The Thicket at State Legislatures

Initiative Fun in Michigan

by Brian Weberg

Michigan voters are going to have some fun this fall if sponsors are able to get a raft of government reform proposals certified in time for the ballot.  In addition to the proposed measures to create a part-time legislature with reduced pay and to elect state senators statewide on a proportional basis that we reported here a few months ago, recent news from the Wolverine State highlights what some are suggesting is a stealth campaign to shift the state's political balance of power under the guise of government reform. 

Proponents argue that the measure brings long-needed change to state government.  The lengthy amendment includes reductions in the number of members in the legislature, pay cuts to the governor, legislators and judges, new financial disclosure rules, lobbying restrictions and reform of the redistricting process. 

Michigan Republican Party chairman Saul Anuzis, comically struggling with a fold out copy of the initiative in a video on YouTube, commented "I've seen Michelin maps of Europe that were smaller and easier to read."  Republicans have come out strongly against the proposal, while the spokesperson for the measure is Dianne Byrum, a termed-out state legislator who completed her legislative career as leader of the House Democrats in Lansing.  However one judges the merits of the reform, it's clear that it is adding fuel to the already scorched political landscape in Michigan.   

Rare State Legislative Primary Defeat for Incumbent in California

by Karl Kurtz

Yesterday was state primary election day in California.  In a highly unusual event (the last time was 12 years ago), incumbent state Sen. Carole Migden was defeated in a Democratic primary in San Francisco by Assemblymember Mark Leno (photo).  In most term-limited states, and especially California, quality challenges to incumbent legislators are rare because most ambitious challengers wait for term limits to open up a seat.  But Leno was termed out in the Assembly, and Migden's highly publicized campaign finance irregularites and personal foibles made her an inviting target, despite the fact that she had won elected offices for 18 years and served as chair of both the Assembly and Senate budget committees. 

Because the Senate seat has a heavy Democratic advantage in registration, Leno is likely to win this Senate seat in November.  See today's Sacramento Bee for a rundown on that race as well as the two property rights initiatives on the ballot.

In an aside, as the presidential race has turned out, imagine what the stakes would have been if California had not pushed its presidential primary up to super Tuesday and kept it with the state primary in June!

Recall: Tool of Accountability or "an Affront to Representative Democracy"?

by Karl Kurtz

Recall, the procedure for voters to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office, is infrequently used at the state level but has been in the news in California, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey in the last couple of weeks.  Eighteen states provide for recall of state officials, but the procedure is used far more often at the local than the state level of government.

Today's Sacramento Bee has a story about a recall petition against California Republican Sen. Jeff Denham that has qualified for the ballot.  The date of the recall vote, which is structured in a similar manner to the one in which Gov. Gray Davis was famously removed and replaced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003, must be called by Gov. Schwarzenegger, most likely in conjunction with the state's June 3 state primary.

His name doesn't appear on the ballot, but state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata is the indisputable driving force behind the recall of Sen. Jeff Denham, the first of a California legislator since 1995.

Ostensibly, the Democratic leader's effort to unseat a Republican who was easily re-elected in 2006 stems from last year's 53-day state budget stalemate. Denham joined his GOP colleagues in voting against the spending plan.

But beyond the bad blood over the budget, a successful recall would move Democrats, who hold a commanding 25-15 lead in the Senate, to within one vote of being able to pass a budget and raise taxes without a Republican vote.

On the same theme, the San Francisco Chronicle on Sunday editorialized against the recall:

The effort to recall state Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, is worse than an abuse of the recall process. It is an affront to the very principles of representative democracy.

The editorial goes on to charge Senate Democrats with political opportunism for initiating the recall against Sen. Denham rather than other Republicans because his district, which has more registered Democrats than Republicans, is a target of opportunity.  I couldn't find a response from Sen. Perata to these claims, but proponents of the recall campaign against Denham say that he should be held accountable for his vote against the budget.

In Illinois, which is not one of the 18 states that have the recall, the House of Representatives last week passed a proposed constitutional amendment to establish a recall procedure by a vote of 75-33.  The Chicago Sun-Times called the amendment "a blunt

It's Initiative Season: Play Ball!

by Brian Weberg

The season runs from now until November, and it will be hardball all the way.  We're talking ballot initiatives here, not quite the national pastime but something more politically akin in look and feel to that decennial bloodsport, redistricting.  The stakes can be high and the action intense.

Michigan has a few interesting initiatives in circulation now that are targeted at the legislature and that we will be watching.  There are two separate initiatives out for signatures that seek to make the state legislature a part-time body and one calling for a "proportional Senate."

The Part Time Legislature Committee's measure limits sessions to mid-March through July 1, limits total special session days to 20 per year, cuts legislator pay in half, fines members $400/day if absent on a session day, limits member expense allowances, eliminates benefits for members, eliminates the state compensation commission and requires the legislature to meet each fall (prior to election day) to set legislative pay, allows legislators to participate in interim committee work from home "by telecommunication or other reliable method" and requires the governor to submit a balanced budget on time or face censure.  The Part-Time Legislature Committee states that Michigan is one of only four states with "standing" legislatures.  NCSL's analysis on the full-time versus part-time distinction is a bit more nuanced than this statement may suggest, but Michigan certainly does have a full-time legislative operation.

The people behind Turn Michigan Around argue that "most states (39 of 50) have part-time legislatures, and it is time for Michigan to re-join the majority."  Their proposed initiative is very similar to one described above.  It limits the legislature to 100 session days per year, requires session to conclude by May 31, limits special sessions to 15 total days per year, halves legislator pay, fines members who are no-shows for session, allows benefits while in office but none after leaving office, and allows for member reimbursement of actual expenses up to a limit.  The big difference in the Turn Michigan Around proposal is that it eliminates term limits.  That's a big and interesting difference.

Finally, The Proportional Senate folks in Michigan want to "update our government" by changing the state senate "to provide a proportional system to be voted on at large throughout the entire State while still providing a balance by preserving the district system in the House of Representatives."  They argue that the one-person, one-vote court decision of the 1960s and subsequent redistricting of both chambers created a "redundant system" of representation, one that "inherently breaks down into a two party system" and "denies representation to the minority positions in the various districts..."

The Michigan proposals offer just a glimpse at the range of ideas that voters may face this fall in states that provide for initiative and referenda.  Stay tuned as things heat up by checking NCSL's I&R web page and ballot measure tracking.  It's game time!

California Ballot Measures Thwart Legislature on Term Limits, Support it on Tribal Gaming

by Jennie Bowser

Of the 24 states that held presidential primaries and caucuses yesterday, only California also had statewide measures on the ballot. California voters considered seven statewide ballot measures yesterday. Three were citizen initiatives on term limits, gas taxes and community colleges, and all three failed to pass. The remaining four were popular referenda on tribal gaming issues, and all four passed.

The most closely-watched measure in California was Proposition 93, an initiative proposing to modify California's legislative term limits. California was one of the first states to pass legislative term limits, and has some of the strictest limits in the nation. Legislators may serve up to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate, then are barred for life from further legislative service. Prop. 93 would have decreased the total years a legislator could serve from 14 to 12, but removed the chamber-specific limits, allowing a legislator the option to serve all 12 years in a single chamber.

Despite an aggressive campaign from proponents and the endorsement of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Prop. 93 was defeated by a margin of 53-47. This is a closer margin than we've seen with previous attempts to modify legislative term limits. A 2000 initiative in California received just 40% of the vote, and legislative proposals in Arkansas (2004), Maine (2007) and Montana (2004) all polled in the low 30s. States that may consider modifications to term limits in November 2008 include Arkansas and Michigan. For more information on legislative term limits, visit NCSL's term limits page.

The four questions on California's ballot that passed were popular referenda dealing with tribal gaming compacts. The legislature passed amendments to the compacts with four different tribes, allowing for additional slot machines and exempting certain projects from the California Environmental Quality Act. The popular referenda were placed on the ballot via a petition process in an attempt to block the legislature's amendments. The "yes" votes on all four popular referenda mean that voters approve of the legislature's amendments, and they will now take effect. Yes, it's confusing, but in this case, a "yes" vote means that the backers of the popular referenda failed in their attempt to overturn the legislature's tribal gaming compact amendments.

Two other citizen initiatives on California's presidential primary ballot also failed to pass yesterday. Prop. 91 would have earmarked certain gasoline tax revenues for the transportation fund, and required repayment from the general fund of all such revenues deposited since 2003. Prop. 92 would have altered the governance and funding for the state's community colleges.

Need for a Longer Term Perspective on California Term Limits

by Karl Kurtz

Amid all the hoopla about super-dooper Tuesday next week, there is an important legislative institutional change on the ballot in California.  Proposition 93 would change the state's current lifetime term limits of six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate to a total of 12 years, regardless of the chamber in which a member serves.

From an institutional perspective and based on the research that we have done on term limits, this is a change that makes sense. It would mitigate one of the more negative effects of term limits: the tendency of senates to become the more experienced body and therefore dominant over the houses of representatives (or assemblies).  In California, for example, since term limits have taken effect, consistently over 90% of the members of the Senate have previously served in the Assembly.  Almost all Assembly leaders and committee chairs, on the other hand, have little or no previous legislative experience. 

The 12-year total limit would give members who want to get things done in the legislature an incentive to build their career in one chamber or the other, thereby removing the Senate's experience advantage over the Assembly.

But regardless of whether or not this is a good idea or a bad one, it drives me nuts that much of the opposition to Proposition 93 is based on the fact that approval would mean that Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata would be eligible to continue in their current offices instead of being term-limited. For example, see this report from the Sacramento Bee:

Opponents paint Proposition 93 as a thinly veiled scheme by Núñez and Perata to save their jobs. Retaining the status quo is senseless and self-defeating, they claim.

"This is a Legislature whose leadership has repeatedly broken its promises and failed to deliver results on a wide range of issues," said Kevin Spillane, spokesman for No on 93. 

The attacks on these leaders are very personal and are reminiscent of some of the original 1990s campaigns in favor of term limits that made bogey-men of Speaker Willie Brown in California, Speaker Vernal Riffe in Ohio and Speaker John Martin in Maine.

Admittedly, the fact that Speaker Núñez and Senator Perata are behind the initiative, that they have raised money for it, and that the proposition is not prospective so that it would not apply to them encourages this line of opposition.

But, say what you will on either side of this proposition, it is a potentially important institutional change in California state government.  It should be fought out on the basis of what's good for the state in 20 or 40 years (when the current speaker and president pro tem will be long gone), not in a two or four year perspective.

New Study of the Effects of Term Limits Published

by Karl Kurtz

Department of shameless self-congratulation and -promotion: The 23 academic political scientists and staffers for NCSL, the Council of State Governments and the State Legislative Leaders Foundation who participated in the four-year Joint Project on Term Limits are pleased that our book, Institutional Change in American Politics: The Case of Term Limits, reporting the results of our research has now been published by University of Michigan Press.  The book was edited by Bruce Cain of University of California, Berkeley, Richard G. Niemi of University of Rochester and myself.

You can find a summary and table of contents for the book here and nice blurbs about it here (we especially liked the one by Bernard Grofman). And if you prefer, you can read Coping with Term Limits: A Practical Guide, a 30-pp. condensed version of the book (which is 230 pp.) aimed at practitioners rather than academics.  We blogged about the release of Coping with Term Limits a year ago.

Institutional Change in American Politics is #436,005 on Amazon.com's best-seller list.  Don't look for an authors' tour at a bookstore near you anytime soon.

The Legislature: A Crazy Idea

by Karl Kurtz

Ed Stein of the Rocky Mountain News drew a clever cartoon about the problem with voter initiatives in Colorado last week.  Of course, it's clever because I agree with it, and it supports my bias toward representative democracy over direct democracy.

Ethics Initiative Gone Awry?

by Karl Kurtz

In last November's elections, Colorado voters approved an ethics measure, Amendment 41 to the State Constitution, by a large margin, but now many people are having second thoughts.  The measure prohibits state or local officials from accepting anything of value from registered lobbyists or gifts of over $50 from any "person." 

If you read  this constitutional provision literally, as Colorado's Attorney General John Suthers has done, it means that children of public school teachers cannot accept many college scholarships and university professors cannot accept a Nobel Prize.

In a story, "Poll: Ethics Law Goes to Far," the Boulder Daily Camera last week reported that a poll released by Coloradans for Sensible Ethics, a group that supports the ethics law but wants legislative action to clarify it, shows that 86 percent of respondents agree that "when they passed Amendment 41, voters were mostly focused on stopping lobbyists from buying political favors from politicians, and did not intend for this law to negatively affect the lives of everyday government workers and their families."  That's more than a little bit of a leading question containing a lot of assumptions, but it does show that many people are unhappy with the constitutional measure that they approved.

The result is an odd set of circumstances in which the proponents of Amendment 41 appear to be embarrassed by the letter of the law and want the legislature to pass corrective legislation, but many in the legislature who think that the amendment went way too far and wish it would go away are content to let the advocates stew in their own juices, at least for a while.

Because Amendment 41 is a constitutional provision, there is considerable doubt as to whether lawmakers could pass clarifying legislation.  Yesterday, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff announced that he would seek an advisory opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court as to the legality of legislative action.

Today a private foundation that gives scholarships to Colorado students has filed suit against the amendment, saying that up to 72 of the finalists for their scholarships this year might be barred by Amendment 41 from accepting their funds.

Postmortem on Property Rights

by Larry Morandi

As expected, the eight property rights ballot measures dealing solely with eminent domain received voter approval on November 7 (Louisiana approved theirs on September 30).  All passed with comfortable margins ranging from 55–86 percent.  Six were legislative referrals and three citizen initiatives.  Not surprising since the bills enacted by 30 state legislatures after a controversial Supreme Court decision—Kelo v. New London—received comparable levels of support.

The twist in the elections was that two of the three ballot measures that combined eminent domain with another property rights issue—regulatory takings—lost, and a fourth that dealt only with regulatory takings also went down to defeat.  Eminent domain differs from regulatory takings in that the former is a physical taking of property while the latter occurs when a regulation deprives a landowner of all economically viable use of the property.  The regulatory takings measures would have required government to pay landowners for any reduction in property value caused by a regulation or rescind the action.

They went down for a number of reasons.  How much it might cost budget-strapped cities and counties and what the effect on local planning would be were certainly considerations.  Resentment that much of the financial backing came from out-of-state sources was also at play.  Another concern?  Property rights "cut both ways"—how do you balance the rights of individual landowners with those of their neighbors whose property values may be affected by incompatible development.

Expect the regulatory takings debate to continue during the 2007 sessions, though most likely not in combination with eminent domain…which will receive more attention on its own.

Voter Fatigue?

by Gene Rose

“Voter fatigue” may have set in for voters this year when they went to the ballot box, said NCSL election analyst Jennie Drage Bowser. Speaking at NCSL’s StateVote meeting this morning, Bowser says it was an “unusual and surprising” year for ballot issues. More than 200 issues were up for decision this year, including 76 initiatives, the second highest number in the last 16 years. The number of issues could have been higher but several initiatives were blocked by the courts.

Why so many? “Faux popualism,” Bowser says. There is an “initiative industry” now with skilled professionals and a profit motive. National and regional groups are growing increasingly adept in placing issues on the pockets. However, voters only approved about 40% of these initiatives on Tuesday, compared with an average 48 percent rate from 1990 to 2004. The media is doing a better job of reporting on ballot controversies and, in many cases she says, voters are being turned off by out-of-state attempts to change state policies.

Bowser believes we will see fewer same-sex proposals on future ballots. Passage of the Oregon prescription drug program may spur similar efforts in other states. Minimum wage also could gain steam, considering Democrat gains in Tuesday’s elections.

Americans Take Measured Approach to Ballot Issues

by Gene Rose

Americans approved a mix of conservative and liberal measures on Tuesday and sent some surprising signals on tax relief, same-sex marriage, abortion restrictions and tobacco taxes.

Americans acted on 204 measures on Tuesday and took a more cautious approach to the 76 placed by the initiative process, the second highest in the last eight election cycles. Only a little more than a third of those initiatives were approved, compared with 48 percent of initiatives approved between 1990 and 2004.

Some key findings from NCSL’s overnight analysis:

• Major tax cuts, along with tax and spending limits in six states all failed. Voters in Maine, Nebraska and Oregon rejected tax and spending limits and while voters in Oregon, South Dakota and Washington decided against significant tax reductions.
• Same-sex marriage bans were approved in seven states – Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. Arizona became the first state to reject such a ban.
• Abortion restrictions failed in California, Oregon and South Dakota.
• Minimum wage increases were approved in all six states it appeared on the ballot, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio.
• Efforts to legalize marijuana failed in all three states, Colorado, Nevada and South Dakota.
• Measures to restrict immigration were approved in Arizona and Colorado.
• Voters in eight states – Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina -- approved measures to restrict eminent domain for economic development. Broader and more controversial regulatory takings measures passed in Arizona, but failed in California, Idaho and Washington.
• Tobacco tax increases were approved in Arizona and South Dakota and rejected in California and Missouri.

Other notable measures include:

• An affirmative action ban passed in Michigan
• A measure to approve stem cell research appears to be passing in Missouri
• Expansion of Oregon’s prescription drug program passed
• Arizona voters rejected both the $1 million voter lottery and a vote-by-mail procedure
• Rhode Island voted to restore voting rights to felons when they are released from prison

Complete results of Tuesday’s ballot measure elections can be found at NCSL’s ballot measures Web site.

Pennsylvania House is Too Close to Call

The Pennsylvania House is very much in play.  Sources on both sides of the aisle in Pennsylvania tell NCSL that the House could change hands.  One scenario has the GOP losing control of the chamber by the narrowest margin, 102-101.  Going into the election, GOP legislators enjoyed a 15 seat majority.

Looks like this one is too close to call at this point.  So, until we get more information NCSL's official tally is 100 Democrats, 96 Republicans and 7 races undecided.

Under New Management

The following chambers have changed control.  All are now under Democratic party control.

• Iowa House and Senate
• Minnesota House
• Michigan House
• New Hampshire House and Senate
• Oregon House
• Wisconsin Senate
• Indiana House

Ballot Measures Update #2

It's not turning out to be a good night for the many measures seeking to rein in government. The only bright spot for this crowd is eminent domain. The broader regulatory taking measures are failing, as are tax & spending limits, limits on the judiciary, and term limits.

Property Rights

All of the simple eminent domain measures are passing -- Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina. Results are not so positive for the much broader and more controversial regulatory takings measures. California's (which combines eminent domain and regulatory takings in a single question) is presently too close to call, but appears to be leaning toward passage. A similar measure in Arizona is passing, while Idaho's is failing. Washington's question on regulatory takings is also failing.

Marriage

In a historic first, Arizona voters have narrowly rejected a ban on same-sex marriage. Colorado voters have passed their same-sex marriage ban, while Referendum I, creating domestic partnership rights and benefits, appears to be failing. All other marriage measures appear to be passing, although South Dakota's is close.

Tax & Spending Limitations

These are failing across the board -- TABOR measures in Maine, Nebraska, and Oregon are all failing, as are other major tax cuts and revenue reducing measures in Oregon, South Dakota and Washington.

Abortion

South Dakota voters have rejected the abortion ban by a large margin. Oregon voters have rejected a parental notification measure for abortions for minors, and a similar measure in California is currently too close to call but appears to be leaning toward failing.

Other Notable Measures

South Dakota voters have rejected the sweeping judicial accountability measure. Oregon voters have rejected legislative term limits, a vote that is almost certainly the nail in the coffin of the term limits movement. In the three states with competing smoking bans (Arizona, Nevada and Ohio), voters haven't thrown up their hands in frustration over trying to understand the differences between the two -- instead, they are passing the stricter ban and rejecting the looser ban in all three states.

Just When You Thought It Couldn't Get Any Worse

Republicans have lost a seat in the Massachusetts Senate giving the Democrats a 35 to 5 advantage.  The Boston Globe reports that Republicans now "occupy fewer seats than at any point since at least 1867."

Bucking the Trend in Arizona

Arizona's same-sex marriage ban appears to be failing by a 49-51 margin.  While only 85 percent of the precincts are reporting, should the ban fail it would mark the first same-sex marriage ban to fail on a popular vote.

Lansing Surprise...

Key sources in Lansing tell NCSL that Democrats have wrested control of the Michigan House from Republicans.  Republicans controlled the chamber 58-49.  Democrats have won at least 56 seats this evening with several races still to be decided.

Ballot Measures Update

Property Rights

Eminent domain measures in Florida, Georgia, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina have passed. Arizona's eminent domain regulatory takings measure also appears to be passing.

Minimum Wage

Minimum wage hikes in Arizona, Nevada and Ohio are passing.

Marriage

Arizona's same-sex marriage ban is currently too close to call, although it appears to be leaning toward failure with a yes vote of 48.3% with 69.1% of precincts reporting.

We are entering results in the Ballot Measures Database as they become available.

Changes on the Horizon...

by Bill Wyatt

The Indiana House appears headed for a change in partisan control.  Democrats have picked up at least three seats which would give them control of the chamber.

Preliminary results from the Oklahoma Senate may be a bright spot for Republicans.  The chamber is likely to end up a 24 to 24 tie.

The First State...

by Bill Wyatt

How fitting that the first state with complete legislative election results is the First State - Delaware.  Democrats picked up three seats in the House to narrow the Republican majority margin to five seats. The Senate remains the same with Democrats holding a 13-8 margin.

The Democratic pickups in Delaware may foreshadow returns that are still being tabulated.  Democrats seem to be gaining ground in key matchups in North Carolina, Vermont, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire and others.

Stay tuned...

And They're Off...

by Bill Wyatt

Polls are now closed in Kentucky, Indiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont and Virginia.  NCSL elections experts are assembling and beginning to track the early returns.

Stay tuned to The Thicket for the latest results on control of the nation's state legislatures...

State Politics Junkies, Start Your Engines

Across the nation today, Americans are voting to elect more than 6,000 state legislators and decide on more than 200 ballot measures. Much is at stake this year, when the parties control a nearly equal number of states, chambers and seats. NCSL staff are working through the night to track the results and put them in perspective. Find the numbers at the StateVote 2006 page. Find the latest analysis here in The Thicket at State Legislatures. You can subscribe to The Thicket's RSS feed or email alerts in the top right column. 

To reach NCSL staff during election night with comments, questions or new information, email us at the.thicket@ncsl.org.

Most Anti-Government Ballot Measures Headed to Defeat?

by Jennie Bowser

Frustration with government is evident in the collection of measures on statewide ballots tomorrow:  at least 14 measures in 11 states aim at curbing government power through limiting terms, reining in the judiciary, limiting taxes and spending, or restricting government’s right to regulate land use. 

Here’s a run-down on what recent polls are showing on the anti-government ballot measures:

With a vote that could be the nail in the coffin of the term limits movement, Oregon’s legislative term limits proposal is headed toward failure – 57 percent of those polled last week said they would vote no.  And since Oregon votes entirely by mail, it’s likely that many ballots had already been completed and mailed at the time the survey was conducted.

See Ballot Measures Analysis on CNN

By Nicole Moore

It's a big year for ballot measures, with voters deciding on 205 across the country tomorrow. Get the run-down on what issues are big and why tonight on CNN's America Votes 2006 when NCSL's Jennie Drage Bowser talks with Lou Dobbs. We hear it's going to air between 4 and 5 p.m. MT.

If you can't catch that, Jennie discusses the national ballot measure picture in this story from USA Today: Long list of laws headed to voters, and this one from Reuters: U.S. ballots bursting with record $78 bln bonds. More stories are in the works and I'll post links to them as they're released.

Property Rights, Federalism and "Kelo Plus"

by Larry Morandi

The most popular topic on election ballots this fall is not gay marriage, or abortion rights, or smoking bans.  It's an issue couched in the final phrase of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—eminent domain, the power of government to physically take private property and put it to public use provided just compensation is paid.  The question is what constitutes public use?  Thirteen states have ballot measures this fall that would restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

Why the popularity?  In June of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kelo v. New London that public use included economic development, not just highways, schools or reservoirs, uses from which the public in general benefit. 

The decision was a victory for the states because the court deferred to state legislatures and state courts to actually determine what constitutes public use.  Justice Stevens opened the floodgates to legislation by concluding that "nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."  The result—30 of 46 states in session since Kelo have passed either statutory changes or proposed constitutional amendments to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

There is one twist, however, that departs from the legislature's treatment of the issue.  Four of the initiatives combine what is called "regulatory takings" with eminent domain. What are the diffferences?

Poll of the Week

by Gene Rose

GOP national political strategy in recent elections has included placing issues on state ballots designed to rally its supporters. Votes on same sex marriage in 2004 are believed to have played a key role in the reelection of President George W. Bush.

An analysis of wedge issues on the ballot has been put together by the Pew Research Center. Same sex marriage will be on the ballots in a few states again this year. Democrats are adopting the strategy this election cycle by placing minimum wage increases on the ballots in several key states. This research backgrounder analyzes the potential affect of both these issues being on the 2004 election ballots.

Tight Races in Colorado

by Karl Kurtz

Today's Stateline.org contains a particularly thorough story on Colorado's tight races for governor and  the state legislature, as well as some hot-button ballot initiatives.  For speculation on who is winning those races, see ColoradoPols.com. 

The Stateline.org story also contains a link to an ad that's running in Colorado supporting gay rights featuring Norman, a dog that moos, pictured here.  It's a clever ad, but there are other forces, like Colorado's Focus on the Family that will be trying to send Norman to the doghouse.

Using the Initiative to Turn out Voters

by Karl Kurtz

In today's Washington Post, David Broder has an early rundown on initiatives scheduled for the ballot in November. He highlights the half a dozen states where labor unions have gotten minimum wage increases on the ballot, allegedly to help Democratic party turnout, and an equal number of states with same sex marriage initiatives that should help turn out conservative Republican voters.

One in 2,038,069

by Tim Storey

Some may see this as this week's sign of the Apocalypse.  The "Arizona Voter Reward Act" has qualified for this November's ballot, and promises to be one of the more compelling sideshows of the fall's election season.  Backers of the initiative submitted far more signatures than necessary to qualify the measure for the ballot.  As previously noted here in the Thicket by Jan Goehring on May 23rd, the measure calls for using unclaimed money from the Arizona lottery to award $1 million to a voter selected at random in each election.  The goal is to provide an incentive for people to get off their keester and do their civic duty.  In 2004, voter turnout in Arizona was 2,038,069 making the odds of winning roughly 1 in 2,038,069 assuming the incentive doesn't send voter turnout through the roof, thus decreasing the odds of winning.  If the initiative survives legal challenges, it will be a far better wager than the odds of winning the grand prize in the Powerball which are 1 in 146,107,962. 

Taking the Initiative

by Karl Kurtz

Why do some of the 24 states that have the initiative use it more often than others?  The variation from state to state is great: between 1990 and 2004 California and Oregon led the nation with 97 and 90 initiatives on the ballot, respectively, while Mississippi (2) and Wyoming (7) voted on far fewer measures during the same period.

In a detailed statistical study of all initiatives on the ballot between 1976 and 2000, political scientist Frederick Boehmke at the University of Iowa attempts to answer this question. Writing in the Political Research Quarterly, he shows that each of the following factors can significantly increase the number of initiatives on the ballot: