GAY CONGRESSMAN-ELECT CALLS FOR MORE DIRECT DEMOCRACY

Gay Congressman-elect calls for more, better, and national ballot initiatives

by Ross Levin
December 13, 2008 at 16:45:58

Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Gay-Congressman-elect-call-by-Ross-Levin-081210-643.html

With Prop 8 passing in California and various other civil rights-restricting ballot initiatives passing elsewhere, direct democracy (or more accurately, a hybrid of direct democracy and representative government called "codetermination") has been receiving a strong rejection by the gay community nationwide this year. But someone who could potentially be one of their greatest allies in all of politics not only accepts ballot initiatives, but is pushing for their expansion to the rest of the nation (currently in the United States, initiative voting exists in 24 states and Washington, DC).

The man I am talking about is Jared Polis, the Democratic Congressman-elect from Boulder, Colorado. Voted into office this November 4th, he is the first openly homosexual non-incumbent elected to Congress. And yet he still believes that expanding ballot initiatives to the national level would make American government better. He will, therefore, be introducing a bill into Congress next year that would actually establish a process through which any qualified citizen--most likely that will simply mean a registered voter --will be able to propose a law and then (if it gains enough support beforehand) have the entire voting public vote on it.

Why would a gay man--a man whose community has been injured and insulted at the ballot box for a number of years--support an increased use of initiatives on a scale that is larger than they have ever been used? Listen to the man:

I've been involved with many ballot initiatives here in Colorado. Our system of ballot initiatives, not only in Colorado but in other states, doesn't work perfectly--and that's important to acknowledge . I believe it's far better that we have one than we don't have one.

There are some policies, which by their very nature, are unlikely to be implemented by an elected legislature. These are things like campaign finance reform, term limits, types of issues where it affects the members personally.

We passed, here in Colorado, a very strong ethics law that banned lobbyists from giving gifts to legislators,. We passed campaign finance reform. We passed sunshine laws, which, again, the legislature is not likely to pass. They require open meetings--the US Congress doesn't have that.

Polis brings up a few good points. First, governmental reform would be more likely to occur with a national initiative process supplementing our current legislative process than simply having Congress by itself. That is, the people who have power (Congress) are less likely to reform themselves and curb their power than the people who are being hurt by their corruption (the general populous). And Jared Polis is no novice when it comes to reform through initiatives--he was the main sponsor of Colorado's "Ethics in Government" amendment, a law passed by voters in 2006 which severely limited the power of lobbyists in Colorado state government.

Something which fewer people may have noticed his saying, but something that is equally important, is that "our system of ballot initiatives not only in Colorado, but in other states doesn't work perfectly." As seen from the infamous Proposition 8, there is much wrong with the current state and local initiative systems. Just think about this--approximately 30% of voters voted yes on Prop 8, because there was around 60% turnout and the vote was close to 50-50. That means much less than 30% of adults, let alone the entire population, of California voted yes on a constitutional amendment, and yet it still passed. Clearly, there is something wrong with California's initiative and referenda process, and this is just one example of that.

A national initiative process would be an amazing opportunity for reform of state initiative processes. It would bring a new form of direct democracy onto the world stage and offer solutions to the problems posed by our current direct democracies. Also, the most credible current proposal for a direct democratic process in the United States - the National Initiative for Democracy, which can be read at http://www.vote.org would give states a choice to either keep their current process or adopt a new one based on the National Initiative for Democracy. In fact, the National Initiative proposes that half of all registered voters would need to vote "yes" for a constitutional amendment on the ballot to pass. If that rule were in place in California, over 80% of the people who showed up at the polls would have had to cast a "yes" vote on Prop 8 for it to have passed. And this is just one of several safeguards that would be put in place by the National Initiative.

Jared Polis was actually involved in the creation of the National Initiative for Democracy, even though he currently objects to a few aspects, and therefore will not be introducing that exact bill into Congress next year. The bill he will be introducing will probably resemble the National Initiative, though, and if you would like to read up on it, I have a few suggestions.

1. There is the text of the "Democracy Act" and the "Democracy Amendment" (Which, together, make up the National Initiative for Democracy, along with an ongoing online election at http://www.vote.org )

2. An annotated version of the Democracy Act and Democracy Amendment, which include explanations and dialogue from the 2002 Democracy Symposium (a conference which was held to work out the kinks in the two documents)

3. Books on the topic of direct democracy, ranging from Mike Gravel's Citizen Power to the simply titled Direct Democracy (which is available online for free) to "For the Many or The Few" by John Matsusaka, a law expert who teaches at the University of Southern California.

As you can see, ballot initiatives are not something to be easily dismissed as a tool of special interests or the bigoted majority. They are more complex than that and, according to someone who is both a gay man and a direct democracy expert, much more useful.

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:Tell your representative in Congress to support Polis's national initiative bill
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Ross Levin a young activist who also writes for keystonepolitics.com, operationitch.com, independentpoliticalreport.com. He first became active in politics in the 2008 presidential campaign through Mike Gravel's quixotic run for the Democratic nomination, but is still actively promoting the centerpiece of Gravel's campaign: the National Initiative for Democracy, which would allow citizens to make laws at all levels of government. You can check it out at www.ni4d.us and vote.org.

STARBUCKS WORKERS TAKE DIRECT ACTION

Union-Made Lattes

The Industrial Workers of the World ramps up its campaign to organize Starbucks

December 29, 2008 By Sam Stoker
Source: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20077

On Aug. 31, the light-rail train from Minneapolis to the Mall of America was boisterous. During the ride, several dozen Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) members - known as Wobblies - belted out the radical workers' anthem 'Solidarity Forever' in unison. The reason for their elation was because Erik Forman, 23, was returning to work as a Starbucks barista.

Forman, an IWW organizer, had been fired on July 10, his boss told him, for discussing with co-workers the disciplinary action that was taken against him after showing up late to work. But Forman believes the real reason was because of his outspoken advocacy for the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) - which is part of the IWW - and says that his termination was an attempt by Starbucks, the world's largest coffee-shop chain, to bust a growing union movement among its employees.

Forman filed a complaint for illegal termination and anti-union malfeasance with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) a week later. In support, Starbucks' baristas throughout the Twin Cities signed a petition demanding Forman's reinstatement. After a series of work stoppages and protests, Starbucks settled the complaint on Aug. 31.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company did not admit guilt or that the IWW's actions influenced its decision to rehire Forman. But it did agree to reinstate him with back pay for missed time and to post signs in the shop for 60 days, informing workers that management would not interfere with attempts to organize.

More than half of Forman's shop is now in the IWW - and at the Mall of America the Wobblies were planning 'to drink some union-made lattes' in a sign of solidarity.

`We are the union' A handful of baristas started the SWU in a single Starbucks shop in New York City in May 2004.

'The union was sparked because workers had become fed up with low wages, unsecured scheduling, a prohibitive healthcare system and a lack of respect from managers,' says founding member Daniel Gross.

The SWU soon spread to Starbucks across the city, all while embracing the tenets of the IWW - particularly solidarity unionism. Unlike the prominent union model that uses a hierarchical power structure and focuses on bargaining with employers, solidarity unionism embraces direct democracy with members supporting one another directly.

'We are not part of a union,' says Gross. 'We are the union.'

Members of the SWU say Starbucks embarked on an anti- union campaign since its inception. They allege management threatened employees who expressed interest in the union, and spied on and interrogated employees about union activity. SWU says the most outspoken union advocates were fired.

Starbucks denies these charges. 'Such allegations are baseless,' says Starbucks spokesperson Tara Darrow. 'Starbucks strictly abides with laws and guidelines associated with labor law. We wouldn't do that because it is against the law.'

Yet Starbucks' settlement with the NLRB complaint on Forman's behalf was the third such settlement in three years. During that time, Starbucks has reinstated four employees after they filed complaints with the NLRB, and two cases remain open.

In New York, Gross is still awaiting the decision of an August 2007 hearing in which the NLRB filed 30 complaints against Starbucks for anti-union malfeasance, in addition to a complaint that he, Gross, was fired illegally. More recently, in Grand Rapids, Mich., the NLRB filed a complaint against Starbucks, charging that the company illegally fired barista Cole Dorsey for union activity.

According to Dorsey, the SWU began organizing in Grand Rapids in 2006. But baristas who were interested in joining the union became concerned that repercussions might be taken against them for organizing publicly.

'We were attempting to organize a union election, a tactic we thought could be effective here in Michigan, but we believe management found out,' says Dorsey.

Those baristas collectively decided that Dorsey - at least initially - should be the union's public face while others remained underground.

Dorsey was fired on June 6 during the union election campaign. Starbucks' Darrow says Dorsey - who had worked at Starbucks for two years and had won employee awards - was fired for being tardy after receiving a final warning. As in other cases, Starbucks denies allegations of union-busting activity.

'The backbone of my case is that I was fired for less than what other employees have done,' Dorsey says.

In a response to Dorsey's NLRB complaint, Starbucks' attorneys reiterated the official reason he was fired, and added that he was a 'salt,' suggesting that Dorsey had no interest in working at Starbucks and was there only to organize.

'I guess it is true in a sense because I am organizing people, but what they fail to understand is that I also depend on the income from my job, and they took that away from me,' Dorsey says. 'We never wanted this to be a contentious issue. We want a union so that we can improve workplace conditions. Starbucks has made the situation contentious.'

Improving working conditions In the past year, the SWU has grown more than it had in its first three years combined. The group says it has around 250 members nationally, with most congregated in Chicago, Grand Rapids, New York City and the Twin Cities.

SWU members say that the Twin Cities have the fastest growth rate nationwide, attributing much of the growth to the controversy stirred up by Forman's firing.

Forman says the union's local growth is only a step in a larger campaign to challenge Starbucks to improve worker conditions. With stores in 60 countries, Starbucks employs 150,000 people worldwide.

'The union needs to become international and it eventually needs to spread into all of the service industry,' Forman says.

A global movement against the corporation appears to be underway. Dorsey's termination coincided with the firing of Monica (who wouldn't reveal her last name because she fears being blacklisted by other employers), a Starbucks barista in Seville, Spain. Monica is a member of the Confederaci - n Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), the Spanish counterpart of the IWW.

Like Dorsey, Monica was also allegedly fired for union organizing. Their terminations sparked an international day of protest on July 5 at hundreds of Starbucks in cities across the world.

But, according to spokeswoman Darrow, Starbucks doesn't fear such organizing.

'As far as we are concerned, our [employees] have free choice [to unionize] at all times,' she says. 'We feel we have great communication back and forth with employees and we pride ourselves on providing a good workplace.'

Starbucks' pride in its 'good workplace' stems from the employee pay and benefit packages that the company often trumpets - benefits that include stock option programs and healthcare benefits that the company claims cover 65 percent of eligible employees. But the bottom line for the SWU is that a person simply cannot live a decent life as a Starbucks worker. The wages, which generally hover slightly above each state's minimum wage, are too low; the hours are unstable; and health insurance premiums and deductibles are prohibitive compared to earnings.

'There are many corporations like Starbucks that exploit workers, but few have succeeded like Starbucks in portraying itself as a socially conscious corporation,' Gross says.

While the most common response to such a situation is `Why don't you quit?' Forman says, 'The fact is there are not many industries a person can get into with no skills, and retail is one of them. The best thing people can do is organize.'

Back at the Mall of America The Wobblies' Aug. 31 party on the light-rail was cut short two train stops before the Mall of America, when police officers boarded the train and questioned the group. Police told them the Mall of America is private property and that no demonstrations or protests are allowed there.

The union members explained that they were simply joining their friend for his first day of work and assured the officers they were not there to demonstrate or disrupt shoppers. The officers let them pass.

But when the train arrived at the Mall of America, a line of police in riot gear blocked the doors to the platform. Among them were FBI agents. (Aug. 31 was also the day before the opening of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, which may have explained the police presence.) A co-worker text-messaged Forman that management had been speaking with police in their shop. No one was allowed off the train and police threatened to arrest anyone who tried to exit.

'It's ridiculous,' Forman later says. 'Management, the police and the FBI are working together. They say they didn't want us demonstrating, but we assured them that was not our intent. I think it is clear, what they really fear is us organizing.'


Sam Stoker is a freelance reporter based in Chicago.

CALIFORNIA: WEALTHY INTERESTS ALTER INITIATIVE PROCESS

Wealthy interests alter Calif's initiative process

By STEVE LAWRENCE – Oct 29, 2008

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2VeEkncwhV-7wabJ49pS5Zok41AD9441E600

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — When Hiram Johnson championed an initiative system for California nearly a century ago, he sold it as a grassroots way to "arm the people to protect themselves."

California's 23rd governor foresaw citizen campaigns putting propositions on the ballot when the Legislature failed to address a pressing need.

But 97 years after Californians voted to allow themselves to put measures on the ballot, Johnson's experiment in direct democracy has changed dramatically.

He certainly could not have envisioned the multimillion-dollar campaigns for several measures on California's Nov. 4 ballot, some of which critics say will benefit their wealthy sponsors at the expense of California taxpayers.

Paid petition circulators, not armies of volunteers, typically gather initiative signatures these days. Corporations, wealthy individuals, labor unions, Indian tribes and other monied interests frequently spend millions to battle over the proposals.

The Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles think tank, reported in May that there had not been a successful initiative signature-gathering drive conducted almost exclusively by volunteers in California since 1982.

This year, volunteers collected most of the signatures to put Proposition 2 on the ballot, said spokeswoman Robin Swanson. The measure, one of 12 statewide propositions on California's ballot, would set enclosure standards for farm animals.

Former Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg, a Los Angeles Democrat who formed a commission in 2000 to consider ways to reform the initiative process, said the system has been undermined by big-money campaigns.

"The whole thinking behind the initiative was it comes from the people, not the few people that have a checkbook," he said.

To its critics, one proposition on the ballot this year could be the perfect example of the flawed initiative process.

Proposition 10 was placed on the ballot by oilman T. Boone Pickens, a Texas billionaire, whose natural gas company stands to gain financially if it's approved.

The proposal would set up a rebate program for alternative-fuel vehicles and authorize the state to borrow $5 billion to fund it — at a time when the state is struggling with multibillion dollar budget deficits.

Half the money would be used to provide rebates of up to $50,000 to consumers who buy vehicles that run on natural gas and other non-petroleum fuels. Critics say that would mostly benefit companies that have large vehicle fleets, not average consumers.

There also would be $340 million to fund rebates for buying fuel-saving vehicles such as the Toyota Prius and money for research and development of alternative energy technologies.

"This is going to do a lot to help consumers in California who want to buy cars that run on something other than gasoline," said Marty Wilson, a consultant to the Yes-on-10 campaign. He also said Proposition 10 would help clean the air and reduce the state's dependence on foreign oil.

But opponents suggest the measure is mainly about promoting natural gas-powered vehicles and enriching one firm: Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a Seal Beach company started by Pickens.

Clean Energy, which bills itself as the "largest provider of natural gas for transportation in North America," has given more than 80 percent of the $22.5 million raised so far to pass the proposal. Two other natural gas companies have contributed most of the rest.

"This is the most naked money grab that I have ever seen in terms of using the ballot, using the voters to advance a business proposition," said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California.

Proposition 10 isn't the only California ballot measure that's attracting million-dollar donations this year. Nearly half of the more than $175 million raised so far for November initiative campaigns has come from individuals, corporations or groups that gave at least $1 million.

Several studies over the years have recommended changes in the initiative system, but bills to alter it tend to die in committee or on the governor's desk.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation in 2006 that would have prohibited initiative campaigns from paying petition circulators on a per-signature basis, a step the bill's supporters said would remove an incentive for circulators to mislead potential signers.

Schwarzenegger also rejected a bill in 2005 that would have required initiative petitions to disclose if they were being circulated by volunteers or paid workers and to list the five biggest contributors to the initiative campaign.

Schwarzenegger said both measures would have made it harder to qualify initiatives, something he opposes.

The Center for Governmental Studies' report earlier this year recommended 17 changes, including giving initiative proponents up to a year to gather signatures, a step it said would aid volunteer campaigns. Currently, the limit is 150 days.

It also suggested trying to impose a $100,000 limit on donations to initiative campaigns, although that could run afoul of a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that shot down a $250 donation limit adopted by the city of Berkeley.

Having a lot of money won't guarantee approval, but sometimes the public sees only one side of an initiative debate — "the side that has the money," said Robert Stern, the center's president.

"Bottom line, money talks," he said. "At some point, it really does corrupt the system."

ARIZONA: PROP. 105 - THREAT TO DIRECT DEMOCRACY DEFEATED AT BALLOT BOX

A ballot initiative in Arizona that would have severely limited and possibly eliminated the initiative & referendum in that state was soundly defeated at the voting booths on Nov. 4th. The twisted and anti-democratic logic of the inititiative was rejected by an enlightened electorate. A prime example of direct democracy at it's best. - Editor

The Voters of Arizona Defeat Prop 105

November 5, 2008
Source: http://thevotersofaz.com/?p=127

Arizona’s Voters Reject Prop 105; the So-called ‘Majority Rules’ Amendment
Coalition of more than 125 Organizations Credits Revealing the Truth
and Hard Work as Reason for Defeating Misleading Proposition

The latest ballot count shows that voters have rejected Prop 105 marking a significant victory for Arizonans, all of whom will retain their most precious right – the right to vote. The tally shows Prop 105, the so-called “Majority Rules” amendment, losing by a 66 to 34 percent margin.

“I am proud to have been a part of a coalition that stood up for the voting rights of all Arizonans,” said John Wright, chair The Voters of Arizona-No on prop 105 campaign committee. “It is just plain wrong to count people who don’t vote, and the voters of Arizona agreed that Prop 105 was a misleading initiative that should not be included in the constitution.”

If Prop 105 had passed, more than 80 percent of those voting on a ballot initiative would have had to vote yes for it to pass, effectively killing the initiative process in Arizona, which is the closest thing we have to a direct democracy. If Prop 105 were already in place, a number of initiatives that overwhelmingly passed—including the statewide smoking ban, First Things First, Smarter Growth, almost every initiative since 1974—would not have passed under Prop 105.

A coalition of nearly 125 organizations across the state provided the foundation for a strong grassroots effort. The entire campaign included website development; earned media efforts; statewide direct mail and signage; and creative development, production, and placement of the TV commercial. The campaign took nothing to chance in what was arguably the most deceptive ballot initiative in the state’s history.

“From a campaign strategy perspective, their initiative was a classic ‘bait and switch’ strategy, using a ‘majority rules’ message as a cover,” said Joe Yuhas, partner with RIESTER, the campaigns consultant. “We didn’t allow a misleading message to stand in the way of educating voters about what Prop 105 was really about, counting people who don’t actually vote as automatic no votes. This landslide of Arizonans voting No on prop 105 proves that they want to keep and protect their constitutional right to the initiative process.”

Support for the Voters of Arizona-No on Prop 105 was wide spread including prominent elected officials including Mayors Bob Walkup of Tucson, Karen Fann of Chino Valley, and Mark Nexsem of Lake Havasu City. The business community also joined via support from 10 Chambers of Commerce statewide as well as the Associated General Contractors Arizona Chapter. The Voters of Arizona received a variety of new endorsements weekly, including public safety organizations such as the Professional Firefighters of Arizona, United Phoenix Firefighters and Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs; education advocacy groups including Arizona Education Association and Arizona School Boards Association; senior groups including the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans; and the medical community including Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and the American Lung Association. By the end of the campaign, all major news outlets that weighed in on the issue were against Prop 105 including The Arizona Republic, East Valley Tribune, Tucson Citizen, Tucson Weekly, and The Yuma Sun.

U.S. DIRECT DEMOCRACY: A VIEW FROM THE U.K.

The U.S. elections prompted many observations internationally about the political system and the election process, including the drect democracy at play in the form of ballot initiatives at the state level. The following article presents a view from the U.K. on that subject. - editor

It'll get interesting when the Americans start voting

The undercard for the US elections may be dragging - but the main event will be unmissable, argues Chris Game.

Oct 31 2008 Agenda
Source: http://www.birminghampost.net/comment/birmingham-columnists/agenda/2008/10/31/it-ll-get-interesting-when-the-americans-start-voting-65233-22157493/

My political boredom threshold is probably higher than most of yours, but I confess: I’m bored with the American election.

True, my boredom is purely temporary. Come the early hours of Wednesday November 5, and I’ll have exchanged my late night Stateside TV viewing from the baseball World Series to the state-by-state exit polls and Presidential predictions.

Can Obama really win big? Or will enough voters, privately in their polling booths, be sufficiently scared of the man’s programme, personality or pigmentation that, despite everything they’ve told opinion pollsters, they’ll go for the other guy?

Whatever the outcome, it will be absorbing, important and historic – but for now the main feature’s a bit of a drag. With US elections, though, there’s always a full supporting programme.

There are thousands of other elective offices at stake, but for me, better than all this representative stuff, is the raw direct democracy on offer. Voters in 36 states will give their views on 153 ballot propositions, initiatives and referrals. They themselves become policy makers on issues great and small, in a way that our governments rarely, if ever, trust us to be.

They will determine how taxes are raised, how major investment projects are funded, and whether their states should have lotteries, casinos, greyhound tracks, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, and liberal or restrictive abortion laws – while we struggle to have a say on the future of our central library.

Just as Sarah Palin’s candidacy has taught us at least where Alaska is and the kinds of things Alaskan rednecks like to do there, so a study of these propositions can inform us about aspects of America that would rarely otherwise attract our attention.

A majority of the 153 measures have been placed on the ballot paper by state legislators themselves. Most are not actually called referendums, but that’s what they are: issues or bills referred to electors for approval or veto before they become law.

There are, though, 61 propositions or initiatives that have forced their way on to the ballot paper following successful citizens’ petitions, in which campaigners seeking to change their state’s law or constitution have collected a specified number of validated signatures.

The biggest categories of propositions, as always, are those on taxes (24) and bond issues (16). But, contrary perhaps to expectation, not all the former are for tax reductions, nor do the tax cutters invariably win – especially if a worthy-sounding cause can be attached.

Thus a proposal to raise Minnesota’s sales tax rate is labelled ‘The Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas Amendment’ in an unsubtle hint of the ecological depredation that could result from voters withholding their tax dollars. Likewise, Colorado has a citizens’ initiative, ‘Sales Tax for the Developmentally Disabled’.

More conventional are the state income tax propositions. The North Dakota chapter of Americans for Prosperity want theirs cut, while the Massachusetts Committee for Small Government want their 5.3 per cent rate abolished completely.

But not even tax cuts are necessarily self-seeking. An Oklahoma constitutional amendment, for example, seeks a property tax exemption for disabled veterans and their surviving spouses.

Municipal bonds are a fund-raising device many of our local government leaders ogle with undisguised envy, constrained as they are by our shackling Treasury Rules. If their US counterparts need capital for schools, highways, hospitals, airports or whatever, one option is to get voters to approve a bond issue – reminding them that, if they themselves invest, their interest income will be exempt from federal income tax.

Californian voters alone have three bond issues to consider: $10 billion towards a high-speed 800-mile rail link between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and nearly $1 billion each for children’s hospitals and a fund assisting veterans to become homeowners.

Lotteries and casinos are other ballot regulars, and again proponents will emphasise the more morally uplifting causes that will gain from, say, extending casino hours to 24/7 and increasing maximum bets.

Thus the real beneficiaries of an Arkansas state lottery will apparently be the student recipients of college scholarships. And, if Colorado citizens agree to loosen gambling restrictions, the true winners will be everything from highway improvements and health care programmes to alternative fuels and the state minimum wage. Then there are the social issues, particularly interesting where they relate to UK practice. Perhaps most topical of all – given the recent cases of multiple sclerosis sufferer, Debby Purdy, and 23-year old rugby player, Dan James – is Washington state’s ‘Aid in Dying’ initiative.

Modelled on the now well-established practice in neighbouring Oregon, the proposal would allow mentally competent, terminally ill adults to request and administer a lethal overdose of medication.

Oregonians over the years have voted on more ballot propositions (350) than any other Americans. Among this year’s 12 measures is a proposed ‘Kids First Act’, under which teachers’ pay rises and job security would be based not on seniority, but on their classroom performance. Controversial certainly, but not remotely on the scale of abortion. In the US a woman has since 1974 had the constitutional right to have an abortion, but her state’s provision, or lack of it, will effectively determine her access to a clinic. Nowadays, most ballot propositions aim at further restricting availability. In California an emotively entitled ‘Sarah’s Law’ – after a 15-year old who died following a mishandled abortion – would prohibit abortion for minors until 48 hours after the physician has notified a parent or legal guardian.

More inventive and potentially far-reaching is a Colorado initiative attempting in effect to criminalise all abortion, through an Equal Rights constitutional amendment re-defining a ‘person’ as any human being from the moment of fertilisation. The implications seem massive – including for emergency contraception, IUD forms of contraception, and stem cell research – and it will surely be the most carefully watched of all this year’s proposition votes.

Finally, no examination of US direct democracy would be complete without mention of animal welfare, of which Americans are in some respects significantly more protective than we are.

A Massachusetts initiative thus proposes closing down the state’s two greyhound tracks and banning all dog racing for money. And a California proposition calls for an end to battery chicken farming and the crate-rearing of calves and sows.

Alaskans, though, as we have learned, view things differently: ‘wildlife is for us, and blasting things indiscriminately is the Alaskan way of life’. In an early statewide ballot just three days before Governor Sarah Palin was unveiled as John McCain’s running mate, Alaskans voted decisively to reject the Wolf and Bear Protection Act and continue the aerial hunting and shooting of free-ranging wolves, wolverines and grizzly bears.

You can guess which way the Governor campaigned and voted. But then, as my mother used to say, it would be a dull world indeed if we were all alike.

* Chris Game is lecturer at the Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham.

NEW YORK CITY: CITY COUNCIL TRUMPS DIRECT DEMOCRACY OVER TERM LIMITS

Council Votes, 29 to 22, to Extend Term Limits

By Sewell Chan AND Jonathan P. Hicks
October 23, 2008, 2:10 pm

Source: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/council-to-debate-term-limits-change/?apage=1

Updated, 7:30 p.m. After a spirited, emotional and at times raucous debate, the New York City Council voted, 29 to 22, on Thursday afternoon to extend term limits, allowing Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek re-election next year and undoing the result of two voter referendums that had imposed a limit of two four-year terms.

The vote was a major victory for Mayor Bloomberg — a billionaire and lifelong Democrat who was elected mayor as a Republican in 2001, won re-election in 2005, became an independent last year, and decided just weeks ago that he wished to seek a third term for himself in 2009 — and for the Council’s speaker, Christine C. Quinn. But the intense acrimony surrounding the decision left a sharply divided Council and could ultimately damage the mayor’s popularity.

The new law, which earlier on Thursday sailed through a committee vote, limits elected officials to three consecutive terms and applies to all of the city’s elected officials. It has already begun to upend municipal politics, reshaping the dynamics of next year’s races.

Of the Council’s 51 members, 35 would have been barred by term limits from seeking re-election next year. On Thursday, 23 of those members voted in favor of extending term limits, and 12 voted against.

The Council has 48 Democrats and three Republicans. All three Republicans — James S. Oddo and Vincent M. Ignizio, of Staten Island, and Anthony Como of Queens — voted no.

Over two days of public hearings lasting 19.5 hours last week, and in the floor debate on Thursday, both sides argued that their position was in the best interests of the people.

Opponents of the bill accused the mayor and his supporters on the Council of flouting the will of the people — as expressed in a 1993 voter initiative that established a limit of two consecutive terms and a 1996 referendum in which voters rejected a Council-led effort to change the limit to three terms. They said that democratic procedure demanded a public vote on the issue, no matter what one thinks of Mr. Bloomberg or term limits.

Supporters of the bill said the dire economic situation confronting the city — and the possibility of multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls — demanded continuity of leadership. They said term limits deprived voters of the opportunity to return dedicated politicians to office. They argued that it would be too costly and difficult to put the matter back before the people by holding a special election early next year.

Most experts agreed that the Council had the legal authority to amend the City Charter and override a law created by a referendum, but opponents said lawmakers had no moral right to do so. Two council members had gone to court, arguing that it was a conflict of interest for lawmakers to extend their own terms, but a judge refused to block the vote.

After Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, who presides over the Council, announced the final result at 4:35 p.m., the balcony erupted in shouts of “The city’s for sale!” and “Shame on you!”

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL ARTICLE

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL BALLOT INITIATIVE RESULTS

The following article offers a summary of the results for evironmentally related ballot initiatives on state ballots last Tuesday. - Editor

Mixed Bag for State Environmental Ballot Initiatives

Written by Timothy B. Hurst
Published on November 5th, 2008

Source: http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/11/05/mixed-bag-for-state-environmental-ballot-initiatives/

[Update: I seemed to have overlooked an important constitutional amendment passed in Minnesota that established a funding mechanism for conservation programs. My apologies to our friends in the North Star State. See comments for more.]For many Americans, participatory democracy means choosing between the people who will choose for you. But for voters in 36 states, electoral democracy exists beyond the parameters of representative government. In the states where the tools of direct democracy like referendums and ballot initiatives are employed, preferences of voters are gauged directly on amendments to state constitutions, specific policy questions, budgeting issues and more. Of the 153 measures at stake across the country in yesterday’s election, about a dozen dealt with energy and the environment. Below are the results and analysis of eight of the more notable measures (in no particular order):

Missouri Proposition C: Yes - Passing with a robust 64% of voters in favor, Proposition C will require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase 2 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable energy sources like wind, solar, landfill gas, biomass, and small hydroelectric projects by 2011, ratcheting to 15% by 2021. Supporters of the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) initiative, Missourians for Cleaner Cheaper Energy, pointed out that 86% of Missouri’s electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. The passage of proposition C made Missouri the 27th state to pass a renewable energy standard.

Colorado Referendum 58: No - Strongly supported by Governor Ritter, the referendum would have repealed the $300-plus million tax credit oil and gas companies get for extracting mineral resources from the state. The revenue would have funded college scholarships and renewable energy programs.

Colorado Referendum 52: No - Referendum was competed with and would have superceded 58 had they both passed. constitutional proposal that would have funneled millions of dollars from severance taxes into transportation projects — suggested they might return it to the ballot as a statutory amendment, which would erase a major stumbling block. 52 and 58 faced some very well-funded opposition in the form of $12 million worth of industry attack ads that portrayed the measures as “a tax on us.” The oil and gas industry was able to overwhelm counterclaims that it would be very hard for the industry to simply pass on the tax when oil and natural gas are sold in global markets based on supply and demand.

Florida Amendment 4: Yes - Approved by a margin of 68%-32%, the amendment provides a property tax exemption for perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections. Conservation easements allow the development rights of a parcel of land to be separated from the title and put into permanent conservation and provide a tax benefit for it. The conservation mechanism has been successful throughout the U.S., though there have been cases where the tax benefit has been abused.

Washington Proposition 1: Still undecided - A regional transit proposal that would extend light rail service from downtown Seattle into the surrounding suburbs was headed for passage behind solid support in Seattle’s King County.

Ohio Issue 2: Yes - With 69% voting in favor and 31% voting against, Ohio’s Issue 2 was a clear favorite. The measure authorizes the state to borrow $400 million for environmental conservation, preservation and revitalization purposes. The amendment is identical to the bond issue passed by the voters in 2000 and will add funding for The Clean Ohio Program.

California Proposition 1A: Yes - Voters on Tuesday approved the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act by a margin of 52 percent to 47 percent. The proposition permits the selling of about $10 billion in state bonds to fund the planning for a system of high-speed rail linking San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento.

California Proposition 2: Yes - Proposition 2 creates a new state statute that prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The proposition passed by a robust 63%-37% majority despite strong opposition was from industry groups (’big ag’ if you will) that argued the measure would drive up the cost of food, specifically eggs.

California Proposition 7: No - The Clean and Solar Energy Act of 2008 would have increased the renewable energy portfolio standard for utilities including government-owned utilities to 20% by 2010. It also would have ratcheted up that standard for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and to 50% by 2025. Leading the opposition were two utility companies, PG&E and California Edison that argued the proposal was poorly written and so complicated that it could hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the state’s Republican, Democratic and Green parties said the measure would actually hurt the growth of renewables in the state.

California Proposition 10: No - Called for the state to raise $5 billion in bonds to fund rebates for the purchase and retrofitting of vehicles to run on alternative fuels including natural gas. 60% of Californians voted against the measure despite the more than $17 million spent to promote the measure. Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens was a chief supporter of the proposition and is a board member of Clean Energy Fuels Corp., the company which sells natural gas as transportation fuel.

COLORADO: DIRECT DEMOCRACY SURVIVES REFERENDUM 'O'

A referendum that would have severely crippled direct democracy in the state of Colorado was defeated at the polls last tuesday. Referendum O would have made the process even less accessable to the average citizen, and even more the exclusive domain of individuals or special interests groups with the bankroll to launch expensive signature gathering campaigns. - Editor

Ref O defeat retains way to amend constitution

By Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News, David Montero, Rocky Mountain News
Published November 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Source: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/05/ref-o-defeat-retains-way-to-amend-constitution/

The one referendum on this election's lengthy ballot that surely would've shortened future ballots failed narrowly.

Referendum O would have increased the number of petition signatures needed to place state constitutional amendments on the election ballot.

Opponent Robert J. Corry Jr. said its failure showed Colorado voters are smart enough to reject bad amendments on a ballot and didn't need the referendum to do the filtering for them.

"People voted for their constitutional right to not have their constitutional rights restricted," he said.

He also said it failed because "it's easier to stop something on the ballot instead of getting something through."

Ref O would have given citizens an incentive to create less-sweeping statutory initiatives, by reducing the number of signatures needed to put one of those on the ballot. It would have made it harder for lawmakers to overturn voter-approved statutes by requiring a two- thirds legislative majority to change them within five years of passage.

It now takes the same number of petition signatures to put citizen-sponsored statutes on the ballot as it does to put amendments before the voters. So activists usually go the amendment route.

Rep. Al White, R-Hayden, said he was disappointed it failed and thinks voters suffered ballot fatigue as Referendum O was far down the list.

"People just didn't get it, and they had a plethora of issues to vote on and simply voted 'no' all the way down the ballot," he said.

White said Referendum O was needed because Colorado's easy-to-amend legal cornerstone had become a kitchen sink for everything from bans on trapping to clashing budget spending caps and mandates.

That clutter, he said, had turned the Constitution into a "doormat." He also said he would try again with another ballot measure again.

NOV. 4th 2008 BALLOT INITIATIVE RESULTS NATIONWIDE

Results are in for voting on most ballot initiatives nationwide in states where direct democracy is practiced at the state level in the form of initiative & referendum. Click on the Ballotpedia link below for complete results. Some noteworthy results on initiatives we have posted about in the past include the passing of a measure to increase sales tax in Minnesota in order to increase funding for the arts and wildlife preservation, and the defeat of a measure in Connecticut that would have called a constitutional convention which proponents hoped to use to bring initiative and referendum to that state - EDITOR

CLICK HERE FOR FULL RESULTS COURTESY OF BALLOTPEDIA

SOUTH DAKOTA: THE FINE PRINT - INITIATIVES ON THE BALLOT

Reading the fine print

Lorraine Collins
Source: http://www.bhpioneer.com/articles/2008/10/22/opinion/doc48ff58af16094977614025.txt

By now many people around the country are probably wishing they had read the fine print in their mortgage contracts, their credit card agreements, their brokerage accounts, insurance policies, and so forth.

But meanwhile, we in South Dakota are being urged by some television ads to read the fine print of initiated measures on the ballot when we vote Nov. 4.

When the South Dakota Constitution was written, it made provision for citizens to either initiate laws or to refer laws the Legislature passed to a vote of the people. In this respect, we are the proud inheritors of what I'd call Direct Democracy. So two years ago an anti-abortion law passed by the Legislature was referred to the people who voted it down.

This year we don't have a referendum, but we do have an initiated measure dealing with abortion as well as two others that are perhaps more obscure and complex but which also could have serious implications for how business and government will be conducted in South Dakota in the future. So here they are in numerical order.

Initiated Measure 9 calls itself “The South Dakota Small Investor Protection Act” and so far as I can tell it deals with “short selling” securities. This initiative apparently has its origins outside of South Dakota and is promoted by a group that is trying to get the issue on the ballot in several states. I haven't read the entire bill, but the proponents indicate it would “allow our courts to intervene when federal bureaucrats and New York courts don't.”

This is not persuasive to me and I guess I'd go with the opinion of the director of the South Dakota Division of Securities who says we should vote no.

Initiated Measure 10 is one that has generated a lot of TV ads about reading the fine print and it seems to be opposed by a lot of organizations and government entities who claim it is a “gag law” that takes a shotgun approach to what may or may not be a problem requiring something of a more specific and surgical nature. It says it wants to prohibit tax dollars from being used for lobbying and political campaigns. It's hard to argue with that but again, it seems complicated and diffuse and apparently was not generated by any specific problem known to exist in South Dakota.

Initiated Measure 11, which seeks to overturn the vote of 2006 that rejected a strict anti-abortion measure is, so far as I know, generated locally. However, the other day I did get a call from somebody in Virginia supporting this proposed law. Again, those who oppose this measure urge us to read the fine print. I think that's a good idea. Get the whole bill and read it.

Actually, I think a proposed law like this should also lead us to read the fine print or the bold print of the Constitution of the United States. It should lead us to think about why we have government, what we believe is the proper exercise of governmental regulation, and about when government should intervene in our private lives. Personally, I think the discussion about this proposed law should be less about whether it includes enough exceptions and more about what democracy is.

Some of the first colonists who came to America really thought about founding a theocracy and enforcing laws that conformed to their beliefs, but that soon gave way to the idea of freedom of conscience. We can all be grateful for that. I think the problem with Initiated Measure 11 is that seems to require us all to agree with the opinion and beliefs of those who are promoting it. I don't think that's a good idea in a democracy. In that respect, I don't think Initiated Measure 11 belongs on the ballot.

Reading the fine print is a very good thing to do in many areas of our lives and it's especially important when it comes to voting for new laws.

Lorraine Collins is a writer who lives in Spearfish. She can be contacted at collins1@rushmore.com.

CALIFORNIA: DISSECTING INITIATIVES, AND THE NEED FOR REFORM

Two articles about the current measures on the ballot in California that illustrate the need for reform of the initiative & referendum process in that state as well as many other states in order to make the process less driven by big money and more accessable to the people. - EDITOR

A long way from the grassroots

John Diaz
Sunday, October 12, 2008

Source: http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/WDH06/810120681

There is no big secret to the formula for manipulating California's initiative process. Find a billionaire benefactor with the ideological motivation or crass self-interest to spend the $1-million plus to get something on the ballot with mercenary signature gatherers. Stretch as far as required to link it to the issue of the ages (this is for the children, Prop. 3) or the cause of the day (this is about energy independence and renewable resources, Props. 7 and 10). If it's a tough sell on the facts, give it a sympathetic face and name such as "Marsy's Law" (Prop. 9, victims' rights and parole) or "Sarah's Law" (Prop. 4, parental notification on abortion). Prepare to spend a bundle on soft-focus television advertising and hope voters don't notice the fine print or the independent analyses of good-government groups or newspaper editorial boards.

Ten of the 12 statewide measures on the Nov. 4 ballot came through the initiative process, which was created nearly a century ago to offset the grip of Southern Pacific Railroad on the California Legislature. Today, the initiative process is no longer the antidote to special interests and the moneyed class; it is their vehicle of choice to attempt to get their way without having to endure the scrutiny and compromise of the legislative process.

Five initiatives have been buoyed by a single wealthy contributor. Most audaciously, T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman, bankrolled Prop. 10, which asks Californians to borrow billions to fuel natural gas vehicles. Pickens happens to be the founder of Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which - you guessed it - supplies natural gas to fleets of vehicles. Other initiative backers appear driven more by philosophy than profit. George Soros, the New York financier and liberal activist, is the bucks behind Prop. 5, which would increase drug treatment as an alternative to prison. Peter Sperling, a devout environmentalist and son of University of Phoenix founder, is supplying the funding for Prop. 7, which would increase the state's commitment to renewable energy. Major environmental groups, however, oppose it as unrealistic and sloppily drafted.

Then there are Props. 6 and 9, the tough on (selected) crime trust-fund babies of Henry T. Nicholas III, an Orange County billionaire tech executive who has been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with securities fraud and drug-related offenses. But Nicholas, who has funded other anti-crime campaigns in the past, has nothing to fear from his Prop. 6: It's aimed at toughening penalties on gangs, illegal immigrants and criminals trying to get into Section 8 housing - not CEOs gone bad.

It's time to get past the illusion of the initiative process as a grassroots domain. As much attention as Hollywood actor Brad Pitt received for his $100,000 contribution against Proposition 8 - the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage - recent campaign disclosure reports showed that conservative activist Maggie Gallagher donated $1.45 million to Yes on 8.

Having sat through many hours of meetings with the proponents and opponents of these propositions, I say: When in doubt, vote no. Most of these measures - such as Prop. 2, which would require farmers to put chickens in more spacious cages - do not belong on the ballot. They should be resolved in the Legislature, where competing interests can be heard and balanced. Voters should reject all non-capital-investment proposals that commit the state to annual spending without offering a funding source: Prop. 5 (drug treatment, $465 million), Prop. 6 (tougher sentencing, $900-plus million) and Prop. 9 (victims rights and parole, "hundreds of millions," according to the Legislative Analyst).

Only one measure on the Nov. 4 ballot truly fits Gov. Hiram Johnson's early 1900s vision of "direct democracy" as a way to bypass a corrupt and power-mad Legislature: Prop. 11, which would strip lawmakers of the ability to draw their own district boundaries. Trust me: Legislators are not going to voluntarily cede that duty to an independent commission. Ever.

But the question is: Will bleary-eyed voters have the attention spans to get to Prop. 11? In addition to the 12 statewide measures, San Franciscans will be staring at 22 local propositions, on everything from decriminalizing prostitution to allowing the city to take over electricity service from PG&E to naming the sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush.

I'm waiting anxiously for the initiative reforms proposed by the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies: Limit contributions, increase transparency and offer an opportunity for proposals that gain the required signatures to go to the Legislature for a final shot before going to the ballot for an all-or-nothing decision.

All they need is billionaire benefactor. Unfortunately, good-government initiatives don't do much to feed the ego or line the pocketbook.

John Diaz is The Chronicle's editorial page editor. You can e-mail him atjdiaz@sfchronicle.com.

______________________________________________________________

Most of the ballot propositions should be defeated

Thinking it through, By RICHARD REEB

Source: http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/ballot_4478___article.html/california_defeated.html

California’s voters will be inundated in the remaining days of the campaign with flyers, telephone calls and e-mails urging them to vote “yes” or “no” on the 12 ballot propositions to be decided on Nov. 4. Even though some organization claims to have endorsed or rejected a measure, that neither tells us very much about it nor provides very much help with understanding what we’re voting on.

But such communications are perfectly understandable for various reasons. First, there are a dozen measures for our consideration, which range in length from one sentence (Proposition 8: Affirming natural marriage) to 21 pages (Proposition 4: Adolescent abortion waiting period). It took eight pages for the legislative analyst to explain Proposition 5 (Nonviolent Drug Offenses), which is 17 pages long, and six pages to explain Proposition 7 (Renewable Energy Generation), which is seven pages long. That’s a lot to absorb for the millions of us who are not legislators.

Second, besides being numerous and lengthy, these propositions are inherently complicated. This is so not only because they are necessarily written in legalese, with which most voters are unfamiliar; they also include multiple provisions. That’s often the nature of laws but more accurately the nature of the bureaucratic laws that are the curse of the modern administrative state. Plus, these measures are sometimes the product of a process in which various interests obtain provisions to suit them as the price of their support for the entire measure.

Third, we are presented with an all-or-nothing decision that forces us to accept or reject the measure in toto even though there are sections that should be left out or included. We lack the flexibility of legislators who can amend to strike or add provisions that detract from or improve the bill.

But, since 1910, when the Progressive movement brought us direct democracy in this State, voting on these propositions has been part of our electoral responsibilities. The very feature that gave rise to this reform, namely, legislative dereliction, has not been overcome. Indeed, politicians seeking to avoid making hard decisions like it when the matter is thrown to the voters, for that lets them off the hook.

In spite of all these difficulties, direct initiatives (measures initiated by citizens outside the legislature) have often corrected bad public policy. The most famous example, of course, is Proposition 13, the property-tax-cutting measure approved by the voters in 1978. Besides such limits on taxing and spending, strong law-enforcement measures that cannot make it through our Democrat-dominated legislature can be enacted directly by the voters. Propositions 6 (Police and law enforcement funding, 13 pages) and 9 (Victims’ rights, four pages) fall into that category.

All bond measures have to be approved by the voters. These include Proposition 1 (High speed rail), 3 (Children’s hospitals), 10 (Alternative fuel vehicles) and 12 (Veteran housing loans). And all constitutional amendments must also be approved, such as Propositions 1, 4, 8, 9 and (once again) a measure (11) to take the power to draw legislative district lines from the legislature and assign it to a special commission.

There are two energy-related statutes on the ballot. These include the aforementioned Proposition 7, as well as Proposition 10. They are among 10 initiatives, half of which are constitutional amendments and half of which are statutes. Also in the latter group is Proposition 2, Standards for confining farm animals.

The first part of the 143-page booklet includes summaries, analyses and arguments pro and con. Well over half of the remainder contains the full text of the measures, including existing, revised and deleted language. Winston Churchill once said, “The devil is in the details,” and he wasn’t kidding. The reading is truly forbidding, especially when it is in small type, single spaced, double columns. More power to anyone who attempts, much less finishes, that project.

Still, we must decide. I think “yes” votes are in order for Proposition 4, mandating that adolescent girls inform a family member of their impending abortion; 6, guaranteeing funding for local law enforcement; 8, protecting male-female marriages; 9, affirming victims’ rights in the justice system; and 11, opening up legislative elections to real competition.

“No” votes should be cast for all bond measures (1, 3, 12), which undermine California’s currently precarious credit; alternative energy schemes (7, 10), which subsidize uneconomical and unproven technology; and misguided feel-good reforms that comfort animals and drive up the cost of production (2) or coddle drug peddlers in the name of “rehabilitation” (5).

ABOUT THE WRITER:

Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.

CONNECTICUT: BATTLE FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY HEATING UP

A debate is raging in Connecticut, ironically known as "The Constitution State," over a measure on the Nov. 4th ballot that would call for a constitutional assembly to propose amendments to the state's constitution. On one side of the debate are those in favor of the convention, such as the Connecticut Constitutional Convention Campaign whose stated reason for being in favor is solely to bring initiative, referendum, and recall to Connecticut by means of the convention. They are joined by, or opposed by, a flurry of special interest groups who, regardless of their stance on the convention, seem to be missing the essential point: that initiative & referendum would allow the entire electorate to decide on legislation relevant to these interests in a truly direct democratic fashion. Whether they are those who favor the convention because they wish to ban gay marriage through referendum , or public employee unions that are opposed to the convention because an initiative process could potentially threaten the power structure and flow of revenues that sustains their organizations, these special interest groups apparently have no reverence for the only meaningful motive for bringing intitiative, referendum, and recall to the state: to entrust legislative power to the people where it belongs through direct democracy. Instead, the opposition has raised nearly a million dollars to launch a "NO" campaign against the "YES" camp's twelve thousand dollar budget, and the special interests on the "YES" side continue to obscure the core argument for direct democracy that is behind the movement. They should all put their interests aside and take the opportunity to grant the people the power to decide. - Editor

Three articles on the subject follow.

Here also are the main opposing websites: http://www.ctvoteno.org/home http://www.ctconcon.com/index.html

Constitutional Convention: False hope or direct democracy?

by Christine Stuart October 22, 2008 11:19 PM
Posted to General News
Source: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/general_news/constitutional_convention_fals.php

Ed Pilkington of Manchester walked into Hartford Public Library Wednesday night not knowing how he would answer November’s ballot question: “Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?”

After hearing more than an hour of debate between three panelists against a constitutional convention and two panelists in favor of it, Pilkington walked out of the library thinking he would be voting ‘Yes’ to the question in November.

However, Pilkington didn’t necessarily agree with the motives of constitutional convention proponents.

Proponents of the convention would like to see the constitution amended to include direct initiative or ballot referendum, which would give citizens a way in which to petition public policy issues directly onto a ballot.

Pilkington said he thinks it may be a healthy exercise for the state to open up the constitution every few decades and take a look at it. He said if the question passes he’ll be sure to let his legislators know that’s why he voted in favor of it.

Pilkington said after hearing Matthew Daly, Constitution Convention Campaign chairman, talk about the 1965 convention and how only two of the 259 proposals made it out of the convention, in addition to knowing that the legislature would appoint the delegates to the convention, “made me feel comfortable.”

Frank O’Gorman, of People of Faith, said all you have to do is look at ballot initiatives being proposed in other states, like Colorado where voters will decide this November if a fertilized egg should be given inalienable rights, to see how dangerous voting in favor of a constitutional convention would be. He said proponents of a constitutional convention and direct initiative “are abridging the principles of what makes a constitution, a constitution.”

John Woodcock, Constitution Convention Campaign vice chairman, said the ‘Yes’ campaign is issue neutral. He said thinking its about one issue or another is exactly what the ‘No’ people want and “we refuse.”

Woodcock, a former Democratic state legislator who is credited with authoring the state’s first Lemon Law, said some of the most important laws in this country were passed by direct initiative. He said 13 states gave women suffrage before the 19th Amendment, six states passed public campaign finance laws, eight have approved medical marijuana laws, and six states have used it to increase the minimum wage.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who is not in favor of a convention, said “my main worry about the convention is that it raises false hopes.” He said he thinks the people in favor of the convention are picturing a town hall meeting where everyone will attend and have a vote.

“I think a constitutional convention is like an empty vessel and everybody pours into it their hopes,” Blumenthal said. “And I think those hopes would be dashed. I think the idea raises very false expectations. And I think nothing illustrates that point better than the unresponsiveness of the legislature being a reason for the constitutional convention, and then the emphasis on the leadership of the legislature being the ones to choose the delegates.”

As a former legislator, Woodcock said he knows the General Assembly would never amend the constitution itself. He said there’s “institutional hostility by the legislature to giving people the right to ballot petition.”

“It’s never gonna happen,” Woodcock said. “It has to happen now or 20 years from now.”

The constitution says voters must be asked the question about a convention every 20 years. The last convention the state held was in 1965.

Kim Knox, constitutional scholar and lawyer at Horton, Shields, and Knox, said the constitution is a stable continuous body of law, which is succinct and 10,000 words.

Knox said she thinks people need to differentiate between statutes, which “can bend with the wind,” and the constitution. She said amendments are a way the constitution has some flexibility, but the amendment process wasn’t intended to be easy.

Many in the audience Wednesday expressed frustration with unresponsive elected officials.

If people have issues with an unresponsive legislature then “you all have a say in that. Every election you have a say,” Knox said. “Do we need to take the risk of a convention?”

Blumenthal said the state constitution has been amended by the General Assembly 30 times since 1965.

________________________________________________________________________________

Constitution question creates conflict

By Devon Lash
Staff writer
Article Last Updated: 10/23/2008 11:44:50 PM EDT
Source: http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_10800144

STAMFORD -- A simple question on Connecticut's ballot Nov. 4 is polarizing advocacy groups, forcing legislators to choose sides and setting off a debate about the very definition of democracy.

Voters will decide if the state will hold a convention to amend or revise its constitution.

The Connecticut Constitutional Convention Campaign promotes voting yes for a convention to re-examine the constitution and allow appointees to propose amendments.

The group has raised about $12,000, and counts Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the Catholic Conference, the National Taxpayers Union, the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayers and the Green Party among its supporters.

The opposing Vote No Campaign, which raised about $829,350 as of last month, is backed by 45 organizations, 70 clergy members, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, of Bridgeport, and his Democratic challenger Jim Himes, of Greenwich, Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch and Darien First Selectwoman Evonne Klein.

The Vote No Campaign held a 45-minute news conference Thursday at the Stamford Government Center with Mayor Dannel Malloy and representatives from the state League of Women Voters and the United Auto Workers union to urge the public to vote no.

"There is no compelling need for a convention," Peggy Shorey, the campaign manager for Connecticut Vote No, told the 20 people in attendance. "We already have a process in place to amend our constitution -- the legislative process."

Yet the Connecticut Constitutional Convention Campaign said a convention will raise a very compelling need -- a system of direct initiative, enabling voters to petition to get issues on the ballot.

"We're one of only 19 states that doesn't have direct initiative," said John Woodcock, vice chairman for the Connecticut Constitutional Convention Campaign. "There needs to be a mechanism available so people can have their voice heard."

Other groups, such as the Family Institute of Connecticut, have joined the convention campaign in hopes that enacting direct initiative would eventually allow voters to directly weigh in on the group's pet projects, which for the Family Institute is a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, executive director Peter Wolfgang said.

Earlier this month, the state Supreme Court decided 4-3 to overturn the ban on same-sex marriages.

Malloy said a convention is the "worst way" to amend state law.

"The constitution has been amended some 30 times since 1974 -- without a constitutional convention," he said.

In calling for a convention, Shorey said taxpayers won't get to decide who will attend or what will be proposed.

"None of these people will be elected," she said. "The politicians in Hartford will appoint lobbyists, special interest groups and party operatives. Any part of the state constitution is on the table for change."

Woodcock said there is little danger the process won't be responsible because the public votes on all the proposals suggested by convention delegates.

For example, at the last constitutional convention in 1965, 259 proposals were submitted and two were approved, he said.

"This is a rare opportunity for the public to directly say, 'Let's take a look at our constitution,' " said House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk.

Bob Madore, regional director of the UAW, said his concern is for the burden such a convention would place on taxpayers.

"Folks can't afford gas, oil and food," he said. "The public is going to be burdened with the cost."

Shorey estimated hearings, staff and meetings would result in a cost of "hundreds of thousands" of dollars.

Both groups said they plan to advocate for their cause through debates and advertisements for the next 12 days.
_____________________________________________________________________________


Scare tactics used to avert convention

By Chris Powell
Published: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:23 AM EDT
Source: http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2008/10/23/chris_powell/doc4900878ec9dc0687500633.txt

More political hysteria has come from the campaign against Connecticut's referendum on calling a state constitutional convention than from all the other campaigns in the state this year combined.

It is said that a constitutional convention would be dominated by special interests; that it would destroy civil liberties; that it would bankrupt the state by allowing too much government spending or choke the state by preventing spending; and that it would create chaos by establishing initiative and referendum, by which the public could make law directly.

So what could have been going through the heads of the supposed crackpots who wrote the state Constitution at the last convention, in 1965, when they included the requirement for asking the people at referendum every 20 years whether they wanted to call another convention? And what could have been going through the heads of the supposed crackpots who then inhabited the state when they voted overwhelmingly for that Constitution? If a convention is so dangerous, why regularly ask the people if they want to call one?

The supposed crackpots at the 1965 convention were actually the foremost members of Connecticut's political establishment, drawn equally from the two major political parties. And the supposed crackpots who enacted the convention's work, the new state Constitution, included the parents and grandparents of many of the people who inhabit the state now. Were they all really that nutty? Or did they just recognize the possibility that government occasionally might get so sclerotic as to need outside prompting for reform?

In fact, by itself a constitutional convention can do none of the scary stuff cited by the propaganda against it. A convention can only propose amendments to the Constitution. The people themselves then would determine at referendum whether to accept such amendments. And while some people are advocating a convention for reasons of specific policy -- like establishing initiative and referendum; changing Connecticut's binding arbitration system for public employee union contracts; and overthrowing same-sex marriage, recently elevated to a constitutional right by the state Supreme Court -- there is little telling what a convention would do.

For it is a long way from calling a convention to getting it even to discuss any particular issue.

Calling a convention is only the first step. Selecting the delegates would be the next, and the manner of selecting delegates would be left to the governor and General Assembly to decide by legislation. For the 1965 convention, summoned mainly to bring legislative districting into compliance with the new federal "one man, one vote" standard, delegates were elected by the people, chosen from statewide slates nominated by the major political parties. But the governor and legislature could legislate for delegates to be chosen in other ways -- even by appointment rather than by election.

And then any constitutional amendments proposed by the convention would be sent to the people for decision at referendum.

The loudest argument being made against calling a convention is also the most bogus: that a convention would be dominated by special interests. Since the method of choosing delegates is not yet known, there is no evidence for such a claim. Meanwhile the main argument in favor of calling a convention is that Connecticut's regular legislative process -- that is, the General Assembly -- is already so dominated by special interests that public-interest legislation has little chance.

The proof of this is in the groups on opposing sides of the convention issue. The supporters of calling a convention are mainly the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations and the Family Institute of Connecticut, the latter lately joined by the state's Catholic bishops. These groups have raised only a few thousand dollars for their campaign. Opposed to calling a convention are mainly a bunch of public employee unions, led by the Connecticut Education Association, the state teachers union, which have raised close to a million dollars and thus are sponsoring television commercials.

That is, the public employee unions are happy with state government; taxpayer groups are not. Who is the "special interest"?

Besides, even if a constitutional convention was called, it would be very unlikely for anything to come of it. Dominated by the public-employee unions, the legislature probably would rig the delegate-selection process in favor of them. No, votes to call a convention will be little more than idle protests. And yet these protests will be justified by the hysterical resentment they already have aroused.

-----

Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer.

TIME FOR AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION?

The founding fathers included in our nation's constitution many safeguards against abuses of power, one of which we may not all be familiar with, perhaps because it has never been invoked. The following article discusses Article V of the U.S. Constitution which provides for the calling of a constitutional convention of delegates from each state that has the function of amending the constitution. It is triggered when the legislatures of two thirds of the states formally request it. The founding fathers saw this as a way for the states to correct imbalances of power in the federal government. In our nation's history the requirement for calling the convention has been met, but the congress has never recognized it by convening the Article V convention. Similar conventions have been held at the state level however, and the historical results have been more direct democracy in many states through the introduction of initiative & referendum. See the following website to learn more about why many are advocating an Article V convention at this time to acheive similar reforms at the federal level: www.foavc.org

When the Federal Government Fails the People

by Joel S. Hirschhorn
Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/When-the-Federal-Governmen-by-Joel-S-Hirschhorn-081014-415.html

The hardest thing for Americans to do right now in this presidential election season is to fight distraction and, instead, focus on the failure of all three branches of the federal government. And also to resist the propaganda masquerading as patriotic obligation that voting will fundamentally fix the federal government. The real lesson of American history is that things have turned so ugly that electing a new president and many new members of Congress will at best provide band-aids when what is needed is nothing less than what Thomas Jefferson wisely said our nation would need periodically: a political revolution.

The basis for this view is that the institutions of the three branches have been so corrupted and perverted that they no longer meet the hopes and aspirations embedded in our Constitution.

It is easy to condemn George W. Bush as the worst president in history. The larger truth is that the presidency has accumulated far too much power over the past half century. This has resulted from the weakening of the Congress that no longer, in any way, has the power of an equal branch of government, not that any recent Congress has shown any commitment or capability to execute its constitutional authorities. Concurrently, we have become accepting of a politicized Supreme Court that has not shown the courage to stop the unconstitutional grabbing of power by the presidency and in 2000 showed its own root failure in choosing to select the new president.

Worst of all, modern history has vividly shown Americans that the federal government has usurped the sovereignty of the “we the people” and of the states, and has even sold out national sovereignty to a set of international organizations and the greed of corporate-crazed globalization.

The current economic and financial sector meltdown is just another symptom of deep seated, cancerous disease of government that has sold out the public because of the moneyed influence of the corporate and wealthy classes of special interests. The serious disease is a long festering unraveling of the constitutional design of our government. Each of the three branches of the federal government is totally unequal to each other and completely incapable of ensuring the constitutional functioning of each other. Checks and balances have become a fiction.

These sad historic realities have been produced because of an all too powerful and corrupt two-party political machine that has prevented true political competition and real choices for voters. This two-party system has thrived because of corruption from money provided for Democrats and Republicans to maintain the status quo that is the ruination of our constitutional Republic.

Yet the hidden genius of the Founders and Framers was to anticipate how the Republic would most likely unravel under the pressures of money and corruption. Unknown to nearly all Americans is a part of the Constitution that all established political forces have worked hard to denigrate over our entire history. They fear using what is provided as a kind of escape clause in the Constitution, something to use when the three branches of the federal government fail their constitutional responsibilities. What is this ultimate solution that those who love and respect our Constitution should be clamoring for?

It is the provision in Article V to create a temporary fourth branch of the government – in the form of a convention of state delegates – that operates outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court, and that has only one single function: to consider proposals for constitutional amendments, just like Congress has done over our history, but that must also be ratified by three-quarters of the states. One of the most perplexing questions in American history that has received too little attention is simple: Why have we never had an Article V convention?

One possible answer might be that what the Constitution requires to launch a convention has never been satisfied. But this is not the case. The one and only requirement is that two-thirds of state legislatures apply to Congress for a convention. With over 600 such state applications from all 50 states that single requirement has long been satisfied. So why no convention?

Because Congress has refused to honor the exact constitutional mandate that it “shall” call a convention when that requirement has been met. Simply put, Congress has long broken the supreme law of the land by not calling a convention, and virtually every political force on the left and right likes it that way. Why? Because they have learned to corrupt the government and fear an independent convention of state delegates that could propose serious constitutional amendments that would truly reform our government and political system to remove the power of special interests and compel all three branches to follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

With great irony, the public has been brainwashed to fear an Article V convention despite many hundreds of state constitutional conventions that have never wrecked state governments, and that in countless cases have provided much needed forms of direct democracy that have empowered citizens and limited powers of state governments.

There is only one national, nonpartisan organization with the single mission of educating the public about the Article V convention option and building demand for Congress to convene a convention. It is the Friends of the Article V Convention group that has done something that neither the government nor any other group has ever done; it has been collecting all the hundreds of state applications for a convention and making them available to the public at www.foavc.org.

With a new president and many new members of Congress, now is the ideal time for Americans that see the need for obeying the Constitution and seek root reforms to rally behind this mission of obtaining the nation’s first Article V convention. The new Congress in 2009 should give the public what the Constitution says we have a right to have and what Congress has a legal obligation to provide. Always remember that the convention cannot by itself change the Constitution, but operating in the public limelight it could revitalize what has become our delusional and fake democracy. The main thing to fear is not a convention, but continuation of the two-party plutocracy status quo. Sadly, no presidential candidate, not even third-party ones, has spoken out in support of Congress obeying the Constitution and giving us the first Article V convention.