Latest Stories
Monday, January 5, 2009
Tioga High students push to recall school board
Category: Education · State: California · Source: LA Times
Reporting from Groveland, Calif. -- When the school board in this rural community voted to get rid of popular math teacher Ryan Dutton in September, the students at Tioga High School were so upset, the entire school boycotted class the next day. Then they decided to save his job.
What started as a civics class project soon became much more: a campaign to remove all five board members of Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School District.
Believing in their teacher, the students organized a petition drive to hold a recall election in this sparsely populated district near Yosemite National Park. With the help of parents, teachers and even their principal, the campaign turned in about 1,200 signatures last week for each board member -- 910 were needed to call a special election. The students expect to learn this week whether the recall qualifies. If so, an election will be held in May.
Dutton, 31, a former professional football player, lost his job over allegations that he cheated in a course he took last spring at Cal State Fresno. The university cleared him and apologized for "any misunderstanding," but the board has refused to reinstate him.
"We didn't like what was happening in our district," said Elise Vallotton, Tioga student body president and president of the newly formed Students for a Better School District. "Many of us stood up at board meetings and explained our point of view. Obviously, they weren't listening. They didn't do anything to try and help us, and that's why we started the recall."
Despite its name, Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School District is hardly unified.
With a long history of political infighting and personal rivalries, it has run through seven superintendents in eight years. When Supt. Mari Brabbin was hired last year, one local businessman greeted her, "Welcome to the Gaza Strip."
The recall campaign has brought that bitterness and hostility into the open.
"It's become a dialogue of the deaf," Brabbin said.
Brabbin, who placed Dutton on leave, is also a target. Parents dug up complaints from her previous job. And a preliminary report from the association that accredits schools found that Tioga's "program this year has been totally disrupted because of the decisions of the superintendent and the school board."
The schism in the district was apparent at a tumultuous meeting of the school board in December. Hundreds of people crowded into the Tenaya Elementary School cafeteria to support the students seeking Dutton's return.
Community members peppered the board with allegations of mismanagement, missing school funds, improper teacher transfers, secret board meetings and lack of oversight for school construction projects.
More than a dozen students -- including the Tioga High basketball team dressed in uniform -- appealed to the board to reinstate Dutton. As the students made their case, the board members sat stone-faced.
Krystal Edman-Wilson, a sophomore, told the board she was disappointed that other beloved teachers had been forced to leave. Then she lost Dutton, who she said was "a great teacher and taught me math in a way I could understand."
"The students were starting to feel invisible in the eyes of the school board," she told the board. "Now, recall petitions are being signed. We want a fresh start."
Because most of Tioga's 120 or so students are not old enough to vote, they could not legally circulate petitions. Many parents joined the campaign, including one who provided an RV dubbed the "recall mobile" to collect signatures in remote areas.
"People who didn't get a chance to vote are trying to make a change in a small community in a very big way," said Gloria Marler, a former school board member who is supporting her daughter, Dana, 15, in the recall effort. "Basically, it's the children taking the initiative because their parents are either too afraid or too apathetic."
But the involvement of parents like Marler -- who is expected to run again if the recall qualifies for the ballot -- has prompted criticism that some grown-ups are taking advantage of the students to further their own agendas.
"They are being led by people who may not have their best interests at heart," school board member David Gookin said. (Read More...)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Still Oklahoma's Most Wanted
Category: Paul Jacob · State: Oklahoma · Source: Wall Street Journal
Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson recently told supporters that he plans to run for Governor in 2010. So voters might be interested in how the AG has treated critics of government while serving as the state's top law enforcer. The case of Paul Jacob is instructive.
A veteran political activist, Mr. Jacob is the former head of U.S. Term Limits and the current head of Citizens in Charge. A year ago, he and two fellow grassroots organizers, Rick Carpenter and Susan Johnson, were indicted on criminal conspiracy charges. Mr. Edmondson's office alleges that they attempted to defraud the state by hiring people from out of Oklahoma to gather signatures for a ballot initiative that would impose spending limits on lawmakers.
If convicted, the "Oklahoma Three" face 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. But a conviction is unlikely given that last week the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional Oklahoma's law that bans nonresidents from circulating petitions. Despite the ruling, Mr. Edmondson has refused to drop the case and says he will appeal.
Mr. Jacob maintains that he and the other defendants never broke the law and were acting in good faith. "The Attorney General's office is well aware that the people who pursued this petition drive on the ground went to state officials first, asked them what the rules were and followed their advice," said Mr. Jacob in an interview. "And they were told that as long as someone is residing in the state for the duration of the petition drive, that's residency."
The Oklahoma ruling follows decisions this year in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits that have overturned similar residency requirements in Ohio and Arizona. All three rulings have been unanimous. Mr. Edmondson insisted that the residency rule was necessary to guard against fraud. The court disagreed, noting that "Oklahoma has failed to prove the ban on non-resident circulators is narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the initiative process." Furthermore, the judges noted that the circulation of ballot petitions is "core political speech" that deserves the highest level of First Amendment protection.
Public officials claim residency laws are necessary to police the petition process, but these laws only serve to discourage its use. Unfortunately, more states are considering them. In recent years, South Dakota, Montana and Nebraska have passed residency bans. This year, Colorado's legislature passed a residency rule that was vetoed by the Governor. And in Missouri, a law passed the House but was blocked in the Senate.
Grassroots organizers pushing for term limits in the 1990s faced a barrage of attacks on the initiative process from state lawmakers and other elected officials nationwide. More recently, legislators have targeted advocates of tax and spending limits. Both issues are popular with voters but loathed by the political class.
Mr. Edmondson, a Democrat, is angling for support from public employee unions and other special interest groups that oppose tax and spending constraints. But more generally, his continued prosecution of the Oklahoma Three sends a chilling message to others who might consider exercising their right to petition government.
Earlier this year, Mr. Edmondson told Oklahoma City's Journal Record, "If the courts determine that the state's process violates the First Amendment, so be it. Until that time, our law will be enforced." Well, that time has come, yet he presses on, which suggests that Mr. Edmondson is motivated more by politics than justice.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Lawmaker wants 'fair' ballot language
Category: Ballot Access · State: Missouri · Source: Springfield News-Leader
Last month, numerous Greene County voters said they stood in polling booths, puzzled about what a county ballot initiative meant.
Some told reporters they had no idea what they voted for or against because the ballot language for Question 1 read like a section of law only discernable with a copy of the state constitution handy.
Sen. Jack Goodman, R-Mount Vernon, wants to reform the way ballot questions are presented to voters by giving them a "fair" interpretation of what current laws mean and how they would be altered under the proposed changes.
"The Greene County Question 1 is a good example of letting people understand what it is now and what we're changing it to," said Goodman, who doesn't represent Greene County but heard plenty of complaints about it from voters.
Goodman said voters deserve easy-to-understand information at the ballot box to make informed decisions.
"I want to work to make sure voters truly understand what they're voting on and the consequence of what they're voting on," he said.
Goodman's legislation, Senate Bill 35, would establish a newly created bipartisan eight-member Fair Ballot Commission to review and approve ballot language.
Entering his second term representing Barry, Lawrence, McDonald, Ozark, Stone and Taney counties in the Senate, Goodman remains the assistant majority floor leader and will likely chair a committee, although assignments have not yet been announced.
In addition to the fair ballot language bill, Goodman has pre-filed two other bills.
During the 2008 session, Goodman unsuccessfully sought a bill that would have allowed prosecutors to seek the death penalty against perpetrators who raped or sodomized a child under 12 years old. It was modeled after a Louisiana law.
Over the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Louisiana law, effectively ending efforts in Missouri and other states to make child rape punishable by death.
But Goodman has modified the bill for the 2009 session, eliminating the death penalty clause. His new legislation, Senate Bill 36, would give prosecutors the option to seek life without parole for crimes of brutal rape and sodomy of a child.
"Under existing law, the maximum, even though you can call it a life sentence, is 30 years," said Goodman, a former Dade County assistant prosecutor.
Goodman's Senate Bill 37 would allow regional public defender systems to contract with private attorneys to take certain types of lower-level criminal defense cases. Missouri is one of seven states where public defender systems are under tremendous caseload strain, creating bad national press and delaying justice by months and, in some cases, years.
"It's becoming a very big problem," Goodman said. "The real losers are the crime victims. They're not getting their case solved. They're not getting to move on with their lives."
Goodman said privatizing some of the defense work allows the state to provide adequate defense and utilize the contractor's support staff and offices, eliminating the need to expand current government-run public defender offices. He said his bill is a short-term fix to a system that's woefully underfunded.
"Until we're able to do that, this allows some flexibility and greater efficiency," Goodman said. "If we don't put in place a system for the protections of everyone's right when they're accused, then the rights you and I enjoy wouldn't mean anything."
State to appeal unconstitutionality ruling
Category: Corruption · State: Oklahoma · Source: Journal-Record
Oklahoma will appeal a federal appeals court ruling that held unconstitutional the state’s law banning out-of-state initiative petition circulators, a spokesman for Attorney General Drew Edmondson says.
“We have some options,” Charlie Price said.
One route would be to seek a rehearing before the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, another to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We will be, over the next few days, next week, making a decision how to proceed on that front,” Price said.
Price said there is a split among federal circuit courts on the issue.
That nation’s highest court is more likely to agree to hear matters on which federal appeals courts do not agree.
Price said that in 2001 the 8th Circuit upheld North Dakota’s law banning out-of-state petition circulators. He said a 1998 decision by the Maine Supreme Court had held that state’s law constitutional.
“The other side took that to the U.S. Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case, therefore upholding Maine’s ban on out-of-state petition takers,” he said.
Price said there is also an Arizona case, which dealt with an attempt to get a candidate on the ballot by petition, rather than a state question.
“Their ban on that situation has been struck down,” he said. “The state of Arizona currently has a petition for cert
pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit held that Oklahoma’s ban on nonresident petition circulators violates the First and 14th Amendments.
The Oklahoma law was challenged by Yes on Term Limits, which backed a proposal to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to limit the terms of certain state offices. An Oklahoma federal judge upheld the law.
The appellate panel said that to survive the strict scrutiny required of laws that limit the freedom of core political speech, Oklahoma had the burden of proving that its ban on nonresident circulators is “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
The 10th Circuit disagreed with the lower court that the Oklahoma law met that burden, saying the record did not support the district court’s conclusion that out-of-state circulators as a class engage in fraudulent activity more than resident circulators.
The appellate judges also said Oklahoma could craft a more narrowly targeted law requiring that nonresident circulators make agreements with the state, rather than initiative proponents, requiring them to provide their contact information and agree to return to the state in the event of a protest. They said the state could provide criminal penalties for those who fail to return.
“Oklahoma has failed to prove the ban on nonresident circulators is narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the initiative process,” the 10th Circuit said.
In an earlier civil action filed by Taxpayer Bill of Rights protesters, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the TABOR petition invalid due to “criminal wrongdoing and fraud” during the signature drive.
Price said it is up to Oklahoma County Special Judge James Paddleford how to proceed in a criminal case pending against three individuals accused of using circulators from other states in the 2005 TABOR signature drive.
Rick Carpenter, chairman of Oklahomans in Action, the major state support group behind the TABOR petition, was charged with violating the Oklahoma law banning out-of-state circulators. Carpenter and Susan Johnson, president of National Voter Outreach, which conducted the signature-gathering process, and Paul Jacob, president of Citizens in Charge, were each charged with conspiracy to defraud the state.
A preliminary hearing in the felony case is scheduled to reconvene Feb. 6.
“We will be ready to do whatever the judge decides to do,” Price said. “At the time the charge was filed, the law in the state of Oklahoma was, you cannot use out-of-state petition takers.”
Jacob issued a statement following the appeals court ruling, which he said affects the criminal prosecutions.
“We did not violate this law, but now we know that the law in question is unconstitutional,” Jacob said.
Citizens in Charge has long argued that residency restrictions are unconstitutional, he said.
“The impact of these laws is to reduce the number of people available to help Oklahomans speak out politically,” Jacob said.
He termed the prosecutions politically motivated, saying that they have had a “terribly chilling effect” on Oklahomans wanting to petition the government.
Citizens in Charge officials said the 10th Circuit ruling follows decisions from the 9th and 6th Circuits overturning residency laws.
Oklahoma City attorney James Dunn, a board member of Yes on Term Limits, said the appeals court decision was a proper ruling.
“What the 10th Circuit pointed out so astutely is that petition circulation is core political speech, because it involves interactive communications and it concerns political change,” he said. “If the people are not able to rise up and change the political process through a majority of numbers and through massive numbers, then we’ve got a real problem.”
Dunn said the decision will benefit not just the state, but the nation as well.
“This, I’m sure, is precedent for any other state that has this same type of activity, some other attorney general trying to take the same position that Edmondson has wrongfully taken,” he said. “Certainly, this is precedent for the whole nation.”
Kansas City, Mo., attorney Todd Graves served as plaintiff’s co-counsel in the Yes on Term Limits case.
“The federal appeals court’s Thursday ruling upholds an important free speech principle and joins other federal courts in upholding citizens’ First Amendment right to petition their government without threat of political prosecution,” Graves said.
Appeals court strikes down Oklahoma petition law
Category: Initiative and Referendum · State: Oklahoma · Source: Daily Oklahoman
An appeals court today struck down as unconstitutional Oklahoma’s law that bans non-residents from circulating petitions to place proposed laws and constitutional amendments on the ballot.
The law was challenged by a group known as Yes on Term Limits Inc. which wants to circulate petitions to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to limit terms of several state officials.
Today's 3-0 decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a September 2007 decision by Senior U.S. District Judge Tim Leonard in Oklahoma City, who concluded was the law was constitutional.
“We will be appealing” the decision, said a spokesman for Attorney General Drew Edmondson, speaking from Oklahoma City.
Citing evidence from Oklahoma's secretary of state and attorney general questioning the integrity of non-resident circulators of petitions, Leonard concluded the ban was necessary to protect the integrity and reliability of the petition process.
The appellate judges, in a 16-page decision, disagreed.
“From this limited evidence, (Leonard) made unwarranted conclusions about non-resident circulators as a class,” they wrote.
Missouri affirmative action ballot proposal draws challenges
Category: Civil Rights · State: Missouri · Source: Columbia Missourian
The wording of a proposed ballot measure banning many Missouri affirmative action programs has again prompted litigation from supporters and critics of the measure.
Earlier this month, the secretary of state's office approved for circulation a proposed 2010 ballot measure that would restrict affirmative action programs in public contracting, employment and education. An identical proposition for the 2008 ballot never qualified and led to lawsuits questioning the fairness of the ballot summary that's prepared by the secretary of state.
Petition sponsor Tim Asher said Monday that he will again challenge the measure's ballot summary. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union said it would seek to have the entire measure declared unconstitutional, or to at least get the ballot summary rewritten.
Friday, December 19, 2008
CO: Judge fines D-11 for campaign flier
Category: Government Accountablilty · State: Colorado · Source: Colorado Springs Gazette
A judge has fined Colorado Springs School District 11 $1,000 for violating a campaign finance law that bans using public money to urge voters to approve a ballot measure.
The case concerns a mailer sent to voters in September that discussed a ballot measure to increase the district's property tax rate. The mailer included information about how the district planned to use the $21.5 million in new taxes that would have been raised had Question 3E passed on the Nov. 4 ballot. The measure failed with 56 percent of voters saying "no."
Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer ruled Wednesday the mailer violated Colorado's Fair Campaign Practices Act.
"The district's favorable presentation of the (mill levy override) as a method to meet its goals was an unmistakable plea for support for the ballot issue then pending before the electorate," Spencer wrote.
District 11 spent $11,063 to prepare, print and mail the flier.
Tax-reduction crusader Douglas Bruce filed a complaint against the district after he received the mailer at his house. Bruce said Thursday he was pleased with the ruling but felt the fine should have been higher.
"It was a fraudulent, blatantly illegal activity, and they deserve to be criticized for it and fined even more than they were," he said.
Spencer said he kept the fine low because district employees didn't deliberately violate the law and because the district is "already under financial stress."
The mailer was one of three District 11 sent as part of a program officials said was designed to boost the district's image. It was the only one, though, that mentioned the proposed property tax increase. District spokeswoman Elaine Naleski said during hearings in the case she tried to ensure the mailer complied with the law by removing words from a draft version that said: "We cannot do this alone. So we are coming to you for help."
In addition, District 11 Chief Financial Officer Glenn Gustafson distributed a document to district employees explaining rules that govern working on a tax campaign.
Gustafson said Thursday he views the ruling as a narrow interpretation of the law but doesn't intend to appeal. That decision would be up to the district's seven-member board.
"We apologize for misconstruing the law, and we're sorry it came out this way," he said. "We'll use this information. I think this give us much better guidance on future elections as to materials we prepare."
Gustafson said legal fees to defend the district were about $50,000.
Bruce has filed numerous complaints over the years about alleged violations of campaign finance laws. He has a mixed record. A complaint against state House District 15 candidate Mark Waller was successful when a judge found Waller accepted an improper donation from a corporation. Waller ousted Bruce from the House District 15 seat in the August Republican primary election. Bruce also alleged Memorial Health System made an illegal contribution to a campaign to raise El Paso County's sales tax rate, but that complaint was thrown out.
Gustafson said a similar complaint from Bruce was tossed in 2004, and Bruce was ordered to pay $1,000. The district's legal fees in that case were about $60,000.
Court reverses initiative petition ruling
Category: Civil Rights · State: Oklahoma · Source: Edmond Sun
A federal appeals court Thursday ruled that an Oklahoma law that bars nonresidents from circulating initiative petitions in the state is unconstitutional and reversed a lower court that had upheld the statute.
In a 16-page decision, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver overturned the ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Tim Leonard in Oklahoma City and sent the case back to him for more hearings.
Leonard had ruled that state officials presented “overwhelming evidence” that questioned the integrity of professional petition circulators and cited evidence of wrongdoing in other states by professional, paid circulators.
But the appellate court said the record did not support the district court’s conclusion that nonresident circulators engage in fraudulent activity more than resident circulators and ruled the state failed to prove that its ban was narrowly tailored to protect the initiative process due to a higher rate of nonresident circulator fraud.
The appellate court said the state’s ban on nonresident circulators, which subjects violators to criminal prosecution, violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.
Charlie Price, spokesman for Attorney General Drew Edmondson’s office, said state attorneys may ask the appellate judges to reconsider or rehear the case, or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The appellate court’s ruling could have an impact on the state’s prosecution of three people indicted on felony charges by the state’s multicounty grand jury for allegedly using out-of-state residents to circulate an initiative petition.
Paul Jacob of Virginia, a national leader of the term limit movement, Susan Johnson of Michigan, head of a signature-gathering company, and Rick Carpenter of Tulsa, director of Oklahomans In Action, are charged with conspiracy to defraud the state by using out-of-state circulators to collect signatures for the so-called taxpayer bill of rights in 2006.
Price said the case is still pending.
Oklahoma’s law, similar to those in other states, was challenged by Yes on Term Limits, which wants to use nonresident, professional petition circulators to put an initiative on the ballot to enact two-term limits on the statewide offices of lieutenant governor, state auditor and inspector, attorney general, treasurer, labor commissioner and schools superintendent.
The group’s attorneys alleged that the law barring nonresidents and other Oklahoma laws that limit the initiative process are among the most restrictive in the nation.
In its ruling, the appellate court said the circulation of initiative petitions is “core political speech” involving interactive communication about political change and deserves the highest level of First Amendment protection.
The appellate judges rejected findings by the lower court that Oklahoma has a “compelling interest in protecting and policing both the integrity and the reliability of its initiative process.”
“Oklahoma has failed to prove that banning all nonresident circulators is a narrowly tailored means of meeting its compelling interest,” the ruling states. “Oklahoma has also failed to prove the ineffectiveness of plausible alternatives to the blanket ban on nonresidents.”
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Ohio Legislature Passes Other Election Law Bills But Still Doesn’t Pass New Ballot Access Bill
Category: Ballot Access · State: Ohio · Source: Ballot Access News
The Ohio legislature elected in 2006 is still in session, but it expects to adjourn on Thursday, December 18. A few days ago it passed an election law bill, SB 380, which relates to early voting. However, no legislator introduced any bill to replace the old, void ballot access procedures for new and minor political parties.
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner testified recently in an Ohio legislative hearing that the state has paid out over $1,000,000 in attorneys fees, in election law cases, this past year. When she took office in January 2007, Ohio was involved in 22 election law lawsuits. Although that has now been whittled down to 10 still outstanding, new cases have been filed this year.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
‘Open primary’ may be headed to 2010 ballot
Category: Election Reform · State: California · Source: Capitol Weekly
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday plans to discuss his goals for political reform that may include a push to change California's primary election laws.
The governor and those close to him who helped spearhead the recent change in the state's redistricting laws are expected to voice suport for open primaries, which would allow voters to cast primary ballots for any candidate, regardless of partisan affiliation. A ballot initiative could be before voters by 2010, perhaps even earlier, to change the state's primary laws.
Schwarzenegger has already signaled his support of an open primary. That issue - and others - are expected to be covered Wednesday by the governor in a public briefing on political reform.
"He (the governor) believes we need to have a robust debate about that and other political issues," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. "You can anticipate that, as he has through his governorship, he will continue to push for political reform."
One view of the partisan paralysis gripping the California Legislature is that it could be eased by embracing open primary elections, in which voters can cast ballots for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. The notion is not new - some 13 states already have open primaries and 20 more have variants, and California had open primaries in 1998, before its law was thrown out by the courts. But reformers, the governor and others now see open primaries in California as a possible answer to a Capitol frozen in partisan gridlock.
The political parties themselves remain opposed, however, and during the past decade voters have tended to agree, turning down two attempts to open up the primaries.
But California voters, in a signal that change could be looming, recently approved the creation of a bipartisan, independent commission to draw the boundaries for 120 legislative and four Board of Equalization districts, taking that authority away from the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
Before the November election, Gov. Schwarzenegger said in Los Angeles that redistricting was the most important first step. "And of course, the next thing is open primaries. That's how we have to walk down that road and create the real change and not stay with the status quo."
California Forward, a nonprofit political group that played a significant role in the passage of Proposition 11, the redistricting measure, is looking at the possibility of changes to the primary election process. The group says its overarching goal is to ensure confidence and trust in the election process. California Forward, which is in the midst of researching the primary election issue, has not set a timeline for its reform proposals, if any, although others interested in primary election changes see the 2010 ballot as a likely target, even sooner.
"Elections should be designed for voters, not for protecting incumbents or elected officials," said California Forward's Zabrae Valentine. "There is a good chance that this reform area (open primary) could be part of the solution." She noted that a number of other options also might improve the existing primary, including removing the partisan designations on candidates or allowing voters to register without identifying their party affiliation.
"Any thying we can do to improve trust and confidence is worth looking at," Valentine added. "No single reform will do that."
California Common Cause, a sponsor of Proposition 11, also is looking at open primaries. Common Cause notes there are a number of possibilities, including same-day election registration, a fully open primary and the so-called "top two" formula, in which the top two vote-getters in the primary face off in the general election, regardless of party affiliation.
In election-day registration, voters request the party ballot of their choice. Like California Forward, Common Cause is examining the options.
"We are particularly interested in election-day registration," said Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause. "In November 2008, we saw a lot of voters try to vote who were turned away. They were convinced they had registered to vote, but because of the turnout, they weren't in the system." Election-day registration, she added, would help alleviate that problem.
"We think election-day registration allows people who are legitimately able to vote to express that on election day. It would allow for an open primary, like Michigan, and it would eliminate the ‘criss-cross," she added. The "criss-cross," the bane of the two major parties, allows registrants of one party to vote in another's primary - a move they believe causes political mischief.
The purpose of a primary election is to select the party's candidate. In a fully open primary, any voter can vote for any candidate. In a fully closed primary, voters can only vote for a candidate from their own party. In either case, the general election remains unchanged: Voters can vote for whomever they want.
California has what is called a modified closed primary. In this system, the parties determine whether those registered as declined-to-state can vote in the party's primary election. Generally, that means declined-to-state voters can cast ballots in most primaries except presidential and party leadership positions.
One statewide race, the superintendent of Public Instruction, is nonpartisan. The contenders are listed on the ballot by name, but not party. If candidate wins more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary, the race is over. If no candidate wins 50 percent, a runoff election is held in November during the general election.
Make initiatives more voter-friendly
Category: Bill Sizemore · State: Oregon · Source: Southern Oregon Mail-Tribune
Some of Oregon's newly elected leaders are making noises about cracking down on ballot initiative fraud and vowing to return control of the initiative and referendum system to the people. While these are high-sounding goals, there is a simpler reform that would help voters and avoid a pitched legal battle.
Oregon Secretary of State-elect Kate Brown and Attorney General-elect John Kroger, both Democrats, say they will vigorously prosecute fraud in signature gathering — as they should. But proven incidents of fraud have been rare.
Of greater concern to some legislative leaders is the growing influence of wealthy political activists such as Nevada millionaire Loren Parks, who gave $2 million this year to back conservative measures sponsored by Kevin Mannix and Bill Sizemore. Oregon House Speaker-elect Dave Hunt says the 2009 Legislature may try to increase the number of signatures required to qualify a measure backed by a campaign that pays signature-gatherers.
"We need to seize control of the citizen initiative process from wealthy interests and give it back to Oregon citizens," Hunt told The Associated Press.
That might please labor unions and other liberal groups who must spend big bucks to fight Sizemore's anti-union, anti-tax initiatives, but it would also invite a battle that could wind up in the courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of measure sponsors to pay signature-gatherers, although voters did pass an initiative outlawing paying per signature in hopes of discouraging fraud. But passing a law that makes it harder to qualify an initiative if signature-gatherers are paid is treating one class of political speech differently than another — a juicy target for a lawsuit.
We're no fans of Sizemore's cynical attacks on unions, government and responsible taxation, but most Oregon voters haven't been either. All five of Sizemore's measures failed this year, and voters approved another measure overturning the "double-majority" provision Sizemore included in his property tax-limiting Measure 47 in 1996.
Simply put, Sizemore is wearing out his welcome with voters.
But one change in state law would go a long way toward helping voters decide on ballot measures that carry a cost to the state budget, and it doesn't come from Democratic leaders but from the bipartisan Tax Force on Comprehensive Revenue Restructuring.
Among the task force's "short-term recommendations" is to include information about the fiscal consequences of initiatives in the official ballot title.
This year, voters approved Measure 57, which toughens sentencing requirements for some crimes and requires drug and alcohol treatment for offenders. The Legislature proposed it as a less expensive alternative to Kevin Mannix's Measure 61, which could have cost as much as $797 million over five years.
Measure 57 is estimated to cost $411 million over the same period, and it provides no funding mechanism. But the estimated cost did not appear in the ballot title.
If the cost had been more clearly stated, voters still might have passed it, but more of them would have done so knowing how much it would cost.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Missouri Affirmative Action
Category: Affirmative Action · State: Missouri · Source: KOMU 8
Opponents are taking aim at Missouri's affirmative action programs.
They'll try again in 2010 to get Missourians to vote for a constitutional amendment banning the programs.
It's finals week at Lincoln University and the only sounds heard at the library are the pages of books turning. But if voters ban affirmative action in missouri some say that sound could turn to uproar.
"I feel they want to stop the progess of miniorties. I feel like its wrong," said student, Jamere Thurman.
The secretary of state has approved the circulation of a petition that proposes an end to affirmative action in public employment, education and contracting.
"In last election section we did see this initiative but they didn't turn in the signatures to have it on the ballot," said Laura Egerdal, who works for the secretary of state's office.
Reached in Colorado, the petition's sponsor said the proposal did not make it on this years ballot because supporters simply ran out of time. Petition sponsor, Tim Asher, is confident his group will get enough signatures to put the issue before voters. The opponents have more than a year to get the signatures to put the issue on the 2010 ballot.
2 ballot issues cost $82 million
Category: Gaming · State: Ohio · Source: Columbus Dispatch
It's been more than a month since Ohioans' televisions blared and mailboxes bulged with advertisements for and against a ballot measure to allow a single casino near Wilmington.
We know the outcome: The issue was defeated handily. Now, we know the cost: $62.2 million, more than doubling the previous record for the most-expensive campaign in Ohio history.
A Minnesota company spent nearly $26 million to sell Ohioans on the merits of a casino resort between Columbus and Cincinnati, while a rival casino operator spent more than $36 million convincing voters that it was a bad idea.
Those numbers dwarfed outlays totaling about $20 million in the other contentious issue on the November ballot, payday lending. But Issue 5 supporters had the most eye-catching single donation: a $10,000 check from the campaign committee of former Attorney General Marc Dann, forced out of office in May.
The fight over state Issue 6 boiled down almost exclusively into a tug-of-war between two gambling companies. The state's traditional gambling opponents spent about $68,000 opposing the measure.
All told, casino supporters spent $12.97 per "yes" vote while opponents shelled out $10.90 for each "no."
The spending easily set a record for money to support or oppose a ballot measure in Ohio. The 2006 campaign to authorize slot machines at racetracks attracted $27 million, nearly all of it in support. The measure failed anyway.
The outcome was similar for the big spenders on state Issue 5, where the payday-lending industry dropped more than $19 million, only to go down to a crushing 27-point defeat. Ohioans voted to uphold tough new regulations on the short-term lenders.
Although this year's gambling measure lost by a larger measure than the 2006 issue, sponsors of the ballot measure say they plan to return in 2009.
Rick A. Lertzman and Brad A. Pressman, whose MyOhioNow.com committee got Issue 6 on the ballot, are shopping around the idea of a new measure with casinos in Ohio's major cities, including Columbus. They point to the results of Issue 6, which passed in its would-be home county and neighboring areas but received only 37 percent of the vote statewide.
"When we move forward in 2009, we're trying to build a bigger coalition," Lertzman said yesterday. "With opponents spending $50 million, we'd rather work with them than against them, but we'll have to look at that."
Nearly all of the money against Issue 6 came from Penn National Gaming Inc., a Pennsylvania-based casino operator that owns Argosy Casino in Indiana near Cincinnati, as well as a horse-racing track in Toledo.
Lertzman and Pressman have pointed out that Argosy Casino would have lost business to their casino, which would have been 60 miles from Cincinnati.
Funding for Issue 6 came from Lakes Entertainment Inc. of Minnesota.
Although Lertzman said Ohio casino supporters would be happy to work with Lakes Entertainment on a new ballot measure in 2009, it's unclear whether the company can afford to dig into its pockets again.
Lakes, which is publicly traded, posted $5.7 million in net losses for the third quarter of 2008. Penn National, on the other hand, reported $147.4 million in net profit for the same period.
Penn National has not indicated interest in pursing a casino in Ohio, but a company spokesman did say that the defeat of Issue 6 does not mean that Ohioans are morally or philosophically opposed to gambling.
On state Issue 5, payday lenders outspent opponents nearly 43-to-1, blanketing the airwaves with television ads. But the ads did little to turn public opinion.
About two-thirds of the $524,000 raised by the Yes on 5 payday opponents came from the Ohio Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio. Bill Faith, the coalition's director and the leader of the anti-payday campaign, credited a grassroots effort aided by church leaders and others for overcoming the tremendous spending disadvantage.
Outside of groups such as AARP, the largest individual donation to Yes on 5 was from Dann who, before resigning following a sexual harassment scandal in his office, advocated tougher payday lending laws.
His donation was recorded Oct. 16, one day after the cutoff for the pre-primary reporting period that would have made the contribution public prior to the election. The Yes on 5 committee did not invite him to an Oct. 8 news conference featuring other former attorneys general speaking in support of the new law.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Oregon ballot measure system under scrutiny
Category: Bill Sizemore · State: Oregon · Source: The Oregonian
It's a cherished Oregon tradition — citizens banding together to gather signatures to place proposed laws on the ballot. Assisted suicide, vote-by-mail elections and property tax limits are just a few of the laws enacted directly by voters over the years.
The century-old initiative and referendum system has been used more widely in Oregon than most other states, but it will be the target of increased scrutiny and possible new constraints in the coming year.
Legislators and some of the state's top elected officials say the initiative system's reputation has been tainted by well-heeled people using the system to promote their own agendas, and by allegations of abuse and fraud.
Among those leading the charge for tougher oversight are Oregon Secretary of State-elect Kate Brown and Oregon Attorney General-elect John Kroger.
"You've got two new sheriffs in town," Brown said. "Working together, we want to send a very strong message that fraud will not be tolerated."
She said, for example, that she might seek authority to have the secretary of state's office — not the 36 county clerks — check signatures to make sure they are valid and were properly collected by petition carriers.
The Oregon initiative and referendum system was created by voters in 1902. It was touted as a way for common citizens to overcome the influence that railroads and mining companies had over the Legislature and to enact or block laws directly.
But the Nov. 4 election, in which Oregonians voted on eight initiative measures, was far from a grass-roots exercise.
Spending on Oregon initiative campaigns hit $20 million, with public employee unions kicking in $14 million to defeat measures sponsored by conservative initiative authors Bill Sizemore and Kevin Mannix.
The largest individual contributor was reclusive Nevada millionaire Loren Parks, who spent $2 million in support of the Sizemore and Mannix proposals.
This year's initiative campaign also was marked by allegations by a union-funded watchdog group that some signatures on initiative petitions circulated by conservative activists were forged. Those allegations are still under a state investigation.
And earlier this month, Sizemore — Oregon's most prolific initiative promoter — was jailed for a night after a judge found him in contempt of a 2003 injunction that blocked him from using charitable organizations to raise money for political purposes.
Some of the state's top political leaders say those developments have tarnished what was once seen as a shining example of Oregon's populist tradition of direct action democracy.
Oregon House Speaker-elect Dave Hunt said the 2009 Legislature will look at various proposals, including one to increase the signature requirements to make it more difficult for well-funded individuals or groups to place proposed laws on the statewide ballot. The signature requirements would stay the same for all volunteer initiative efforts, he said.
"We need to seize control of the citizen initiative process from wealthy interests and give it back to Oregon citizens," Hunt said.
There's no doubt that Oregonians are fond of their initiative system — they have voted on nearly 350 initiative measures since 1902.
Mannix, a former state lawmaker and Republican gubernatorial candidate who had two initiatives on this year's ballot, is suspicious about the motives of Hunt and others who want to tighten laws dealing with initiatives.
"These are political elites who think they know better than the people" and who want to limit citizens' rights to directly enact laws, Mannix said.
"The reality is, there is very limited wrongdoing. And when it is unearthed, it is prosecuted," Mannix said.
Political scientist Bill Lunch said the initiative system has become more dominated by monied special interests mainly because they're the ones who can afford to pay petition gatherers — a practice that's been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lunch worries, though, that the initiative system has left the state with expensive and often conflicting policies. In recent years, voters have endorsed measures that have forced the state to spend more money on such things as prison construction without offering a way to pay the costs.
Kroger, who will be sworn in as Oregon's attorney general Jan. 5, said he wants to work with the secretary of state's office to ensure that whatever initiatives end up on the ballot get there with properly collected, valid signatures.
"Oregon's ballot measure system is extraordinarily important because it really determines the direction of Oregon government to a profound degree," Kroger said. "Oregonians need to be 100 percent confident that the law is not being violated."
Access to the ballot
Category: · State: · Source: Denver Post
Wyoming tweaked its ballot-issue law this year, requiring that petition signatures be distributed among state Senate districts. Ohio changed its filing deadlines for ballot issues. Those passed, but an Arizona initiative to require more votes to pass a tax increase than other kinds of ballot issues failed.
And so did Colorado's Referendum O, which was the most sweeping of this year's crop of ballot issues attempting to affect future ballot issues. There were only four of them around the country, says Jennie Drage Bowser of the National Conference of State Legislatures, and half failed.
Because Referendum O lost, it will be difficult for the legislature to propose another change anytime soon. It's best if the initiative comes from a citizen group, because when the legislature suggests it, it seems self-serving.
And yet, voters seem to prefer legislative ballot issues to citizen proposals. The NCSL says citizen initiatives have a much higher failure rate than legislative referendums.
Of the 59 citizen initiatives across the country this year — and only 24 states even grant this kind of citizen ballot access — voters approved 25 and rejected 34. That 42 percent approval rate compares with 49.4 percent over the past decade, Bowser says.
Of the 84 legislative referendums, 61 were approved, or 73 percent. That, too, is less than the 1996-2006 average of 77 percent.
So it seems that voters are getting more skeptical about ballot issues. That certainly was true in Colorado. It had 14 ballot issues, more than any other state, and 10 were rejected by voters. Only two of 10 citizen initiatives passed, plus two of the four legislative referendums.
Colorado's voters over the years have passed provisions that just don't play well together. The worst example is the conflict between TABOR, which forces the state to rebate tax revenues that grow faster than the rate of inflation, and Amendment 23, which requires state education spending to grow at faster than the rate of inflation.
Amendment 59 on this year's ballot attempted to fix that problem, but it failed, as did Ref O, which would have required 50 percent more signatures for future constitutional amendment petitions than for statutory ballot issues.
It's difficult to fix old problems with new procedures. But Ken Katt has an idea how Colorado can make it more difficult in the future to foul things up. He e-mailed a suggestion: Require any future amendments to the state constitution to win in two-thirds of the counties. "In other words, before amending the Colorado Constitution via a statewide vote, let's require that an issue demonstrate that it enjoys statewide support."
A constitutional amendment would have to win a majority in 43 of the state's 64 counties. A statutory change would need to pass in only half of the counties.
This is similar what Wyoming used to do with petition requirements. Signatures had to be collected in a certain percentage of counties. But a federal court found that violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, Bowser said — because counties vary widely by population. So this year, Wyoming voters approved a change to base the distribution on state Senate districts, which are roughly equal in population.
Colorado could do the same with its 35 Senate districts. Whatever the formula, Katt says the amendment implementing the changes should have to pass "by the same criteria it seeks to impose."
That would be unlike Florida, which in 2006 imposed a 60 percent approval requirement for future constitutional amendments. It passed by just 57.8 percent.
Foes vandalize speed cameras, target program with initiatives
Category: Civil Rights · State: Arizona · Source: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/12/15/20081215camerahate15a1.html
When a man swung a pickax at the metal housing of a freeway speed camera, the clang resonated with untold numbers of Arizona drivers frustrated with the 3-month-old program.
It's hard to know if the cameras have more fans or foes. But, so far, the foes have been more vocal, filling up Internet discussion boards and talk-radio airwaves. These impassioned people want the cameras to come down - if not with a pickax, then with a vote.
Two groups say they are readying citizen ballot initiatives for the 2010 election that would cripple the cameras. Some folks aren't waiting. Besides the pickax, there have been vandals spraying Silly String or putting Post-it notes over the lenses.
Those against the cameras take varying angles: Some call them an invasion of privacy or just a way to soak drivers for money; others worry that cars suddenly slowing at photo zones will cause more accidents.
A few honest ones, though, will say they simply can't drive 55 mph.
"It's not as fun to go slow," said Jay Mann, 27, an aerospace technician from north Phoenix.
Mann does approve of red-light cameras at intersections because, he said, they improve safety. But freeway cameras, which trigger at 11 mph over in 55-mph zones and at 10 mph over in 65-mph and 75-mph zones, don't necessarily make people safer, he said.
"I feel I can drive my car . . . at 75 miles an hour and be safe," he said.
Darin Simmer, 40, a retired nightclub owner, said the sheer number of freeway cameras bothers him. "There's just one after the other after the other," he said.
Simmer, who recently became part of an online group at www.camera fraud.com, said the public has reached a breaking point.
"I think there's some blowback," Simmer said.
The cameras already pushed a former substitute teacher to the breaking point.
According to a court document, an officer parked under the Loop 101's 59th Avenue bridge at 11:42 p.m. Dec. 3 heard loud noises and turned around to see a man swinging a pickax up at a camera.
By the time the motorcycle officer approached, he saw the man scramble up the freeway embankment, the report said. He yelled at him to stop, and the man did, raising the pickax over his head.
The officer noted that the camera had six "puncture wounds" in its face. The company that makes the cameras said the device suffered only "cosmetic damage." However, the blows did knock the camera out of position, keeping it from recording violations, the report said.
Travis Monroe Townsend, 26, faces a felony charge of criminal damage in the incident. He was released on his own recognizance. His next court date is scheduled for Wednesday. Camera foes didn't expect a yard-tool assault, said D.T. Arneson, the Mesa computer repairman who started Camera Fraud in August. They were surprised that Townsend was hailed as a hero on radio stations and on chat boards.
The incident "could be used as a pulse for the general public," Arneson said.
That's a good sign for the group's proposed ballot measure, which would shut down the freeway speed cameras.
Another proposed ballot measure, offered by two Mesa businessmen, would allow the cameras to operate but have them snap only speeders going 20 mph over the posted limit.
Dane Platt, who runs DW Sports Group in Mesa, said he has filed initial paperwork with the Secretary of State's Office.
Redflex, a Scottsdale company contracted to operate the cameras for the Department of Public Safety, said it believes photo enforcement would survive a popular vote.
"We can't be led to believe that (the criticism) is the majority of citizens," said Shoba Vaitheeswaran, a Redflex spokeswoman.
Redflex has encountered a "vocal minority" in every city that has introduced the cameras but had not heard of an incident like the one in Glendale, Vaitheeswaran said.
"We welcome an honest debate based on the facts," she said. "Unfortunately, what we're contending with here is in another league."
Tom Fillers is ready for that debate, especially after he received his photo ticket. A camera snapped him on Nov. 11 supposedly going 66 mph in a 55-mph zone.
Fillers said he was heading south on Arizona 51 near Highland Avenue. Traffic was light, and Fillers said he didn't pay attention to his speed. He was just going with the flow of traffic.
"Now, you've got to know what the speed limit is in the area you're in," he said. "Instead of being focused on driving, I'm focused on where these doggone cameras are."
Lt. Jim Warner, a spokesman for the DPS, said it's true that a driver like Fillers who was "going with the flow" might not have been cited by an actual officer waiting for a real speed demon.
"I understand that," Warner said. "But does that make it right?"
Warner said the DPS may look at raising trigger points for the cameras as it evaluates the program. He said the department is worried about safety, not money. He said he understands why the public is upset. The cameras can cite many more people than an officer ever could, so it seems unduly harsh.
"I guess we all got spoiled," he said. "We didn't have any checks and balances because there weren't many officers out there."
Warner said people tell him they like the speed cameras, although he said that, sometimes, he is in his DPS uniform when he hears positive comments.
The cameras do have a fan in Gabriella Arroyo, 31. "It will stop a lot of speeders," she said. "I find myself going the speed limit now. If it's affecting me, it's affecting a lot of other people, too."
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Culinary gathers signatures for initiative to undo downtown redevelopment plans
Category: City Government · State: Nevada · Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal
The Culinary union expanded its challenge to a new Las Vegas city hall Tuesday and announced a signature drive for ballot measures that could radically alter, or upend, the city’s downtown redevelopment efforts.
Culinary leaders said they’re worried about the city’s push to finance a multi-million dollar project at a time when the city is trying to cut costs to make ends meet. They also said redevelopment incentives for downtown projects divert money from other public needs.
“There’s just a disconnect there,” said D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of Culinary Workers Union Local 226. “We can’t rely on their judgment.”
City officials counter that redevelopment projects create jobs, increase the tax base and are essential for the city core’s long-term viability — and that the tax revenue the union is concerned about wouldn’t exist without redevelopment efforts.
“We’ve created a lot of jobs,” said Mayor Oscar Goodman, adding that he plans to strongly oppose the ballot measures.
“I’m not going to let it happen,” he said. “I’m going to fight this tooth and nail.”
The debate is focused on the Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency, a somewhat obscure offshoot of the city that was created in 1986 and tasked — as similar entities are across the country — with energizing what had become a blighted downtown area.
One of the main tools used to do that is called “tax increment financing.” When the redevelopment area is established, the base property tax revenue is set and that amount continues to go to the various public agencies that received it. New revenue from construction and increased property values — the “increment” — is allocated to three sources: the redevelopment agency, defraying infrastructure costs on projects as incentives, and affordable housing.
“You’re plowing the new taxes back in,” said Scott Adams, the city’s business development director. “If it weren’t for the incentives and the redevelopment activities that generate the construction, you wouldn’t have the new taxes.”
That’s not the way the Culinary union is viewing it in making the case for its proposed ballot measures.
One, the Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Act, is an initiative that would require a public vote on “lease-purchase” city construction projects, which is the financing method being considered for the proposed city hall. The second, the Las Vegas Redevelopment Reform Referendum, would repeal the existing Redevelopment Area plan, and public votes would be required to move any redevelopment projects forward.
If supporters collect enough signatures — 1,800 for the referendum, 2,700 for the initiative — by the end of January, the measures would be placed on the spring municipal election ballot.
“I think once people understand where their money has been spent ... I don’t foresee a problem,” Taylor said.
“If people want to come and develop something, that’s fine. But I don’t remember Steve Wynn or the MGM Mirage getting tax subsidies to build. I don’t remember Boyd’s doing that.”
Culinary has been vocal in opposing the new city hall proposal for a block on Main Street next to the Regional Justice Center.
The building is budgeted at $150 million, although the city is seeking more than $260 million in financing to account for delays or higher construction costs.
City officials project that new development spurred by a relocated city hall, along with the opening of developments in Union Park — which includes a proposed hotel-casino — and the reopening of the Lady Luck casino, will provide the revenue to pay for the building.
“Who are the ones who are going to be employed there?” Goodman said. “Certainly, those in the culinary industry. If they kill the project, if they’re successful, they will be blowing these jobs for their employees, which makes no sense to me.”
He also said Culinary’s stated watchdog role isn’t its real mission.
“They say they’re trying to represent the taxpayer, but they want to use the council as a wedge in order to get benefits for their Culinary members,” Goodman said. “That may be cool, if they would come out truthfully and say that.”
When asked if that was the case, Taylor simply said, “No.”
One of the supposed victims of the redevelopment agency is the Clark County School District, since there’s increased revenue from development that isn’t going to schools.
But Superintendent Walt Rulffes said that, handled correctly, redevelopment agencies can be a long-term good.
“It’s a short-term vs. long-term issue,” Rulffes said. “If redevelopment is limited to certain areas” for a limited period of time “eventually, it becomes an improvement to the overall tax base.”
There is a “potential for school districts to have a gap” when new development isn’t of benefit, and a redevelopment area can’t go on indefinitely, he added.
“If it was under very controlled circumstances, I think the school district would be cooperative and try to make it work,” Rulffes said.
The city’s redevelopment area covers downtown, Las Vegas Boulevard to Sahara Avenue, and corridors on Owens, Martin Luther King and Eastern Avenue. It sunsets in 2031. Businesses and developers can qualify for incentives and assistance for projects in the designated area, such as help with infrastructure costs or grants to remodel a businesses signage and exterior.
After Culinary’s announcement, the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council issued a statement opposing the ballot measures.
“It is our belief that in these times of economic peril, one of the best ways governments can help stimulate the economy is by investing in public works projects that create good-paying jobs with benefits,” said trades council president Rick Johnson.
“We believe the projects in question are a small but important investment in downtown infrastructure and in keeping Southern Nevada’s working class employed.”
Barring Democracy in Wilkes-Barre
Category: City Government · State: Pennsylvania · Source: Common Sense
You may have a right to change your government . . . but that doesn’t mean government won’t fight back.
In Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, there was disagreement over a firehouse, whether it should be decommissioned, or not. The mayor wanted it gone; citizens wanted it kept. So citizens got active, petitioning to change the town’s home rule charter to allow voters to decide.
The city could have simply gone along with the petition, allowing a vote. That would have been the republican, democratic, and even decent thing. But instead, Mayor Tom Leighton set the town’s attorneys on the petitioners. They even sued the petitioners for $11,056 in attorney fees, for the city’s fight against their petition.
Now, the mayor had an almost-plausible excuse. It was about the petitioning, and charges of fraud. Those charges amounted to several folks who signed the petition who later said they’d been misled.
To the petitioners, the issue of attorneys fees seemed like nothing other than an attempt to squelch their rights . . . and to discourage other uppity citizens.
So they fought back, and, in mid-November, a federal jury ruled against the mayor and the town, and awarded activist Denise Carey $67,000 in her civil rights suit.
Carey’s lawyers had put the case very plainly, saying that “Mayor Leighton may be able to take away a fire station, but don’t let him take away our constitutional rights.”
The jury didn’t.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Sizemore signs tax forms, walks out of county jail
Category: Oregon · State: Oregon · Source: The Oregonian
Bill Sizemore was released from the Multnomah County jail early Tuesday afternoon after he complied with a judge's order to file state and federal tax forms for a Nevada charitable foundation that he controls.
Smiling broadly, the 57-year-old ballot initiative activist embraced his wife, Cindy, and two of their daughters as he emerged from a hallway leading to the jail portion of the Multnomah County Justice Center.
He called his 24-hour detention "political," and his wife described him as "a political prisoner." Sizemore also chided Multnomah County Circuit Judge Janice R. Wilson, who on Monday held Sizemore in contempt of court for a fourth time and ordered him jailed until he signed and filed the tax forms as required by an earlier court injunction.
"I think this was a political move on the part of the judge who wanted to send me a message," Sizemore said. "It was nothing more than that. I resent some of the things she said in her decision."
Sizemore said he was particularly upset by Wilson's statements that he had lied repeatedly under oath during his marathon legal battle with two Oregon teachers unions.
"I've never lied under oath," he said. "I've given lots of information in days and days and days of being under oath. For the judge to say I was lying I think was a cheap shot."
Sizemore also vowed to continue placing initiatives on the Oregon ballot. He said he is already gathering signatures for one in 2010 that would gradually phase out most property taxes for senior citizens.
He said the teachers unions "are using the court system to try to shut down a political enemy. They want to stop me from putting measures on the ballot because they don't want to spend millions of dollars fighting me" in campaigns against his mostly anti-tax, anti-union ballot measures.
Wilson held Sizemore in contempt of court for violating a 2003 court injunction that stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Oregon Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers-Oregon. The injunction restricted Sizemore's use of tax-exempt organizations to advance his political agenda and required him to file accurate state and federal tax forms.
In the latest proceeding, Wilson found that Sizemore used the American Tax Research Foundation, the Nevada entity he set up in 2006, for work on his 2006 and 2008 ballot measure campaigns, and that he turned the tax-exempt foundation into his "personal piggy bank" by funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars from two wealthy benefactors to himself and his wife.
Sizemore denied misusing the foundation for personal gain and said that charge was "irrelevant" because the injunction did not restrict payments to him from organizations he controlled.
Emerging from jail, the man known as "the initiative king" appeared to be in high spirits. Unshaven and wearing the same gray sweater and black shirt and slacks he wore in Wilson's courtroom Monday, Sizemore spoke with reporters with his arms around his teen daughters while clutching a small plastic bag with a watch, cell phone and other personal items.
Sizemore described his 24 hours in detention as an "experience" and expressed empathy for his fellow inmates.
"I got to sleep on a very rotten bed," he said. "It was very cold and hard. The food is rotten.
"It's a pretty hopeless life that those people are living," he said of his fellow inmates. "I'm actually thankful that I got a chance to meet some of them and see what their life is like. I walked out of here with a sense that there are some lost souls out there that really need some attention and some help that the current system is failing to give them."
Waiting for her husband's release, Cindy Sizemore approached a group of reporters and TV photographers in the lobby of the Justice Center.
"Are you guys here to interview the political prisoner?" she asked. "That's what he is, a political prisoner. We're in the communist town of Portland."
Arizona Ballot Could Become Lottery Ticket
Category: Arizona · State: Arizona · Source:
To anyone who ever said, “I wouldn’t vote for that bum for a million bucks,” Arizona may be calling your bluff.
A proposal to award $1 million in every general election to one lucky resident, chosen by lottery, simply for voting — no matter for whom — has qualified for the November ballot.
Mark Osterloh, a political gadfly who is behind the initiative, the Arizona Voter Reward Act, is promoting it with the slogan, “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Vote!” He collected 185,902 signatures of registered voters, far more than the 122,612 required, and last week the secretary of state certified the measure for the ballot this fall.
If the general election in 2004 is a guide, when more than 2 million people voted, the 1-in-2-million odds of winning the election lottery would be far better than the Powerball jackpot (currently about 1 in 146,107,962) but not nearly as great as dying from a lightning strike (1 in 55,928).
“People buy a lot of lottery tickets now,” Mr. Osterloh said, “and the odds of winning this are much, much higher.” (And most of the time there is not much lightning in Arizona.)
If some see the erosion of democracy in putting voting on the same plane as a scratch-and-win game — and some do — Mr. Osterloh sees the gimmick as the linchpin to improve voter turnout and get more people interested in politics.
In 2004, the year of a heated presidential election, 77 percent of registered voters cast ballots in Arizona, but in 2002 — the year Mr. Osterloh, a Democrat, ran for governor in what might politely be called a dark-horse campaign — it was 56 percent. Primary election turnouts are much lower.
About 60 percent of the voting-age population is registered, though that includes people who are ineligible to vote, like illegal immigrants and felons.
“Basically our government is elected by a small minority of citizens,” said Mr. Osterloh, 53, a semiretired ophthalmologist who has helped write and campaign for various successful ballot initiatives.
Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate in Washington, said the idea of a voter lottery had come up in other states, but he could not recall any moving forward with it. And he’s glad.
“People should not go vote because they might win a lottery,” Mr. Gans said. “We need to rekindle the religion of civic duty, and that is a hard job, but we should not make voting crassly commercial.”
Editorial writers, bloggers and others have panned the idea as bribery and say it may draw people simply trying to cash in without studying candidates or issues.
“Bribing people to vote is a superficial approach that will have no beneficial outcome to the process, except to make some people feel good that the turnout numbers are higher,” said an editorial in The Yuma Sun. “But higher numbers do not necessarily mean a better outcome.”
The initiative calls for financing the award through unclaimed state lottery prize money, private donations and, if need be, state money. A spokeswoman for the Arizona Lottery Commission said its unclaimed prize pot fluctuated greatly, but it now stood at more than $1 million.
Mr. Osterloh said private donors could add their own incentives, like a car dealership offering a new car to a random voter.
But he may be getting ahead of himself. There is the not-so-small matter of whether such a voter lottery is legal.
Passage of the initiative would supersede a state law barring any exchange of a vote for money, legal experts agreed, but whether it would get around similar federal laws was a matter of debate.
One federal statute calls for fines or imprisonment of up to one year to anyone who “makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote.”
“It’s clearly illegal,” said Jack Chin, a professor at the University of Arizona law school who has studied voting rights issues.
“This is cute and clever, but even though it responds to a real problem, it does so in a way that threatens to degrade the process,” Mr. Chin said.
But Mr. Osterloh, who has a law degree, and the lawyer who helped write the initiative, Anthony B. Ching, a former state solicitor general, said the laws were meant to stop individuals from buying or selling votes for particular candidates or parties. In this case, it would be a state-sanctioned program with a high purpose and, they add, offering the chance to win — voters opt into the program — was not the same as giving everybody money to vote.
“I don’t think the federal law would cover this kind of situation,” Mr. Ching said.
State political leaders so far are keeping their distance.
Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who will also be on the November ballot as a candidate for reelection, has declined to take a position. The leaders of the State Senate and House, both Republicans, did not answer messages seeking comment.
But Mr. Osterloh presses on. He predicted the idea would spread to the two dozen states that allow citizen ballot initiatives if it was successful here.
The local chapter of We Are America, a group seeking to register Latinos to vote after large pro-immigration demonstrations last spring, plans to promote the initiative in its voter education and registration drives.
“We’ve certainly tried everything else, and people don’t seem to turn out,” said Roberto Reveles, president of the group.
And some voters are giving it serious thought.
“I’m pretty up on the issues, so I don’t need it,” said Beverly Winn, a grocery store clerk here. “But who wouldn’t take money if they offer it?”