The New York Times reports: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has spent more than $2 million from his campaign coffers to support a ballot proposition that could profoundly alter the composition, and perhaps the governing style, of the California Legislature. ...

Under the proposal, the responsibility for drawing the new boundaries for legislative districts — in both the Senate and the Assembly — would shift from the Legislature to a new 14-member commission comprising five Democrats, five Republicans and four independent or minor-party voters who would draw new maps every 10 years, corresponding with the census cycle.

California’s legislative districts, which resemble little oil spills when viewed on a map, are heavily gerrymandered. Not one of the 120 seats changed party hands in the last two elections, held two and four years ago.

The initiative, which was largely written by Common Cause and the AARP, is supported by Mr. Schwarzenegger, various former state officials and the League of Women Voters. -- Plan on California Ballot for New Districting Panel - NYTimes.com

Posted by Ed at 7:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Detroit News report begins: A three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals could decide as early as today whether a far-reaching constitutional amendment that impacts all three branches of government should be allowed to appear on the November ballot.

The judges heard testimony Tuesday on a challenge brought by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and others, asking the court to declare the Reform Michigan Government Now proposal ineligible for the ballot because of the sweeping changes its passage would usher in.

Court watchers expect the appellate panel -- Judges Bill Schuette, William Whitbeck and Patrick Meter -- to announce a decision before 10 a.m. Thursday, when the Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet to decide whether the plan should be placed before voters. -- Judges to rule on state reform

Posted by Ed at 7:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A News4Jax report begins: Supporters of a proposed Florida consitutional amendment requiring voters to approve changes in local growth management plans told a federal judge Wednesday that a host of discrepancies and problems improperly blocked the measure from the November ballot.

Among problems described in testimony before U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra were mistakes in double-counting invalid voter petitions, widely disparate standards used by the state's 67 election supervisors and suspiciously high rejection patterns in some counties. ...

Herrin said also between 7,000 and 10,000 signed voter petitions the group submitted were not accounted for at several county election supervisor offices. ...

Florida Hometown Democracy wants Marra to order the measure placed on this year's ballot and to strike down the Feb. 1 signature deadline, which was enshrined in the Florida Constitution in 2004 by the state's voters. The group contends the new deadline violates the U.S. Constitution in a number of ways, including free speech and voting rights guarantees. -- Judge Hears Florida Planning Amendment Challenge - Jacksonville News Story - WJXT Jacksonville

Posted by Ed at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The San Francisco Chronicle reports: If voters approve a November ballot measure banning same-sex marriages in California, thousands of gay and lesbian weddings conducted since the state Supreme Court legalized the unions on May 15 will probably remain valid, Attorney General Jerry Brown said Monday.

The potential effect of Proposition 8 on existing same-sex marriages is already being debated among legal scholars and opposing sides in the Nov. 4 ballot measure campaign. Brown's position is significant because his office will represent the state in lawsuits over Prop. 8's validity and meaning if it passes.

The measure would amend the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It would overturn the court's ruling that the previous ban on same-sex marriage - established by statutes rather than a constitutional amendment - discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and violated the right to marry one's chosen partner.

The measure does not state explicitly that it would nullify same-sex marriages performed before Nov. 4. But in their ballot arguments, supporters of Prop. 8 declare it would invalidate all such marriages "regardless of when or where performed" - an interpretation that would apply to existing as well as future marriages. -- Prop. 8 not retroactive, Jerry Brown says

Hat-tip to How Appealing for the link.

Posted by Ed at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Los Angeles Times reports: Backers of a ballot measure that would require parents to be notified before an abortion is performed on a minor acknowledged Friday that the 15-year-old on which "Sarah s Law" is based had a child and was in a common-law marriage before she died of complications from an abortion in 1994.

Proponents of the measure recently submitted an argument for the state voter guide saying the death of "Sarah" might have been prevented but her parents were not told she had had an abortion and so did not know the reason for her failing health. The proposal Proposition 4 will appear on California s statewide ballot in November.

In court papers filed in her home state of Texas after her death, the man with whom she lived declared himself her common-law husband in an effort to secure custody of the child. Texas recognizes common-law marriage and does not view a married 15-year-old as a minor, according to an attorney for Planned Parenthood.

A lawsuit co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood Affiliates and filed Friday in Sacramento County Superior Court asks the secretary of state to remove the girl's story and other information it deemed misleading, including any reference to "Sarah's Law," from the material submitted for the official voter guide. -- 'Sarah's Law' would not have applied to 'Sarah,' acknowledge backers of the abortion-notification measure - Los Angeles Times

Hat-tip to How Appealing for the link.

Posted by Ed at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The San Francisco Chronicle reports: Attorney General Jerry Brown is trying to stack the deck against a November ballot measure barring same-sex marriage by declaring in his formal ballot description that it "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry," sponsors of the initiative charged in a lawsuit Tuesday.

Backers of Proposition 8 argued that they are not trying to eliminate anyone's rights but are simply seeking to restore the definition of marriage that existed in California before May 15, when the state Supreme Court struck down the law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Brown, whose office prepares the title and summary of each measure on the state ballot, chose wording for both that is "inherently argumentative and highly likely to create prejudice" against Prop. 8, attorney Andrew Pugno said in the suit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court.

The suit asks a judge to order a different title, such as "Limit on Marriage," the wording in the initiative petitions that 1.2 million registered voters signed to place the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot. Pugno said the judge could also delete Brown's heading and use the measure's brief text as its title: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." -- Prop. 8 backers sue to change ballot wording

Posted by Ed at 8:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Los Angeles Times reports: A voter initiative to reinstate a ban on same-sex marriage will remain on the November ballot, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously Wednesday.

The court issued a brief order rejecting arguments that the initiative, Proposition 8, was an illegal constitutional revision and that voters had been misled when they signed petitions to put it on the ballot. The decision, reached in closed session during the court's weekly conference, cleared the way for what some observers expect to be a close vote on the marriage measure. ...

If approved by voters, Proposition 8, called the "California Marriage Protection Act," would add a provision to the state Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." -- Bid to ban gay marriage will stay on ballot, California Supreme Court rules - Los Angeles Times

The San Francisco Chronicle reports: The lawsuit against Prop. 8 argued that the one-sentence initiative was actually a broad attack on basic rights recognized by the court - a measure that would simultaneously deprive one group of fundamental freedoms by majority vote and strip the courts of their ability to enforce constitutional guarantees.

Although its backers call it a constitutional amendment, Prop. 8 is actually a constitutional revision, the suit contended. A revision must be submitted to the voters by a two-thirds majority of the state Legislature.

The last time the court accepted such an argument was in 1990, when it overturned part of a voter-approved constitutional amendment on crime. In that case, the justices said a provision requiring state judges to follow federal interpretations of defendants' rights was a broad attack on judicial authority and a "fundamental change in our ... governmental plan."

Lawyers for the Prop. 8 backers argued that an amendment to restore the state's previous definition of marriage would leave courts with "full authority to continue protecting the rights of minorities." They said equally far-reaching changes in California law - for example, the restoration of the death penalty in 1972 and the overhaul of the tax system under Proposition 13 in 1978 - were accomplished by initiative. -- Challenge tossed, gay marriage ban on ballot

Posted by Ed at 6:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Capitol Media Services reports: Backers of a plan to hike state sales taxes for the next 30 years filed suit Friday because they don t like the description to be given to voters about the ballot measure at least in part because it spells out the size of the proposed increase.

The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court specifically objects to the Legislative Council describing the proposed levy "a 17.8 percent tax increase." That according to attorneys for the group pushing the initiative is "misleading."

But during the hearing of the council earlier this week Stan Barnes who lobbies for road-tax supporters conceded the number is in fact "deadly accurate." What he wanted however was to describe the increase only as one penny on every dollar spent. ...

The actual language of every ballot measure is sent to the home of each registered voter. But given the complexity of many of the proposals - this one alone is 15 pages - state law requires the Legislative Council, made up of lawmakers from both parties, to craft "an impartial analysis" of each one.

In this case, the majority of council members voted to say that approval of this initiative - dubbed "Transportation and Infrastructure Moving Arizona's Economy" - would increase the state sales tax from 5.6 cents on every dollar to 6.6 cents, a 17.8 percent increase beginning in 2010. -- Backers of tax hike want ballot wording changed | Arizona Politics | eastvalleytribune.com

Posted by Ed at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Legal Newsline reports: Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has voiced concern over a proposed constitutional amendment that would change how lawmakers draw legislative boundaries.

In a letter to the state Supreme Court, the Republican attorney general said Friday that a proposed ballot summary fails to adequately explain the proposal would require that congressional districts be comprised of contiguous territory.

That, he said, would outlaw the multi-member districts that are currently allowed. ...

The ballot initiative is being pushed by FairDistrictsFlorida.org, which is co-chaired by former Democratic Gov. Bob Graham and former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.

The group is essentially seeking to place on the 2010 ballot a constitutional ban against gerrymandering, where legislative boundaries are drawn to give political advantage to one party over another. -- LegalNewsline | McCollum criticizes redistricting proposal

Posted by Ed at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Gay rights advocates asked California s highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions. ...

Rather than effecting no change in existing California law, the proposed initiative would dramatically change existing law by taking that fundamental right away and inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into our state Constitution.

The petition also claims the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all - in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution. -- Gay rights advocates seek to stop marriage measure - Forbes.com

Hat-tip to TalkLeft for the link.

Posted by Ed at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Inside Bay Area reports: In a display of bipartisan unity, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Controller Steve Westly, a Democrat, went from table to table at a local restaurant this week, beseeching diners to sign a petition supporting a new redistricting initiative.

But where it counts — in campaign contributions — there is a more partisan tinge to the ballot drive than the image promoted by backers. Republicans, who would love to cut into the Democratic stranglehold on the Legislature, have been far more enthusiastic donors than Democrats.

Nearly all of the $542,500 raised so far by California Voters First has come from donors who typically give to Republican candidates and GOP causes, according to campaign finance reports.

"If they don't fix that, they're in trouble," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at Sacramento State University who has served on the Voices of Reform board advocating redistricting reform. "If Democrats don't start contributing, people will say, 'Who's this helping and whose ox is being gored?'" -- Push to redistrict remains partisan - Inside Bay Area

Posted by Ed at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

TPM Muckracker reports: Who is Paul Singer? He and Rudy Giuliani would prefer you not think too much about it.

Singer, who founded the multibillion dollar hedge fund Elliott Associates, has raised $200,000 for Giuliani. He flies Giuliani around in his jet.

And, as of September, his $175,000 contribution was the sole backing for the Republican scheme to split up California's electoral votes. Instead of all the electoral votes in the country's most populous state going to the state's winner (almost surely the Democrat), the ballot initiative would throw the loser (the Republican) his percentage, potentially swinging the election. ...

Singer tells the Times that made the contribution because he "believes in proportional voting in the Electoral College." As the Times notes, Singer was also a donor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. Presumably that was just because he believes in the truth. -- TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Giuliani's California Schemin' Money Man

Posted by Ed at 8:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Los Angeles Times reports: The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, California Common Cause and AARP proposed an initiative Tuesday that would change the way the state's legislative districts are drawn, taking the politically sensitive matter away from lawmakers.

Leaders of the organizations, saying they are frustrated with the political gridlock on redistricting, filed the proposed measure with the state attorney general as the first step toward putting it on the November 2008 ballot; coalition organizers said they hoped to collect 1 million signatures if the Legislature does not agree to submit the measure to voters. ...

If approved by voters, the measure would create a 14-person redistricting commission made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and four others. The commissioners would be chosen through a public application process created by the state auditor. The review panel will narrow the pool of contenders to 60. After that, the four top legislative leaders would cut the pool to 36. Eight commissioners would be selected by random drawing from the 36 candidates, and those eight would select the other six commission members. ...

"Incumbent residences may not be considered; districts may not be drawn to protect incumbents," according to the ballot measure. The final map would not go into effect unless approved by at least three Democrats, three Republicans and three other commissioners. -- Groups propose redistricting plan for state lawmakers - Los Angeles Times

Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link to this story. Rick thinks this has a chance of being adopted. But I wonder if there will be a real change in the arrangement and balance of the districts if there has to be a tri-partisan agreement on the plan.

Posted by Ed at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Los Angeles Times reports: Plagued by a lack of money, supporters of a statewide initiative drive to change the way California's 55 electoral votes are apportioned, first revealed here by Top of the Ticket in July, are pulling the plug on that effort.

In an exclusive report to appear on this website late tonight and in Friday's print editions, The Times' Dan Morain reports that the proposal to change the winner-take-all electoral vote allocation to one by congressional district is virtually dead with the resignation of key supporters, internal disputes and a lack of funds.

The reality is hundreds of thousands of signatures must be gathered by the end of November to get the measure on the June 2008 ballot. -- Los Angeles Times: Top of the Ticket: Politics, coast to coast, with the L.A. Times

Posted by Ed at 9:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hendrick Hertzberg writes in the New Yorker: Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes—votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union. ...

Nominally, the sponsor of No. 07-0032 is Californians for Equal Representation. But that’s just a letterhead—there’s no such organization. Its address is the office suite of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, the law firm for the California Republican Party, and its covering letter is signed by Thomas W. Hiltachk, the firm’s managing partner and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s personal lawyer for election matters. ...

“Equal Representation” sounds good, too. And the winner-take-all rule, which is in force in all but two states, does seem unfair on the face of it. (The two are Maine and Nebraska, which use congressional-district allocation. But they are so small—only five districts between them—and so homogeneous that neither has ever split its electoral votes.) It would be obviously unjust for a state to give all its legislative seats to the party that gets the most votes statewide. So why should Party A get a hundred per cent of that state’s electoral votes if forty per cent of its voters support Party B? No wonder Democrats and Republicans alike initially react to this proposal in a strongly positive way. To most people, the electoral-college status quo feels intuitively wrong. So does war. But that doesn’t make unilateral disarmament a no-brainer. -- Votescam

Posted by Ed at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Scotsman reports: SNP activists want to by-pass parliament on the issue of independence by starting a massive petition to force MSPs to agree to a referendum, it emerged last night.

The SNP National Council is expected to approve a plan today which would give the go-ahead for a nationwide campaign.

Activists believe the parliament would be left with no choice but to accept the referendum plan if the petition was signed by 100,000 people or more.

The SNP government is committed to introducing a bill paving the way for a referendum but it does not have the support of enough MSPs from other parties to secure its passage through parliament. -- The Scotsman - Politics - SNP to seek 100,000 signatures in push for independence referendum

Posted by Ed at 2:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Capitol Media Services reports: Some people circulating petitions to change the redistricting process are misleading people into believing they are signing papers to lower gasoline prices, Secretary of State Jan Brewer said Monday.

"We have received maybe four or five people calling, claiming they were misled by the petition circulators," Brewer said, noting even one of her sons told her he was tricked into signing one of the petitions.

Brewer said she advised Ken Clark of the incidents and wants him, as organizer of the campaign, to put a stop to it.

Clark said Monday nothing illegal is being done.

He said two employees of a petition-circulating company used the ruse of asking people if they were interested in halting skyrocketing gasoline prices to get them to stop and talk. But Clark said after the would-be signers stopped, the circulators explained they had petitions to alter constitutional requirements about how congressional and legislative districts are drawn. -- Petitioners accused of misleading signers

Posted by Ed at 6:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Anchorage Daily News reports: Advocates of keeping special interests out of politics are asking the state to consider a citizens' ballot initiative to launch what are known as "clean election" campaigns.

The concept involves doing away with most private donations for state election campaigns and replacing them with money from a special state fund.

Sponsors of the initiative said Friday they had collected enough initial signatures to qualify for a review of their application by Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

If approved, the initiative backers would then need to collect 23,800 more signatures statewide to put the idea on the 2008 ballot.

If voters approve it, the initiative would create a system in which candidates could forgo private campaign contributions for public funding. Money for the clean elections fund would be provided by a three-cent tax per barrel of oil produced in Alaska, according to the initiative's proposal. -- Proposed initiative targets 'clean election' campaigns

Posted by Ed at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP Wire | 03/28/2007 | Liberal group challenges backers of 2004 gay marriage amendment

A liberal advocacy group asked the state's elections chief Wednesday to investigate whether backers of a 2004 gay marriage ban properly reported all the money they received and spent during the campaign.

Citizens for Community Values, the Cincinnati-based group behind the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, immediately dismissed the claims by ProgressOhio.org as unfounded.

The constitutional amendment the group backed, which passed overwhelmingly, was credited with turning out Christian conservative voters who tipped the state's presidential results to President Bush.

In a letter to Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, ProgressOhio executive director Brian Rothenberg said the numbers didn't add up in a review the group conducted of campaign finance reports for various entities linked to the 2004 marriage campaign.

Posted by Ed at 8:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Capitol Media Services reports: Some former state lawmakers and their allies want voters to revamp a 7-year-old law on how congressional and legislative districts are drawn in hopes of creating some more competition at the general election ballot box.

But the head of the Arizona Republican Party said it's simply an effort by a well-heeled Democrat to get more members of that party elected.

An initiative drive formally launched Wednesday would revamp the Independent Redistricting Commission which actually draws the lines every decade, adding four new members. That change will ensure there are people from more parts of the state.

But the real change would be to require that the commission pay more attention to creating "competitive" districts -- those where the Democratic and Republican candidates have relatively equal chances of getting elected. -- More 'competitive' districts wanted in revamp of law | www.azstarnet.com ®

Posted by Ed at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Monterey County Herald reports: Slow-growth advocates on Thursday trumpeted the first victory in their effort to head off enactment of the Monterey County general plan update.

In 10 days, the backers of a referendum challenging the county's new general plan have gathered more than 9,000 signatures, enough to qualify under election law. They said they plan to gather at least 15,000 signatures before submitting them to the county elections department Feb. 1. ...

Despite a lawsuit by Latino voting rights advocates challenging the circulation of earlier English-only petitions, the latest petition was not translated into Spanish. Fitz said he is convinced the latest petition is on solid legal ground, citing a recent court decision that he said protected privately circulated petitions from a translation requirement.

He added that petitioners were prepared to assemble a Spanish-language petition, but county officials said they couldn't translate the hulking general plan update documents into Spanish until the end of March. Mitchell added that some of the signature gatherers are Spanish speakers and were able to explain the issue to non-English speakers. -- Monterey County Herald | 01/19/2007 | Petition drive going strong

Posted by Ed at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Reuters reports: Massachusetts lawmakers approved a measure on Tuesday that could give voters a chance next year to ban gay marriage in the only U.S. state where it is legal and overturn a historic ruling by the state's highest court. ...

With hundreds of protesters on both sides of the emotionally charged issue chanting slogans outside the gold-domed Statehouse, 61 lawmakers voted to advance the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- more than enough needed under state law for such initiatives. ...

If it clears another legislative test expected by early next year, Massachusetts residents will vote on it in 2008. ...

Although a majority in the Democratic-controlled state legislature voted against it, the measure needed only 50 votes to pass. It also was backed by 170,000 Massachusetts voters who signed a petition along with social conservatives including Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, a probable White House contender. -- Massachusetts lawmakers approve gay marriage vote | Politics News | Reuters.com

Posted by Ed at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Los Angeles Times reports: Hours after California voters approved a ballot measure authorizing a crackdown on sex offenders, a federal judge Wednesday blocked enforcement of a controversial provision limiting where ex-offenders may live.

The order by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco means that implementation of a key portion of Proposition 83, which captured 70% of the vote, will be on hold until its constitutionality is resolved by the courts. A hearing is scheduled later this month.

The initiative prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. In a lawsuit Wednesday, attorneys said that constitutes a new penalty imposed on ex-convicts years after they have been punished for their crime. The measure also is unconstitutional on due process grounds, the lawyers argue, because it would force offenders from their homes without notice. ...

In granting the temporary restraining order, the judge said "John Doe" has been "a law-abiding and productive member of his community" since his conviction and would suffer "irreparable harm" if forced to comply with Proposition 83. His lawyers, Illston said, probably will prevail in challenging the initiative as unconstitutional. -- U.S. judge blocks portion of new sex offender measure - Los Angeles Times

Posted by Ed at 4:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The ABA Journal reports: In the nation’s marquee battle over judicial independence, South Dakota voters rejected the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, aka “JAIL 4 Judges”—which would have created a constitutional amendment abolishing judicial immunity—by a resounding 90-10 margin.

Jesse Rutledge, who monitors judicial elections and judicial independence issues for the Washington, D.C.-based Justice At Stake Campaign, characterized the vote as “a devastating defeat.” ...

In Colorado, voters responded to a full-court press by the bar, business groups and current and former governors against Amendment 40, which would have imposed term limits on appellate court judges. About 57 percent of voters opposed the amendment. -- ABA Journal

Posted by Ed at 6:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CNN reports: Ron Branson's crusade is launched daily from his garage in a nondescript house in California's San Fernando Valley.

Branson, his wife, Barbie, and attorney Gary Zerman, have waged a years-long, low-budget fight against judges and -- Branson says -- "a judicial system that just doesn't work."

Branson's weapons are his computer, where he publicizes his crusade through his Web site jail4judges.org, and the ballot box. His idea for a "judicial accountability" initiative will be voted on Tuesday in South Dakota.

Known as Amendment E, the measure would create a special grand jury to indict state judges if there are allegations they have violated their duties. It also would strip them of their immunity from civil lawsuits. Civil and criminal sanctions could follow.

It is believed to be the first proposal of its kind in the United States and is among several judicial initiatives on ballots around the country next week. -- State ballot measures challenge judges' power - CNN.com

Posted by Ed at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post reports: On a recent Saturday afternoon, a team of canvassers armed with handheld digital devices spread out across the city. Their aim was to urge residents to support a ballot initiative requiring an increase in Ohio's minimum wage.

But one beneficiary could be someone hoping for a new job that pays a good bit better than minimum wage: Rep. Sherrod Brown (D), who is running to unseat Sen. Mike DeWine (R), the two-term incumbent, on Nov. 7. ...

n 2004, Republicans in Ohio and elsewhere tended to benefit from ballot initiatives. Measures to ban same-sex marriage, for example, passed easily. In the process, some election analysts said, the measures revved the conservative base to help Republican candidates from President Bush on down.

In 2006, Democrats are hoping to prove that ballot politics can work in the other direction. Measures to increase the minimum wage are before voters in six states. Four of those, Arizona, Ohio, Missouri and Montana, feature close Senate races with a GOP incumbent. In Missouri, moreover, a measure backing stem cell research is ahead in the polls -- which Democrats say could lift their candidate. -- This Time, Ballot Issues Could Rally Liberal Base - washingtonpost.com

Posted by Ed at 6:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Arizona Republic reports: The executive director of the pro-Proposition 207 campaign has hit 316 Arizona government agencies with massive requests for public records, digging for e-mails from public employees and elected officials opposing the Nov. 7 ballot measure.

Lori Klein insists that public officials are campaigning against her property-rights initiative, and she wants to prove they are doing it on public time.

But the request is so broad, and potentially affects so many documents, that Peoria City Attorney Steve Kemp estimated it could take as much as eight years to sift through all the information. ...

Proposition 207 would forbid municipalities from taking private property through eminent domain for another private development.

The more substantial provision in Proposition 207 would require local governments to compensate property owners if a government action, such as a zoning change or enactment of an environmental or other land-use law, makes the property's value drop. -- Group says towns are undermining Proposition 207

Posted by Ed at 7:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Salem Statesman Journal reports: A divided Oregon Supreme Court decided Thursday to uphold restrictions that voters approved on police seizures of property and cash connected with illegal activity.

Voters barred police agencies from using civil lawsuits to seize and sell property unless it was tied to a criminal conviction of the property owner. The measure also directed proceeds from such sales to drug treatment rather than police operations. ...

A legal challenge was filed in 2001 by the Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team. Marion County Judge Pamela Abernethy upheld the measure in 2001, but a divided Oregon Court of Appeals overturned it in 2003. The high court, by a 4-3 vote, upheld Abernethy. ...

A court decided that the 2000 measure did not violate the constitutional ban on multiple amendments contained in a single measure unless the changes are "closely related." The court struck down four other voter-approved measures in the past eight years, based on the ban. -- State Government - StatesmanJournal.com

Posted by Ed at 7:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The San Francisco Chronicle reports: Six years into its brave new world of publicly financed campaigns, Arizona's "clean money" elections system already is creaking with signs of age.

Backers of California's Proposition 89, which would provide $200 million a year for public financing of California candidates, point to the success of the Arizona system as an example of what could happen in California. But many of the political pros who work every day with the system have curbed their enthusiasm.

"On the whole, it has opened up the political process to a new pool of candidates,'' said Michael Frias, campaign director for the Arizona Democratic Party. "But we need to look and see where it can be improved.''

Some Republican leaders have harsher feelings about Arizona's public financing system.

"There are a lot of good things California and other states could pull from Arizona, but this isn't one of them,'' said Glenn Hamer, executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. -- The 'clean' campaign finance idea grows / Arizona experience mixed as California considers Prop. 89

Posted by Ed at 7:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Ledger reports: Voters in this Southwest Florida county [Sarasota] will be able to decide in November whether to continue using computerized voting booths or go back to paper ballots, a circuit judge ruled.

County attorneys argued a proposed ballot initiative asking voters to choose between the county's current electronic voting and the old paper system was unconstitutional. But Circuit Judge Robert B. Bennett Jr. ruled Wednesday that the initiative was legal. -- Voters Will Choose Voting Technology | theledger.com

Posted by Ed at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: A federal appeals court declined Monday to block an anti-affirmative action proposal from appearing on the Michigan ballot, saying the plaintiffs failed to show they are likely to win their case against the measure's backers.

Opponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative had asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an injunction to keep the measure off the Nov. 7 ballot while it appeals a decision by U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow, who dismissed their claims under the Voting Rights Act and ruled that the proposal could go forward. ...

By Any Means Necessary, a pro-affirmative action group, appealed Tarnow's ruling to the Ohio-based 6th Circuit and asked for an injunction.

In Monday's order from the 6th Circuit, judges Alan E. Norris, R. Guy Cole Jr. and Deborah L. Cook said the plaintiffs "failed to demonstrate sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their claims" for an injunction to be granted. -- South Bend Tribune

Posted by Ed at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: A group opposing a November ballot initiative that would end some affirmative action programs in Michigan has begun the process of filing its latest legal appeal.

By Any Means Necessary, a pro-affirmative action group, said it notified the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday that it will contest a ruling made by U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow earlier this week. Legal briefs outlining the appeal likely will be filed next week.

The appeal aimed at keeping the proposal off the ballot was expected.

The ballot proposal, backed by the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, would ban the use of race and gender preferences in public university admissions and government hiring. -- South Bend Tribune

Posted by Ed at 7:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Detroit News reports: A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit seeking to have a referendum on affirmative action removed from the November ballot, despite finding that backers of the ballot proposal used widespread and systematic fraud in collecting petition signatures.

U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow ruled the fraud did not violate the racial discrimination sections of the U.S. Voting Rights Act because it was directed at both blacks and whites.

"The court must conclude that the defendants' action, though unprincipled, did not violate the act," Tarnow said in his ruling. ...

"The court finds that MCRI and its circulators engage in a pattern of voter fraud by deceiving voters into believing that the petition supported affirmative action," Tarnow said in his ruling. -- Race issue remains on ballot - 08/30/06 - The Detroit News Online

Posted by Ed at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Capitol Media Services reports: A judge refused Friday to block Arizonans from voting on a measure designed to restrict the ability of government to take private property.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Paul McMurdie conceded that a portion of Proposition 207 may be constitutionally flawed. That's because it does not provide funds for the state to use if any new land-use regulations diminish the value of someone's property.

McMurdie said the rest of the measure appears, at least on its face, to be legal. He said voters should not be precluded from approving those provisions because one part of the initiative could be legally defective.

In fact, McMurdie said, if that section is unconstitutional there already is a legal remedy: It simply becomes unenforceable, leaving the rest of the measure intact -- if voters approve it in November.

Friday's ruling is a defeat for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which had sought to prevent a vote. Lisa Hauser, the league's attorney, said the decision will be appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. -- Prop 207 OK'd for ballot | www.azstarnet.com ®

Posted by Ed at 9:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Binder, Mike. "I Don't "No": Empirical Evidence of the Confused Voter in Initiative Elections"

Abstract: Confused voters vote ‘no’ on initiatives. While this is apparently common knowledge, as evidenced by its regular assertions in the literature (Hyink 1969, Magleby 1984, Bowler and Donovan 1998, Higley and McAllister 2002, Goldsmith 2004) and routine anecdotal quotes by campaign consultants (Magleby and Patterson 1998), there is scant empirical evidence of this claim and relatively flimsy theoretical explanations for this supposed phenomena (Lowenstein 1982). Though a number theories suggest how and why voters become confused, the resulting ‘no’ votes that are assumed to occur have not been empirically verified.

This paper begins to assess these claims. These initial findings suggest that the current conventional wisdom may not be wholly correct. First, if confusion is conceptualized broadly, the conventional wisdom about confused voters being more likely to vote ‘no’ on initiatives appears to be incorrect. In comparison to other levels of information and policy preferences, broadly conceived confused voters seem to respond to the choices presented to them similar to everybody else. However, certain forms of confusion, under certain circumstances can have a meaningful impact on individual decision making. Therefore, the second, and perhaps more important finding of this analysis is that confusion needs to be looked at in all of its forms. Confusion is not simply one state of mind that results in consistent outcomes. The next section discusses current theories of confusion and voting. The second section describes how these concepts are measured, followed by a description of the research design and data collection techniques. The final sections discuss the results and suggest potential avenues for future research. --
Download file

Posted by Ed at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Detroit News: A federal judge on Friday promised a speedy decision on whether to remove from Michigan's November ballot an initiative to ban affirmative action.

Lawyers in a lawsuit over the ballot measure, called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, made their final arguments Friday and await a ruling from U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow.

By Any Means Necessary, a group opposing the initiative, says the question should be removed from the ballot because proponents fraudulently obtained petition signatures by telling African-Americans and others the measure was designed to protect affirmative action.

Organizers of the ballot proposal deny they engaged in fraud when they circulated a petition that is required to get a question put on the ballot. Removing the referendum issue would deny Michigan citizens the right to vote on the issue, their lawyers told Tarnow. -- Judge vows quick decision on ballot issue - 08/19/06 - The Detroit News Online

Posted by Ed at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dan Smith emailed this paper to me. Here is a bit of it:

Mass Support for Redistricting Reform: Partisanship and Representational Winners and Losers by
Caroline J. Tolbert, University of Iowa; Daniel A. Smith, University of Florida; John C. Green, University of Akron

This paper examines popular support for altering electoral institutions in two bellwether American states—California and Ohio. On Tuesday, November 8, 2005, a majority of voters in each state decisively struck down statewide ballot initiatives that would have created nonpartisan redistricting commissions. ...

Riker (1962, 1986) argued that political elites act strategically, manipulating institutions for their electoral benefit. Building on the literature, we find compelling evidence that the mass public may also act strategically when making decisions about institutional change, as electoral losers are significantly more likely to support or vote for modifying electoral institutions. We find support for redistricting reform is contingent on loser status at the statewide legislative level and district level. While the findings are mixed regarding district level representation (stronger findings from Ohio), in general, we present evidence that “losers” statewide and at the district level are more likely to support efforts to create more competitive elections through redistricting reform. While it may be in the self-interest of statewide legislative losers (Democrats in Ohio and Republicans in California) to support changing the way redistricting is determined, some of these individuals (in particular, African Americans) may benefit at the district level from the current method of gerrymandering, which dampens their support for broader institutional change. Beyond defining losers by candidate preferences in the last election or perceptions of being an electoral loser, we find evidence that individuals who are electoral losers (represented by elected officials of a different political party at the statewide and district levels) are significantly more supportive of institutional change. We also find evidence that race and loser status may interact, shaping voting behavior. The analysis adds weight to a growing body of literature suggesting that strategic voting matters, especially in terms of “reforming the republic” (Donovan an