Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Daily Brew: January 30, 2019

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

January 30, 2019

Get your daily cup of news




%%subject%%

Today's Brew highlights our 2018 summary of legislation impacting ballot measures + a state supreme court vacancy which will be filled in a manner done by only two states.  
The Daily Brew

Welcome to the Wednesday, January 30 Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. State legislators considered 203 proposals concerning ballot measure and recall processes in 2018
  2. Engineers in Oregon are now free to call themselves engineers
  3. Virginia Supreme Court justice announces retirement

State legislators considered 203 proposals concerning ballot measure and recall processes in 2018

In addition to following ballot measures across the country, we also closely track the laws concerning how such questions are proposed, certified, and presented. And our ballot measures team has prepared an annual summary of the legislation that impacts how initiatives can make their way to the ballot.  

In 2018, Ballotpedia tracked 203 proposals considered by state legislators to change laws governing ballot measures—including citizen-initiated measures and measures referred by lawmakers at the state and local level—and recall processes. Thirty-four proposals were approved by legislators in 11 states, with the most significant being in South Dakota and Michigan:

  • California
  • Colorado
  • Idaho
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Maine
  • Michigan
  • Nebraska
  • Oregon
  • Oklahoma
  • South Dakota


The most significant changes to statewide initiative processes were approved in South Dakota and in Michigan.

Here are three examples of state-level activity:

  • In South Dakota, the state legislature considered 24 different pieces of legislation concerning ballot measures and approved 15 of them. Changes made by the approved proposals in South Dakota included legislation that, among other things, required that ballot initiatives are about a single subject; mandated disclosure requirements for petition circulators; established rules about ballot language, formatting, and font size; and addressed how to resolve instances where competing initiatives both receive majority approval.
     
  • The Michigan State Legislature approved and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed Michigan House Bill 6595 in December 2018, during the state’s lame-duck session. This legislation created a distribution requirement for initiative signature petitions in Michigan limiting the number of signatures collected in any one congressional district to 15 percent of the total required. This effectively requires valid signatures from a minimum of seven different congressional districts for a successful initiative petition. The bill also required the disclosure on petitions of whether a petitioner is paid or volunteer; mandated a petitioner affidavit; and made other changes regarding petitioners, valid signatures, and the timeline for certification. House Bill 6595 was approved largely along party lines, with most Republicans in favor and most Democrats opposed.
     
  • In California, a bill was enacted which allows proponents of a local initiative to withdraw the initiative up to 88 days prior to an election. A similar state law was passed in 2014 which allowed proponents to withdraw initiatives up to 131 days before the election. Since then, four initiatives were withdrawn following compromises with state legislators. This has been part of a trend of at least a dozen statewide initiatives across the country that were withdrawn or abandoned after qualifying or nearly qualifying for the ballot based on compromises with state legislators and other organizations, individuals, or businesses.
Learn more

blank

Engineers in Oregon are now free to call themselves engineers

Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Project recently published its latest edition of The Checks and Balances Letter, which highlights pivotal actions at the federal and state levels related to the separation of powers, due process and the rule of law. Click here to subscribe. Here’s one story from that newsletter that illustrates the intersection of the administrative state and the average citizen in Oregon.

On December 29, 2018, a federal magistrate ordered the state of Oregon to cease regulating the conditions under which citizens could describe themselves as an “engineer.” The ruling exonerated Oregon resident Mats Järlström, who was fined $500 for referring to himself as an “engineer” without first obtaining state approval as a registered professional engineer. Järlström, who holds a degree in engineering earned in Sweden, challenged the state law after the Oregon Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying fined him for the “unlicensed practice of engineering.”

After his wife received a traffic ticket from a red light camera in 2013, Järlström studied the state’s formula for the duration of yellow traffic lights and determined that it failed to account for drivers who must reduce their speed in order to turn. He sent his findings to the state board and identified himself as an engineer in media interviews, including an episode of 60 Minutes, and discussions with the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. The state board claimed that Järlström’s research amounted to the unlicensed practice of engineering.

The state board later agreed that it had violated Järlström’s free speech rights and refunded his fine, but Jalstrom pursued the case in federal court, where U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman declared the regulations to be a violation of the First Amendment.

Virginia Supreme Court justice announces retirement

Last week Virginia Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth McClanahan announced that she is retiring, effective September 1, 2019.

Selection of state supreme court justices in Virginia occurs through legislative selection. As outlined in the Virginia Constitution, judges are selected by a majority vote of the Virginia General Assembly, which includes both the House of Delegates and State Senate. Currently, Virginia, along with South Carolina, are the only two states in the country where state supreme court judges are selected this way.

Supreme court justices serve for terms of 12 years and are subject to reappointment to additional terms by the legislature. McClanahan's retirement will allow the Republican-controlled Virginia General Assembly to choose a successor. The most recent Virginia Supreme Court judge to be appointed by the legislature was Stephen McCullough in 2016. Four justices--McClanahan, Powell, Goodwyn, and Mims--on the seven-member Virginia Supreme Court were selected by a General Assembly with a Democratic-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House. However, Republicans held a majority in the General Assembly overall. Justices McClanahan, Cleo Powell, and Bill Mims were selected when Republicans had a 77-61 majority. Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn was appointed by Gov. Tim Kaine (D) in 2007, while the legislature was out of session, and approved by the 74-63 Republican-majority General Assembly in 2008. Justices Donald Lemons, D. Arthur Kelsey, and Stephen McCullough were selected by a General Assembly with Republican control of both chambers.

McClanahan has been a member of the state supreme court since 2011 and was an appeals court judge in Virginia from 2003 to 2011.


See also

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Daily_Brew:_January_30,_2019&oldid=8439217"