Newswire
Counties have verified there are enough valid signatures on petitions to give voters the last word on extensive changes in election laws pushed through the Republican-controlled Legislature.
The Secretary of State’s Office said Wednesday that a random check of signatures found 18.38 percent to be invalid. Applying that to the 139,161 that Ken Bennett’s office found preliminarily valid, that leaves backers with 113,583, far more than the 86,405 needed to delay enactment of the law and put the issue on the 2014 ballot.
But Barrett Marson said the Republican interests he represents who want the changes on the books may still sue in a last-ditch attempt to keep the issue from voters.
The goal of Initiative 517 is to grease the skids on the signature gathering process. This latest Tim Eyman initiative is different from some of his others, in that some of his long time opponents are lining up to back it.
One of them is Stoney Bird of Bellingham, who supported a 2012 citizens measure against coal trains rolling through the community.
Read More: here
nitiative 517 sets penalties for interfering with or retaliating against signature-gatherers and petition signers, requires all measures receiving sufficient signatures appear on the ballot, and expands the time for gathering initiative petition signatures from six months to one year.
“The most important thing that Initiative 517 does is it guarantees a voter the right to vote on any initiative that qualifies for the ballot,” said Mark Baerwaldt, co-chair of Yes on 517.
Read More: here
In a brief news segment, KLEW discusses a debate in Washington state over the upcoming inititives to be voted upon, including I-517.
Watch the video here: here
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed labor union-backed legislation Saturday that would have limited the use of paid signature gatherers to qualify statewide ballot initiatives in California.
Assembly Bill 857, by Assemblyman Paul Fong, D-Cupertino, would have required anyone seeking to qualify an initiative for the statewide ballot to use non-paid volunteers to collect at least 10 percent of signatures.
Read more here: here
Washington state residents have plenty of experience voting on new law proposals, but next month they’ll decide on an “initiative on initiatives” that would make it easier to get such measures on the ballot.
The proposal, Initiative 517, was sparked in part by a series of legal battles over local measures seeking to block red light cameras, including one case last year that went to the state Supreme Court.
By requiring that voters be allowed to have their say on any proposal that qualifies for the ballot, even if a lawsuit has been filed against it, the initiative pushes back at cities that have sued _ some successfully _ to block local challenges to the cameras.
The voters’ right to initiative and referendum was an amendment to the Washington State Constitution and was initially referred by the Legislature to the people. The measure appeared on the ballot on Nov. 5, 1912 and amended Article II, Section I. It was approved by over 71 percent of the voters. The importance of the voters’ ability to address issues directly through the initiative and referendum process has only grown in importance since that time over a century ago.
Next month Initiative 517 will be on the ballot. It deals with several issues regarding the initiative process including signature gathering and the right of voters to cast a vote on an initiative which has met the required number of valid signatures gathered within the required time frame.
Californians value the ballot initiative and want it to remain as a check on a political system they mistrust, but voters support major reforms in the process, according to a new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California.
The poll found that voters support several changes, including giving the Legislature an opportunity to respond to proposed initiatives and reach agreement with their sponsors, beefing up financial disclosure requirements for those engaged in ballot measure campaigns, increasing the role of volunteers in collecting initiative petition signatures, and placing time limits on ballot measures so that they can be revisited.
Despite a well-funded campaign, with much of the money coming from out of state, backers of a referendum to allow “Internet cafe” gambling in Ohio lost their battle last week. Instead of admitting defeat gracefully, some in the group blamed the system.
That is, they noted their campaign to put the issue on the November 2014 election ballot was the first under new requirements for statewide referendums. The requirements are too demanding, they added.
Internet cafe supporters are not the first to complain about the referendum rules. Reportedly, the Columbus-based 1851 Center for Constitutional Law are planning a court challenge to the rules.
A vital section of the Ohio Constitution, subtitled “In whom power vested,” was the focus of a federal court hearing last week in Columbus. The lawsuit before U.S. District Court dealt with the right of citizens to petition their government and with freedom of speech.
What a libertarian-leaning public interest law center aims to accomplish by filing a federal suit against a new Ohio law that restricts the referendum process goes to the heart of government of, by, and for the people. The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law — typically aligned with conservative causes — is fighting to uphold a fundamental right.