Blockbuster Democracy

Voting is under way in Ireland on the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the new de facto European constitution that includes the world's first transnational initiative power. Early turnout appears to be higher than during last year's vote, which saw the treaty defeated. Polls have shown the "yes" side -- in favor of the treaty -- with a lead.

To follow the debate over same-sex marriage in California these days is to hear a lot about other states. Key players in the California fight are out of state, focusing mostly on Maine, where a referendum of that state's move to legalize same-sex marriage is on the ballot this fall. Julia Rosen, online director of the Courage Campaign, has been emailing from Maine to report that the latest polling on the referendum, known as Question 1, shows the "no" side (that is, the side in favor of preserving same-sex marriage and defeating the referendum) with a 50-41 lead. There's even a call center being set up in Los Angeles this weekend for volunteers who want to talk to Maine voters.

A handful of other Californians are headed to Washington state to fight Referendum 71, a bid to overturn a law that gives same-sex partners all the rights of married couples (without using the term marriage).

This is a smart strategic shift. Conducting politics is so much more expensive in California (and our initiative process is such a mess) that, for about the same money, same-sex marriage advocates can win multiple victories, and thus build national momentum, by focusing their resources on other states.

Backers of the effort to recall Assemblyman Anthony Adams, the Southern California Republican who voted for temporary tax increases as part of a February state, indicate they have 52,000 signatures. To qualify a recall for the ballot, they need 36,000 valid signatures. A vote would come in January.

A comprehensive ethics reform initiative finally appears headed to the streets for signature gathering. Leading legislators and the lieutenant governor are asking whether it violates the state constitution. The Salt Lake Tribune explains here.

The biggest direct democracy story of the week -- heck, perhaps the year -- is the Irish referndum this Friday, Oct. 2, on the Lisbon Treaty.

Lisbon, a de facto new constitution for the EU, is long and complex. But for direct democrats, it's groundbreaking in a crucial way: it would establish the world's first trans-national initiative for the EU.

This is a relatively weak initiative power: it's an agenda-setting, or indirect, initiative. Voters can't make laws themselves, as in American states or Switzerland. With one million signatures, voters would be able to petition the European parliament for a vote on particular subjects. (The treaty establishes the power but the details of who this would work have yet to be decided). Advocates say this is an important advance that could build momentum for direct democracy at the federal level in various European countries. More via the Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe.

Polls show Irish voters leaning towards approving the treaty--after voting to reject it last year. Other European countries approved the treaty with a vote of their legislative bodies, but Ireland requires a voter referendum on such matters--thus giving its citizens outsized influence in the debate

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.

I'm in the Bay Area today, about to disappear into the archives at the Bancroft Library, so will be cut off from electronic communication for most of the day hours. But before I go, I wanted to take note briefly of a very detailed and thoughtful proposal for reforming the initiative and referendum process in California.

The proposal, contained in an initiative filed this week by one Aaron Starr (that's the name of a Liberatarian Party official in California, but I have yet to confirm that this is the same Aaron Starr), would make several very smart changes to make it less expensive to qualify initiatives and referenda for the ballot. The most intriguing involve giving more of a role to the legislature in the process (a noble goal, though I have some concerns about the method the initiative proposes) and making it far easier to collect signatures via the Internet (in part by eliminating the requirement that the entire text of an initiative appear on official petitions). One problem this initiative may have is finding petition circulators to circulate it, since it could undermine their business model.

You can download a PDF of the full initiative here at the Attorney General's web site. (It's initiative # 09-0038).

He explains his filing of the initiative at Huffington Post. He's also speaking tonight at 7 p.m. at SEIU Local 721 in Los Angeles.

Here's his answer to my email asking about the initiative:

"I'm speaking at a convention of groups for majority rule in LA. I had
grassroots CA DEMs support (at the convention), but no organizational
or big money support yet. I'm starting today.

"Why now? The deadline is tomorrow. [Joe's note: The California Secretary of State has suggested that initiative sponsors file by Friday so they have plenty of time to qualify their measures for the November 2010 ballot]

"Why me? Nobody else took up the minority rule / democracy issue. Most
people think that 2/3 is more democratic than a simple majority, but
in reality it allows minority rule. The newspapers keep saying that
the Dems control the legislature, but in reality the Republicans
control it by minority rule.

"Anyway, I need any backing I can get. Garamendi is in favor and has
been helpful, but he's a bit busy running for Congress."

George Lakoff, the famous UC Berkeley linguist, yesterday filed a ballot initiative that would replace California's current requirement of a two-thirds vote to pass a budget or raise taxes with a majority vote requirement.

Lakoff, a progressive, has been active among the various groups who want to change the post-Prop 13 operating system of California, including the 2/3 requirement on taxes and limits on commercial property taxes. It's unclear from his filing whether Lakoff is merely the name sponsor for a bigger effort, or whether he's merely putting down a marker or making a point. (Many, including your blogger, support changing the policy but believe that the politics are too difficult). I've sent the professor an email asking these sorts of questions and will share any response I get.

Your blogger has the cover story in the October issue of The American Prospect magazine. The subject? Former and perhaps future Gov. Jerry Brown. I spent nearly six weeks researching his record and watching him at public appearances.

The piece focuses on California's current dysfunction and questions about Brown's responsibility for that. A key question is the passage of Prop 13, which came in the fourth year of his governorship. He was against Prop 13, but is often blamed by progressives for 1. running a big surplus that appears to have helped the tax-cutting measure at the polls, and 2, embracing Prop 13 and co-sponsor Howard Jarvis after it passed

I expect people in California and around the country as the race for governor heats up here.