Blockbuster Democracy

for how they handle protestors and the press, we ought to take a hard look at the American practice of restricting basic freedoms at major political events. Today, an ABC News producer was arrested by Denver police for the crime of filming politicians on a private sidewalk.

Political conventions in this era have become fortresses, with security that can't be justified by any risk analysis I've ever seen. The security serves mainly to keep voters from politicians, and the press away from news. The security, in other words, is an arm of state power and government control. Its presence puts a lie to the notion that this country is ruled by its laws, not its rulres.

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.

The supporters of Prop 11, the California ballot initiative to change how legislative districts, have an uphill fight. Redistricting reform, however well-conceived, always loses in California because of opposition from Democratic and Republican partisans. But every time I approach 100 percent certainty that redistricting will fail again, Don Perata gives me pause.

No politician in California better represents the dysfunction, immaturity and just plain incompetence of the state's elected leadership. Perata has been under investigation by the FBI for his entire time in leadership. (No charges have been brought yet). He's been the person who blocked any number of bipartisan compromises that would advance public policy in the state, most notably on water and health care. And he has misled the public about his intentions to advance political reform, specifically redistricting reform. Again and again, he promised that he and the legislature would produce a redistricting measure. He never followed through. 

All four Alaska ballot initiatives -- on gambling, campaign finance, greater mining regulation and aerial hunting of animals -- were defeated in that state's primary elections Tuesday. The hunting initiative, Measure 2, which would have banned the aerial hunting of wolves and other creatures, had the strongest showing, but appears to have won only 44 percent of the vote, according to the most recent state election results. Measures to establish a gaming commission and public financing of elections did particularly poorly. Reaction here via the Fairbanks paper.

Gov. Schwarzenegger, in a bid to pressure the legislature to adopt a budget, has refused to sign any and all legislation that doesn't have to do with the budget. Yesterday, however, he backed off, telling lawmakers in a letter -- here courtesy of the Sacramento Bee --  that he would make an exception for four bills that have to do with ballot measures. One would make changes to a high-speed rail bond that is already on the November ballot. Another is a water bond that he has long sought. In the letter, he also asked legislators to send him measures related to the budget -- on borrowing against future lottery revenues, and on establishing a rainy day fund -- so they could be placed on the November ballot. The ballot deadline passed more than a week ago, but lawmakers and the governor seem to believe they can  suspend some legal requirements and sneak a few things in. I'm not at all sure they're right. At this point, they are banking on the full cooperation of county officials who administer elections, and the state's habit of failing to reimburse them for the full costs of extra elections and last-minute changes means that some county officials will only be as cooperative as the law requires.

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.

Alaskans will consider four initiatives Tuesday, including a ban on aerial hunting of wolves and other wildlife. The above ad for Measure 2 stays aways from the controversial wolves, and instead dwells on the far more cuddly bears.

Two Michigan measures -- one to lift restrictions on stem cell research, the other to permit use of marijuana for medical purposes -- have qualified for the ballot. But a third measure -- the Democratic-inspired initiative to cut legislators' pay, change the courts, and downsize the legislature -- was not placed on the ballot. (This is the measure, you'll recall, that was billed as a goo-goo reform effort before the discovery of a Power Point presentation that showed it to be part of a labor-Democrat effort to curb the mostly Republican courts). A court likely will decide whether that initiative makes the ballot.  The AP sums it up.

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.