBON: The Irish voted down the Lisbon Treaty -- the de facto new constitution for the European Union last year. Now a new poll -- in advance of a likely fall vote on the treaty -- shows growing support in Ireland for the treaty. What's changed? The country's once-strong economy has collapsed.

TAIWANESE REFERENDUM ON CHINA TRADE PACT: The pro-independence opposition in Taiwan announced it would collect signatures for a referendum on a new trade pact signed by the government with China.

NIGER PLEBISCITE: The leader of that African country, a producer of uranium, has dismissed the Parliament and is organizing a referendum on whether to change the constitution to permit him to serve a third term. 

News organizations around the world -- Reuters, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal -- are reporting that Madagascar's president, who is under pressure to step down, has called for "a referendum."

That's the wrong word. 

A referendum is a vote on a legislative action--a law or constitutional amendment. It has true legal force. And referenda occur under constitutional structures (Most of the world's countries and a slim majority of US states have some legal provision for a referendum). In a referendum, voters can decide to block a law or amendment.

What the Madagascar president has called for is an up or down vote on whether he should remain in office. The president himself is putting a vote on the ballot. It's not done through the legislature. And such a vote may not have legal force. 

Such a vote -- a measure put directly on the ballot by an executive -- is properly called a plebiscite.And that's what responsible news organizations should call what's going on in Madagascar.

The powerful Culinary Union in Vegas has gathered enough signatures to qualify two measures -- a referendum and an initiative -- for the Las Vegas city ballot. But the council refuses to put them on the ballot, the Review-Journal reports.

Why? The council claims that the two measures have technical deficiencies that make them illegal. The initiative would put new restrictions on lease-purchase agreements, thereby reversing the city council's approval of a costly new City Hall, a questionable expenditure at a time of profound economic difficulty in Nevada. The other would reverse the city's current redevelopment plan. The council says that if such a referendum were successful, existing projects and bonds would be in jeopardy.

The question of whether the measures may be put on the ballot now goes to the courts. While the battle is economic -- between a powerful union and a pro-business city council, the court result will test whether elected officials have the power to keep referenda and initiatives they don't like off the ballot.

In the most closely watched referendum in the world this month, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez won a plebiscite he sponsored to eliminate term limits, with 54 percent of the vote. This means he can run again for the presidency in 2012 -- and perhaps hold the office for the rest of his life. The opposition said it would not contest the results.

There's a lot of talk about new ballot measures circulating in California and other Western states. The California Teachers Assn., for example, has approved circulation of its initiative that would hike the state sales tax to create a new, protected fund for schools. But that initiative isn't in petition circulators' hands yet, according to a survey I conducted this morning. In fact, signature gatherers appear to be in wait and see mode. There are a handful of local measures. In Sacramento, circulators were just told to turn in signatures on a measure that would seek to put more power in the office of Mayor Kevin Johnson. But that's about it, for now. I'll check back again in a week, when, various circulators assure me, they expect to be busy.