Ballot Initiatives

This is a big black eye for the signature gathering business. A Nevada district judge, James Todd Russell, has disqualified three well-funded ballot initiatives because of problems with the affidavits signed by petition circulators. These were arguably the three biggest initiatives in the state. One initiative would divert casino taxes to education and other state issues. Another was the son of Prop 13 measure that would have required a two-thirds vote in the legislature to raise taxes. Backers included a former state treasurer and former controller.

What happened? In July 2007, the state legislature adopted new requirements for the affidavits that signature gatherers sign to verify that signatures are real. These new requirements, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal,  included a statement that the gatherer personally circulated the document, that the number of signatures were counted, and that each signer had an opportunity to read the text of the initiative.

However, Nevada Secretary of State Ross MIller never updated his web site, which lists the rules for such affidavits, to reflect these changes. It appears that signature gatherers relied on the web site and thus did not comply with the new law.

Here's what the judge had to say: "It is unfortunate here that someone didn't do there homework prior to the circulation of these initiatives, although I think the secretary of state could probably have done a better job in this particular case."

This week, petition circulators all over the country are working around the clock to collect signatures to meet turn-in deadlines. Six states require that signatures be handed in between July 3 and July 7: Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon and Washington. Many of these professional gatherers are Californians who move to one of these states for the signature season. Hurry home, guys!

Already turned in this week: an initiative barring unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents in Arkansas; an initiative that would reduce some of Arizona's harsher penalties for businesses that hire unauthorized immigrants; and an anti-traffic initiative in Washington state; (Hat tip, ballotpedia).

Conservatives there, many of them active in fighting same sex marriage, are calling for a constitutional convention that would permit full direct democracy in the Nutmeg State, including ballot initiatives.

Labor is organizing to oppose the effort. The last state to adopt the initiative process was Mississippi more than a decade ago. In most states, political leaders are going the other direction, attempting to reduce the ability of voters to legislate all by themselves. If Connecticut adopts the initiative, it would be the 25th state to do so, and the 28th to adopt direcdt democracy in some form.

Naturally, the progressive view is that the initiatives won't affect the presidential election except that they might hurt Republicans.  And here's the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center's look at the fall ballot measures.

Henry Nicholas, the billionaire Broadcom founder and funder of "tough on crime" ballot initiatives in California, has pleaded not guilty to securities and drug charges. For those interested in the case, you might check out the excellent work that Orange County Register reporter John Gittelsohn (a former competitor and friend of your blogger) has done on this subject.

It appears that labor is trying to shorten the playing field in the massive, multi-initiative union vs. business Colorado ballot contest.

The United Food and Commercial Workers -- the union best known for representing grocery store workers -- announced it has pulled two of four ballot initiatives it was circulating for signatures. The UFCW says this is a gesture of "negotiation," a peace offering in hopes that business interests won't back a "right-to-work" initiative sponsored by conservatives. We'll see. Signature gatherers in Colorado tell me that the initiatives being dropped did not appear to have gotten many signatures.

Those two measures would have increased commercial property taxes and required annual cost-of-living increases for workers in firms with 10 or more employees. The union continues to support two health-related measures, including an intiative requiring that firms with 20 or more employees provide health coverage. Similar legislation passed California in 2003 but was narrowly overturned by voter referendum in 2004.

Prop 99, the California League of Cities counter-initiative to the much more stringest anti-eminent domain Prop 98, won the approval of the state's voters in balloting completed yesterday. By design, the measure does very little--protecting some homeowners from some kinds of eminent domain takings. It doesn't protect businesses from having their land and property taken for private development. Prop 98 would have permitted broader protections, but it was undone by a plank eliminating rent control and the opposition of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state leaders, who worried that it's strict limits on eminent domain would slow the replacement and expansion of state infrastructure.

Friend of the blog Robert Greene breaks them down -- including news that four initiatives have qualified -- at the LA Times' Opinion LA.

At the LA Weekly, Jill Stewart deconstructs the two competing California ballot initiatives to limit eminent domain. Prop 98 puts more restrictions on government's ability to take land for private development. Stewart argues that the two main things to know are these. Prop 98 would end rent control (a provision added to attract funding for the initiative) and Prop 99 would protect some homeowners but would leave cities free to take the land of mom-and-pop stores.

If you live in Southern California, you can hear me moderate a panel on local land use referenda tonight, June 1, at 9 p.m. on KPCC (89.3 FM).