Ballot measure news
|
|
SACRAMENTO, California: On December 30, the California Supreme Court put the final nail in the coffin of local California redevelopment agencies when it ruled that Jerry Brown and the California State Legislature did have the right to enact Assembly Bill 1X 26 in 2011. AB 1X 26 eliminates the state's approximately 400 local redevelopment agencies.[1]
Cities throughout the state, along with the League of California Cities, futilely hoped that Proposition 22, enacted in 2010, would protect the redevelopment agencies. They filed their unsuccessful lawsuit against AB 1X 26 on July 18, 2011. Plaintiffs included the California Redevelopment Association and the cities of San Jose and Union City.[2]
Brown applauded the court's ruling, saying, "Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety." Abolishing the redevelopment agencies is expected to save the state at least $1 billion a year.[1]
Some city officials decried the ruling. John Shirey, the city manager of Sacramento, said, "It means the same for us as it means for every city and county in the state, which is the redevelopment agency's out of business. Along with it are various affordable housing projects and projects to continue the revitalization of downtown that are now gone."[1]
Darrell Steinberg, Senate President Pro Tem, said that the League of California Cities may be suffering a case of 'Be careful what you ask for because you might get it': "I think it's important to recognize but for Proposition 22, the League (of California Cities)-inspired initiative, we would have a lot of flexibility to amend redevelopment in a way to keep it alive and help fund schools. I hate to say it, but it's an example of all-or-nothing politics that leads to nothing."[1]
|
|
| ...more ballot measure news
Recall news
|
 Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker By: Greg Janetka
MADISON, Wisconsin: Less than two weeks after starting their campaign to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) from office, organizers announced on Monday that they have already collected over 300,000 signatures - more than half of the 540,208 necessary to force a recall election.[1] The exact number of signatures, however, cannot be independently verified. United Wisconsin organizers say they will not be turning in their signatures until the deadline on January 17, 2012. The group did not say how many signatures they collected in their efforts to recall Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, but that the totals were close.[2]
Since the beginning of the campaign, Walker has been actively campaigning as if he expects a recall to take place. He has so far issued two TV commercials - the first featuring a school board member stating Walker's reforms reduced costs allowing more money to go to classrooms, while the second features a high school teacher who says she's "not much on recalls." Additionally, the national conservative group Americans for Prosperity teamed up with The MacIver Institute to air ads in support of Walker.
Democrats have not yet announced a candidate that would run against Walker if the recall effort is successful. Names floated as possible candidates include U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, former U.S. Representative Dave Obey[3], U.S. Rep. Ron Kind[4], Wisconsin Firefighters Union President Mahlon Mitchel, Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, state Rep. Peter Barca, and State Sen. Jon Erpenbach[5]. Many observers turned to former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, but he has repeatedly stated that he will not run.[6]
While many campaigns have occasional reports of incidents such as signs going missing or being vandalized, the recall effort has been rife with these since the beginning. The first day of signature collection saw a rock with an anti-recall message tied to it thrown through the window of a cafe in Madison. Since then a number of volunteers have received anonymous death threats.[7][8] and there have been reports of petitions being torn up[9] and stolen[10], something that may be part of a coordinated effort. An anonymous Facebook group called Operation Burn Notice has been set up as with the goal of destroying petitions.[11] In response, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board has reiterated that providing fraudulent information or destroying a recall petition is a felony, while the organization One Wisconsin Now has offered a $10,000 reward for reports of signed petitions being destroyed.[12] So far no one has been charged in any of the incidents.
Four recall campaigns targeting Republican state Senators Pam Galloway, Scott Fitzgerald, Terry Moulton and Van Wanggaard are also ongoing.
If sufficient signatures are turned in by January 17, the earliest a recall could take place would be March 27. However, petition challenges and lawsuits could significantly delay that date.[13]
|
|
| ...more recall news
Ballot measure lawsuit news
|
|
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland: The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's high court, announced that it will hear arguments in a ballot access case over the state's methods of validating petition signatures on March 2nd.[1] The original lawsuit was brought in April 2011 by the Libertarian and Green parties of Maryland; it named the State Board of Elections (SBE), and Linda Lamone as Administrator of the SBE, as defendants. The suit claimed that thousands of signatures were improperly invalidated by the SBE and sought validation of those signatures - which would allow the parties to put candidates on the ballot in Maryland during the 2012-2014 election cycle.
Each party submitted approximately 15,000 signatures to the State Board of Elections for validation in March 2011 - 50% more than the 10,000-signature minimum needed to gain access to the ballot. The State Board of Elections invalidated approximately 60% of both the Libertarian and Green party's signatures due largely to signature and printed name irregularities - reasons the parties claimed was improper. The original lawsuit offered the following example: "If a voter who is registered as John Henry Smith printed his name as “John Smith” while signing it as “John H. Smith,” the SBE Guidelines directed local boards to invalidate the entry because the middle initial was missing from the printed name, even though it was present in the signed name."[2] The suit went on to explain: "Interestingly, the scrutiny demanded by the SBE Guidelines would lead to the invalidation of the signatures and “full” names customarily used by Governor Martin O’Malley (who does not sign his middle initial), Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (who abbreviated their first names when they signed them), Presidents Stephen Grover Cleveland, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, and John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. (none of whom used or signed their given first names), and Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (who used and signed nicknames). Indeed, seven of the last eight U.S. presidents, as well as the current Governor of Maryland, customarily sign or signed their names in ways that would make their support for a new party petition invalid under the SBE Guidelines."
In June 2011 Maryland's Fifth Circuit Court issued a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs, a decision that allowed the Libertarian and Green parties to put candidates on the 2012 Maryland ballot. Maryland's Attorney General's Office soon after filed an appeal on behalf of the State Board of Elections. On March 2nd the Maryland Court of Appeals will hear arguments on whether it should let the original judgement stand or overturn the lower court's ruling. How the high court rules will impact elections in Maryland for years to come.
|
|
| ...more ballot law news
|
|
Information
Ballot measures
Lists of ballot measures
Recall
Ballot law
Contribute to Ballotpedia
|
|
| ...get started now
|
|
