The Ballot Initiative Gazette
From Ballotpedia
Ballot measure and direct democracy news headlines from around the nation
New Jersey open space bond passes
The New Jersey open space bond issue on the November 3, 2009 New Jersey ballot was approved.
| Ballot measure | Outcome | Yes % | No % | Precincts Reporting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open Space Bonds |  | 818,986 (52%) | 744,814 (48%) | 6245 of 6305 |
Source: NJ.com Election Results with the Star-Ledger as of 10:18am EST
Both statewide proposals pass in New York
Both proposed constitutional amendments on the November 3, 2009 New York ballot have been approved. Little opposition was shown during campaigning for both measures, and the results reflected that as both passed by a large margin.
| Ballot measure | Outcome | Yes % | No % | Precincts Reporting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposal 1 | | 818,657 (66.9%) | 404,320 (33.1%) | 95% |
| Proposal 2 | | 818,250 (67.5%) | 394,836 (32.5%) | 95% |
Source: The New York Times as of 10:22am EST.
All three Ohio amendments pass
When the first wave of precincts reported their returns, the outcome of two out of three issues were predictable. Issue 3's outcome was the closest of all the issues, but at the end of the night, all three proposed constitutional amendments on the November 3, 2009 Ohio ballot were approved.
| Ballot measure | Outcome | Yes % | No % | Precincts Reporting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issue 1 | | 2,210,605(72.15%) | 853,331(27.85%) | 10,242 out of 10,242 |
| Issue 2 | | 1,959,669(63.66%) | 1,118,805(36.34%) | 10,242 out of 10,242 |
| Issue 3 | | 1,663,149(52.97%) | 1,476,592(47.03%) | 10,242 out of 10,242 |
Source: Ohio Secretary of State - election 2009 results as of 11:31pm EST
Mainers overturn same-sex marriage, reject tax-cutting measures
In what most called a "nail-biting" election, voters ultimately approved the Maine Same-Sex Marriage People's Veto and overturned the governor-approved legislation that authorized same-sex marriage in Maine. However, other measures on the Maine ballot were predictable within the first few hours of reporting despite earlier polls that predicted a close race. Both tax-cutting measures were resoundingly rejected by voters on Tuesday. Question 2, the auto excise tax repeal, received only 26% of the vote, while Question 4, TABOR 2, lost with only 40% of the vote.
| Ballot measure | Outcome | Yes % | No % | Precincts Reporting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question 1 (Marriage) | | 266,324 (52.75%) | 238,595 (47.25%) | 527 of 605 |
| Question 2 (Excise tax) |  | 129140 (25.85%) | 370391 (74.15%) | 527 of 605 |
| Question 3 (School consolidation) | | 201672 (41.49%) | 284435 (58.51%) | 527 of 605 |
| Question 4 (TABOR) | | 196442 (39.61%) | 299451 (60.39%) | 527 of 605 |
| Question 5 (Marijuana) | | 294176 (58.61%) | 207744 (41.39%) | 527 of 605 |
| Question 6 (Bonds) | | 321930 (65.26%) | 171337 (34.74%) | 527 of 605 |
| Question 7 (Signatures) | | 231359 (47.80%) | 252647 (52.20%) | 527 of 605 |
Source: Bangor Daily News as of 2:05 a.m. EST
Washington voters said "yes" to domestic rights and "no" to I-1033
Washington's Referendum 71 was approved by voters on November 3rd with 51% of the vote in favor of domestic rights. On the other hand, I-1033 failed to pass after garnering only 45% of the vote. According to state officials approximately 395,000 ballots still remain to be counted, therefore Referendum 71 will not go into effect until the election is certified. Official results are expected by the end of November.[1]
| Ballot measure | Outcome | Yes % | No % | Precincts Reporting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initiative 1033 | | 434,051 (44.62%) | 538,768 (55.38%) | 39 of 39 |
| Referendum 71 | | 511,651 (51.03%) | 490,948 (48.97%) | 39 of 39 |
Source: Washington Secretary of State - 2009 election results at 9:40 a.m. EST, November 4, 2009
Ohio county faced ballot shortage issues
COLUMBUS, Ohio: The Ohio Secretary of State reported of ballot shortages in Summit County, Ohio in which is located in the greater Cleveland-Akron Area[2].
At 5:00 PM-Ohio time yesterday, the Summit County Board of Elections called the Secretary of State's office to report possible ballot shortages. This was reported in Twinsburg and Green in which tax and bond referendums drew higher than expected voter turnout[2].
Four minutes later, the Secretary of State's Office gave approval for Summit County to photocopy ballots using on-demand printers. The polls were kept open longer in some Summit County precincts to accommodate those who may had not had a chance to vote[2].
All eleven Texas amendments pass
All eleven proposed constitutional amendments on the November 3, 2009 Texas ballot have been approved.
| Ballot measure | Outcome | Yes % | No % | Precincts Reporting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 1 | | 495,410(55.07%) | 404,118(44.92%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 2 | | 615,583(67.90%) | 290,85(32.09%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 3 | | 587,422(64.04%) | 315,614(34.95%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 4 | | 503,092(56.14%) | 392,980(43.85%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 5 | | 536,265(61.30%) | 338,430(38.69%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 6 | | 573,825(65.48%) | 302,454(34.51%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 7 | | 652,383(72.80%) | 243,744(27.19%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 8 | | 674,778(74.69%) | 228,577(25.30%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 9 | | 689,713(76.93%) | 206,728(23.06%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 10 | | 649,021(72.98%) | 240,384(27.02%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
| Proposition 11 | | 727,646(81.10%) | 169,543(18.89%) | 6,078 out of 7,468 |
Source: Texas Secretary of State Election Night Returns as of 11:20pm EST
Two measures on today’s ballot for New Yorkers
New York: It’s election day, and New Yorkers have many things to decide upon. Among them are two statewide proposals that will impact the upstate area and inmates in state penitentiaries.
Proposal 1 will ask voters on whether or not to allow National Grid to use six acres along State Route 56 for already constructed power lines in St. Lawrence County. In return, National Grid will give 43 acres of the their land in the county. The land swap is being supported by environmentalists and other groups and is being met with little opposition.
Proposal 2 would allow the state legislature to pass bills that would pave the way for inmates in state prisons to work for nonprofit organizations. Among these non-profit groups include religious and other charitable organizations.[3]
New Jersey voters decide today for open space
New Jersey: New Jersey residents will face a ballot question today that will ask them whether or not to borrow millions for more open space preservation in the state. According to reports, residents have voted for measures like this before in the past fifty years. The difference between those ballot measures and this one is the economic downturn the country has faced. The passage of the question would allow the state to borrow $400 million to extend the state’s open space program for another two years.
That shouldn‘t be a problem, according to Assemblyman John McKeon, supporter of the measure: “I don't know a person who could argue in the nation's most densely populated state, with the nation's most successful land preservation program that's broke, that it should not be replenished. It's just the concern about taking on debt. There's actually an incredible return on the investment, not just in quality of life and ecological return but in true dollars and cents.”
Others, such as Steve Lonegan, the former mayor of Bogota, New Jersey and former New Jersey Governor hopeful, say that the measure is fiscally irresponsible: “First and foremost in the minds of New Jersey taxpayers should be the fact that debt has just spiraled out of control. We've seen the reports about revenue shortfalls and the major deficit we're looking at next year, add to that the unfunded pension liabilities. It's just a mess. So to borrow money now for something that is not essential -- in fact, to borrow money for anything -- is just reckless.”
Voters will be going to the polls today and will decide which side is the right one in their minds.[4]
Maine anti-tax group takes secretary of state to court
AUGUSTA, Maine: This week a Maine anti-tax group - Still Fed Up With Taxes - filed a lawsuit with the Kennebec County Superior Court requesting that the court order Secretary of State Matt Dunlap to finish reviewing signatures for the Maine tax code referendum (2010).[5] The proposed measure, which was filed through the People's Veto provision, calls for the repeal of an enacted tax code overhaul. The overhaul includes an income tax rate cut, a broadening of the state sales tax to more items and an increase in the state meals and lodging tax. The overhaul passed the Maine Legislature and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci in 2009.[6]
Still Fed Up With Taxes filed petitions supporting the referendum in September 2009 but state election officials have yet to verify the signatures. The verification deadline was October 13, 2009.[7] In order to place the referendum on the June 2010 ballot supporters are required to submit a minimum of 10% of the number of people who voted in the last governor’s election - 55,087 signatures.[6]
Opponents raise millions against Washington's I-1033
OLYMPIA, Washington: According to the latest reports opponents of Washington Initiative 1033 (2009) have raised a grand total of $3.46 million.[8] Supporters, on the other hand, have raised approximately $340,000 in cash and has $250,000.00 in loans.[9] If opponents spend all of the funds that they have raised, it will be the fifth largest sum spent in opposition of an initiative in Washington history, according to the Herald Net.[8]
State law stipulates that during the 21-day period prior to an election, contributors may not donate over $5,000 to a ballot proposition group.[10]
Oregon anti-tax group files lawsuit against ballot titles
SALEM, Oregon: Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes has filed lawsuits with the Marion County Circuit Court challenging the impartiality of two ballot measure titles - Measure 66 and Measure 67. The proposed measures seek to overturn $733 million in tax increases. Additionally, on October 28 the group filed four appeals with the Oregon Supreme Court. According to the group, on November 17 they plan to request an injunction in order to prevent the Oregon Secretary of State from using the ballot titles in the voter's guide.[11]
The ballot titles were written by a special panel that consisted of four Democratic members and two Republicans. However, some Oregonians said that they are worried about possible ballot title bias. Both measures are expected to appear on the January 26, 2009 statewide ballot.[12]
Ballot titles can be found here:
Automatic recount in Clatsop County recall
CLATSOP COUNTY, Oregon: An automatic recount of Tuesday's recall election in Clatsop County will take place after counted votes revealed a four vote difference for County Commissioner Anne Samuelson.[13] On the other hand County Commissioner Jeff Hazen defeated the recall and will remain in office. The recall election for County Commissioner Patricia Roberts will be held in November 2009.[14]
- Anne Samuelson
- Yes: 1,013 (50.10%) (recount scheduled)
- No: 1,009 (49.90%)
- Yes: 1,013 (50.10%)
- Jeff Hazen
- Yes: 978 (43.9%)
- No: 1,250 (56.1%)
Six states prepare to face off in November 3rd elections
Maine, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington: The clock is ticking - there are only 5 days left until election day. In this off-year election only six states will face off on November 3, 2009. There's a total of 26 propositions on the ballot this November.[15] Earlier this year, Californians voted on six statewide measures, bringing the total number of statewide ballot measures in 2009 to 32 - the lowest number of statewide ballot measures in 20 years.
Review upcoming ballot measures HERE!
Additionally on November 3rd, there will be hundreds of local ballot measures in at least 24 states.
Washington judge rejects increase of donor limit
OLYMPIA, Washington: Yesterday, Judge Ronald Leighton denied a request by Referendum 71 opponents to allow Family PAC to accept contributions of more than $5,000 and to be exempt from disclosing donor's names. According to Family PAC the state law was preventing the group from collecting last-minute political contributions.[16] According to campaign finance laws in Washington, no contributions over $5,000 may be made during the 21-day period prior to the election.[17] Family PAC calls the law a violation of free speech rights.[16]
A full hearing date regarding the campaign finance challenge has not yet been set.
California voters will decide on taxes, land use and fireworks
On November 3, California voters in 21 counties will vote on 109 local ballot measures.
Ballot questions range from business taxes to hotel taxes to parcel taxes to local sales taxes to utility taxes, and include rules about local elections, local term limits, rent control and zoning, land use and development issues.
In 2009, leading into the November 3 election, Californians have previously voted on local ballot measures on 13 different occasions: January 13, March 3, April 21, May 5, May 19, June 2, June 9, June 16, June 23, June 30, July 21, August 25 and August 28. A final local ballot measure election date is December 15.
Clatsop County voters cast ballots today
CLATSOP COUNTY, Oregon: Voters in Clatsop County are heading to the polls today to voice their opinion on one ballot measure:
- The Clatsop County Commissioners recall targets: Ann Samuelson and Jeff Hazen. According to county officials ballots were sent out October 11th. Commissioner Patricia Roberts is also the target of the recall effort, however, supporters have not yet submitted signatures to recall the commissioner.
The recall efforts developed after the three commissioners voted in favor of a liquefied natural gas development.[18] However, because the recall election is not countywide, the county has a total of 5 drop-off sites: Clatsop County Clerk's Office, 24-hour Drive-up Drop Box on Exchange Street, Cannon Beach City Hall, Seaside City Hall and Warrenton City Hall.[19]
Hazen serves as the county chair and represents District 1, Samuelson reprepsents District 5 and Roberts represents District 2.[20]
Federal judge reverses ban on exit polling in New Jersey
TRENTON, NJ-Federal judge Peter Sheridan reversed a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court to ban exit polling within 100 feet of polling places[21].
The National Election Pool consisting of the four major news networks that are covering the New Jersey Governor's race and the Open Space ballot question challenged the decision claiming that similar attempts to ban exit polling in other states were unsuccessful. Many polling experts said that if New Jersey enacted the ban, there would be higher error rates in conducting exit polling. Experts also said that pollsters are supposed to approach voters in a present pattern by going after every fourth voter. It was noted that if the buffer zone was enacted it would inhibit the ability of a exit pollster's job of gathering timely information[21].
In issuing his ruling, Judge Sheridan said: "there is simply no evidence that exit polling has caused disorderly conduct at the polls." The judge also upheld the First Amendment rights of journalists in the case saying: "news groups have a protected interest in reporting news to the public[21].
TABOR 2 supporters seek investigation, attorney general says "no"
Augusta, Maine: Supporters of Maine's Question 4, better known as TABOR 2, asked the Maine Attorney General for an investigation into Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell and House Speaker Hannah Pingree's use of staff and positions to oppose the November 2009 ballot measure. "Is it appropriate for the presiding officers to have this sort of meeting where in effect it appears that threats are made and promises given at the same time," said David Crocker, chairman of TABOR Now, on Monday.[22] The allegations were made after supporters obtained a series of e-mails and information regarding a "closed-door meeting." They argue that the evidence obtained reveals a clear violation of state law.[23] TABOR supporters specifically point to an e-mail from Rick McCarthy, a lobbyist for Maine Tomorrow and former staffer for a state legislator, to a Pingree staffer in which McCarthy said that "20 people at the meeting and that 'ultimately we hope to raise funds from them.'" However, both legislators deny any solicitation of funds and said they were surprised by the allegations.[24]
However, despite the campaigns complaint, Attorney General Janet Mills dismissed the complaint, citing that they hadn't provided sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to warrant an investigation. "We do not initiate investigations in this office unless and until there's a threshold of something to investigate. There's absolutely no suggestion there's any criminal activity," said Mills. Tarren Bragdon, executive director of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, said that he was surprised by the quick dismissal.[24]
Despite the attorney general's response, campaign supporters said they plan to continue the pursuit of an investigation with the state ethics commission.
Maine TABOR 2 campaign files complaint with ethics commission
AUGUSTA, Maine: Last week the state Ethics Commission launched an investigation into the South Portland City Council, after the Maine TABOR 2 campaign filed a complaint over a city decision to include a mailer with its property tax bills. The approved mailer urged citizens to oppose two ballot measures scheduled to appear on the November 3, 2009 ballot - Question 2 and Question 4.[25] "We were deeply concerned that the city was using taxpayers' money to not very subtly tell taxpayers how to vote on these two referenda," said David Crocker, Question 2 campaign chairman. The Ethics Commission said that they will consider a formal investigation on November 19, however, the city of South Portland is required to submit a written response by October 30, 2009.[26]
Washington finance campaign law to be discussed in court
OLYMPIA, Washington: Yesterday, Family PAC filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Tacoma. Family PAC is requesting that the court allow the PAC to accept contributions of more than $5,000 and to be exempt from disclosing donor's names. Family PAC is an opponent of Washington Referendum 71, which is scheduled to appear on the ballot this November 3rd. According to campaign finance laws in Washington, no contributions over $5,000 may be made during the 21-day period prior to the election. The group has not yet registered with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.[27]
Medical marijuana initiative turns heads, confuses the mind
Question 5 has various supporters and opponents, many of whom come from the legislature and the campaign leaders. However, the state’s leading medical figures are putting in their say as well. Just to clarify, medical marijuana is legalized in Maine already; the measure isn’t about legalizing the drug for medical use. The measure is about establishing nonprofit dispensaries to protect patients from arrest when buying from the black market.
According to supporters, obtaining the drug under current law is risky since there are no clear provisions in obtaining marijuana. Patients could grow the plant, but with medical problems such as arthritis and multiple sclerosis apparent in most of them, that just may not be the most feasible solution.
Still, notable physicians in the state of Maine don’t think Question 5 is the best way to go. Dora Anne Mills, MD, MPH and State Health Director, doesn’t believe public health agencies should oversee marijuana dispensaries, as proposed by the referendum. According to Mills: “And the referendum, if passed, would conflict with current federal law. So to put a state agency in the position of dispensing a drug in an illegal way, and a harmful drug, I think would put us in a horrendous position."[28]
It is a tricky subject, especially since some medical marijuana patients are against the measure. Impossible? Don’t tell that to medical marijuana patient Don LaRouche. I’m off to Augusta to meet with the man against the measure, and who is spokesman for the Maine Citizens for Medical Marijuana. You’re probably asking, “He’s for medical marijuana but against the measure?” Confused yet? That’s what we’re here for.
Check back later today for our Q&A with Mr. LaRouche.
Maine finance campaign law challenged
Augusta, Maine: Yesterday, the National Organization for Marriage and American Principles in Action filed a constitutional challenge, NOM v. Mckee et al., to Maine's campaign finance law that requires that any person or organization who contributes or spends more than $5,000 on a ballot measure be registered as a "ballot measure committee." According to the James Madison Center for Free Speech, a Maine law that required individuals or organizations to register as political action committees (PACs) was declared unconstitutional approximately 10 years ago. That case was Volle v. Webster.[29]
Both groups are also seeking a restraining order that would allow for the groups to run television ads and donate funds to the Question 1 campaign without registering as a committee.[30]
High times at the University of Southern Maine
The University of Southern Maine has a great campus. Bar none. It’s not because of the great building structures or the organization of the parking lots and safe environment. It’s because of the convenient location. The university is right smack in the middle of the city of Portland. What’s also convenient is that it was walking distance from my hotel. You can tell what a tight community it is, and that was apparent right off the bat when I walked into the auditorium where Waiting to Exhale, the film about medical marijuana and the importance of legal purchase, was screened. I felt a great sense of friendliness as people asked me who I worked with and what we do as a informational website.
The screening was also enjoyable; who would’ve thought so much information could be packed into 110 minutes?
Cinematography aside, my penultimate full day here in the state of Maine seems to be a busy one. No response yet from the opposing side of Question 5, but ballotpedia.org will try its best to get what we need to help our readers make an informed decision about any ballot issue. Stay tuned for our featured Q&A with the Maine Marijuana Policy Initiative’s Jon Leavitt, who will sit down with us tomorrow morning at his campaign headquarters. Mr. Leavitt will also give us the most recent polling on Question 5.
Keep a look out!
Ohio Supreme Court rules on Chillicothe speed camera referendum
Chillicothe, Ohio: Yesterday the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Chillicothe Red-Light and Speed Camera Referendum, 2009 will appear on the November 3, 2009 ballot. Previously, Chillicothe Mayor Sulzer asked the supreme court to review the case and approve an injunction on the referendum. Sulzer argued that the initiative was unconstitutional and that the city was denied the chance to argue their case.[31]
The referendum proposes prohibiting the use of both red-light and speed cameras within the city.[32]
However, on Wednesday, October 21, the justices ruled that,"Chillicothe failed to act with the requisite diligence in asserting its claim for extraordinary relief in mandamus and prohibition. Instead, the city delayed filing its protest until 119 days after the signed initiative petition was filed with the city auditor and 56 days after the city auditor certified the initiative petition to the board of elections. Chillicothe delayed an additional 26 days after the board denied its protest and certified the initiative to the election ballot to file this action for extraordinary relief."[31]
High Priority: Legal purchase of medical marijuana the center theme of documentary
Before the screening, Question 5 supporter Ben Chipman, a member of the Maine Marijuana Policy Initiative campaign, spoke to the audience about their efforts and about the opportunity to join them. Campaign volunteers also passed out fliers that called for “Safe and reliable access to their medicine,” along with “protection from arrest, loss of job, home, or children for using medicine their doctor recommended.”
After the brief speech, Chapkis agreed with the campaign, stating, “This is a critical time in Maine. When it comes to medical marijuana, we need to have ethical medical marijuana provisions to ensure patients’ health and safety.”
The documentary presented a range of topics, from the scientific breakdown of the cannabis plant to political efforts for and against its medical practice. The film began with interviews from a family that grew the plant for medical purposes, and who were raided on September 5, 2009 by Drug Enforcement Administration agents. The film also covered Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative in California that allowed for the medical use for the drug and the aftermath that ensued. Successful creation of ID card systems in the state of California after the measure was passed was shown, with Oakland Cannabis Clubs used as the main example. According to the film, the procedure for obtaining an ID card for medical marijuana included a doctor’s permission and a background check of said doctor by the club. Interviews from physicians, politicians such as Barney Frank, and activists were also included in the documentary.
After the screening, Chapkis was available to sign her book outside of the auditorium, which were also on sale for those in attendance.
The tools to survive a mid-week slump
Skip Greenlaw and Newell Augur treated me to a friendly, and sometimes intense, debate that presented both sides of the arguments of Question 3. I got a couple of nice bumper stickers from each of them as well as scheduled interviews with both campaign leaders later on in the week.
Two interviews were scheduled on Tuesday, one with the aforementioned Skip Greenlaw and the other with Question 5 supporter Senator Joseph Brannigan. Mr. Greenlaw was a little rushed due to his busy schedule as he had just finished a TV interview and was then heading to a radio interview after. If a lot of people do not know about Question 3, Mr. Greenlaw is sure trying his best to get it out there.
Mr. Brannigan’s interview was more relaxed and in a more quieter setting. It proved to be a interview that gave me good insight on how legislature views Question 5. If I were asked what I had got from the interview, or what stuck out the most, was that although the issue of medical marijuana is tricky and raises plenty of questions, Maine’s legislature in general seems to want to make it work if passed.
League of California Cities files "lockbox" initiative
SACRAMENTO, California: In 2009, the California State Legislature borrowed $1.9 billion in local property tax funds from local budgets.
Seeking to prevent this type of borrowing in the future, an association of local government groups, including the League of California Cities, has filed language for a potential November 2010 initiative that would prohibit it in the future.[33]
The initiative would prohibit the state from taking local redevelopment funds, gasoline taxes and highway funds.
Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities, says of the current system that it is "unsustainable, and we want to make sure that local services are not sacrificed because of the inability of state leaders to manage the state budget." McKenzie's organization, which is historically active in ballot proposition campaigns, has used ballot initiatives in the past to allow local governments to seize property from individual land-owners.
SCOTUS upholds R-71 ban on petition names
OLYMPIA, Washington: In an 8 to 1 vote the United States Supreme Court ruled to uphold the ban on releasing Referendum 71 petition signatures. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. According to reports the injunction on the signatures, which is expected to remain until at least the November election, will remain in place unless new motions are filed.[34] On Monday Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary injunction.[35] Kennedy's ruling came only days after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to release the names on R-71 petitions. [36]
Recent Question 1 poll reveals Mainers are evenly split
AUGUSTA, Maine: According to a recent poll by Public Policy Polling, Maine's Question 1 may be closer than previously believed. According to the poll results 48% of voters said they planned on voting to overturn the same-sex marriage law, while 48% of voters said they planned to vote to keep the 2009 law. A total of 1,130 voters were polled and the reported margin of error is +/- 2.9%.[37] A prior poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) had different results - a higher percentage of Mainers said they were likely to reject Question 1.[38]
| Date of Poll | Pollster | In favor | Opposed | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| April 2008 | Pan Atlantic SMS Services | 49.5% | 47.3% | 3.3% |
| Sept. 14 - 16 | Research 2000/Daily Kos | 48% | 46% | 6% |
| Sept. 23 - 27 | Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) | 41% | 50% | 9% |
| Sept. 30 - Oct. 7 | Pan Atlantic SMS Services | 43% | 52% | 5% |
| Oct. 16 - 19 | Public Policy Polling | 48% | 48% | 4% |
| Oct. 20 - 22 | Pan Atlantic SMS Services | 42% | 53% | 6% |
| Oct. 31 - Nov. 1 | Public Policy Polling | 51% | 47% | 2% |
Day 3 in New England: Less roads, more questions
When I learned about the debate between Skip Greenlaw and Newell Augur, campaign leaders for both sides of Question 3, I got to that event faster than...well, not very fast at all. That’s how it seemed, as I had to drive another long, slow two hours to get to the University of Maine to cover the event.
Nevertheless, it was worth the drive. I’ve never seen a debate in person; I’ve only seen them on TV. With any event, TV cameras are too selective. So the little things aren’t seen unless you are actually in attendance. For example, you don’t see the little reactions an opponent makes when he doesn’t agree with something. You don’t see the eyebrow raises, the head shakes or the surprised smiles. You don’t even see the mediator do what he’s supposed to do: mediate. At one point, the mediator had to quietly hold up his finger to warn one of the debaters not to interject during the other’s argument. The event was free, but I would’ve definitely paid to go see it if I was a Maine resident.
Today, I will speak to Skip Greenlaw, asking him questions about last night’s event and how he felt it went overall for his campaign. Tomorrow, I will sit down with Newel Augur and do the same. Also coming later, I will shift gears to Question 5 and talk to Maine Senator Joseph Brannigan, supporter of the measure. Question 5 proposes creating nonprofit dispensaries to help patients get a safe supply of their approved medical marijuana. It would also establish a statewide ID card system to protect patients from arrest. I will be asking the senator what recent polls are showing in terms of voter support or opposition. One thing to think about before this interview: Why isn’t this measure the frontrunner for voter attention, given it has to do with a topic that may seem taboo in other states?
All my interviews today and tomorrow are in Portland. Good thing too, I think I've had my fair share of the New England countryside.
Supreme Court Justice temporarily blocks R-71 names
OLYMPIA, Washington: Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily blocked state officials from releasing any names on Referendum 71 petitions.[39] Kennedy's temporary block comes only days after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to release the names on R-71 petitions. [40] Kennedy's Monday ruling resulted after Protect Marriage Washington requested that the United States Supreme Court review the recent ruling by the Court of Appeals.[41]
Question 3 campaigns face off in debate
Skip Greenlaw carefully looked at his notes and eagerly waited his turn as his opponent spoke about Question 3. After his counterpart, Newel Augur, stated his case, it was Greenlaw’s turn for a sharp rebuttal. He faced his opponent, leaned forward, and with a look of certainty on his face, he bluntly stated: “The idea that we would lose millions of dollars if this law is repealed is wrong. You are wrong. You are dead wrong.”
Such was the case throughout Monday night as the two campaign leaders debated for about an hour, touching on all aspects of Question 3, the veto referendum that, if voters say "yes", will repeal a school consolidation law that was enacted by the Maine State Legislature in 2008. The law states that the current 290 school districts in Maine must be consolidated by January 2009, which would reduce the number of school districts in the state to 80. A ‘yes’ vote would repeal the law, a ‘no’ vote would keep the law in place. Greenlaw, primary organizer of the Maine Coalition to Save Schools, firmly argued for the “Vote Yes on #3” campaign while Augur, leader of the Maine People for Improved School Education, did the same for “No on 3”.
While the two campaign leaders spoke on a number of issues relating to the measure, including community impact and job cuts, the white elephant in the small but efficient room at the University of Maine was money. During his argument, Augur repeatedly stated that consolidating school districts would save millions of dollars that could be used to improve education. Augur argued: “People who vote no on this issue can wake up confident in the morning. The issue isn’t about schools, it’s about the 290 school districts that we currently have. That’s too many and too much money is lost.”
Greenlaw argued that although there were 290 districts, there are only 190 superintendents: “We all use facts to make our arguments, Mr. Augur. But not a lot of those facts are what they are honed up to be.” Greenlaw later stated that state superintendents’ salaries add up to $14 million, which he pointed out would not “accrue a lot of savings over time. This is a terrible injustice to the 40% of school districts that do not want to consolidate.”
When asked if some superintendents’ jobs would be cut if the consolidation law stands, Augur had a direct answer, saying that it was only necessary. “At the end of the day, the future of our children is what we should pay attention to. That’s the crux of the matter: Saving money so we can put it back into the classroom.”
At the end of the debate, each were given 1 minute to present their closing statements, with both men summarizing their points to the audience that was mostly made up of college students. Greenlaw presented his main argument in a straightforward manner, stating: “This law was passed much too quickly. What bothers me the most is that the residents of Maine have good judgment and those communities that were against the law weren't listened to. Mr. Augur has never been on a school board before. He doesn’t know how hard superintendents work. We need to give those communities time to withdraw from consolidation if it isn‘t working for them.”
Augur articulated his argument with a futuristic outlook: “This won’t effect me or Mr. Greenlaw in twenty years. We’ll probably be kicking back watching the Patriots play on TV. This is your money, your school districts. This is about your future. Do you want to spend money, pull money out of the classroom? A no vote is the right vote.”
Despite the stances both men have taken on the issue, a simple majority of voters will have the final say to which vote is right and which vote is “dead wrong”.
Maine Questions 3 and 5 fly under the political radar
In the shadow of this year’s Question 1 and the other hot topic of Question 4, Questions 3 and 5 can be somewhat overlooked, and information on the measures can be slim pickings. That presents a challenge for campaigns in both measures. In spite of this, leaders are pushing harder for their messages to be heard as the elections make their way from just over the horizon.
Tonight at 6 p.m. EST, I will be in attendance as the aforementioned Skip Greenlaw will debate Question 3 with opponents at the University of Maine. The interview with the Question 3 supporter will have to wait due to his busy schedule and preparation for tonight’s showdown. I’ll be covering both sides of the argument and have the summary of the night’s events posted shortly afterwards.
Tomorrow, look for my interview with state Senator Joseph Brannigan, a supporter of Question 5 and medical marijuana. We’ll get insight on how strongly of a position the senator, who is currently in his sixth term, has on the issue and what he plans to do to further promote the measure’s passage. Insight from the opposing side will come later this week as well! [42]
All in all, the weather cleared up, the sun is out and the leaves are turning that tranquil golden-brown color we all love. I hope it stays that way.
California court upholds Prop 63 tax on wealthy
LOS ANGELES, California: On October 14, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles upheld a trial court ruling against the plaintiffs in Jensen v. California Franchise Tax Board. Plaintiffs Craig and Sally Jensen had challenged the wealth tax imposed in 2004 via Proposition 63, suggesting that it violated the equal protection clause of the federal and state constitutions.[43]
Proposition 63 imposes an additional 1% tax on annual incomes over $1 million.[44]
The three-judge appellate panel wrote that the Jensens "are mistaken in thinking that taxpayers in a particular tax bracket cannot be singled out for an income tax to benefit society at large."[43]
Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds said that the decision is good news for Nevada and Arizona, to the extent that these states are seeking to attract the immigration of wealthy individuals from California.[45]
Planes, trains or snowmobiles: My speedbump to Maine begs questions
This dilemma, though, does beg some interesting questions. If the winter like atmosphere persists, how much of an impact would that make on the campaigns for and against Questions 3 and 5? Will we see more of an emphasis placed on the internet? More importantly, how will this case of “winter-come-early” affect voters who are unfamiliar with these ballot measures? For example, according to Skip Greenlaw, supporter of Question 3, many school districts that would be consolidated if the measure fails are located in some of the states’ poorest counties. Do some of those families in those counties have access to the internet so they could make an informed vote? Looks like we have to see what Mother Nature and her quirks have in store for the campaign leaders, the voters, and my car and me.
I think I’ll look for a bowl of clam chowder to keep me warm in the meantime, compliments of Beantown.
Supreme Court Justice O’Connor to hear Arizona voting-rights case
TUCSON, Arizona: This week retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for two days. O'Connor will be hearing approximately five cases. One of the cases involves a voting-rights case. Specifically, O'Connor will be hearing Gonzales v. The State of Arizona which involves 2004's Proposition 200. Proposition 200, which was approved by voters, requires voters to show identification before voting. In 2008 the state won the case after arguing that the proposition was not intentionally discriminatory.[46]
Alaska officials reject ballot measure settlement
JUNEAU, Alaska: Last week Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) rejected a $35,000 settlement regarding the Alaska Clean Water Act (2008). During a hearing held on that day, the attorney for the Pebble Partnership criticized the settlement, calling it a “slap on the wrist” and would not be a good message for future violators.[47] Earlier this year, the Pebble Partnership and the Resource Development Council filed a complaint with APOC claiming that Bob Gillam, an Anchorage financial manager, broke the law in hiding his contributions from voters, regarding the Clean Water measure. Gillam and three associated advocacy groups denied the claims.[48]
Texas early voting begins Monday
AUSTIN, Texas: Tomorrow Texans will begin voting on 11 proposed constitutional amendments. Early voting takes place October 19 - 30. Texas residents may either vote in person at a polling place or by mail. However, those that miss the early voting period can vote on election day, November 3, 2009.[49]
Polling locations can be found here.
| Type | Title | Subject | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LRCA | Proposition 1 | Bond issues | To aqcuire open spaces adjacent to military installations | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 2 | Property tax | Provide for the taxation of a residence on basis of value, procedures for ad valorem. | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 3 | Property tax | Providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 4 | Education | Funding research universities | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 5 | Property tax | Single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 6 | Bond issues | Issue general obligation bonds same or less than authorized | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 7 | War | Allow state militia to hold other civil offices | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 8 | Veterans' affairs | Authorization of state to give money to veterans hospitals. | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 9 | Beach access | Right of access to public beaches | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 10 | Term limits | Terms of members on board of emergency service districts will not exceed four years | On ballot |
| LRCA | Proposition 11 | Eminent domain | Limiting public from private properties | On ballot |
Nevada voting law stirs controversy
CARSON CITY, Nevada: A new state law and the Nevada Constitution appear to have conflicting laws. According to the state constitution, in order to recall officials a minimum of 25 percent of "actual voters" is required for a recall election. However, according to SB156, sponsored by Sen. Terry Care, a minimum of 25 percent of "registered voters from a pertinent area" is required for an election. In Fernley, Nevada Councilman Monte Martin was successfully recalled after approximately 300 registered voters signed petitions. Sen. Care argues that "...even if you didn't vote in the primary, you should still have the right to participate in a recall." However, Fernley Mayor LeRoy Goodman argues otherwise. Goodman said that the new law could potentially cause a "revolving door" effect every time residents get upset.[50]
Archives
References
| |||||
