Initiative

I'm thinking of suing the state for legislative pay. As a voter. To secure the vote of Republican state senator Abel Maldonado, a holdout whose vote is needed to pass a massive budget compromise bill in California, Democrats are considering Maldonado's demand for three ballot measures, the Sacramento Bee reports. The measures would create an open, or "top two" primary for the state, prohibit legislative pay raises if the budget is in deficit, and prevent lawmakers from receiving salaries if the budget is not passed on time.

Those three measures would be on top of the five other ballot measures required by other aspects of the deal. In all, Californians would have to vote on eight measures that are part of a mega-compromise. None of the measures are simple. They include changes to the state's education funding formula, the reversal of previous ballot initiatives on early childhood education and mental health, a new spending cap for the state, and a plan to borrow against future lottery revenues.

The Webster-Kirkwood Times offers a very detailed rundown of the initiative petitions now circulating on the streets of Missouri.

That's not a record. The number topped $300 million during 2005, the year of Gov. Schwarzenegger's ill-fated special election, and in the 2006 cycle. But it's not chump change--more than the payroll of the New York Yankees, and a little less than the budget at smaller University of California campuses.

Not the 21st century, mind you. But South Dakota, where American direct democracy began in 1898, is considering whether to change its woefully outdated laws that permit initiative sponsors to write their own descriptions of what their measure would do. In the world outside South Dakota, titles and summaries have been written by public officials who are supposed to be neutral. (In California, it's the attorney general). More details of the proposal from this story in the Mitchell Republic.

Paul Jacob, the term limits advocate, emails and says that Citizens In Charge, his organization to advocate for the initiative process and the rights of people to petition their government, is growing. A year in, the group -- which is really two groups (one a 501 c 3, the other a different kind of non-profit, a c4) -- has six employees and is working on several fronts, including making it easier to qualify measures for the ballot in Oklahoma. If he's successful in opening up the process in Oklahoma (where the attorney general unsuccessfully attempted to prosecute Jacob for ballot initiative work), it would be especially sweet. The state is probably the hardest place in America to qualify an initiative, because of government hostility and a tight, 90-day time limit on signature gathering.

In the United States, ballot initiatives usually appear "naked" on the ballot. That is to say, voters decide yes or no on a particular statute or constitutional amendment, and that's it. There's only one choice.

Most of the rest of the world doesn't do things this way. In Switzerland, where modern direct democracy was invented, voters get more of a choice. They not only can vote yes or no on an initiative, but they also get to pass a judgment on a legislative counter-proposal to each initiative. And they can decide which of the two meausures-- the initiative or the counter-proposal--takes effect in the event that both are approved by voters.

But change may be coming in Oregon. The possibility of a counter-proposal is part of state legislation, now being debated, that would require that initiatives go to the legislature first before they appear on the ballot. If approved, the legislation would give lawmakers the option of approving the initiative, doing nothing and letting the initiative go on the ballot, or offering a counter-proposal.

I think it's safe to call this a trend: there is momentum, across the country, for putting new restrictions on the ballot initiative process. In Oregon, top state officials are trying to clamp down on the number of initiatives. The same is true in Arizona.

Now comes the Missouri legislature, where bills have been introduced to require a 60 percent vote to pass an initiative -- and to raise signature requirements for qualifying measures. The super-majority requirement, if adopted (and Missouri came close to adoping limits on the process last year), would almost certainly to reduce the number of initiaties on the ballot. The signature requirement's impact would be different: it probably would merely add to the costs of qualifying initiatives, ensuring that only the  wealthiest people and interest groups can sponsor measures. In California, I've supported raising initiative signature requirements -- but only as part of an effort to reduce signature requirements for referenda. The Missouri bills seem directed at denying the public access to the ballot. More details on the Missouri legislation via Ballot Access News.

It appears that even those who believe in space aliens are optimistic about President Obama.

Readers of this blog know your blogger has been closely monitoring the effort to qualify a ballot initiative in the city of Denver to establish an extraterrestial commission. It's being pitched as a sort of civil defense thing--preparation for attack (and Denver is at some altitude, so the aliens would probably go their first).

Now the initiative's sponsor, Jeff Peckman, says he's putting the measure on hold. He tells the Rocky Mountain News that the initiative isn't needed because he's confident Obama will take the ET threat seriously. Perhaps this is part of the new Obama diplomatic strategy of engaging our adversaries.

Who is the next victim of the ugly campaign for and against Prop 8? Perhaps immigrants who don't speak English and live in middle Tennessee.

Backers of Prop 8 have gone to court, saying that public finance disclosure rules was a threat to the security of their financial supporters. The same argument has now surfaced in Nashville, which is in the middle of a campaign over a citywide English-only ballot initiative. Backers of the initiative have refused to comply with financial disclosure rules, saying that such disclosure would subject backers to intimidation. This is nonsense, and shows a lack of respect for the law that the courts must stop--now-- and that the voters should punish.

The Salt Lake Tribune has details here.