Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Ballot Law Update: State lawmakers respond to local politics from last year
February 5, 2016
By Josh Altic
As of January 29, 2016, Ballotpedia was covering 105 bills concerning ballot measure and recall law that were proposed or reconsidered during the 2016 legislative sessions of 24 states. All of the bills being tracked were pending as of the beginning of February 2016. Many laws were carried over from 2015 legislative sessions.
The map below shows states (colored in blue) in which legislators have proposed bills related to ballot measure and recall law in 2016. States in which more bills have been proposed are displayed in a darker shade:
In the first month of 2016, many legislators and public leaders spent time responding to ballot law changes that took place in 2015. The debate over a contentious 2015 bill in Michigan designed to restrict public officials from communicating election information led to a lawsuit filed against the state by a group of local city and school district leaders. The New Mexico Association of Commerce and Industry (ACI) proposed legislation to prohibit local labor laws such as an ordinance proposed last year in Albuquerque. And in Washington, some legislators are trying to make it more difficult for local governments to ban marijuana processing and sales in response to local bans proposed in 2015.
The first few weeks of legislative sessions in Indiana and Nebraska featured laws expanding petition processes. Indiana lawmakers proposed a bill to establish the powers of initiative and referendum for state laws. Nebraska legislators will consider a law to establish recall for state elective offices and a bill that would make the petition process for initiatives and referendums drastically easier. Lawmakers in several other states that lack the initiative and referendum process will continue to consider bills designed to establish or expand citizen petition powers that were carried over from 2015 legislative sessions.
Local officials sue over law restricting publicly funded election information
- See also: Michigan Senate Bill 571 (2015)
In 2015, the Michigan State Legislature passed Senate Bill 571, which was designed to prevent the use of public funds from being used to support or oppose local ballot measures by prohibiting public officials from sending information concerning ballot measures to voters within 60 days of an election. Despite strong criticism from local officials and local government advocacy groups such as the Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Association of School Administrators, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the bill into law on December 31, 2015.[1]
Opponents of the bill said it would prevent local government agencies from informing voters and advertising elections. Ultimately, a group of 18 local elected officials filed a lawsuit against the bill. The lawsuit claims that SB 571 violates the First Amendment "because it prohibits the free flow of objectively neutral, core political speech." The plaintiffs' argument also claims that the law violates the 14th Amendment because the bill's "overly broad and vague language subjects public officials to criminal prosecution for engaging in protected speech without adequate notice or guidance about what conduct amounts to a crime, further chilling free speech." Based on these arguments, plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the law.[1]
Gideon D’Assandro, spokesman for Speaker of the House Kevin Cotter (R-99), called the lawsuit absurd and said, "The administrators still have all of their First Amendment rights. They just can’t take money out of the classroom or out of the township treasury to buy a campaign ad. They are still allowed to voice their free speech opinion on their own time with their own money.”[1]
In the 2016 legislative session, several bills were proposed to modify and clarify SB 571 in an effort to mitigate some of the concerns expressed by opponents.[1]
Legislation proposed in New Mexico to restrict local labor laws
Following the proposal of The Fair Workweek Act in the Albuquerque City Council last year, The New Mexico Association of Commerce and Industry (ACI) announced that it was drafting legislation to propose to the New Mexico State Legislature in 2016 that would prevent any such proposals in the future. According to ACI President Jason Espinoza, the bill would establish uniform labor laws throughout the state and prohibit local laws governing the issue. This would ban local council-referred ballot measures and citizen initiatives seeking to establish labor-related ordinances.[2]
Espinoza said, “When we look at all the current regulations across the state, there are over 100 municipalities, 33 counties — you can end up in a situation where two businesses across the street work under different regulations or work under different ordinances. What the business community really needs is consistency.”[2]
William Fulginiti, the executive director of the New Mexico Municipal League, responded to the ACI announcement by saying the league would oppose legislation that tried to keep cities from controlling labor laws. Fulginiti said, “Those kinds of decisions should be subject to those local governments because the economics are different in each part of the state. One size does not fit at all in New Mexico.”[2]
This bill could be the center of a key battle in the ongoing power struggle between state and local governments, which has become a key narrative in U.S. politics in 2016.
Isaac Benton, one of the Albuquerque city council members who proposed the Fair Workweek Act in 2015, said the bill was a calculated effort by the state to preempt local labor laws before more New Mexico cities started proposing similar laws. Benton said, “It’s strategic … to try to head off something like that. And it’s always very conveniently cited that we shouldn’t have local laws when people are against something or another.”[2]
Follow the New Mexico section of this page for information about this bill when it is officially introduced in the legislature.
Washington lawmakers propose bill requiring public vote to enact local marijuana bans
A bill designed to require a public vote in a general election to enact a local ban on marijuana processing and sales has resurfaced in Washington's 2016 legislative session. Rep. David Sawyer (D-29) sponsored House Bill 1438, which would put up one more roadblock for city council members and county commissioners seeking to prohibit the production, processing and sale of marijuana after it was legalized at the state level in 2012. The bill would also require signatures from 30 percent of registered voters in a city or county to put a citizen initiative banning marijuana on the ballot, which is significantly more than is normally required to put a local initiative before voters in Washington.[3]
Initiative and referendum powers proposed in Indiana
This year, Indiana legislators will consider a proposed resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to give state voters the power of initiative and veto referendum for constitutional amendments and state statutes. This resolution would have to be passed in both the 2016 and 2017 legislative sessions and approved by the voters before it would go into effect. Voters in 26 states have the right of initiative, referendum or both.[4]
Electronic signatures and recall powers proposed in Nebraska
Last year the Nebraska State Legislature removed a ban on paying petition circulators based on the number of signatures collected by passing Legislative Bill 367. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Mike Groene (R-42), said the law signaled a truce between voters and lawmakers. This year, several more bills easing or expanding the state's citizen petition processes were proposed or re-introduced. Legislative Bill 214 was designed to allow electronic signatures to be used in initiative and veto referendum petitions. The law was sponsored by Sen. Paul Schumacher (R-22), who also supported LB 367.[5]
A pair of bills that would provide voters with the power to recall state elected officials was also proposed. Current law only allows the recall of local elected officials. Voters in 19 states have the right to recall at least certain types of state officials.[6]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Detroit Free Press, "Group sues over new limits on promoting ballot issues," January 27, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Albuquerque Journal, "Bill would preempt local labor laws in NM," January 7, 2016
- ↑ The Spokesman-Review, "Pot shop bans would need public vote under proposed legislation," January 18, 2016
- ↑ Open States, "Indiana Senate Joint Resolution 10," accessed February 3, 2016
- ↑ LegiScan, "Nebraska Legislature Bill 214," accessed February 4, 2016
- ↑ Open States, "Nebraska Unicameral Resolution 379CA," accessed February 3, 2016
| |||||
