Blockbuster Democracy

Question 2, an initiative on this November's Maine ballot, proposes to cut the state's excise tax on cars in half. In California, cutting the vehicle license fee blew open a hole in the budget that still hasn't been patched (the poor economy and the Californian tendency to demand high services and low taxes were also big contributors). But Maine seems poised to follow down that path. Via Seacoastonline.

Republican Tom Campbell, candidate for governor of California, has retired the trophy for most specific policy answers by someone running for high office, and the election is nine months away. In an interview on the Orange County Register web site, he expresses support for a constitutional convention, and argues such a gathering should include reform of the ballot initiative process:

"...To the extent I would focus on what could only be done through a constitutional convention, I'd emphasis one other and that is the initiative process. It allows an individual or group to put on the ballot something that will cost us, without specifying where the money comes from. That has to change.

So I would like to see a constitutional convention say that if you put an initiative forward, it has to pay for itself specifically. Not in vague generalities. You can't just say, "We'll eliminate waste, fraud and abuse." What tax will you increase? What expenditure will you cut to pay for what you propose?

I believe it would be difficult to get that through as an initiative because the court would consider that what's called a revision, which you cannot do by initiative."

The full interview is here.

Here's an interesting little piece on a Denver city ballot initiative that would require the police to impound the car of anyone driving without a license. Under a previous ballot initiative, the police already have the power to do so if they like, but this new measure would remove discretion. The initiatives appear to be fueled by anxiety over illegal immigration to Denver, but this seems like a cruel way to attack immigrants.

Daily Kos is out with a poll showing Maine voters split on a referendum on a new law legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

In a Fox & Hounds Daily post, I compare California's system of ballot initiatives against the international "code of good conduct" for direct democratic elections that's been advanced by the Venice Commission.

At the just-concluded global forum on direct democracy, delegates created more on-line resources to track and monitor initiative and referendum worldwide. Here are a few new ones:

-on initiative and referendum in Asia.

-in days ahead, a new interactive world map from IRI-Europe.

-To come (under construction as of Sept. 17): a new community web site of the global forum.

There is also talk, but no action, yet on building a web presence for an ongoing workshop on trans-national direct democracy.

The 2009 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy in Seoul has come to a close. At the end, I had the privilege of inviting delegates to the third annual global forum next August in San Francisco.

So save these days: Sunday, Aug. 1 through Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010, in the city of San Francisco. Our theme: "Constitution Making and Direct Democracy." What are the best ways to use direct democracy for the making and remaking of constitutions? And what systems and structures of direct democracy belong in those constitutions?

We'll focus on California's constitution and the efforts to remake it -- offering a global perspective and investigating constitution making in places large and small, from Latin America to Africa to Iceland and the German city/state of Hamburg. This won't be merely an international conference--it'll be a big national conference, and we invite journalists, academics, activists and political professionals involved in direct democracy in American states to join us.

I'll be organizing the event along with Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies. If you'd like to join us, speak, make suggestions or offer financial support, please get in touch. The best way is joe@joemathews.com. Also look soon for news of the forum through the Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe web site. 

Bob Stern, who leads the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, gave the last major speech of the 2009 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy here in Seoul.

In his speech, Stern suggested two intriguing alternatives to the state's existing process for gathering signatures on initiative petitions.

1. Substitute a poll for signature gathering. Instead of going through the costly qualification process, why not simply conduct some sort of honest survey asking voters if they want a particular initiative on the ballot? If enough voters say yes, the measure goes on the ballot.

2. Permit Internet signature gathering with a twist. Assuming we can develop some sort of secure, verifiable way for people to sign their names on line, put each initiative on line and then let voters go on the net and add their name to one of two lists. They either could sign that they want the initiative to go on the ballot. Or they could sign to express their view they don't want the initiative on the ballot. If the initiative reached some standard of net-positive support, it would go on the ballot.

Here's the full text of Stern's official paper at the conference:

Last year at the first global forum, in Aarau, Switzerland, I had the opportunity to visit with the German democratic activists who spend several months each year driving a doubledecker bus (originally from Berlin) to promote greater use of direct democracy. It's called the Omnibus for Direct Democracy.

Tuesday night in Seoul, we heard via audio and video links from the folks on the bus as they moved through Sarajevo. Your blogger, acting in the best interests of his country, took it upon himself to invite these Teutonic Tocquevilles (couldn't resist) to bring their bus to America next year for the 2010 global forum, which is scheduled for San Francisco, Aug. 1-4. Their immediate answer: yes! More to come, hopefully, as this develops.

USC demographer Dowell Myers suggests yes -- that the crash in real estate prices has undermined it -- in his new report. That counters the view of Prop 13 supporters that the measure, by limiting property tax increases and reassessments in good times, takes some of the sting out of real estate declines since lagging taxes still have room to catch up.

A brief synopsis of Myers' argument:

"The recent 40% crash, far worse than the 15% decline in the bad recession of the 1990s, now calls into question the fiscal and political sustainability of Prop 13. New analysis shows that political support for Prop 13 is markedly weaker when house prices are flat or declining. In particular, the 2 million home owners in California (out of 7 million total) who bought since 2003 will likely receive no benefits from Prop 13. 

"Extensive analysis also documents the wide generational disparities that have accrued since 1978, showing that longtime homeowners now pay taxes 21% BELOW the national average despite their far greater housing wealth. Meanwhile, the new generation of home buyers struggles with their high mortgages and falling home values, plus they are asked to pay extra high taxes to cover the steep discounts enjoyed by earlier buyers. Can this be sustained?"