initiatives

The following material provided by the Yes on I-517 campaign:

I-517’s primary policy change is guaranteeing you the right to vote on qualified initiatives.

California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the much maligned Assembly Bill 857 over the weekend, blocking for now the legislation that would have placed a number of unconstitutional restrictions on the collection of signatures for initiatives in the Golden State.

In his veto message, Governor Brown stated: “Requiring a specific threshold of signatures to be gathered by volunteers will not stop abuses by narrow special interests – particularly if ‘volunteer’ is defined with the broad exemptions as in this bill.”

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed labor union-backed legislation Saturday that would have limited the use of paid signature gatherers to qualify statewide ballot initiatives in California.

Assembly Bill 857, by Assemblyman Paul Fong, D-Cupertino, would have required anyone seeking to qualify an initiative for the statewide ballot to use non-paid volunteers to collect at least 10 percent of signatures.

Read more here: here

Initiatives are difficult to qualify in Washington.  In 2014, it will require 246,000+ signatures to petition a statewide measure onto the ballot. This can be a hill too high to climb for under-funded ballot initiative campaigns.

That’s where this November’s Initiative 517 comes in and makes a simple, smart change.  For both initiatives to the people and those to the Legislature, I-517 would increase the signature-collecting timeframe by six months. The extra time will allow all-volunteer efforts and groups with shallow pockets a better chance to collect the necessary signatures.  

In recent days, supporters of Initiative 517 in Washington state are making their voices heard on the editorial pages of the state’s newspapers.  A recent op-ed article State Senator Ann Rivers of Washington’s 18th District was published in the Columbian is one of a number of opinion pieces endorsing I-517.

Sen. Rivers praised the positive effects the initiative would have on protecting the process from obstructionist legal battles as well as making petitioning safer and allowing more time for signature collection.

A vital section of the Ohio Constitution, subtitled “In whom power vested,” was the focus of a federal court hearing last week in Columbus. The lawsuit before U.S. District Court dealt with the right of citizens to petition their government and with freedom of speech.

What a libertarian-leaning public interest law center aims to accomplish by filing a federal suit against a new Ohio law that restricts the referendum process goes to the heart of government of, by, and for the people. The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law — typically aligned with conservative causes — is fighting to uphold a fundamental right.

I support Initiative 517 because I am a strong believer in our initiative rights which our state has had for over a century. Our right to initiative and petition our government is the most important tool we have to push back when government does things we don’t like.

Initiative 517’s primary policy change is guaranteeing you the right to vote on qualified initiatives.

In a recent unanimous ruling, the Washington State Supreme Court rejected an effort by special interest groups to stop the people from voting on a qualified initiative. The court’s reason: “Because ballot measures are often used to express popular will and to send a message to elected representatives, pre-election review unduly infringes on free speech.”

Our right to initiative and petition our government is the most important tool we have to push back when government does things we don’t like.

I am Sen. Ann Rivers and I support Initiative 517 because I am a strong believer in our initiative rights which our state has had for more than a century. Initiative 517’s primary policy change is guaranteeing you the right to vote on qualified initiatives.

In a unanimous ruling, the Washington State Supreme Court in 2005 rejected an effort by special interest groups to stop the people from voting on a qualified initiative. Their reason: “Because ballot measures are often used to express popular will and to send a message to elected representatives, pre-election review unduly infringes on free speech.”

Initiative 517, the “Protect the Initiative Act,” appears to be gaining traction among likely voters, with the most recent polling showing the ballot measure currently ahead by 36 points. According to the non-partisan Elway Poll, published on September 10, the initiative enjoys 58 percent support against only 22 percent in opposition.

If you’ve been asked to sign initiatives for two competing gun measures by the same signature-gatherer, you’re not alone. And both sides are trying to put a stop to the confusion.

It turns out, some paid signature-gatherers have been carrying clipboards for both I-594 and I-591 and it’s got a number of voters up in arms.

“We have in our contract with the signature-gathering company they can’t collect for 594, too,” says Allen Gottleib, a spokesman for I-591, a measure backed by guns rights advocates that would prevent Washington state from adopting a stricter background-checks standard unless the federal government does the same thing.

A recent Gallup Poll shows that most Americans favor national referendums on key issues.  The poll, conducted July 6-7, tested 3 political issues first promoted by Doctor George Gallup in a 1978 Reader’s Digest article.

More than two-thirds of Americans, 68% of respondents, favored a proposal to “Require a nationwide popular vote on any issue if enough voters signed a petition to request a vote on the issue.”

Smaller majorities favored Gallup’s other ideas: shortening the presidential campaigns to five weeks (61%) and a single national presidential primary day, instead of individual state primaries on various dates (58%).

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the legal proponents of California’s Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal the federal district court ruling, which had overturned the state’s voter-enacted ban on same sex marriage. In so doing, the High Court dealt a blow to citizen initiatives by blocking initiative proponents from defending their voter-enacted measures in federal court – even when state officials refuse to legally defend the initiative, thus dooming it to defeat.

Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday signed into law a controversial bill that will reshape the way Arizona runs its elections.

Her action angered Latinos and Democrats who say that, with one stroke of her pen, the Republican governor wiped out the goodwill of last week’s bipartisan accord on the state budget and Medicaid expansion by enshrining in law practices they view as voter suppression.

Matthew Benson, the governor’s spokesman, defended the legislation as “common sense.” He said concerns that the legislation will disenfranchise voters are overblown.

Frustrated by a recent appeals court ruling that invalidates the state’s lethal injection procedures, supporters of the death penalty in California aim to bring a suspended system back to life.

San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos and other California death penalty supporters hope to circumvent legal challenges to executions through a new initiative measure. It would put in place a single drug injection procedure for inmates who have been sentenced to death, such as the infamous Night Stalker serial killer Richard Ramirez, who died Friday.

Last week, we warned of Senate Joint Resolution 16 in Arkansas, an amendment to the state’s constitution that would make it tougher for initiative petitions to qualify for the state’s grace period, which allows campaigns turning in more signatures than the minimum requirement to have an additional 30 days for gathering signatures should they need it due to some signatures being disqualified.


But today, we are pleased to announce that this constitutional amendment appears to be dead in the water, thanks to an 11-13 vote late Friday in the Arkansas Senate State Agencies and Government Affairs committee.  There is the possibility that the bill could resurface, but baring extraordinary legislative maneuvers, SJR 16 seems to be done for this legislative session.