Ballot title
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
However, it is not always clear how one would neutrally describe the gist of what a new law would do.
As a result, ballot titles are fertile grounds for conflict and lawsuits. (See Ballot title litigation.)
The term "ballot title" can also be used to refer to short descriptions that appear adjacent to the names of candidates on ballots in some states and municipalities, in addition to information about the candidate's political party affiliation or status as an independent candidate.[2]
Differences between states
One way that states differ in laws governing the initiative process has to do with whether the ballot title is determined before signatures are collected, or after.
Another way that states differ has to do with whether the ballot title is determined by the government (which could be a commission, a ballot title determination board, the Secretary of State, or some other election official) or whether the ballot title is determined by the political organization that is advocating for the measure.
Pre-circulation ballot titles
States where the ballot title is set prior to circulation include:
Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho,[3] Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon (In Oregon, the ballot title is set after 1,000 initial sponsorship signatures have been submitted) and Washington.
Post-circulation ballot titles
States where the ballot title is determined by the government after the signatures have been collected are:
Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma[4], Utah, Wyoming[5].
Ballot titles determined by proponents
In Florida and South Dakota, the ballot title is determined by the proponent, subject to legal challenge by opponents in court.
Impact of ballot title on election outcome
There is a general consensus that the ballot title can be highly determinative of whether a ballot measure wins or loses.
California journalist Dan Walters wrote in June 2010:
- "It's not exactly news that from time to time, the Legislature attempts to manipulate the outcome of elections. Commonly, the Legislature, when approving bond issues and other ballot measures, writes official titles and summaries – and sometimes controls ballot arguments – in ways to make them more likely to pass."[6]
Vladimir Kogan of the University of California, San Diego, and Craig Burnett of Appalachian State University in North Carolina, delivered a paper at the September 2010 meeting of the American Political Science Association called "The Case of the Stolen Initiative: Were the Voters Framed?" Political scientists Kogan and Burnett, in the paper, bring some evidence to bear on the question, "Can elected officials and powerful interest groups 'steal the initiative' by shaping the language of the official titles and summaries of ballot measures to favor their preferred policy outcomes?"[7]
Highlights of the Kogan-Burnett paper:
- "We find that ballot framing does indeed have the potential to influence outcomes in direct democracy elections."[8]
- "We also show, however, that the effect of framing is far from absolute. Exposure to campaign information — in particular, endorsements from prominent interest groups — attenuates the effect of a framed ballot measure, helping voters cast reasoned votes."[8]
- "The results suggest that, in a realistic campaign environment where voters are bombarded by millions of dollars in advertising and direct appeals from political parties and other elites, ballot measure framing is unlikely to change election outcomes."[8]
Cost of preparation
The Office of the Attorney General of California says that it costs them about $6,800 to prepare a ballot title and summary for each potential ballot proposition submitted to their office.[9]
Ballot title challenges
2008
2002
Proposed changes
- Roger Niello, a Republican in the California State Assembly, introduced California Assembly Bill 319 in 2009. AB 319 proposed to transfer responsibility for writing the ballot titles of statewide California propositions from the California Attorney General's office to the office of the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). AB 319 would also have the LAO come up with the fiscal estimates for statewide ballot propositions, rather than the current system under which the fiscal estimate is compiled jointly by the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee along with an estimate by the LAO.[10]
Candidate ballot titles
In some states, for some candidate elections, candidates also have ballot titles. These are sometimes referred to as "ballot designations" or "occupational designations." These designations are sometimes rejected by election officials or, if not rejected by election officials, may draw a lawsuit from an opposing candidate, if it is felt that the occupational designation creates a misleading picture of who the candidate is.[11]
In California, the section of the elections code governing how candidates may describe themselves on the ballot takes up 12 pages. According to the regulations, the ballot designation may not exceed three words and must represent the candidate's "primary, main or leading professional, vocational or occupational endeavors."[12]
- In California in 2009, Andrew Wong, a member of the Pomona Unified School District, was listed on the ballot with his occupation identified as "teacher." Three Pomona Unified teachers and the Associated Pomona Teachers union, successfully sought a court order preventing the county election office from listing that occupation as his ballot title. A Superior Court judge ordered that his ballot title be "School board member, Pomona Unified School District" rather than "teacher." Professionally, Wong is an attorney who does some teaching in some contexts.[13]
- A Los Angeles mayoral candidate listed his occupation as "Exorcist of Presidents."This was disallowed by election officials.[11]
- Los Angeles City Council candidate Mitchell Englander listed his occupation on his ballot designation as "policeman", which his opponents complained was an overstatement, since he is an LAPD reserve officer.[11]
- A 2010 candidate for California Attorney General described himself "Assistant Attorney General"; this was based on his role an outside counsel for the South Dakota attorney general.[11]
- A candidate for California State Assembly who worked as a legislative aide described himself on the ballot as a "Consumer Affairs Commissioner".[11]
- Two opposing 2010 candidates for U.S. Congress from the San Joaquin Valley described themselves as, respectively, a "rancher" and a "farmer", even though they were both primarily elected politicians.[11]
- Sam Blakeslee, in his 2010 election campaign for California State Senate, listed himself as an "Independent Business Owner" at a time when he had served three two-year full-time terms as member of the California State Assembly. [11]
See also
References
- ↑ Preparation of a ballot title and summary
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Making democracy work in San Francisco", February 28, 2010
- ↑ Idaho petition requirements
- ↑ Brief of Oklahoma petition process';
- ↑ Wyoming laws governing the initiative process from the Wyoming Secretary of State
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "California legislators again pulling election strings", July 19, 2010
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Study: Ballot measure wording affects outcomes -- sometimes", August 12, 2010
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 "The Case of the Stolen Initiative: Were the Voters Framed?", Vladimir Kogan and Craig Burnett, September 2010
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "It's not easy to get an initative on California's ballot", December 28, 2009
- ↑ Rocklin Today, "AB 319 will reduce misleading information for ballot initiatives", February 26, 2009
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 Los Angeles Daily News, "Candidates' ballot designations can be amusing, strange or some say ... misleading", January 15, 2011
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "'Business' can be fighting word on a candidate's ballot listing", February 14, 2011
- ↑ Contra Costa Times, "Judge: PUSD board member can't call himself 'teacher' on ballot", September 1, 2009
