Prop*50

Colorado ballot finalized

Secretary of State Bernie Buescher announced yesterday that Proposition 102 has qualified for the November ballot.  Prop. 102 is an initiative that would restrict the use of pretrial release programs under certain circumstances, requiring that defendants arrested for anything other than a nonviolent misdemeanor and first-time offense can only be released on a secured bond.

This brings the total number of measures on Colorado's ballot to nine.  Six of those are initiatives; the other three were referred to the ballot by the Legislature.

Poll: WA voters support I-1053 anti-tax measure

A poll by Survey USA on behalf of Seattle television news outlet KING 5 finds that a majority of Washington voters support the passage of Initiative 1053.  The poll found that 55 percent are certain they will vote yes, 18 percent are certain they will vote no, and 26 percent remain undecided.  The margin of error is +/- 3.9%.

Proposed by anti-tax activist Tim Eyman, I-1053 would reinstate a two-thirds vote requirement for the Legislature to pass tax increases.  Originally put in place by an initiative in 2007, the legislature temporarily suspended the two-thirds requirement earlier this year and enacted a tax increase to help balance the state budget.  The current suspension of the supermajority vote will expire on July 1, 2011.  If I-1053 passes, the suspension will expire immediately, and the supermajority vote requirement will take effect on election day.

Read more about it and view the television news segment here.

I-1053 Supporters

I-1053 Opponents

The same poll asked voters about several other issues on the Washington ballot, but the results are less clear-cut.

• Initiative 1098 - new tax on incomes above $200,000 (single filers) or $400,000 (joint filers): 41 percent support, 33 percent oppose, 26 percent remain undecided.
• Initiative 1107 - repeal sales tax on candy, bottled water, and carbonated drinks: 42 percent support, 34 percent oppose, 24 percent remain undecided.
• Referendum 52 - authorize bonds and continue a sales tax on bottled water to pay for projects to increase energy efficiency in public buildings: 34 percent support, 42 percent oppose, 24 percent remain undecided.

View the crosstabs for all four questions here.

Washington: Initiatives and the budget

An article in today's News Tribune takes a hard look at five initiatives and one legislative referendum on the November ballot in Washington, and the impact they could have on the state's budget if passed.

With the state already facing a $3 billion shortfall next year, four of the five initiatives would cut state revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars, possibily billions, if passed, and cut local government revenues by half a billion dollars over the next five years.  On the other hand, the fifth initiative -- Initiative 1098, a new tax on incomes above $200,000 for single filers and $400,000 for joint filers -- would bring in as much as $2.2 billion in future years if voters approve it.  A legislative proposal to conduct energy upgrades on public and school buildings could cost as much as $937 million over the next five years for debt service payments.

Washington isn't the only state facing even more precarious fiscal conditions if initiatives pass this year.  In Colorado, the combined fiscal impact of three proposed initiatives (Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101) would cut over $3 billion from the state budget.  This year's budget is $6.9 billion, so that's not small change.  In Massachusetts, a proposed sales tax cut would cost the state $2.5 billion annually.

In recent election years, voters have generally been unwilling to sign off on drastic revenue-cutting measures.  That includes 2008, when voters rejected a repeal of the state income tax in Massachusetts, significant cuts in personal and corporate income tax rates in North Dakota, and an opportunity to make federal taxes fully deductible on state income taxes in Oregon. 

Conveying the complex information that enables voters put the cost of proposed initiatives in the context of the state budget and existing programs and services is an ongoing challenge in all of the initiative states.  It is information that is too nuanced for the pro and con campaigns to address in a 30-second radio or television ad.  The idea of cutting taxes is appealing to most voters, yet the reality is that tax cuts mean cuts to programs that voters may value as well.  It remains to be seen how voters will weigh the costs and benefits of state programs and services in relation to a personal tax savings in 2010.

Health care initiative qualifies in Colorado

Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buescher announced today that Amendment 63, opting the state out of the recently passed federal health care reform law, has qualified for the ballot.  The measure is similar to the health care question approved by Missouri voters in their August 3 primary.  It prohibits the state from enforcing a requirement that a person participate in a health care plan, and ensures people's ability to pay directly for health care services. 

Opponents call the measure merely symbolic, pointing out that state law cannot overturn federal law.  Read the "Blue Book" summary and analysis of Amendment 63 here.

Amendment 63 is the fifth initiative to qualify for Colorado's November 2010 ballot.  A sixth, a criminal justice measure dealing with bail, is still in signature verification.  The General Assembly referred three measures to the ballot.

ND pharmacy measure fails to qualify; challenge in the works

An initiative that would have eased restrictions on who may operate a pharmacy in North Dakota -- a move that would allow large retailers into the pharmacy business -- failed to qualify for the ballot last week.  While the petition gathered plenty of signatures, circulators failed to attach a copy of the initiative sponsors to the petition, a violation of North Dakota's petitioning laws according to Secretary of State Al Jaeger.  He announced last week that because of the violation, the measure would not be on the November ballot. 

Sponsors have challenged this move in court, saying state officials are empasizing "form over substance," and the requirement that sponsor names be circulated with the petition is not clearly stated. And the proponents' attorneys say that even if the inclusion of sponsor names with the petition is clearly required by law, the measure should go on the ballot anyway, "because its supporters mostly followed the initiative requirements set out by the constitution and North Dakota law."

Judge for yourself:  the relevant section of North Dakota's constitution follows.  Does it require that sponsors' names be included as part of the petition when it is circulated for signatures?

Article 3.  Section 2.  A petition to initiate or to refer a measure must be presented to the secretary
of state for approval as to form. A request for approval must be presented over the names and
signatures of twenty-five or more electors as sponsors, one of whom must be designated as
chairman of the sponsoring committee. The secretary of state shall approve the petition for
circulation if it is in proper form and contains the names and addresses of the sponsors and the
full text of the measure.

The state supreme court will hear arguments on September 1.  Read more about the case in the Bismarck Tribune.

Courts vs. the voters?

An article by Susan Ferriss of McClatchy Newspapers discusses the role of the courts in evaluating measures initiated and approved by voters -- in this case, the 2008 California vote on Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.  Voters are often frustrated when courts intervene and reject measures approved in an election.  This article makes the important point that initiatives must abide by the constitution just as measures passed by legislative bodies must.  Voter-approval does not always equate with constitutionality, and is not an immunization from judicial review.

Prop. 23 funding investigated

The Fresno Bee reports that legislative leaders in California have asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to launch an investigation into a Missouri non-profit called the Adam Smith Foundation.  The Adam Smith Foundation gave $498,000 to the California Jobs Initiative committee, the sole committee spending in support of Proposition 23.  (See California campaign finance records filed by California Jobs Initiative here.) California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez allege that the Adam Smith Foundation is taking advantage of its tax status to hide who its contributors are.

The Adam Smith Foundation's filings with the Internal Revenue Service show that it raised just $5,200 in 2009 and ended the year with $109.  The California lawmakers question how the organization is capable of legally contributing nearly half a million dollars to the Prop. 23 campaign under such financial circumstances.  They allege that the foundation is merely acting as a pass-through agent for political contributions, which is illegal under federal tax laws.

CA ballot over ballot title ends in favor of initiative proponent

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued over the title that the Attorney General's office wrote for Proposition 23, and last week, they won.  They thought the Attorney General wrote the title in a way that reflected bias against the measure.  Here's the title that was challenged, along with the court's rewrite:

Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws (AB 32) Requiring Major Pollutors Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year.

The Howard Jarvis side argued that "major pollutors" was pejorative, and that using the plural "laws" implied that a variety of pollution control laws might be suspending, when in fact only one -- AB 32 -- was addressed by the initiative.  A superior court judge agreed and rewrote the title.

This case illustrates the fact that it can be a difficult balancing act for a partisan state official (Attorney General Jerry Brown is a Democrat) to write a neutral ballot title for a clearly partisan ballot measure.  But it's not any fairer to let initiative sponsors draft their own title, as some states do.  Is there a better way to provide voters with a fair, neutral, and concise title for initiatives?

Read an L.A. Times editorial on this case.

Criticism of the "booming business" of initiatives

Kansas City Star editorial board member Barbara Shelly wrote an August 5 commentary on the "booming business" of petitions in Missouri.  Read it here.  Her criticism is directed not just at the large amounts spent in the attempt to qualify measures for the ballot, but also at initiative proponents who sue to ask the state to ignore its own laws when their petitions fail to qualify. 

Among the 70 or so groups that filed with the state to circulate petitions this year, she singles out one in particular for its big spending:  she says Rex Sinquefield, a wealthy St. Louis businessman, spent $6.8 million to qualify Proposition A, which would prevent cities from using an earnings tax to fund their budgets.  It's worded so that it applies to just two cities in Missouri -- St. Louis and Kansas City.

In fact, a quick check of campaign finance records filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission reveals that Sinquefield has provided just over $7.8 million of the funds raised so far by "Let the Voters Decide," the committee formed to qualify Proposition A for the ballot.  Just $400 has come from another source.

Missouri ballot shapes up

Last week, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan announced that two initiatives have qualified for the November ballot:

Proposition A - repeals the authority of certain cities to use an earnings tax to fund their budgets, and requires St. Louis and Kansas City to get voter approval in order to continue their existing earnings taxes.

Proposition B - regulates "puppy mills" and creates the misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty."

These two initiatives join two constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature:

• Constitutional Amendment 1 - requires that assessors in charter counties of a certain size be elected.
• Constitutional Amendment 2 - exempts from property taxes all homestead property owned by a Missouri citizen who is a former prisoner of war with a total service-connected disability.