California: Ballot measure money not political under IRS loophole | news10

It’s considered the equalizer for the most-talked about organizations in politics: an IRS requirement that 501(c)(4) ‘social welfare’ groups spent less than half their cash on politics. But experts say the IRS left a big loophole that could play out big time in California: ballot measure spending isn’t considered political. “You could have a nonprofit doing virtually no traditional charitable work at all and really just being a funnel for campaign funds,” says Gary Winuk, the chief enforcement officer of the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. The existence of the loophole is understandable; few states have an initiative system that allows voters to write their own laws.  And even fewer have a system that’s used as often, and costs as much, as the one in California. Even so, it’s a loophole not widely publicized and likely to gain more attention as 501(c)(4) groups turn more of their attention — and money — to the Golden State.

California: Brown nixes Democrats-friendly initiative reform measure | Washington Post

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has vetoed a measure that would have severely limited the ability of wealthy activists and corporations to use paid signature gatherers to get initiatives on the ballot. The measure, Assembly Bill 857, would have required 10 percent of signatures for any given ballot initiative to be collected by volunteers, rather than by paid signature gatherers. The number of signatures supporters need to turn in is based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election; that means groups would have to rely on volunteers to gather a little more than 50,000 of the 504,760 valid signatures required to get an initiative on the ballot. “The initiative process is far from perfect and monied interests have historically manipulated it at will,” Brown wrote [pdf] in a veto message. “Requiring a specific threshold of signatures to be gathered by volunteers will not stop abuses by narrow special interests — particularly if ‘volunteer’ is defined with broad exemptions as in this bill.”

Washington: Voters will weigh in on measure that would expand rights of initiative signature gathers | Associated Press

Washington state residents have plenty of experience voting on new law proposals, but next month they’ll decide on an “initiative on initiatives” that would make it easier to get such measures on the ballot. The proposal, Initiative 517, was sparked in part by a series of legal battles over local measures seeking to block red light cameras, including one case last year that went to the state Supreme Court. By requiring that voters be allowed to have their say on any proposal that qualifies for the ballot, even if a lawsuit has been filed against it, the initiative pushes back at cities that have sued — some successfully — to block local challenges to the cameras. “Initiative power is not subject to pre-election challenges,” said Mark Baerwaldt, a spokesman for the campaign. “It’s the way the will of the people is expressed.” The initiative also would give supporters a year, instead of the current six months, to collect signatures, and it would make it a misdemeanor to interfere with the signature-gathering process.

Voting Blogs: The Corporation and the Little Guy in the 11th Circuit | More Soft Money Hard Law

The Campaign Legal Center has alerted its readers to a “flood” of challenges to campaign finance laws, and its message is that the reform advocates must remain at their battle stations. It is certainly true that interests hostile to any campaign finance regulation are hard at work; they might well believe that in this time, with this Supreme Court, their moment has come and no time should be wasted. But not all of these challenges are fairly lumped together and described as one indiscriminate assault against any and all reasonable regulation. A few raise questions that even those favoring reasonable limits on campaign finance should take—and address—seriously. The case of Worley v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 717 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2013), is one such case, a challenge to an application of a state requirement that individuals supporting or opposing a ballot initiative must register and report through a political action committee (PAC). The Eleventh Circuit rejected the claim, which is now before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. The four petitioners in Worley argue that PAC requirements, if a burden on corporations in the manner described by the Supreme Court in Citizens United, must fall even more heavily and just as permissibly on individuals banded together in limited, inexpensive “grassroots” political enterprises.

Ohio: Changes to Ohio’s election laws head to governor | The Marietta Times

With a presidential election behind them, Ohio lawmakers passed several bills Wednesday to make changes to the battleground state’s election laws. One measure was more contentious than the other: It would restrict the time groups have to collect the extra signatures needed to make sure their ballot questions get before voters. Under the proposal, groups couldn’t gather additional signatures until the secretary of state notifies them whether their initial petitions have fallen short. Current law already allows groups 10 days to file any added signatures once they get notification from the state’s elections chief. But campaigns typically continue to collect signatures after they submit their initial petitions to maximize their time to get additional names. That time has varied, depending on how long it takes election officials to certify that the initial signatures are from valid Ohio voters.

Ohio: House panel OKs elections bill | The Columbus Dispatch

Despite pleas to slow down and reconsider portions of a bill that would limit how long signatures can be collected for ballot initiatives, the House will vote this week on the measure that already has Senate approval. Senate Bill 47 was voted out of the House Policy and Legislative Oversight Committee yesterday afternoon on a 9-5 vote after former Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner advised the committee members, “If you pass this lickety-split, it’s going to make you look bad.” No one testified at yesterday’s hearing in favor of the petition part of the bill, though a representative from the Ohio Association of Election Officials spoke in support of other parts of the bill.

Massachusetts: Challenges to Direct Democracy: The Massachusetts Right to Repair Ballot Question | State of Elections

In an exercise of their democratic freedoms under state law, Massachusetts residents successfully petitioned to have three distinct initiatives posed to voters on November 6th. Of those three ballot questions, two received widespread media attention: (1) the legalization of medical marijuana, which ultimately passed by a wide margin, and (2) the legalization of prescribing medication to end life, which, after passionate debate, was defeated by a relatively small percentage of voters. Meanwhile, results for the third ballot initiative regarding the availability of motor vehicle repair information for independent repair shop owners, more commonly referred to as the “right to repair,” were not so much as acknowledged by major news organizations. However, after receiving strong voter support on Election Day, the right to repair initiative has begun to gain some media attention.

Arizona: Judge blocks top-two initiative from Arizona ballot | Arizona Capitol Times

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge issued an injunction against the Open Elections/Open Government Act today, ruling that a provision on the election of political parties’ officers violates a rule requiring ballot initiatives to focus on a single subject. Judge Mark Brain ruled that the section on the rights of political parties should have been a separate amendment from the initiative, which aims to create a “top two” primary election system in Arizona. The provision on the rights of political parties states that the initiative does restrict the rights of individuals to associate with political parties, and that parties may still elect party officers, support candidates or otherwise participate in elections, but that “no such procedures shall be paid for or subsidized using public funds.” The provision would have eliminated taxpayer-funded elections for precinct committeemen. Paul Johnson, chairman of the Open Government Committee, said the group will appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court. He said the appeal will likely be filed on Tuesday.

California: State to Test Nonpartisan Primaries | NYTimes.com

When new redistricting maps changed the boundaries of this Congressional district to give Democrats a slight edge for the first time in decades, party loyalists were elated. But now it seems possible that come November there will not even be a Democrat on the ballot. On Tuesday, for the first time, California voters will participate in a nonpartisan primary. Instead of the top candidate from each party advancing to the general election, the two candidates with the most votes will be placed on the November ballot, regardless of party affiliation. This year will be the first test of a new kind of election aimed at breaking the partisan gridlock that has seized Congress and state legislatures all over the country. When the change was presented to California voters by a ballot initiative in 2010, advocates said it would usher in a new era that embraced politicians who would be more pragmatic than ideological. “The elected officials in Sacramento are often on the far left and far right and certainly not reflective of the majority of people in the state,” said Aaron McLear, who worked on the change as an aide to Arnold Schwarzenegger, then the governor, and is now a political consultant. “What we wanted is a lot more candidates coming in even if they are not anointed by the party. It may take a few cycles to manifest itself, but you will have wild cards who can make some real change in the Capitol.”

Mississippi: Voter ID battle will be costly | SunHerald.com

Since when did Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann become the state’s chief legal officer? Last time I checked, Atty. Gen. Jim Hood was, under the 1890 state constitution, judicially established as the state’s chief legal officer. Totally ignoring that fact, the politically-ambitious Delbert is telling the media he’s the state’s champion to confront the monstrous U.S. Department of Justice and keep it from blocking the state from imposing a new law requiring Mississippians to show an approved ID in order to vote. “He (Hosemann) wants to be driving the train on the voter ID issue,” says NAACP attorney Carroll Rhodes, “while driving it off the tracks.” Rhodes on behalf of the NAACP will oppose whichever legal move the state makes to put its new voting limitation into effect.

Missouri: Ballot proposals, lawsuits swamp election officials | The Columbia Daily Tribune

Missouri voters could get a say this fall on a bevy of big issues. Should the state’s income tax be replaced with a higher sales tax? Should the tobacco tax be hiked? Should the minimum wage be raised? Should payday loan rates be limited? Should St. Louis gain control over its police force? Supporters have been gathering petition signatures in hopes of qualifying each item for the November ballot. But with the deadline to submit those signatures just one month away, it is not certain whether any of those hundreds of thousands of signatures even will matter. That’s because all the prospective ballot initiatives remain tied up in court, with the potential of getting tossed out. Regardless of who wins or loses come November, one of the most significant aspects of Missouri’s 2012 election season might be the sheer proliferation of potential ballot initiatives and an accompanying rise in litigation.

Montana: Judge indicates part of initiative on Montana Supreme Court elections invalid | The Missoulian

A District Court judge indicated Wednesday that a portion of a Republican-backed ballot initiative, which many in the GOP hope will tilt Montana Supreme Court elections to their party’s favor, could be unconstitutional as alleged by critics. The Legislature last year sent the initiative directly to this June’s primary ballot. It establishes regional districts that would each elect one justice to the state’s high court. The court’s six justices and one chief justice are currently elected in statewide elections. Supporters argued that justices elected statewide favor Democrats and do not represent certain places, like the rural areas that generally favor Republicans. Opponents argued Wednesday in District Court in Helena that the proposal runs afoul of the Montana Constitution by adding qualification criteria for the judicial candidates. They are asking the courts to remove it from the ballot.

Mississippi: Voter photo ID opponents in Mississippi hold off on court fight | Reuters

Mississippi voters this week passed the voter ID ballot initiative by a wide margin, making that state the eighth in the nation to adopt a strict voter photo ID requirement, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Lawmakers in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin enacted similar laws earlier this year.

The Mississippi amendment requires residents to present a government-issued photo ID before they can vote, and says those who lack proper identification can obtain one from the state for free.

Maine: Who can vote? Maine and Mississippi consider opposite directions | CSMonitor.com

Two states on Tuesday will consider how to balance voter rights against voter fraud in ballot initiatives that could provide momentum for other states to take up the issue in 2012 and beyond. The split, which generally follows partisan lines, is also playing out in the Maine and Mississippi ballot votes.

Democrats allege that Republicans are setting stricter voting regulations in order to make it harder for traditionally Democratic constituencies – such as the poor and immigrants – to vote. In line with this, Maine is considering allowing voters to register on the same day as an election – something GOP legislators in Maine had banned.

Meanwhile, Republicans suggest that Democrats benefit disproportionately from voter fraud and that states must take more steps to ensure that voters are who they say they are. Accordingly, Mississippi is considering whether to require photo ID at the polling locations.

Voting Blogs: Voters head to the polls to vote on voting | Electionline Weekly

Voters in several states head to the polls on November 8 to elect a variety of offices and decide on a number of ballot initiatives. While off-year elections don’t typically draw the same attention as their even-year counterparts, this election season will provide several election administration storylines worth watching.Voters in Mississippi will decide next week whether or not they want to show photo ID on future election days.

Initiative 27, sponsored by Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann and State Sen. Joey Fillingane is appearing on the November ballot after the state senate failed to take up the matter in its last session. If approved by the voters, the state’s Constitution would be amended to require voters to show a government issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot.

Mississippi: Ballot snafu discovered by happenstance | gulflive.com

An assistant district attorney from Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s office was reviewing another matter a few weeks ago when the assistant DA discovered that Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann’s office had failed to place the fiscal analysis on the three ballot initiatives as is required by the state Constitution, according to Hood.

The snafu is going to end up costing the Secretary of State’s office, since most counties had already ordered their ballots and had to have them reprinted with the fiscal information — most notably involving the voter ID initiative which is estimated to cost taxpayers $1.49 million.

Voting Blogs: A Century of Direct Democracy in California | electionsmith

A century ago, on October 10, 1911, Californians adopted a legislative referendum that created the initiative (and referendum) in California.  Critics today bemoan the fact that direct legislation in California is big business.  Special interests have used the process to pass countless propositions. In recent years, Californians have approved statewide citizen-initiated ballot measures reducing property taxes, giving citizens the right to vote on local taxes, banning social services for illegal immigrants and gay marriage, ending affirmative action and bilingual education programs in the public schools, increasing the tobacco surtax for state and county childhood education and health programs, permitting gaming on Indian reservations, allowing the prescription of medical marijuana, bolstering the minimum wage, limiting the term limits of government officials, and restricting campaign contributions.  Of the 24 states that permit the initiative, California had the second most initiatives on the ballot over the past hundred years, trailing only Oregon.