Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

The Tuesday Count: LA may get NFL team, Washington stricter initiative laws

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 3, 2015

Edited by Brittany Clingen

Tuesday Count-Checkmark.png

Donate.png

Following the approval of a measure that could cost the state billions if fully implemented, Washington state lawmakers are seeking to require that future initiatives include proposals by which to fund themselves. Meanwhile, more marijuana and sports stadium measures may appear on local ballots in California, with Los Angeles poised to get a professional football team for the first time in two decades.

Washington measure seeks to add new funding requirement for initiatives:
In November 2014, voters in the Evergreen State approved Initiative 1351, which mandated fewer students per classroom in grades K - 12. Implementing these size restrictions requires the hiring of approximately 15,000 new teachers and is expected to cost the state approximately $2 billion through mid-2017. Legislators are still grappling with how to effect the measure, if it can be effected at all. In the meantime, they want to make sure they won't face a similarly complicated situation in the future.[1][2]

Sen. Joe Fain (R-47) is sponsoring a measure, known in the legislature as Senate Joint Resolution 8201, that would require future initiatives having to do with state expenditures or state revenues to avoid upsetting the budget of the state. In other words, under the amendment, initiatives would have to propose ways to pay for themselves, where previously they could give a mandate that would have to be enforced and implemented by the state through existing funds.[3][4]

Supporters of the amendment believe it will improve the initiative process in the state. Fain said, "The citizen initiative process in this state is sacred. But 1351 provided a very high-profile example that it's not working the way it's intended to. This is a fix that will help the initiative process work better."[2] Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D-43), a co-sponsor of the measure, stated, "From my perspective, the proposed constitutional amendment is really a way of respecting voters by giving them honest information and honest choices about the cost of their choices through the initiative process."[2]

Not everyone is on board with the proposed changes, however. Prolific initiative activist Tim Eyman has said he is vehemently opposed to the measure. Eyman wrote, "Their bill [...] will mean the end of the initiative process because it will give the government [...] the power to shut down any initiative they see as a threat. Any initiative can easily be found to be 'out of compliance' with this bill’s [constitutional amendment’s] requirement. For over one hundred years, citizens have had the freedom and the guaranteed constitutional right to discuss, debate and decide on issues they care about. The government couldn’t stop First Amendment activity and the exercise of free speech. Under their bill [...] for the first time, the government will have the power to block any initiative they want."[5]

Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48) has also expressed doubts about the measure, saying, "I'm generally not in favor of amending the Constitution to limit the rights of the people." The measure would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the legislature in order to be referred to the ballot. A simple majority vote of the people would then be required to amend the state constitution.[2]

Local spotlight

Proposed Los Angeles football stadium development gains traction with initiative petition:

Artist's rendition of proposed development

While the Rams pro-football team moved their lease agreement with St. Louis to a year-to-year deal, Rams owner Stan Kroenke, working with developers Stockbridge Capital and Wilson Meany, has announced his intention to help fund a stadium development in Los Angeles, which has been devoid of a professional football team for two decades. These backers also helped put together a committee called the Citizens for Revitalizing the City of Champions, which gathered over 20,000 signatures for an initiative to amend the zoning of the former Hollywood Park race track and allow for the development of an 80,000-seat pro-football stadium, a performing arts center and additional office and retail space. The signatures submitted to the county elections office amount to more than twice the 8,400 valid signatures required to put an initiative on the ballot. Moreover, the proposal requires no up-front funding from the city, simply asking for a future $60 million in tax breaks to cover infrastructure such as sewer additions and road construction. City subsidizations of developments and sports arenas are becoming increasingly common and controversial, making this project more likely to win voter approval if it is put on the ballot.[6]

Although the NFL has not approved the transfer of the Rams from St. Louis to LA, Kroenke announced his intention to commit to funding the stadium project, potentially convincing the NFL to allow the move later in 2016.[6][7]

City of Costa Mesa, California, proposes alternative marijuana ordinance, but it might be too late to satisfy initiative petitioners: Two separate groups of initiative petitioners are feeling ignored and mistreated by the city of Costa Mesa. In 2014, both groups submitted enough signatures to qualify initiatives for the ballot that would establish medical marijuana dispensaries in the city and institute additional taxation and regulation. The initiative backers were expecting the city to put the measures before voters at the March 3 election, but the city chose to postpone the initiatives until November of 2016, citing election law that requires any initiative establishing taxation to go before voters at a general city election, rather than a special election. Hoping to appease petitioners and preclude the initiatives, the city has also drafted its own medical marijuana ordinance, which is set to go before the council for a decision in April. Initiative proponents, however, have threatened to sue the city and demand an election if the city council does not approve a satisfactory ordinance before the end of March.[8]

Other measures in the news

Footnotes