DPL Gazette
From Ballotpedia
| ||
| Propositions • | Recall | • Law |
Dog racing in New England meets finish line as ban takes effect
RAYNHAM, Massachusetts: Despite opponents efforts, the state of Massachusetts held its last live dog race on December 26, 2009. The ban was to take effect on January 1, 2010 due to the approval of the Greyhound Protection Act that was placed before Massachusetts voters in 2008.
The race took place at Raynham Park, which was formerly known as Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park before the measure was enacted. According to reports, the race symbolized the end of live dog racing in the region of New England, for the time being. According to Christine A. Dorchak, president of Grey2K USA, who supported the measure: "I just thank Massachusetts voters for giving greyhounds a second chance. We have finally reached this wonderful day."[1]
SCOTUS to decide in January whether to take R-71 case
Olympia, Washington: This week the United States Supreme Court announced that on January 15, 2010 they plan to review and decided whether to take up the Referendum 71 signature privacy case.[2] Initially, Protect Marriage Washington, a group in favor of placing the referendum on the ballot and opponent of the measure, requested a temporary restraining order to halt the public release of a list of those who signed the R-71 petition in July 2009. The United States Supreme Court ruled on October 20, 2009 to uphold the the ban on releasing petition signatures. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. The Supreme Court did not, however, rule on the merits of the issue.[3]
Should the court accept the case, the case will be heard in April 2010, according to reports. A final decision would be expected in June. However, if the case is declined, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision will stand - an order to release the names on R-71 petitions.[4][5]
Health care issue prompts U.S. Congressman to switch parties
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama: U.S. Congressman Parker Griffith has taken his stance against the Democratic Party’s policies on health care and stimulus funds, and as a result, has switched to the Republican Party. Griffith cited conflicting beliefs and values among him and his Democratic peers, stating that the differences in the two parties “could not be more clear.”[6]
Griffith stated, “Unfortunately, there are those in the Democratic leadership that continue to push an agenda focused on massive new spending, tax increases, bailouts and a health care bill that is bad for our health care system…Our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt."
Related health care measures:'
- Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment (2010)
- Florida Health Care Freedom Act (2010)
- Kansas Health Care Amendment, 2010
- Minnesota Health Care Freedom Act (2010)
- Indiana Health Care Freedom Act
- New Mexico Health Care Freedom Act (2010)
- North Dakota Health Care Freedom Act (2010)
- Wyoming Health Care Freedom Act (2010)
Lawsuit aims and fires at Maryland petition laws
HOWARD COUNTY, Maryland: Howard County residents are in a tussle with a proposition for a full-size supermarket at Ellicott City’s Turf Valley, an 809-acre golf course and resort that is currently under development. Residents are concerned after the Howard County Council granted approval for zoning.[7]
The lawsuit challenges the interpretation of the state’s rules for signatures on petitions that, according to residents, make it impossible to place a referendum before voters. The referendum that residents seek would block the construction of the supermarket.
Judge chooses sides in Maine petition fight
AUGUSTA, Maine: Maine Superior Court Judge Donald Marden chose to side with state Republicans that are challenging Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap due to his failure to meet a 30-day deadline to verify signatures relating to a people’s veto effort.
According to attorney Dan Billings, who is representing the Maine Republican party chairman Charlie Webster, who is leading the challenge: “The legal issue involved was concerning the Secretary of State's legal authority to continue to review and pass judgment on petitions after the 30-day deadline set by state law. And what Justice Marden said is that the statute limited the Secretary of State's authority to 30 days, and because the Maine constitution says any review of petitions has to be done in compliance with state law, after the 30 days passed the secretary of state no longer had any authority to review the petitions."[8]
Michigan recall petitioners charged with forging signatures
LIVONIA, Michigan: An effort to recall Andy Dillon that failed at the ballot may have serious consequences for two of its circulators. 28 year old Michael Bastianelli of Westland, MI and 39 year old Harvey Robinson of Redford, MI were arraigned on December 23, 2009 on two felony counts. The criminal charges are due to allegations of faking signatures on the recall petitions.
The recall effort was launched in an attempt to remove Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon from office after he voted in favor of the biggest tax hike in Michigan history. Michigan State Police were asked in May 2008 to investigate whether some circulators were forging signatures. According to State Police Officer Robert Weimer: "We don't anticipate any other charges coming down. It's been reviewed by the attorney general's office, and this is the decision." [9] [10]
The Andy Dillon recall petition drive also led to a federal lawsuit called Bogaert v. Land challenging Michigan's residency requirement; a federal judge determined that Michigan's laws did violate the U.S. Constitution and ordered a preliminary injunction that allowed signatures from petitioners outside of Dillon's jurisdiciton.
Casino issue arises in Maine as signatures are filed
AUGUSTA, Maine: Hoping to see a casino initiated state statute on the November 2010 ballot, supporters turned in petitions on December 22, 2009 to the Maine Secretary of State, claiming to have collected more than 90,000 signatures. Maine Casino Initiative (2010) would allow for the operation of a casino in Oxford, Maine.[11]
In order to place the initiative on the ballot, circulators had to obtain at least 55,087 valid signatures by February 1, 2010. Peter Martin of Black Bear Entertainment, LLC, who is spearheading the casino initiative effort, stated that the group will turn in even more signatures in the next few weeks. If state officials validate enough signatures, the proposed initiative must be sent to legislature, where if it is vetoed or rejected, will be placed before the voters.
Past measures:
Maine Casino in Oxford County (2008)
Maine Racino Initiative (2007)
Maryland may see bill that loosens petition requirements
HOWARD COUNTY, Maryland: Grace Kubofcik, president of the Howard County League of Women Voters, is hoping for a bill to be introduced in January 2010 that would make it easier to qualify signatures on referendum petitions in the state of Maryland. After a meeting with Senator Joan Carter Conway, chairwoman of the Health and Environment Affairs Committee, Kubofcik's confidence for the bill grew. According to Kubofcik: "She clearly understood the issue. I think legislation is coming."[12]
Conway has stated that she will likely draft a reform bill, but wants to wait for Howard County Circuit Judge Timothy J. McCrone to rule on a legal challenge to current law. According to Conway: "We really feel that something needs to be done. I think we really need to change the law."
Federal judge rules that Michigan residency requirement is unconstitutional
LANSING, Michigan: Federal judge Robert Holmes Bell struck down the residency requirement for petitioners in the state of Michigan. Bell decided that the state's requirement that people who circulate petitions for recall questions must live in the district of the politician who is the target of the recall was unconstitutional because it significantly lowered the amount of eligible petitioners. [13]
ACLU and CICF team up to fight restrictive Nebraska petition laws
OMAHA, Nebraska:
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Michael Groene, Donald Sluti, and The Citizens in Charge Foundation against Nebraska. Secretary of State John A. Gale is listed as the defendant. Their lawsuit is an attempt to ease the restrictions on the voter initiative process. The lawsuit directs their attentions to these issues:
- The unreasonably high amount of valid signatures needed
- The residency requirement
- The "Scarlet Letter" which lets everyone know whether the petitioner is paid or a volunteer [14][15]
Abortion ballot measure leader comes under investigation
KALISPELL, Montana: Dr. Ann Bukacek, leader of the Montana ProLife Coalition, came under investigation during early November due to allegations of medical fraud. Bukacek, who is spearheading the campaign effort for the Life Begins at Conception initiative, has come under fire after being accused of unusual billing practices and submitting Medicaid reimbursements for prayer session time with patients.
Bukacek has countered those accusations by stating an upset former employee is the cause of the investigation. This signals the fourth investigation since April 2009 that deals with allegedly corrupt billing methods. Bukacek stated that fraud investigators asked "How much time we spend on it, how we decide how to pray, how we pray with non-Christians." The doctor continued in an interview with a local newspaper: "They said they have to follow up every allegation made. I believe these individuals are people doing their job. I find no fault in them. But think about the federal capacity for harassment. Will I continue to get an average of one government investigation a month?"[16][17]
Missouri eminent domain ballot title litigation raises concerns about motive
JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri: Since the proposal of the Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives (2010), the ballot title and fiscal impact statements have been challenged by the Missouri Municipal League.[18] But, on Monday, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, proponents of the measure, filed an audio recording of a November 20th meeting in which a lawyer, identified as Carrie Hermeling, for the firm representing the municipal league was recorded as saying they were using the courts to delay the petition drive.
According to the court filing, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights obtained a copy of the conversation which had been recorded using a pen with a built-in recorder. Hermeling, a partner with Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, is heard to say on the tape that the case was appealed "with the main objective being to delay the gathering of signatures, and hopefully we're accomplishing that." Gary Markenson, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League, said the allegations are untrue and added, "The main objective of the lawsuit was to come up with fair and impartial ballot language."[19]
In light of the pending lawsuits, supporters of the measure have delayed collecting signatures because should any changes be made to the ballot title, signatures previously collected are void according to state law. Petition signatures are due by May 2, 2010.
Three ballot measures approved for the Colorado 2010 ballot
DENVER, Colorado: Three ballot measures have been approved by Secretary of State Bernie Buescher for the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot. Proposition 101, aims to cut income taxes, vehicle registration fees and fees on phones and internet service. Amendment 60 proposes limiting how property taxes are raised and reversing recent tax laws which increased taxes. Amendment 61 calls for prohibiting borrowing by state or local government and require voter approval for future loans.[20] [21]
| Type | Title | Subject | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| CISS | Proposition 101 (4) | Taxes | Makes amendments to current vehicle, income and telecommunications taxes and fees |
| CICA | Amendment 60 (4) | Taxes | Proposes reducing property taxes |
| CICA | Amendment 61 (3) | State budgets | Forbids debt by loan in any form |
Two groups have submitted signatures for California's 2010 ballot
California: Backers of two proposed California initiatives have submitted their signatures to election officials. The Right to Vote Act, sponsored by Pacific Gas & Electric, and the Benefits for Continuous Auto Insurance Act, sponsored by Mercury Insurance, are the first two ballot initiatives to turn in signatures for the 2010 ballot in the state. The state legislature has already voted four measures onto the ballot.
As well, backers of a third initiative, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010), say they will be turning in the close-to-700,000 signatures they have in early January 2010.[22]
'Fighting Sioux' referendum ban unconstitutional, says tribal attorney
GRAND FORKS, North Dakota: A ban on referendums seeking to eliminate the University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux nickname may be unconstitutional, according to Tribal Attorney Brent Kary. Kary stated the legal opinion on December 7, 2009 in response to former tribal leader Tom Iron.
The issues stems from a ban that was passed in 2008 when the Tribal Council voted 7-5 in favor of a moratorium. According to reports, however, the recent tribal election changed some council members, members that are in favor of a referendum and may overturn the ban.[23]
New Hampshire hoping to improve ballot access through house bill
CONCORD, New Hampshire: A new House Bill has been introduced by New Hampshire Representative Joel Winters. The new bill, known as HB 1264, was introduced to improve ballot access by allowing previously unqualified political parties to get on the ballot for the United States Senate, or for governor.[24]
According to the bill, a two-tier system would be implemented that would allow a party that polled 3% for the United States Senate or governor in the last election or that has at least 3,000 registered members. The parties would then nominate their candidate by convention. Currently, to be a qualified political party, that party has to have polled 4% of voters in the previous election for senate or governor.
Nevada marijuana supporters aim for legalization in 2012
CARSON CITY, Nevada: With the 2010 election less than a year away, marijuana supporters are already looking to the 2012 ballot. This week they announced another push to legalize marijuana throughout the state. "We think the environment has changed and people are becoming more aware that marijuana is not a bad substance," said Dave Schwartz from the Marijuana Policy Project of Nevada (MPP).[25] The 2012 proposed measure specifically calls for the taxation and regulation of marijuana in Nevada. It is supported by both MPP and Nevadans for Sensible Marijuana Laws. According to reports, supporters will need to collect 97,002 valid signatures to send it to the legislature. If the legislature fails to act on the measure it will be placed on the 2012 ballot.[26]
Despite approving medical marijuana use in 1998 and 2000, Nevada voters rejected efforts in 2002 and 2006.
| Ballot Measure | Yes (%) | No (%) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada Question 9 (1998) | 57.8% | 42.2% | 
|
| Nevada Question 9 (2000) | 65.38% | 34.62% |
|
| Nevada Question 9 (2002) | 39.1% | 60.9% |
|
| Nevada Question 7 (2006) | 44% | 56% |
|
Maryland Citizen Group Honored for Work to Keep Referendum Process Open and Accessible
LAKE RIDGE, Virginia:
In late 2008, a group of citizens in Howard County, Maryland started a petition drive to bring a county land zoning decision to a referendum vote. After validating and accepting the group’s initial submission of roughly 2,500 signatures, the Howard County Board of Elections abruptly changed the interpretation of the law they used for the past 30 years to verify petition signatures. The new interpretation, known as the “triple match” is the strictest in the nation and the change led to the Board of Elections nullifying 87% of the previously accepted signatures, which immediately ended the group’s possibility for a successful referendum.
“It’s tough to win when the referee decides to change the rules in the middle of the game, especially if those rules make it impossible to win,” said Paul Jacob, President of Citizens in Charge Foundation. “That’s exactly what the Howard County Board of Elections did.”
After their petition signatures were thrown out, Howard County Citizens for Open Government sought to reverse the Election Board’s decision in court and challenge the constitutionality of the underlying law. On November 13, 2009, they argued their case before the Howard County Circuit Court, and are currently awaiting his decision.
“Not only does the Election Board’s decision to change their 30 year old validation practices at the 11th hour place an unfair burden on these citizens, but the underlying requirement that signatures be a ‘triple match’ is so burdensome that it is an unconstitutional denial of first amendment rights,” said Jacob. “If the court doesn’t overrule this interpretation, Marylanders will have no right to referendum, even though their state constitution guarantees it.”
To qualify as a ‘triple match’, the petition signature and printed name have to exactly match the name on the voter’s registration card. Any slight variation such as a middle initial or an abbreviated name results in the signature being thrown out.
“Thank goodness these citizens decided to stand up and fight for their referendum rights, and for that they are being honored with the December Lilburne Award,” added Jacob.
Each month, Citizens in Charge Foundation presents the John Lilburne Award to a citizen, or citizens, working to protect and defend the First Amendment petition rights of Americans. John Lilburne was a 17th Century English pamphleteer, political activist, and champion of individual rights who advocated constitutional government and pioneered the use of petitioning and referenda for redress against government power and abuse.
Ohio slots opponents claim sufficient signatures for 2010 ballot
COLUMBUS, Ohio: On Friday, Ohio Slot Machines Referendum (2010) supporters revealed that they have collected more than enough signatures to place the referendum on the 2010 ballot. Slots opponents are required to collect a minimum of 241,365 valid signatures by January 3rd to place the question on the ballot. On December 4th Gene Pierce, spokesperson for LetOhioVote.org, said, "We're over the 241,000. That's what we've got in hand now, and we've got another two weeks to collect."[27] [28] The veto referendum calls for placing Gov. Ted Strickland's plan for video slot machines on the 2010 ballot. The governor's plan includes a total of 2,500 video slot machines at 7 race tracks.[29]
Washington proposed bill would make initiative & referendum signatures public
OLYMPIA, Washington: Today, Rep. Reuven Carlyle said he planned to file a bill for the 2010 legislative session that would make signatures, names and addresses of voters who sign initiatives and referendums public. The bill comes in light of three pending signature privacy cases - Washington Referendum 71 (2009) Tim Eyman's case to block the release of petition signatures, and a Washington State Supreme Court proceeding by Arthur West to compell disclosure of the petitions and a review of the R-71 Ballot Certification. "I'm not sure how our state action might impact things. But I feel it's a vital piece of democracy to take a stand in favor of openness, transparency and access. One would assume a state Legislature's view on an issue holds some consideration for the courts," said Carlyle.[30]
Prior to the November 3, 2009 elections, domestic rights supporters attempted to post the names of the people who signed petitions in support of placing R-71 on the ballot. However, opponents sued in order to block the release of the signatures, citing possible harassment. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide if they will the hear the case in Summer 2010.
Archives
References
| ||||||||||
