Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Ballot Law Update: Preemptive tampering and increased signature requirements fail
February 13, 2015
By Josh Altic
As of February 13, 2015, at least 64 bills concerning ballot measure law were proposed or reconsidered in the 2015 legislative sessions of 21 states. Of the total, 58 were introduced this year and the other six were carried over from the 2014 legislative session in New Jersey. So far, one bill has been defeated, and none have been approved.
This edition of the Ballot Law Update looks at the defeat of a bill in South Dakota that would have increased the signature requirements for initiative petitions and a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that closed a loophole used by state legislators to sidestep citizen-initiated ballot measures. It also covers an effort to use a ballot measure bill to hamstring marijuana legalization efforts in Arizona and a city in Washington that could become the next to enjoy the powers of initiative and referendum.
See "Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures" for a periodically updated list of proposed ballot measure law changes organized by state. This page also includes a brief summary of each proposed bill, the status of the bill and links to more information.
Statewide news
South Dakota Senator abandons bill to increase initiative signature requirement after overpowering opposition:
After vocal protestation from initiative enthusiasts, Sen. Corey Brown (R-23) abandoned Senate Bill 166 - his bill to boost initiative signature requirements - leaving it to die without a hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee. This marks the first ballot measure law-related bill to reach a decisive outcome in 2015 legislative sessions. Speaking of his past attempts at education reform as well as this year's effort to amend the signature requirement for initiatives, Sen. Corey Brown (R-23) said, “Once they’ve taken on a certain flavor, there’s not much you can do to change that." Corey was unwilling to fight against the unpopular flavor taken on by SB 166 and decided to let it go. The bill sought to change the number of signatures for a successful initiative or referendum petition from 5 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to 5 percent of registered voters. Due to low and fluctuating voter turnout this could have doubled the number of signatures required.[1]
Corey still defended his bill as necessary. He said the state's constitution needs clarifying since it simply says, “Not more than five percent of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum.” Corey believes that the state's interpretation of "qualified electors of the state" as "voters in last gubernatorial election" is incorrect and a mistake left over from before technology easily allowed for the calculation of the number of registered voters. He expects a lawsuit to be filed when the next statewide initiative qualifies for the ballot. He said, “I do believe that there’s still a problem. I guess maybe there’s other avenues to fix that.”[1][2]
Targeting imminent marijuana legalization efforts, Arizona legislator proposes bill to discourage initiatives conflicting with federal law:
Hoping to discourage marijuana activists in the Grand Canyon State, Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-6) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 2027, which seeks to require a 75 percent supermajority vote of the people to approve any citizen-initiated ballot measure that contradicts federal law. This proposed constitutional amendment - which would require voter approval after being passed by the legislature - was designed, in part, to specifically target any initiatives that seek to legalize cannabis, a substance banned by federal law.[3][4]
Of the successful statewide marijuana legalization ballot measures in the last few years, none received more than 57 percent approval, making it unlikely that a legalization measure in Arizona could pass the 75 percent approval requirement if this bill is passed.
Local news
City Council of Sammamish, Washington, to ask voters whether the city should establish initiative and referendum powers: Sammamish could become the next general law city in Washington to allow citizens the power to establish new laws or put council-approved laws before voters through signature petitions. Since Washington state law does not require all cities to have the powers of initiative and referendum (I&R) but allows each city authority to establish I&R, the city council decided to ask voters if they wanted this power via a question on the April 28 election ballot. Although this measure is only a non-binding, advisory question, it will serve as an indicator to the city council about the will of voters on this issue. If the question is approved, it could urge the city council to draft legislation to establish this facet of direct democracy.[5]
Court rulings
In split decision, Missouri Supreme Court forbids legislators from preemptively tampering with initiatives:
In a five-two decision that removes a loophole state legislators have used to partially sidestep citizen initiatives, the state's highest court released a ruling on Tuesday in a court case that was triggered by 2008's Proposition C. Proposition C requires increased renewable energy and prevents energy rates from increasing by more than 1 percent annually. Once the initiative was proposed, but before it was put to voters and approved, the legislature passed a law that exempted certain energy companies according to its own, different standards and tacked on a clause that protected the exemptions from the imminent approval of Proposition C by saying, “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” Judge Laura Denvir Stith, writing for the Missouri Supreme Court majority, rejected this tactic and insisted that such a phrase could not be used to “preclude the people by initiative from adopting a law in conflict with the statute.” She continued, “Such unilateral, preemptive action by the Legislature serves as an end run around the constitutionally protected right of the people of Missouri to enact legislation by ballot initiative." The final conclusion is lawmakers have to wait until an initiative is voted on before trying to mess with it. Judge Zel Fischer, however, gave the dissenting opinion that the people’s initiative power should fall under the legislature's power, not supersede it. He said, “In my view, the People by adopting a provision for initiative legislation simply reserved to themselves a share of legislative power, but they did not intend to establish a trump card over the republican form of the government."[6][7]
The company Empire District Electric Co. is the entity most immediately affected by this decision. The ruling overturned the legislation that protected the company from stipulations laid out in Proposition C that required "electric utilities to give rebates to customers for solar energy projects and produce at least 2 percent of their energy from solar sources."[7]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Black Hills Pioneer, "Brown wants bar raised for ballot-issue petitions," January 30, 2015
- ↑ Aberdeen News, "Amid widespread criticism, ballot change bill pulled," February 7, 2015
- ↑ Your West Valley, "Lawmaker's bill targets initiative on legalized marijuana," January 27, 2015
- ↑ Arizona Capitol Times, "Lawmaker wants voter initiatives conflicting with federal law to get 75% approval," January 27, 2015
- ↑ Issaquah Sammamish Reporter, "Council puts advisory vote for Sammamish initiative and referendum powers on April 28 ballot," February 9, 2015
- ↑ St. Louis Post Dispatch, "Missouri Supreme Court: Lawmakers can't change ballot initiatives prior to vote," February 10, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Southeast Missourian, "Mo. high court rules Legislature violated ballot rights," February 11, 2015
| |||||
