The Blockbuster Democracy Blog

... AB 2386, the legislation sponsored by former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and called "The Secret Ballot For Farmworkers" bill. The legislation passed the Senate Monday, 23-15. It's headed to the governor's desk, where it could face a veto. There is a strong argument for the legislation, but the bill's name is highly deceptive. Or to put it another way, the bill would do the opposite of what the legislation's name might suggest. 

California farmworkers already have the right to decide via secret ballot whether they want to be represented by a union or not. This has been true since the Agricultural Labor Relations Act passed in 1975. And while federally supervised secret ballot elections are the law for almost all workers, farmworkers in the Golden State have a better set-up for these elections than almost anyone else. Loose deadlines and language in the National Labor Relations Act have permitted companies in most industries to delay such elections for months if not years. Companies often use that time to fire workers who are leading the organizing or otherwise intimidate workers. In California, the ALRA guarantees farm workers -- once union cards are in and certified -- only a seven-day wait before the election is held. Farmworkers face sophisticated anti-union campaigns like other workers, but these campaigns are shorter because of ALRA. The law governing farmworkers is the envy of union organizers in other industries.

The Arizona Daily Star offers up a long editorial on the need to fix the state's initiative process. It's timely. Three measures were knocked off the ballot because of invalid signatures and two others made the ballot despite questions about their signatures. What to do?

The Star offers two ideas, one bad and one good. The first involves getting rid of paid signature gatherers. The problem: volunteer drives are less efficient and more expensive, on a per-signature basis. That's why there hasn't been a successful volunteer petition drive for a statewide measure in California since 1982. True professional petition circulators are a safeguard against fraud. Eliminating them would create more problems than it solves.

The second idea is a better one: loosening the deadline. Arizona has a fairly tight deadline for getting signatures and qualifying for the ballot -- four months. That makes signature gathering more expensive and creates an incentive for fraud. If you want true grass roots signature gathering, the deadline should be lifted entirely. (On this second point, the Tuscon Citizen agrees).

I'd also like to see Internet signature gathering with security measures that allow for independent verification.

A local ballot initiative in San Francisco is being sold as protecting prostitutes. But Debra Saunders at the Chronicle argues that it would protect pimps instead.

Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage and a leading strategist among opponents of same-sex marriage, writes in Human Events that Calif. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's change of the Prop 8 ballot title to say the initiative would "eliminate" the right of same-sex marriage has a "silver lining."

That silver lining is "clarity. Only one marriage amendment has ever been defeated, and that happened in Arizona in 2006. Polls taken after the election suggest that the ballot language confused voters about whether a “yes” or a “no” vote protected marriage as one man and one woman." Her side -- the Prop 8 supporters -- had fought the initiative in court.

She also sees advantage in the "No on Prop 8" strategy of emphasizing the fact that the passage of Prop 8 could threaten the marriages of gay couples that are currently taking place. She writes: "For better or for worse, Jerry Brown’s ballot language, along with the Supreme Court decision, the highly publicized flood of same-sex unions, and even several planned celebrity same-sex unions slated for October, locks anti-Prop. 8 opponents into a messaging strategy that has never worked for them in any other state marriage amendment battle: Focus relentless attention on the same-sex couples and the rights they stand to lose. It’s a risky gamble with an uncertain payoff this November for gay marriage advocates."

In states such as California, where Democrats control the legislature and most elected posts, Democratic leaders often rail against the use of direct democracy and work to prevent measures. Republicans paint themselves as supporters of initiatives and the people.

In Utah, however, the political dynamic is different -- and the parties have different positions. After seeing a school voucher bill and other legislation reversed by referendum, GOP legislative leaders are trying to restrict use of the referendum. And the state Democratic party has made the protection of direct democracy a top priority. The Desert News has more.

Tyrone Freeman, the prominent Los Angeles union leader, has stepped down, at least temporarily, as president of SEIU's large local representing home health care workers. It's the right move. (This was a hot topic on the blog). The LA Times reported more than a week ago on how the union and a related charity paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to firms owned by his wife and mother-in-law. If anything, this leave should have come sooner. The Times reports exactly what I've heard -- that union staffers were being pressured to sign statements supporting Freeman. Now we wait for the results of investigations of the union by SEIU itself and the federal government. It's important that all the results of those probes be made public.

Referenda are not conducted only by governments. Even professional associations hold them. And the American Psychological Association is holding its very first, and on an important public topic: whether psychologists may participate ethically in interrogations at Guantanamo. Members are voting now. An NPR story on this is here.

In a news conference, a frustrated and angry Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger blasted legislators of both parties for failing to reach a budget compromise ("shameful") and offered another budget proposal. This is unusual. California governors typically release two budget proposals -- one in January, and one in May. But the governor has put forward a compromise plan that includes a temporary sales tax increase -- violating his promise not to raise taxes -- in exchange for budget reforms. He said he was taking a risk: "I'm stepping over the line here," he said.

There was a take-it-or-leave-it feel to the session, which was cut short after four questions. He said it was time for budget "dialogue" to stop. "This is not part of the kabuki or anything like that," said the governor, all but demanding his proposal be passed.

Other highlights:

-Schwarzenegger admitted openly that his first attempt to fix the state's budget problem--the ballot measures Propositions 57 and 58, which were approved by voters in 2004--had been a failure. "This year is coming out clearly that our budget reform that we attempted in 2004 with Props 57 and 58 does not work," he said. 

Today's LA Times story by my longtime colleague Evan Halper makes one thing painfully clear. California's Republican legislative leaders, for all their championing of direct democracy and the rule of the people when it comes to subjects such as Prop 13 (property taxes) and Prop 22 (same-sex marriage ban), are prepared to violate all sorts of voter-approved initiatives to get a budget deal and avoid a tax increase.

Halper got his hands on a memo that details what Republicans are talking about. As Halper recounts the memo's contents, the Republican proposals involve "diverting money specifically set aside by voters for local governments, road and other transportation projects, mental health programs and early childhood education." To give a little history, voters set aside money for transportation via ballot initiative with Prop 42 (2002), for local government with Prop 1A (2004), mental health programs with Prop 63 (2004), and early childhood with Prop 10 (1998). For Republicans to want to raid such funds is hypocrisy. To borrow against such funds in the name of opposing tax increases is dishonest. The act of raiding such funds creates a debt for the state that must be paid back. The very act of raiding the funds is thus a tax increase in disguise.

John Matsusaka of the Initiative & Referendum Institute at USC had an excellent piece on the state's budget problems. One important point he makes: the ballot initiative is not to blame for our budget troubles. He notes that the legislature would spend about half of the budget on education without Prop 98, and that all the other initiatives ever approved lock in only about 2 percent of the state budget. Matsusaka points to spending growth -- and the power of interest groups that demand more spending -- as the root of the problem.