Ballot Initiative

Backers of Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative on Friday abandoned their lawsuit to try to get the measure on the ballot. It had appeared to have enough to qualify, but was kicked off the ballot because of an unusually high rate of invalid signatures. The supporters of the measure were going back through signatures in Maricopa County, but ran out of time to go through all of them, in part because the county was providing them only two computers to do the work. They say they'll try again in 2010.

I'd be surprised if they can get the money. Connerly and his supporters have proven incapable of getting the basics of qualifying initiatives right. He had originally planned to have a similar initiative on the ballot in five states. But he has failed in three states, and his initiative in Colorado is in trouble. The only state he's made the ballot? Nebraska.

Here's the latest in the signature gathering mess that has consumed Arizona, knocking initiatives on the ballot that appeared to have qualified: a judge has blocked state and county officials from printing the November ballots.

The order came as a result of a legal challenge to the state's decision to remove Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative from the ballot. The Initiative's sponsors have gone to court, arguing that some signatures declared invalid are in fact valid. The judge hearing that case issued the order, saying that Connerly's backers deserved the chance to make their case that the initiative should be restored to the ballot.

The most fundamental problem for California initiative sponsors is: how to get the public's attention? The ballot is typically crowded each cycle with several complicated measures. (13 so far this November). The print media is in sharp decline, with fewer reporters and less space to cover such measures. And TV news is a cesspool of crime and celebrity.

What to do? Many sponsors have fixed on the same strategy: endorsements from Hollywood celebrities. And unlike in candidate campaigns, where the candidate has to lead the campaign, the celebrity endorsers often become the public face, appearing in ads and at press conferences. In many cases, the campaigns trade on the vast public knowledge about the celebrity and even their troubles -- diseases, addictions, etc. -- in  way that matches the message of the campaign. In a November election, the celebrity season usually begins about Labor Day, when initiative campaigns typically begin public events and TV advertising.

UPDATED: 3 PM. Or maybe not. A consultant for No on 7 says they don't have robo-calls and this wasn't one. The call I received -- on my cell phone, at 9:46 p.m. -- doesn't match the script for the Yes on 7 robo-call. So this must have been -- something else....

ORIGINAL MSG: Just received one opposing Prop 7, which would require utilities to produce half their power from renewables by 2025. The measure is opposed by utilities, but the recorded voice claims that the measure is cooked up by the same people who gave us the electricity crisis in California six years ago. As I recall, the utilities supported the legislation that gave us that crisis.

In California, supporters of Prop 2, a Humane Society-backed ballot initiative to regulate how farm animals are confined, appear to have made a little bit of legal history. Earlier this month, they essentially sued themselves in an attempt to change their own ballot argument in favor of the measure.

The lawsuit, which is attached below, makes for odd reading. The language of the lawsuit sounds almost apologetic, asking for a "very minor change" (italics not mine) in both the ballot argument and the rebuttal to the "no" side's argument. Technically, the supporters are suing the Secretary of State, but they're suing the Secretary of State to change something they themselves wrote. The reason for the filing? To avoid voter confusion, the lawsuit says.

It appears that Humane Society folks thought they had lined up support for Prop 2 from some leading Catholics, but got pushback from church officials when the ballot argument said that Catholic leaders had endorsed the measure. The church itself has not. One Catholic group that endorsed the measure, the California Veterinary Medicine Association, also seems to be unhappy with one part of the ballot argument.

The Humane Society of the United States has a stronger record of success in ballot measures than any other interest group in the country. But this suggests that their California campaign is having some hiccups.

I've been reading my New America colleague Rick Wartzman's terrific new book, Obscene in the Extreme, about the banning of John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. In a fast-paced narrative, Wartzman offers a few nuggets of blockbuster democracy history, including a bit on "Ham and Eggs," one of the more interesting ballot initaitives in history. The idea of Ham and Eggs was to provide $30 every Thursday to every unemployed Californian over the age of 50. It lost twice, in 1938 and 1939, despite the strong support of some of the migrant laborers who were the subjects of Steinbeck's novel.

My great-grandparents, Bill and Linnie Humphrey, were among those laborers -- Okies who came to California during the Dust Bowl. The phrase above is part of a bit of verse Wartzman unearthed from the Covered Wagon News, according to a footnote. The verse concludes

For I thought it sure would pass

But there was too many voted

From the moneyed class.

The initiative process tends to be popular, and attempts to restrict it tend to be unpopular. But an Arizona ballot initiative to restrict the power of the initiative might have appeared at the right time. Signature gathering in that state is an ongoing scandal, with several measures being knocked off the ballot because so many signatures turned out to be invalid.

The initiative, which qualified for the ballot late last week, would require that any initiative that requires new spending or taxes would have to receive not just a majority of all people voting but a majority of all registered voters before taking effect. That sets a high bar. But it may be a good idea. As my New America colleague Mark Paul has noted, voter-approved spending via initiative has become a major factor in California's budget troubles.

The initiative would ban adoption by all unmarried couples but is aimed at same-sex couples, its supporters acknowledge. The AP has more details here. The initiative also would bar adoption by legally married same-sex couples, because Arkansas does not recognize such marriages. Look for Wal-Mart and other major Arkansas companies to fight this on the grounds that it will prevent them from recruiting employees who happen to be gay and have children.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known as the Mormons, officially opposes same-sex marriage. But the church also acknowledges that members may think differently about the issue. Some of those members have put together a site, Mormons For Marriage, that is worth a look. The site says they stand "in respectful opposition" to California's Prop 8, the proposed initiative ban on same-sex marriage.

Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, a Democrat, has come out against a ballot initiative that would require Ohio businesses to offer seven paid sick days a year to employees who work 30 hours a week. This is a big blow to the measure, which is backed by SEIU. And it complicates any effort by Barack Obama to organize around the issue in order to boost turnout in a big swing state this fall.