CALIFORNIA
FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2016, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“SIGNATURE COSTS CUT DOWN STATE’S FALL BALLOT”
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2016, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“SIGNATURE COSTS CUT DOWN STATE’S FALL BALLOT”
It now takes fewer valid signatures to
qualify an initiative for a statewide vote than at any time in the last 20
years – 365,880, almost 150,000 less than just two years ago.
This fact, caused by the extreme low
turnout in the midterm election of 2014, led many so-called experts to assume
voters would be dealing with blanket-length ballots this fall. The November ballot
will in fact be long and filled with interesting issues – not to mention
colorful candidates. But the list of propositions will set no records this year
despite the seeming ease of qualifying them.
One reason: the plethora of
initiatives put forward over the last 18 months has created intense competition
for signatures, driving prices paid to petition carriers to near-record levels.
If there’s one thing this clearly
demonstrates, it is that a process originally designed more than 100 years ago
to allow grass-roots action has more than ever become the domain of big-money
interests. That’s what it means when the bounties paid for valid voter
signatures rise to the $4 and $5 range, where they are today. At five bucks per
John Henry, it costs almost $2 million to put a measure on the ballot, even if
the number of signatures needed is relatively low. Not everyone has that kind
of money, even if it only costs $200 to submit a prospective measure for naming
and authorization to circulate.
So…There will be no vote this fall on
whether to require parents to be notified if their under-18 daughter(s) seek to
get an abortion. This plan has failed in two other statewide votes, but
anti-abortion activists wanted to give it another shot until they ran out of
money.
The notion of California declaring
itself a sovereign nation (or almost) also won’t make the ballot, even if the
idea is fun to contemplate. Nor will the notion of calling the state’s chief
executive a president rather than a mere governor.
There will be no vote on raising the
homeowner’s property tax exemption. Nor will voters get to decide whether or
not to ban sales or consumption of shellfish like shrimp. And there will be no
attempt to raise some property taxes, as opponents of the landmark 1978
Proposition 13 have long sought. The Legislature will not be expanded by
100-fold, either.
Neither will there be a vote on using bullet train
bond money for water projects.
It’s uncertain whether Gov. Jerry
Brown’s plan to give judges more discretion in sentencing convicts will make
the ballot. His petition carriers are reportedly getting $5 for each valid name
they submit, eating up chunks of the huge war chest Brown retained after his
low-budget, low-profile 2014 reelection campaign. But it is almost certain that
one or more proposals to legalize recreational marijuana growing and use will
get to a vote. And that a proposed 12-year extension of the tax increases
passed in 2012 as Proposition 30 will make the ballot.
Already on that ballot are measures to
require use of condoms in all pornographic films shot in California, an
expansion of a Los Angeles County law, and $9 billion in planned school bonds,
much to be used for increased programming and not merely for construction.
There was to be a vote on a gradual
increase to $15 in the minimum hourly wage, but sponsoring labor unions
withdrew that one after they made a deal with Brown and key legislators. One
reason lawmakers were so glad to reach that agreement: multiple millions earmarked
for a campaign around the minimum wage will probably now flow to political
candidates. But no one is abandoning the fight over a proposal forbidding
Medi-Cal and other state agencies from paying more than the federal Veterans
Administration for prescription drugs.
Also on the ballot, but placed there
by legislators, is a measure to modify and virtually eliminate the ban on
bilingual education passed handily by voters in 1998 as Proposition 227.
Some have called all this a perversion
of the initiative process, but if it is, it’s a distortion that began when
payments for petition signatures became common in the 1970s. Attempts to ban
those payments have been ruled unconstitutional several times, so if there’s to
be reform, it will have to take some other form.
-30-
Email
Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough,
The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch
It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias
columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment