Prop*50

Colorado 'blue book' challenge rejected

The Denver Post reports today that a Denver district judge has rejected a challenge by the proponents of Amendment 62, which would define human life as beginning at conception.  The proponents filed suit against the Colorado Legislative Council, which is responsible for producing Colorado's voter information pamphlet known as the "Blue Book." 

The plaintiffs claimed that the summary of arguments presented against the Amendment 62 in the Blue Book was biased and unfair.  The Blue Book contains the text of every measure on the statewide ballot, as well as an impartial summary of each proposal and a summary of the arguments for and against it.  Denver District Judge Robert Hyatt said that besides the fact that it is too late for the court to do anything about it (Blue Books have already arrived in Colorado households by mail), the court would not intervene in the drafting of the Blue Book because it is a legislative function.

Read Colorado's Blue Book

New York Times story on growing wave of recalls against mayors

A story in today's New York Times reports that mayors across the United States face a growing tide of recall efforts.  The article blames the increase in recalls on the growing "throw-the-rascals-out" mood and voter frustration with mayors who attempt to raise taxes or cut services in order to make up budget deficits.  It includes a link to NCSL's page on local recall.

The article cites the recent recall of a California mayor, the pending recall elections for mayors in Alaska and New Jersey, and half a dozen unsuccessful recall efforts over the past two years.  Unfortunately, there is no good source compiling data on local recall efforts, so it is impossible to verify whether this represents an actual increase in recalls, or simply an increase in media attention to recall attempts.

Washington: Initiatives lack voter support in polls

A poll conducted September 9-12 by Elway Research for The Spokesman-Review found that none of the six initiatives on Washington's November ballot have strong voter support.  Given the fact that campaign season is just beginning and the general effectiveness of spending in opposition to initiatives in swaying voter opinions, this is not good news for the six initiatives.  Conventional wisdom holds that an initiative polling below 50% two months before the election is unlikely to overcome voter opposition by Election Day.

I-1053:  48% support / 27% oppose / 25% undecided

Would reinstate the 2/3 vote requirement for the Legislature to pass tax increases (approved back in 2007 by 51.2% of voters).  Support was at 65% and opposition at 25% in a June poll.

I-1107:  47% support / 38% oppose / 15% undecided

Would reinstate a temporary tax the Legislature imposed on soda, bottled water, candy and processed foods in order to balance the budget.

I-1098:  44% support / 42% oppose / 14% undecided

Would impose a tax on incomes above $200,000 for a single filer and $400,000 for joint filers; Washington currently has no income tax.  Not surprisingly, support is weaker among respondents with higher incomes.

I-1100:  45% support / 34% oppose / 21% undecided

Would permit the private sale of alcohol without requiring retailers to work with wholesalers.

I-1105:  41% support / 33% oppose / 26% undecided

Would permit the private sale of alcohol and require retailers to work with wholesalers.

I-1082:  31% support / 31% oppose / 38% undecided

Would private the state's workers' compensation insurance system.

The poll has a margin of error of 4.5%.

Read more in The Spokesman-Review or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  The Spokesman-Review blog Spin Control has published the most data on the poll results.

Colorado "personhood" sponsors sue over state analysis

The sponsors of Colorado's Amendment 62, which would apply the word "person" as used in the state constitution to every human being from the beginning of biological development, filed suit yesterday against the Colorado Legislative Council.  The Legislative Council staff drafts the "Blue Book," Colorado's ballot pamphlet that contains the full text of each measure on the statewide ballot, along with a non-partisan analysis and a summary of the arguments for and against each measure.  Amendment 62 proponents contend that the arguments against the measure presented in the Blue Book are inaccurate and misleading.

The following is an excerpt from the Blue Book:

Arguments Against

1) Amendment 62 may limit the ability of individuals and families to make important health care decisions. The measure could be used to prohibit or limit access to medical care, including abortions for victims of rape or incest, and even when a woman's life is in danger. Amendment 62 may also limit access to emergency contraception, commonly used forms of birth control, and treatment for miscarriages, tubal pregnancies, cancer, and infertility. The measure may restrict some stem cell research that could lead to life-saving therapies for a variety of disabilities and illnesses.

2) Amendment 62 allows government intrusion in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship and could limit the exercise of independent medical judgment. The measure could restrict a doctor from using certain medical procedures and treatments. Further, "the beginning of biological development" cannot be easily and conclusively pinpointed. Therefore, the measure may subject doctors and nurses to legal action for providing medical care to a woman of child-bearing age if that care could affect a "person" other than the identified patient.

3) The effects of Amendment 62's change to the constitution are unclear. The measure applies certain rights from "the beginning of biological development," a term which is not defined within the measure, has no established legal meaning, and is not an accepted medical or scientific term. The legislature and the courts will have to decide how a wide variety of laws, including property rights and criminal laws, will apply from "the beginning of biological development."

The sponsors object to the truthfulness of the arguments that passage of Amendment 62 might lead to women being denied treatment for a miscarriage, or that doctors could be at risk of legal action for treating women of child-bearing age.  Finally, they disagree with the contention that the term "the beginning of biological development" has no established legal meaning.

According to The Denver Post, there have been five challenges to Blue Book language since 1996, none successful.  This year's Blue Book has been available online since last week, and 1.8 million copies are already in the mail to Colorado voters.

Colorado 2010 Blue Book

Denver Post coverage

Poll: Colorado's Amendments 60 & 61 and Prop. 101

A poll conducted in late August by Ciruli Associates reveals that a sizable portion of the Colorado electorate is undecided on the three revenue measures on the state's ballot.  Just one, Proposition 101, which would cut the income tax as well as telecommunications and automobile taxes and fees, was leading.  Ciruli attributes the sagging support to the well-financed and widespread opposition to the three measures among Colorado elected officials in both parties and the Colorado business community.

Read more about it in The Denver Post or on Floyd Ciruli's blog, The Buzz. 

Initiative 1098 circulator charged with forgery

A 52 year-old woman who circulated petitions for I-1098, a Washington initiative that would impose a tax on incomes above $200,000 for single filers and $400,000 for joint filers, has been charged with forgery.  She was gathering signatures on behalf of the Service Employees International Union, which pays circulators a wage but does not pay on a per-signature basis.  Read more about the case from KOMO News.

Decision in U.S. Postal Service petitioning case

U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts ruled on September 8 in a case filed by the Initiative and Referendum Institute against the U.S. Postal Service.  The Postal Service had banned petition circulators from the sidewalks surrounding its buildings, and in 2000, the I&R Institute sued.  In 2003, Judge Roberts upheld the Postal Service ban, but an appeals court intervened in 2005, saying that petitioning on perimeter sidewalks -- those paralleling the street -- could not be restricted, and sent the case back to Judge Roberts to determine the treatment of the sidewalks between the perimeter and Postal Service buildings.

Judge Roberts found last week that the Postal Service was justified in banning petition circulators on interior sidewalks.  It is unclear at this time whether the I&R Institute will appeal.  Read the opinion here.

Follow the money: California's Prop. 23

Proposition 23 would temporarily suspend AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, until the state's unemployment rate drops below 5.5 percent.  AB 32 requires the state's greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020, with further reductions in later years.

Prop. 23 proponents claim that AB 32 will cost the state over 1,000,000 jobs and lead to energy tax increases.  Read more about their side here.

Opponents of Prop. 23 claim that the initiative was put on the ballot by Texas oil companies to kill clean energy and air pollution standards that would be expensive to their industry.  Read more about their side here.

Rather than listening to the two sides duke it out in 30-second ads, perhaps a more useful tool for discerning the goals of the measure can be found in analyzing who is spending money for and against it.  This is not a good exercise just for Proposition 23, by the way; campaign finance data is always a good gauge of the true motivations behind ballot measures.

Who is spending in favor of Proposition 23?

According to the California Secretary of State's web site, there is just one committee registered in favor of Prop. 23, the California Jobs Initiative Committee, a Coalition of Taxpayers, Employers, Food Producers, Energy, Transportation and Forestry Companies.  Most of the industries mentioned in the committee's name play a minor financial role in the campaign.  The heavy weight is carried by the energy industry.  Of the more than $8.2 million raised so far, $7.5 million, or 91 percent, comes from the energy industry.  Nearly 80 percent of the total raised comes from just three contributors:

• Valero, a Texas oil refiner, has contributed $4,059,678
• Tesoro, a California-based refiner, has contributed $1,525,000
• Flint Hills Resources, a Kansas refiner owned by Koch Industries, has contributed $1,000,000

Who is spending against Proposition 23?

A total of eight committees opposing Prop. 23 are registered with the Secretary of State.  The major player is No on 23, Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition. Sponsored by Environmental Organizations and Business for Clean Energy and Jobs.  This committee has raised just over $6.7 million.  (Of the remaining seven committees, two report no fundraising, four have raised $100,000 or less, and the fifth, sponsored by the National Resources Defense Council, has turned over most of its contributions to the No on 23 committee.)

Cleantech investment and venture capital firms are contributing heavily to the "no" side.  The single largest contribution so far has come from hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer, who gave $2.5 million.  Environmental and community foundations have given as well, and there are many more individual contributions to the "no" side than the "yes" side.  The construction, solar energy and real estate industries have contributed in smaller amounts.