DOCSLIB.ORG

Something for Everyone

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Something for Everyone ELECTIONS Something for Everyone edistricting reform, Medicaid expan- Done and Dusted From funding sion, tax limits, a range of election and Voters in eight states have already decided schools to limiting ethics issues, and an uncommon spread the fate of 11 measures. Oregonians approved Rof hot-button topics are making this the first measure in January—a Medic- taxes (forever), voters year’s statewide ballot measures more than a aid-funding tax increase. California voters little interesting. Of course, some of the usual approved four of five on a range of issues. will weigh in on a suspects are lined up for voters to pick from. Maine voters used and approved ranked- Beyond those, there’s something for just about choice voting—on the same ballot. Oklahoma wide array of ballot everybody. citizens legalized medical marijuana. Wiscon- measures this year. As of early September, 102 constitutional sinites decided not to eliminate the position of amendments, 46 statutory changes and 19 state treasurer. Ohio became the first state to bonds had been certified to appear on Novem- enact redistricting reform. And in the last mea- ber’s ballots in 39 states (including the District sure voted on before November, Missourians of Columbia). Citizens worked to get 63 initia- vetoed new right-to-work legislation the legis- tives and five popular referendums on the bal- lature had passed earlier in the year through a BY PATRICK R. lots in 22 states. Legislatures sent 92 referen- popular referendum. POTYONDY dums back to voters to decide in 31. And we’re If these measures foretell November’s not done. There’s still time, as this issue goes results, marijuana will be legalized in more to press, for a few more to jump in or out (via states, redistricting reform will spread, Med- legal challenges). This year is roughly on par icaid will be expanded, infrastructure will be with previous non-presidential midterm elec- supported, and bond measures will stroll into Patrick R. Potyondy is a Mellon-ACLS public tions. Although citizen initiatives were down enactment. Given recent history, however, a fellow and a legislative policy specialist with to 35 in 2014, 2016 reversed that trend with a citizen initiative has about a 50-50 chance of NCSL’s Elections and Redistricting Program. strong showing of 72. passage, while legislative referendums hold bet- STATE LEGISLATURES 15 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 ELECTIONS port. Colorado’s measure, for example, has ing question about a fuel tax (Utah). Defining the Measures won the endorsement from the Republican On the other side of the tax coin, the Legislative Referral or Legislative senate president, the Democratic house trend continues to limit the ability of leg- Referendum: Measures “referred” to the speaker and the two state party chairs. islatures to raise revenue. Proposed mea- ballot by legislatures to be approved by sures in Florida and Oregon would require the people. Referrals to the people are Medicaid and More two-thirds and three-fifths votes, respec- required in 49 states if the legislature After attempts to expand Medicaid tively, to increase taxes. North Carolina’s proposes a change to the state through the legislature failed in the 17 would lower the maximum income tax. constitution. Some states allow referrals to change the code. states that have not expanded coverage California might require voter approval through the Affordable Care Act, some to raise the gas tax in the future. And in Citizen Initiative: Measures placed on citizens have turned to ballot measures. a similar vein, Indiana will consider a the ballot by voters, advocacy groups or Nebraska, Idaho and Utah have approved balanced-budget amendment, though the businesses who’ve convinced enough measures to allow for full Medicaid expan- constitution already limits the state from registered voters to sign a petition. sion under the federal law. Maine voters taking on debt. did so last year and strongly approved Popular Referendum or Popular Veto: expansion in November 2017. Housing Measures that can overturn or veto a As America ages, states face the enor- As the nation continues to grapple with law passed by the legislature. Placed on mous challenge of meeting the needs of the housing costs, several states have placed the ballot by voters, advocacy groups or elderly. A 2018 Maine measure proposes a notable measures on the ballot. Califor- businesses who’ve convinced enough registered voters to sign a petition. tax on annual incomes above $128,400 and nians will decide on whether to repeal the on nonwage income like stock dividends Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which and interest to fund a universal home care limited the ability of local governments to ter odds, at 3-to-1. Below is a breakdown program for people with disabilities and enact rent control. The Golden State will by topic and theme of most of November’s senior citizens. Californians will decide also vote on the homelessness prevention measures. whether to limit revenue for dialysis compa- bonds noted above and an additional nies with refunds above a certain level going bond measure for veterans and affordable Elections and Officeholders back to insurers and patients. housing. Oregon may expand the ability of There are a surprising 10 election-related municipal corporations to fund privately issues this year, including photo voter ID Tax Revenues owned affordable housing developments. in Arkansas and North Carolina, auto- The list of communities, programs and matic voter registration in Nevada, elec- infrastructure that bonds might support Energy and Environmental tion-day registration in Maryland, and is long. Several states are considering Protection an amendment that would re-enfranchise additional ways to increase revenue for On the renewable energy frontier, Ari- individuals with felony convictions in Flor- numerous projects, often by proposing zona and Nevada will vote on whether to ida—amounting to roughly 25 percent of that the wealthy pay a larger share. Sim- require that 50 percent of electricity comes that state’s otherwise eligible black voting ilar to Maine’s health care measure in from renewable sources by 2030. Washing- population. Nine states are deciding on its overall approach, California’s Prop- ton may initiate the country’s first fee on often-interconnected issues of ethics, lob- osition 2 would apply a 1 percent tax on carbon emissions. Montana is considering bying and campaign finance, while Arkan- incomes over $1 million to fund home- requiring long-term protection plans for sas will once again consider revising term lessness prevention bonds. Coloradans new mines. And Alaska ponders the pros limits, from 16 to 10 years. Colorado might will decide whether to tax incomes above and cons of more restrictive permitting on lower the age restrictions to become a leg- a high threshold; Arizonans almost had industry to protect salmon waters. Hydrau- islator. the chance before a similar measure was lic fracturing, or fracking, has taken center successfully removed due to a challenge in stage in Colorado. One initiative would Redistricting Reforms court. Meanwhile, Hawaiians will consider limit how close oil and gas mining can be Along with Ohio, which passed redis- a surcharge on investment properties. All to homes, schools and other designated tricting reform in May, Colorado, Michi- would help fund public education. Other vulnerable lands like rivers and parks. In gan, Missouri and Utah will also weigh in states are looking to fund schools via taxes reaction to that measure, Colorado vot- on changing how their political maps are on tobacco (South Dakota), gambling rev- ers will also decide whether to approve a drawn. Although three of the six measures enue (Maryland), bonds (Rhode Island, far-reaching amendment that would com- are legislative referendums, the pressure New Mexico and New Jersey), allowing pensate private property owners for any for change is clearly coming from advo- local government to ask for a tax increase decreased property value due to any gov- cacy groups. Several have bipartisan sup- (Georgia and Oklahoma), and a nonbind- ernment regulations. SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 16 STATE LEGISLATURES ELECTIONS BALLOT MEASURES By the Numbers 16 The number of 2018 ballot measures in California, the most of any state. 12 States with no ballot measures. 24 States that allow citizen initiatives. 23 States that allow popular referendums. 18 States that allow citizen initiatives to change the state constitution. 21 States that allow citizen initiatives to change state statutes. Transportation ery, as punishment for a crime. Ohioans will have the chance to prohibit taxing feminine Two states have transportation lockbox decide whether to fund drug treatment and hygiene products, often called the “pink amendments on the ballot this year. These rehabilitation programs from the savings tax.” Colorado may restrict the annual inter- require certain transportation taxes and gained by decriminalizing drug possession est rate and fees that payday lenders charge. fees be used for transportation purposes. and by banning courts from sending individ- Oregonians may repeal a 30-year-old statute California already passed its measure ear- uals on probation to prison for noncriminal that limits the ability of local and state law lier in the year. Connecticut will vote on its violations. If Louisiana’s Amendment 2 is enforcement to enforce federal immigration in November. California will also consider approved, it would leave Oregon as the only laws. Washington, after an unsuccessful repealing a 2017 gas tax. Coloradans will state that does not require unanimous jury legal challenge, will consider a gun safety vote on two indirectly competing mea- approval to convict. And a far-reaching pro- measure after all. And in a popular refer- sures to fund transportation. The more posal in Washington could make changes to endum that also survived a court challenge, ambitious measure raises revenues through police training and to the potential prosecu- Arizona’s voters will have the opportunity to taxes and bonds, while the other simply tion of officers who use deadly force.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents
    Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents August 2009 Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents A Publication of the Research Division of NACo’s County Services Department Written by Christopher Markwood Research Intern August 2009 National Association of Counties 1 About the National Association of Counties The National Association of Counties (NACo) is the only national organization that represents county governments in the United States. Founded in 1935, NACo provides essential services to the nation’s 3,068 counties. NACo advances issues with a unified voice before the federal govern- ment, improves the public’s understanding of county government, assists counties in finding and sharing innovative solutions through education and research, and provides value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money. For more information about NACo, visit www.naco.org. For more information about this publication or the programs included, please contact: National Association of Counties Research Division a Phone: 202.393-6226 � Web site: www.naco.org 2 Initiative and Referendum—Direct Democracy for State Residents • August 2009 Introduction Reflecting upon his visit to America, French historian and philosopher Alexis de Toc- Overview queville observed, “To take a hand in the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) powers give regulation of society and to discuss it is his state residents the ability to have a direct biggest concern and, so to speak, the only voice in the governing rules of their state’s pleasure an American knows.”1 constitution. These processes can also be an influential tool for local officials of coun- In comparing Americans to citizens of other ties and municipalities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Return of Immigration Quotas Could Severely Challenge Switzerland's
    The return of immigration quotas could severely challenge Switzerland’s relationship with the European Union blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/02/04/the-return-of-immigration-quotas-could-severely-challenge- switzerlands-relationship-with-the-european-union/ 04/02/2014 On Sunday, Switzerland will hold a referendum on creating immigration quotas for all foreign nationals, including those from the European Union. Alexandre Afonso assesses the politics behind the proposal, which has been driven largely by the Swiss People’s Party. He writes that if the ‘yes’ campaign is successful, implementing immigration quotas would present a serious problem for Switzerland’s relationship with the EU. On 9 February, Swiss citizens will vote on a popular initiative “ against mass immigration” spearheaded by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party. The initiative put to the vote proposes to introduce global immigration quotas applying to all foreign nationals entering Switzerland: asylum seekers, labour migrants and family members of established migrants included. At the moment, Switzerland does not limit immigration from EU countries by virtue of a bilateral agreement on free movement with the European Union. Switzerland is also a member of the Schengen area, and has adhered to the Dublin convention on asylum. By contrast, non- EU migration is severely limited. In this context, a “yes” vote on Sunday is believed to pose a number of serious problems for its economy and relationship with the European Union: immigrants represent about a quarter of the Swiss workforce, and the invalidation of the agreement on free movement could potentially make all the other agreements between Switzerland and the EU (notably on the taxation of savings) void.
    [Show full text]
  • The Initiative and Referendum Process
    7KH,QLWLDWLYHDQG5HIHUHQGXP3URFHVVLQ:DVKLQJWRQ States with Initiative and/or Referendum Process Map courtesy of the Initiative and Referendum Institute %\ 7KH/HDJXHRI:RPHQ9RWHUVRI:DVKLQJWRQ (GXFDWLRQ)XQG Initiative & Referendum Committee Janet Anderson Tanya Baumgart Cheryl Bleakney Lael Braymer Patricia Campbell Cherie Davidson Elizabeth Davis Phyllis Erickson Rosemary Hostetler Marilyn Knight, Secretary Lee Marchisio Jocelyn Marchisio, Chair Jo Morgan Peggy Saari Ruth Schroeder Editor: Marilyn Knight Typographer: Jane Shafer Reading Committee Elizabeth Davis Steve Lundin Sue Mozer Liz Pierini Alice Schroeder Published by The League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund October 2002 League of Women Voters of Washington 4710 University Way NE, #214 Seattle, WA 98105-4428 206-622-8961 LWV/WA Initiative and Referendum Study - ii Fall 2002 The League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund 'LUHFW'HPRFUDF\ 7KH,QLWLDWLYHDQG5HIHUHQGXP3URFHVVLQ:DVKLQJWRQ 7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 The Initiative and Referendum in the United States .............................................................................1 Creating Initiatives and Referenda in Washington ...............................................................................4 Initiatives The Referendum Fiscal Impact Statement At the Local Level The Role of Money ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California's Hybrid Democracy
    Working Paper No. 39 California’s Hybrid Democracy By Elizabeth Garrett USC Law School And California Institute of Technology California’s Hybrid Democracy Elizabeth Garrett* Legal scholars are beginning to engage in sustained study of direct democracy: initiatives, referendums and recalls. More than merely assessing constitutional issues implicated by the initiative process, we are studying the legal structure that shapes direct democracy. Our analysis remains incomplete for two reasons, however. First, we tend to think of direct democracy as exceptional – an exotic way to make laws and a process affecting only California and a few other Western states outside the mainstream of America. This vision is inaccurate. Although far fewer laws are enacted by the people than by state legislatures or city councils,1 direct democracy is part of government that affects the majority of Americans. Seventy-one percent of Americans live in a state or city or both that allow the popular initiative.2 Although California has a relatively high number of initiatives at the state level, Oregon has had the largest number of initiatives proposed and adopted, and California’s passage rate of 35% is substantially less than Florida’s passage rate of nearly 70%.3 Initiatives are not a purely Western phenomenon, although they are prevalent in Western states because of their popularity at the time these states entered the Union. Massachusetts, Maine, and Florida have relatively robust systems of direct democracy, as do New York City, Houston, and Columbus. Substantial sums of money are spent in issue * Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Southern California; Director, USC- Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Legislature V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. 13–1314. Argued March 2, 2015—Decided June 29, 2015 Under Arizona’s Constitution, the electorate shares lawmaking author- ity on equal footing with the Arizona Legislature. The voters may adopt laws and constitutional amendments by ballot initiative, and they may approve or disapprove, by referendum, measures passed by the Legislature. Ariz. Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, §1. “Any law which may be enacted by the Legislature . may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.” Art. XXII, §14. In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, an initiative aimed at the problem of gerrymandering. Proposition 106 amended Arizona’s Constitution, removing redistricting authority from the Ar- izona Legislature and vesting it in an independent commission, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). After the 2010 census, as after the 2000 census, the AIRC adopted redistricting maps for congressional as well as state legislative districts. The Ari- zona Legislature challenged the map the Commission adopted in 2012 for congressional districts, arguing that the AIRC and its map violated the “Elections Clause” of the U.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana, 1851, Alaska, 1956: a Century of Difference in State Constitutions P
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law Indiana Law Journal Volume 34 | Issue 1 Article 2 Fall 1958 Indiana, 1851, Alaska, 1956: A Century of Difference in State Constitutions P. Allan Dionisopoulos Indiana University Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Dionisopoulos, P. Allan (1958) "Indiana, 1851, Alaska, 1956: A Century of Difference in State Constitutions," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 34: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol34/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIANA, 1851, ALASKA, 1956: A CENTURY OF DIFFERENCE IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS P. ALLAN DIONISOPOULOSt Despite America's traditional regard for constitutions and constitu- tionalism, serious students of government have frequently bemoaned our lack of an ideal state constitution. This is not to say that efforts have not been made to overcome this deficiency. With the adoption of the first Model State Constitution by the National Municipal League in 1921 the way was opened to a host of models, proposals, recommendations, and even modernized state constitutions-New York (1938), Georgia and Missouri (1945), and New Jersey (1947).
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Curiae Michigan Civil Rights Commission in Support of Respondents
    No. 12-682 In the Supreme Court of the United States BILL SCHUETTE, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER v. COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND FIGHT FOR EQUALITY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (BAMN) ET AL., AND CHASE CANTRELL, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS Daniel M. Levy Counsel of Record 3054 West Grand Blvd. Suite 3-600 Detroit, Michigan 48202 [email protected] (313) 456-3812 Attorney for Amicus Curiae i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Presented ...................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................ ii Table of Authorities ................................................... vi Interest of Amicus Curiae .......................................... 1 Introduction and Summary of Argument .................. 4 Argument .................................................................... 8 I. Because “preferential treatment” as a legal term should be legally defined by this Court to apply only to race specific ‘affirmative’ or other actions which are also “discrimination,” its prohibition does not interfere with university admissions policies in which race is but one of many equal factors considered as part of an effort to achieve broadly based diversity, and neither the prohibition nor the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause. ....... 8 A. Answering the question presented by this Court requires first defining the term “preferential treatment.” ............................... 8 B. “Preferential treatment” occurs when a university admissions process affirmatively provides an applicant or group of applicants with a benefit based on race in a way that unlawfully discriminates against others.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Emergency: Washington's Use of Emergency Clauses and the People's Right to Referendum
    State of Emergency: Washington's Use of Emergency Clauses and the People's Right to Referendum Bryan L. Page* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTROD UCTION ......................................................................................... 220 1I. B ACKGRO UND .......................................................................................... 223 A. The OriginalProvisions of Washington s Constitution................... 223 B. The History of the Initiative and Referendum ................................. 226 C. Adoption of the Initiative and Referendum in Washington ............. 229 D. Why the Referendum is an ImportantPart of Government ............ 233 III. HISTORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECLARATIONS OF EMERGENCY IN WA SH IN G TON ...........................................................................................238 A. State ex rel. Brislawn v. Meath and the Early Cases...................... 239 B . The Confusion Grows ...................................................................... 242 C. CLEAN v. State and Other Recent Cases ....................................... 246 IV. CURRENT LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF EMERGENCY CLAUSES ............. 252 A. Laws Preservingthe Public Peace,Health or Safety ..................... 255 B. Laws for the Support of State Government and its Existing Public Institutions............................................................................ 257 C. CurrentJudicial Review of Legislative Declarationsof Em ergencies ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BW 2018-2 Results 2018-11-07 (Official)
    Initiative & Referendum Institute 2018 No. 2 November (Revised 1/3/2019) BALLOTWATCH N OVEMBER 2018 ELECTION RESULTS Overview • November: 156 proposi- On November 6, voters decided tions in 37 states, includ- 156 ballot propositions across 37 ing 62 initiatives, 2 popular states, approving 69% of them. These referendums, and 83 legis- propositions consisted of 83 legislative lative measures. proposals, 62 citizen initiatives, 2 pop- • Most active states: Colora- ular referendums, 7 commission pro- do 13, Florida 12, Califor- posals, 1 constitutionally required advi- sory measure, and 1 constitutionally nia 11. required question on whether to call a • 69% of all propositions constitutional convention. approved. Initiative approv- The overall approval rate was al rate 50%. down slightly from 2016 and identical to 2014. The number of approved initi- • Hot issues: rights of crime atives — 32 for the year — is less than victims, health care expan- the 47 approved in 2016, but greater sion, marijuana legaliza- than the 16 approved in 2014. The tion, election reform. initiative approval rate of 50% was well above the historical norm of 41%. For • Bond issues: 18 proposi- more information on initiative trends, see IRI Report on Initiative Use (1904-2018). tions for the year, propos- This report lists every state-level ballot proposition in 2018. Compared to the first version of the ing a total of $29 billion in report, election outcome information has been updated to reflect official returns, and some errors new debt. have been corrected. For additional information on ballot measures, see ballotpedia.org . • For the year: 168 proposi- tions in 38 states, includ- ing 63 initiatives and 5 referendums.
    [Show full text]
  • We the People: a Needed Reform of State Initiative and Referendum Procedures
    Missouri Law Review Volume 78 Issue 4 Fall 2013 Article 14 Fall 2013 We the People: A Needed Reform of State Initiative and Referendum Procedures Nicholas R. Theodore Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nicholas R. Theodore, We the People: A Needed Reform of State Initiative and Referendum Procedures, 78 MO. L. REV. (2013) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol78/iss4/14 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. File: Theodore – Final Formatting 3/17/14 Theodore:Created Theodore: on: 3/18/2014 6:29:00 We PMthe People Last Printed: 4/10/2014 2:50:00 PM COMMENT We the People: A Needed Reform of State Initiative and Referendum Procedures NICHOLAS R. THEODORE* I. INTRODUCTION The landscape of the United States’ political elections has been marked by many dramatic changes in the past century. While many are quick to point to several changes in political campaigning or the shift from a voting base predominated by white males to one that embraces women, minorities, and the youth vote, one largely unnoticed political trend that has grown substan- tially in recent decades is the use of the ballot initiative and referendum.1 Ballot initiatives enable citizens to bypass their state legislatures by proposing a new or amended law to be placed on the ballot in the next election.2 Refer- enda, on the other hand, are typically measures that originate with state legis- latures and are placed on the ballot by the legislative body to allow citizens to vote on the legislation.3 Having existed in some form in the United States since the 1600s,4 the ballot initiative and referendum have served as two of the few remaining strongholds of direct democracy in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 15 VOTER INITIATIVES
    VOTER INITIATIVES Chapter 15 VOTER INITIATIVES: MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE James D. Linxwiler Guess & Rudd P.C. Anchorage, Alaska Synopsis § 15.01 Introduction § 15.02 The Initiative System, Its Origins, and Its Critics [1] Origins of the Initiative in the Progressive Era 1900–1920 [2] Can Money Buy the Outcome? [3] Is the Primary Effect of the Initiative to Bring Government Policy in Line with the Electorate? [4] A Skeptic’s View—What About Citizens United, Attack Ads, and the Like? § 15.03 Alaska’s Anti-Pebble Initiatives [1] Pebble Project [2] Summary of Alaska Initiative Statutes and Procedures [a] Constitutional and Statutory Provisions [b] Legal Challenges to Initiatives Before and After Elections: Enumerated Subject Matter Limits on Initiatives and the “Clearly Unconstitutional” Standard [3] 2007–2009 Initiative Challenges to Pebble: 07WATR and 07WTR3 [4] 2011–2012 Lake and Peninsula Borough Initiative Challenges to Pebble: “Save Our Salmon” [5] 2012–2013 Initiative Challenges to Pebble: 12BBAY [6] Financial Support, Collateral Litigation, and Controversy § 15.04 Montana and the Cyanide Prohibition: I-137, I-147, and the Seven Up Pete Venture Litigation [1] Initiative Process in Montana [2] Initiative 137 and Its Legal Challenges [a] Federal Campaign Financing Litigation Challenging I-125 and I-137 Filed Before I-137 Election [b] State Court Taking and Contract Clause Litigation—Seven Up Pete Venture v. State [i] Takings Claim [ii] Impairment of Contract Claim [c] Federal Court Takings Litigation Challenging I-137 [3] I-147—Unsuccessful 2004 Attempt to Repeal I-137 § 15.05 Colorado—Unsuccessful Attempts at Surface Mining and Cyanide Bans -1- [1] Initiative Process in Colorado [2] Ballot Title No.
    [Show full text]
  • Initiative and Referendum Guide
    Initiative and Referendum Guide State Capitol, Phoenix Published by the Office of the Secretary of State March 2019 Arizona Secretary of State’s Office Election Services Division 1700 W. Washington St., 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 www.azsos.gov Initiative and Referendum Guide Table of Contents 1 Chapter 1: Circulating Initiative and Referendum Petitions ............................................. 1 1.1 What is the Difference between an Initiative and Referendum? ................................ 1 1.2 Necessary Components for Circulating a Petition ..................................................... 1 1.2.1 Establishing or Designating a Committee Sponsor ................................................ 2 1.2.1.1 Establishing a New Committee as Sponsor ..................................................... 2 1.2.1.1.1 Where to Register a New Committee .......................................................... 2 1.2.1.1.2 Preliminary Requirements for Forming a Committee ................................ 2 1.2.1.1.3 Components of a New Statement of Organization ..................................... 3 1.2.1.1.3.1 Committee Information ......................................................................... 3 1.2.1.1.3.2 Chairperson Information ....................................................................... 4 1.2.1.1.3.3 Treasurer Information ........................................................................... 5 1.2.1.1.4 Finalizing a Statement of Organization ...................................................... 6 1.2.1.2
    [Show full text]