The Tuesday Count: New York's not-so-independent redistricting commission amendment

September 23, 2014

Click here for the latest Tuesday Count

Edited by Tyler King

After a prominent controversy in 2013, New York state is, once again, at the center of the debate on the accuracy and importance of ballot measure language. Proposal 1 of 2014, also known as the Redistricting Commission Amendment, stated, "The proposed amendment establishes an independent redistricting commission..." Judge Patrick McGrath objected, saying there is nothing independent about the proposed commission, and that even the two non-legislatively picked members are "essentially political appointees by proxy."

Meanwhile, Berkeley, California's proposed soda tax is coming under fire by the American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. The association contributed $500,000 to the campaign against the measure, the largest single contribution in the city's history.

New York's redistricting commission amendment

Seeing that legislators crafted the word "independent" into the constitutional language of Proposal 1, multiple "good government organizations" feared that a "rosy" worded measure on the ballot would mislead voters. Proposal 1, upon voter approval, would create a redistricting commission to establish state Senate, Assembly and congressional districts. The redistricting commission would be composed of ten members, and eight out of ten would be appointed by the legislature's majority and minority leaders. While the proposed amendment would take the process of redistricting directly out of the hands of the state's legislators, the proposed commission is not independent, according to Common Cause New York. Rather, it's bipartisan. Common Cause brought the issue before the New York Supreme Court in Lieb vs. Walsh on September 12, 2014. Five days later, Judge McGrath ordered the ballot measure's text rewritten, so as to remove the word "independent," which he called "legislative semantics." He didn't order the word "independent" to be replaced with "bipartisan," so the new ballot language reads, "The proposed amendment establishes an independent a redistricting commission..."

Responding to the court's ruling, Neil Steiner, the lawyer representing Common Cause New York, said, "To exercise the right to vote – the very core of our democracy – voters must be given fair and accurate information. We're pleased that the court recognized that describing the proposed commission as "independent", when it so clearly is not, unfairly tilted the playing field, and stopped the Board of Elections from doing so."

Quick hits

• Alaska Marijuana Legalization, Ballot Measure 2 (2014): Alaska's marijuana legalization campaign gained another supporter on September 21, this one on CBS affiliate KTVA in Anchorage, Alaska. Charlo Greene, a reporter, was talking about the Alaska Cannabis Club, when she outed herself as the owner of the club. Greene said, "[I] will be dedicating all of my energy toward fighting for freedom and fairness, which begins with legalizing marijuana here in Alaska," followed by "f*ck it, I quit."

• Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 (2016): Backed by the Marijuana Policy Project, supporters of marijuana legalization filed a statement of organization with the Arizona Secretary of State on September 19, 2014. Although the initiative's specific language has not yet been written, the measure would legalize marijuana for persons who are 21 years of age or older.

• California Proposition 53, Voter Approval Requirement for Revenue Bonds above $2 Billion (2016): Deemed the "No Blank Checks Initiative" by supporters, the initiative would require a public vote on any bond for public infrastructure projects that exceeds $2 billion and repayment requires new, increased, or extended taxes, fees or other charges. Proponents have until January 20, 2015, to collect 807,615 valid signatures.

• California Resident Deportation Ban Initiative (2016): Immigration could be a fiery issue on the 2016 ballot in California. If approved for the ballot, Californians will vote on the proposed "Protect Our Family Initiative." The measure would prohibit the use of “state, county, or city funds or resources” to detain and deport a resident of California. A title and summary are to be issued for the initiative no later than October 29, 2014.

Spotlight

City of Berkeley Sugary Beverages and Soda Tax Question, Measure D (November 2014): A proposed soda tax measure in Berkeley, California, is shaping up to be one of the biggest local ballot battles of the year. The American Beverage Association recently fired $500,000 into the campaign, increasing the association's total contributions to $800,000, hoping to dissuade voters from approving the two cent per ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The city council has thrown its support behind Measure D.

According to Josh Daniels, the co-chair of the pro-Measure D campaign, "The $500,000 contribution is both unprecedented – it’s the single largest contribution in the history of Berkeley from everything I could determine – and it’s just outrageous. They are trying, through a tsunami or a flood of money, to win this campaign as opposed to talking about the issues."

See also

2014 ballot measures

Tuesday Count • 2014 Scorecard

• Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2014
• 2014 ballot measures
• Local ballot measure elections in 2014