Protecting and Expanding Initiative and Referendum
Along with Oklahomans for Initiative Rights (OIR), Citizens in Charge Foundation sponsored &qot;Reforming the Reform Process: How to Restore Oklahoma's Initiative,&qot; a public seminar in Oklahoma City on November 15. The seminar brought together state and national experts on I&R, activists, political figures and scholars to discuss ways to make Oklahoma’s I&R process more usable.
The conference featured two panels, a national panel moderated by Brandon Dutcher of the Oklahoma Council for Policy Affairs, and a state panel moderated by Andrew Spiropoulos of Oklahoma City University School of Law.
The national panel included Prof. Frederick Boehmke of the University of Iowa, Ron Calzone of Missouri First, Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner, and M. Dane Waters of the Initiative & Referendum Institute. Former Democratic Senator and candidate for president Mike Gravel was invited but could not attend due to illness.
Featured on the state panel were state Sen. Randy Brogdon, City Sentinel Editor Patrick McGuigan, OIR Executive Director Norma Sapp and "65% Solution" initiative proponent Bob Sullivan.
Panelists discussed their experience and knowledge of the I&R process along with the reforms they believe are needed for Oklahoma before taking questions from the audience. Paul Grant, lead plaintiff in the landmark initiative rights case Meyer v Grant, gave the keynote lunch speech highlighting the history of I&R as a tool to control government and preserve citizens' rights.
Thanks to CICF's coalition partners and grassroots network the seminar was attended by nearly 80 people, roughly three times what we planned for! Attendees listened to a series of incredibly informational and inspiring presentations, and the crowd appeared to leave educated and ready to take on the powers that be in Oklahoma to fix their initiative process. CICF and OIR, plan to build on this momentum by holding several more smaller meetings around the state as part of a citizen-led task force on I&R reform that will present a report with detailed suggestions to the state legislature.
The Oklahoma conference is the first of many educational I&R events that CICF will be bringing to a city near you in 2009 as part of our Common Sense Initiative. Look for more info at CitizensInCharge.org, or email grassroots@citizensincharge.org directly to get involved.
Oklahoma's "Reforming the Reform Process" event is only one example of how Oklahomans are rolling up their sleeves to protect the once vibrant state initiative process. Oklahomans clearly see that the initiative process is the best tool available for reforming government and holding it accountable.
State Sen. Randy Brogdon and State Rep. Randy Terrill have stepped up and will propose legislation to open the state's initiative process by (1) ending the current 90-day limit on petitioning time, (2) lowering the nation's highest signature requirement, and (3) reforming the process so that initiatives are not thrown out after all the signatures are gathered because a "gist statement" or ballot title is found deficient.
These legislators pushed similar bills in the last session, but their legislation was blocked in the Senate. At the time, senators acknowledged that Attorney General Drew Edmondson had lobbied them to kill the bill. Now, after the November election, a much changed Senate offers a far better prospect for passing real reform of the state's initiative process. More importantly, Rep. Terrill and Sen. Brogdon will have the support of a growing grassroots network, including three active state groups that will help mobilize the public - Oklahomans for Responsible Government, Oklahomans for Initiative Rights and Americans for Prosperity-Oklahoma.
While Oklahoma is our number one priority for 2009, since it provides the very best opportunity to advance the initiative process, we see plenty of other opportunities and challenges on the horizon - in Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Washington and more. Through CSI, we'll help build pro-initiative grassroots groups, mobilize citizens, highlight the issue in the media (online and off), educate the public, and aggressively litigate to overturn the many unconstitutional restrictions on our petition rights.
Already in 2008, we've played a critical role in Deters v. Citizens for Tax Reform, a huge victory that overturned petition payment restrictions passed by Ohio legislators. Not only did Citizens in Charge Foundation file an amicus brief in the federal Sixth Circuit, we also stepped in to fund the final stages of this successful litigation. Weeks ago, the case ended when the U.S. Supreme Court denied the state's final appeal.
Citizens in Charge Foundation also filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Michigan Civil Rights Initiative proponents, who are being denied the right to intervene in a lawsuit seeking to strike down their successful initiative. (We take no position on the issue, but we support the right of any proponent to defend their initiative.)
Most would agree that the government is no longer of the people, for the people and by the people. The citizen-led reform process of initiative and referendum is the best tool that Americans have to allow their voices to be heard and thus remains overwhelmingly popular.
Given these facts, it's only common sense that we citizens ought to be in control of our government through a process of initiative and referendum. So CSI will consist of taking this message to the public through: 1)educational events, like the forum in Oklahoma, where the public can learn more about the importance of the process and understand the threats from politicians; 2) motivating pro-initiative leaders in each state to form an organization dedicated to staying on top of the legislature, finding friendly legislators to champion needed improvements, and mobilizing citizens to oppose restrictions on the initiative; and 3) using our national contacts to help each initiative state organize a broad and diverse coalition to speak out publicly in defense of the process.
Through good old-fashioned grassroots political activity, consistent educational efforts in new and traditional media, and an aggressive campaign of litigation, we will protect the initiative process. And with your help, we'll grow this movement stronger every day.
Ready to get involved? Email citizens@citizensincharge.org.
Citizens in Charge Foundation (CICF), a national group that works to educate citizens and opinion leaders on the importance of the voter initiative and referendum process, today named Colorado attorney Robert Corry as the December winner of the John Lilburne Award.
"John Lilburne struggled to establish the peoples' right to petition their government, and Robert Corry should be remembered for his efforts to defend that right." Said CICF President Paul Jacob.
Corry is honored for his work to defeat Colorado Referendum O, a measure placed on the ballot by the Colorado general assembly which would have effectively gutted Colorado's initiative process increasing the number of signatures required to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, required signatures meet a geographical distribution, and reduced the time period that initiative proponents have to circulate petitions. The measure failed to pass on November 4 by a margin of 52% 'No' to 48% 'Yes'.
"Referendum O was aimed at killing Colorado's initiative process, and by taking the initiative to fight against this destructive measure Robert helped preserve Coloradans' ability for citizen-led government," said Jacob.
The John Lilburne Award is given monthly by CICF in honor of 17th Century English pamphleteer, political activist, and champion of individual rights John Lilburne, who advocated constitutional government and pioneered the use of petitioning and referenda for redress against government power and abuse.
For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Brandon Holmes at (703) 492-1776 or brandon@citizensincharge.org.
As a case from Arizona concerning a ban on non-residents circulating petitions is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the High Court just last week denied the State of Ohio’s appeal of a federal court ruling that the state’s ban on per signature payments to petition circulators is unconstitutional.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader calls them “Jim Crow laws.” Yet, in the last three years, legislatures in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota have passed laws restricting the work of circulating a petition to state residents only.
Lawsuits stemming from Mr. Nader’s 2004 independent presidential run and state residency laws landed in two federal circuit courts in 2008. Three judge panels in both the federal Sixth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal overturned those residency laws in Ohio and Arizona, respectively, handing down unanimous 3-0 rulings.
The Ninth Circuit case, Nader v. Brewer, has now been appealed by Arizona Secretary of State Janice Brewer to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit case concerning the Ohio law, Moore v. Brunner, has not been appealed.
Back in September, the federal Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments in an Oklahoma residency case, Yes on Term Limits v. Savage. A decision from that three judge panel is also expected in the next two to three months.
Another petition regulation popular with legislatures is outlawing the practice of compensating petition circulators on the basis of the number of signatures they gather.
Supporters of these so-called “pay-per-signature” bans argue that a per signature payment encourages circulators to forge signatures or to gather signatures of dubious validity. Opponents contend that paying by the hour costs initiative proponents dearly as it allows employees to not work diligently at gathering signatures and still get paid.
The U.S. Supreme Court just denied the State of Ohio appeal in the case Deters v. Citizens for Tax Reform (referred to in the cert petition as Ohio v. Citizens for Tax Reform). Thus, the High Court leaves in tact a federal district court and the Sixth Circuit’s decision striking down the Ohio ban.
Attorney David Langdon represented Citizens for Tax Reform. Citizens in Charge Foundation entered the fray in this case by funding Langdon’s reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, wherein he argued against the High Court granting cert.
Unlike the Ohio ban, similar restrictions have been upheld in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits regarding bans in North Dakota and Oregon, respectively. The Oregon law is facing a second challenge.
Both residency and payment per signature restrictions are likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. But the big question is: when? The High Court could take the current case on residency from Arizona now pending or it may not get involved for quite some time.
In recent election cycles, initiatives have been perceived to seriously impact the presidential contest or congressional races. The marriage amendments or same-sex marriage bans passed in a number of states in 2004 were believed to have assisted President Bush in winning the critical state of Ohio, for instance. Victories for term limits initiatives in 1992 and 1994 no doubt also helped Republicans sweep into Congress, then for the first time in 40 years.
But with 61 initiatives and referendums on the 2008 ballot, no discernable national trend appeared. On economic and social issues and on government reform and accountability, voters responded differently in different states.
Four states voted on measures impacting the initiative and referendum process itself. Citizens in Charge endorsed a NO vote on all four measures.
Voters defeated Proposition 105 in Arizona, which would have required a majority of all registered voters, not just those voting, to enact any initiative that either raised taxes or mandated spending of any amount. Referendum O in Colorado, which would have made it harder for citizens to place constitutional amendments on the ballot, but easier to qualify statutes, was also defeated.
On the other hand, Ohio voters approved Issue 1, moving the deadline for submitting initiative petitions backward from its current 90 days before the election to 125 days before the election. Wyoming’s Amendment B also passed, imposing a tougher distribution requirement for future Wyoming initiatives, even though no voter initiative has qualified for the ballot in Wyoming since 1996.
A measure to repeal term limits for South Dakota legislators was referred to the ballot by those same legislators. Voters crushed Amendment J, with more than 75 percent voting NO. Almost 70 percent of Louisiana voters enacted a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on public boards.
A redistricting reform finally passed in California. Proposition 11 won narrowly, 51-49 percent, thus placing legislative re-districting decisions in the hands of a commission rather than the state legislature.
One of the most interesting political reform proposals was the so-called “anti-corruption” initiatives placed on the ballot in Colorado and South Dakota. These measures restrict groups that receive government contracts over $100,000 from making certain types of campaign contributions. Though woefully outspent, Colorado Amendment 54 passed with 51% of the vote. South Dakota’s Initiated Measure 10 was defeated. A similar measure, the Anti-Corruption Act, is qualified for the 2010 ballot in Alaska.
Voters in Connecticut, Hawaii and Illinois defeated ballot questions that would have called a constitutional convention. These votes routinely fail by large percentages, as they did this year. But the millions money spent in each state by the National Education Association and other entrenched political interests against a YES vote was perhaps a sign of the potent desire for change among the electorate.
While Nebraska citizens enacted a prohibition against racial and gender preferences in education, government contracting and employment, Colorado became the first state in the country to defeat one of Ward Connerly’s anti-affirmative action measures, 51-49 percent.
On standard issues such as taxes, the results again were mixed. Voters in Massachusetts and North Dakota defeated income tax cuts, while Maine voters defeated a legislatively enacted tax increase in a referendum. Amendments 51 and 58 in Colorado, which would have increased taxes, were both beaten at the polls, while voters in Minnesota passed a statewide sales tax increase.
One of the sleeper issues of the 2008 cycle was Colorado’s Amendment 59, which would have put all future tax refunds from Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights into a fund for education. While the proponents of Amendment 59 far outspend opponents of the measure, it nonetheless went down to defeat.
On energy policy, Missouri passed Proposition C, which mandates that local utilities provide a rising percentage of energy from renewable energy sources. But California voters defeated a similar measure, Prop 7, and also defeated Prop 10, which would have subsidized various uses of alternative energy.
Oregon voters defeated Ballot Measure 58, which would have limited the use of foreign language instruction in public schools to two years, while Missouri voters passed Constitutional Amendment 1, establishing English as the official language for all government meetings.
Perhaps the closest thing to a trend was the success of a number of healthcare measures, even though Arizona’s Proposition 101 to guarantee a person’s choice of private health care systems lost by less than half a percentage point. SEIU backed measures to regulate and allow unionization of home health care workers passed in both Missouri and Washington. Montana voters passed I-155 to provide health insurance coverage for all uninsured children.
Medical marijuana passed in Michigan and a measure to decriminalize marijuana passed in Massachusetts, but a measure to provide more treatment options, rather than incarceration, failed in California.
Abortion restrictions were defeated in California, Colorado and South Dakota. Meanwhile, measures to ban same-sex marriage won in all three states – Arizona, California and Florida – where voted were able to decide. In Arkansas, an initiative to prevent unmarried couples from adopting was approved, while Washington state passed an assisted suicide law and Michigan voters permitted the use of embryonic stem cells in research.
Gambling measures also saw mixed views, with voters in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maryland and Missouri easing current rules or allowing for further gambling and Alaska, Maine and Ohio voters blocking increased gambling.
And on animal rights issues, California and Massachusetts passed measures to regulate animal treatment and outlaw dog racing, respectively, voters in Alaska defeated aerial wolf hunting restrictions and Oklahomans made hunting a constitutional right.
In 2008, voters did not speak in one voice on most of the major ballot issues. But fortunately, voters did get to speak in many voices.
(Woodbridge, VA) … Citizens in Charge Foundation, a national non-profit group working to educate the public on the importance of the voter initiative and referendum process, today named Eric Ehst, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute, as the November winner of the John Lilburne Award.
“Long ago, John Lilburne struggled to establish the peoples’ right to petition their government,” said Citizens in Charge Foundation President Paul Jacob. “This year in Arizona, Eric Ehst is being recognized for his efforts to defend that precious right.”
Ehst is honored for his work to defeat Proposition 105, which would have severely hampered Arizona’s initiative process by requiring a virtually impossible majority of all registered voters, not just those actually voting, to pass any initiative that would raise a tax or fee or that mandated any spending at all. Voters clobbered Proposition 105 on November 4 by a margin of 66 to 34 percent. Citizens in Charge, a sister organization, which directly lobbies and advocates for initiative rights, endorsed a NO vote on Proposition 105.
“Proposition 105 would have been devastating for Arizona’s initiative process,” Jacob argued. “Eric took the initiative, pun intended, in fighting this measure. He deserves this award for protecting the essential rights of Arizonans.”
The John Lilburne Award is given monthly by Citizens in Charge Foundation in honor of John Lilburne, the 17th Century English pamphleteer, political activist, and champion of individual rights. Lilburn pioneered the use of petitioning and referenda for redress against government power and abuse.
For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Brandon Holmes at (703) 492-1776 or brandon@citizensincharge.org.
©2008 Citizens in Charge Foundation • 2050 Old Bridge Road, Suite 103, Lake Ridge, VA 22192
Phone: (703) 492-1776 • Fax: (703) 910-7728
Website designed by Squib Design, Inc.