The Ballot Initiative Gazette

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Ballotpedia News

Ballot measure and direct democracy news headlines


Louisiana's last closed Primary race

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana: The August 28, Louisiana primary election will be the last closed primary for the state, unless further legislation changes it back. Wednesday, July 28 was the last day for residents in the state to change their party affiliation or to register with a party in time to vote in the primary election. Both the Louisiana Senate and Congressional districts 2 and 3 have contested races and political experts expect heated races. Starting in 2012, the primary election will be open again meaning all candidates will face off during the primary, if one candidates from a party does not get more than half the majority of votes the top two would have a runoff election on October 2, then the winner would head to the general election in November. If a resident is a member of an unaligned party, they could choose to vote in the Democratic or Libertarian election, but not Republican. [1]

Open primary elections were held in the state until 2008 when legislation was enacted to make them closed. But due to widespread confusion the last 2 primary elections, the legislation enacted new legislation to make the primary elections open once again. Though officially this new legislation takes effect in 2011, the next primary election will be in 2012 so that would be the first time it is practiced.[2]


California's Prop 14 opponents file lawsuit

Richard Winger, a lead plaintiff in the first lawsuit filed against Prop 14

SAN FRANCISCO, California: A group of plaintiffs including Richard Winger filed the first of what is expected to be several lawsuits against Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act in San Francisco Superior Court on July 29.[3]

The lawsuit filed Friday challenges two provisions in Proposition 14 and asks the court to block enforcement of the new law until legislation has been enacted that removes the two contested provisions. They are:

  • A provision in Prop that orders write-in votes in runoffs to be discarded.
  • A provision in Prop 14 that prevents some candidates from listing their party affiliation/preference on the ballot.

Gautam Dutta is the attorney for the group of plaintiffs. He said that voters did not know about Prop 14's ban on write-in votes because the ban was not described in the state's voter guide: "They'll be throwing their votes away without even being told that by voting for a write-in, your vote won't count."

Other lawsuits challenging Prop 14 are expected.


Casino backers in Oregon announce ballot access lawsuit

SALEM, Oregon: Just days after hearing from election officials that the Oregon Job Growth Education And Communities Fund Act, Part I had fallen short of enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, its backers said they would file a lawsuit against the Oregon Secretary of State.[4]

The casino-backed initiative hit a roadblock when Secretary of State Kate Brown announced that only one of two related initiatives met the state's petition signature requirements and qualified for the 2010 statewide ballot. According to reports, supporters of both initiatives were pleased that at least one qualified for the ballot. However, in order for the Wood Village casino project to move forward, the project requires the approval of both initiatives.[5]


I-1107 certified in Washington

OLYMPIA, Washington: On July 28, election officials in the State of Washington certified the sixth and final Initiative to the People for the November 2, 2010 ballot, announcing that I-1107 made it to the ballot.[6]

I-1107 is an attempt by its supporters to reverse some amendments made in 2010 to the state's tax laws. Specifically, the measure, if voters approve it, will reduce tax rates for certain food processors, end the newly-enacted sales tax on candy, and end the temporary sales tax on some bottled water and temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages.


Term limits proposition qualifies for February 2012 ballot in California

SACRAMENTO, California: Three months before California voters will decide about the ten statewide propositions on the November 2, 2010 ballot, an initiated constitutional amendment that would allow California state legislators to stay in office longer has qualified for the state's February 2012 ballot.

If voters approve the Term Limits Initiative, it will amend Section 2 of Article IV of the California Constitution to replace the separate 8 and 6-year term limits on future California State Senators and Assemblymembers, respectively, with a 12-year limit on combined service. Current and former members of the California Legislature would not be affected.

California voters first approved term limits on their state legislature in 1990, when they passed Proposition 140. The state's voters have previously rejected attempts to allow legislators to stay in office longer, most recently in 2008, when voters defeated Proposition 93.

Majestic Realty bankrolled the petition signature drive to qualify the measure for the ballot.


Oklahoma AG narrowly defeated in Gubernatorial Primary

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson

OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma: In spite of having accumulated a substantial war chest, more than any other candidate in the race, and poll numbers in the days prior to the state primary strongly suggesting he held a comfortable lead, Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson narrowly lost the Democratic nomination in the state's gubernatorial contest to Lieutenant Governor Jari Askins by six-tenth of a percentage point. [7] [8]

2010 Race for Governor - Democratic Primary [9]
Candidates Percentage
Jari Askins (D) 50.3%
Drew Edmondson (D) 49.7%
Total votes 263,649

The reasons behind Askins last-minute surge will likely be debated for weeks to come as she prepares to duke it out with Mary Fallin, a two-term Republican member of the United States House of Representatives. Politico contends that it was the lieutenant governor's corralling of support among both women and sport fans that contributed to her narrow victory. Late in the primary campaign, Askins received the endorsement of former University of Oklahoma and Dallas Cowboys football coach Barry Switzer, which her campaign featured prominently in a radio advertisement released shortly before the primary election. She also attracted women to her campaign after "promising to equalize gender pay disparity." [10]

Another argument may be that while Askins appears less likely to defeat Fallin in November, at least as far as past polling data is concerned, Edmondson would have carried a lot of baggage with him going into the general election contest. With two weeks left before Oklahoma voters went to the polls, Edmondson was named "The Nation's Second Worst Attorney General" by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. Basing their criteria on dubious dealings, fabricating law, usurping legislative power, and predatory practices, the Oklahoma Attorney General, who at the time of the publication was a gubernatorial candidate, received a letter grade of F in all four categories. CEI sharply criticized Edmondson's prosecution of the Oklahoma 3, adding that his tenure as state attorney general "has been marked by a pattern of political bullying and hypocrisy." [11] [12]

Furthermore, both conservatives as well as liberals would be questioning what Drew Edmondson they were going to get were he to be elected to the governor's mansion. This was no more prominent than in the national health care reform debate that swept the country for more then ten months. In the wake of the historic passage of President Barack Obama's health care reform legislation on Christmas Eve in 2009, Edmondson joined fourteen Republican Attorney Generals in questioning not only the constitutionality of a specific controversial provision within the Senate version of the bill, but also exploring potential legal challenges to the measure as well. [13] Despite this initial involvement, Edmondson changed his tune four months later while in the midst of his gubernatorial campaign. Three months after President Obama signed into law his controversial health care reform bill, the one that narrowly passed the United States House of Representatives just two days prior to this, "Edmondson says he decided not to challenge the law after members of his staff spent hundreds of hours examining the 2,500-page bill." [14] He insisted that politics had no affect on his decision.


Part I of the Oregon non-tribal casino initiative falls short, Part II makes the cut

SALEM, Oregon: The proposed Wood Village casino project hit a roadblock yesterday when Secretary of State Kate Brown announced that only one of two related initiatives met the state's petition signature requirements and qualified for the 2010 statewide ballot. According to reports, supporters of both initiatives were pleased that at least one qualified for the ballot. However, in order for the Wood Village casino project to move forward, the project requires the approval of both initiatives.[5]

Oregon Job Growth Education And Communities Fund Act, Part I, also known as Initiative 76, required a minimum of 110,358 valid signatures. According to the secretary of state's office only 104,629 signatures were verified. Part II, also known as Initiative 77, surpassed the 82,769 threshold by 96 signatures. Each initiative faced different requirements because Part I is an initiated constitutional amendment, while Part II is an initiated state statute.[15]

Initiative 76 called for creating an exception to the state's casino ban and allows for one private casino in Wood Village, Oregon. Initiative 77, on the other hand, calls for creating a gaming tax of 25% of gross revenues for education, state police, and local governments across the state.[16]

Since the project requires the approval of both initiatives in order to remove Initiative 77 from the ballot sponsors would have to go to court. According to reports, sponsors gave no indication if they planned to pursue that option. In response to the secretary of state's July 27 announcement, Matt Rossman, sponsor of the petition initiative, said that after speaking to the signature gathering firm, Democracy Resources, they believe the state office might have made a mistake and plan to pursue a lawsuit. Rossman said, "At this point, I think it’s safe to say that we will be filing a lawsuit to challenge the decision which will more than likely be filed tomorrow."[5]


Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count remains steadily above 160 despite lawsuits

By Bailey Ludlam

With less than a week before two of the three remaining petition drive deadlines come to an end, Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count is remaining steady at 162 certified ballot measures in 36 states. The current number of certified measures is well below the general average in even-numbered years. From 1990-2008 there has been average of 210 ballot questions.

In the past week, ballot questions have been put to the challenge in numerous states. Specifically, Florida has been hit hard with lawsuits. Of the original 10 certified ballot measures, two have been removed from the ballot by court order. Most recently, on July 23 the Florida Property Tax Limit, Amendment 3 was removed by Circuit Judge John Cooper. The legislatively-referred constitutional amendment proposed providing additional tax exemption for some homeowners of at least 25% in the first year. The exemptions would have continued for four years and would have been reduced incrementally. However, a challenge was filed by the Florida AFL-CIO and Jacksonville resident Brian K. Doyle. Both argued that the the title and summary of the amendment were flawed. Specifically they said that the text did not mention the purchase date. The day following the court hearing on July 22, Judge Cooper said, "Neither the title nor the summary provide notice that the additional exemption is only available for properties purchased on or after Jan.1, 2010. The failure of the title to give notice of this condition is materially misleading." According to reports, the ruling is expected to be appealed.

Florida Health Care Freedom, Amendment 9 remains pending in court but is scheduled to be heard later this week on July 29. Four individuals filed a lawsuit against the state regarding the ballot title and summary of Amendment 9. Plaintiffs Louisa McQueeney, Gracie Fowler, Diana Demerest and Mona Mangat said the current ballot title and summary mislead the public of the measure's true intent. All four plaintiffs are asking the court to consider the wording invalid.

Joining the slew of ballot measure lawsuits this week was Florida Class Size, Amendment 8 after Florida Education Association filed a lawsuit to block Amendment 8 from the 2010 statewide ballot. The teachers union argues that the proposed measure is misleading and an under-handed attempt to reduce state funding for education.

In Arizona, after hearing arguments for both sides on the validity and neutrality of Arizona Proposition 302's ballot wording on July 26, 2010, Judge Robert Oberbillig of Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the measure's wording was in fact impartial and fair. If enacted by voters, the measure would repeal the First Things First program, which is an early childhood services program, and put it's $324 million into the general fund.

Despite all of the lawsuits removing and challenging ballot measures, one measure in Washington was certified for the November general election ballot. Initiative 1105 was certified by the secretary of state following a 3 percent random sample check. The proposed measure would close all state liquor stores and license private parties to sell or distribute spirits. Additionally it would revise laws concerning regulation, taxation and government revenues. In addition to I-1105, I-1100, which has already been certified, also relates to privatizing state liquor stores. However, unlike I-1100, I-1105 prices liquor licenses based on the volume of liquor sold. I-1100, on the other hand, does not include price controls.

In local news, the Anne Arundel Mills Mall Casino Referendum has been upheld and re-added to the Anne Arundel County November 2 ballot in Maryland. Cordish Co. filed a total of two lawsuits: one on the grounds that the county had not properly checked for fraud on the petitions filed against the slots and a second stating that the petition goes against the revised Maryland Constitution which states that slots are legal in the state. The judge's decision on the first left the measure invalid for voting in November, but an appeal to the highest Maryland court put it back on to the ballot.

This week, stay tuned for up to the minute election results on Missouri's Health Care Freedom, Proposition C!!

Upcoming elections:


Complaints arise of illegal advertisements in campaign against Alaska's Ballot Measure 2

JUNEAU, Alaska: Alaska's Ballot Measure 2 has been surrounded by controversy in the months leading up to the August 24, 2010 primary election. The measure would forbid a minor from getting an abortion without a doctor informing at least one parent before moving forward with the procedure. Now with the election less than a month away, even more controversy is being piled on. But this time, however, the controversy is hitting advertising strategies.

A complaint was filed by the Alaskans for Parental Rights to the Alaska Public Offices Commission, citing that illegal ad campaigns are being launched by Alaskans Against Government Mandates, the group opposing the measure. The complaint comes after the APOC spoke to the group against the measure, and that the group stated they would stop the advertisements. However, according to the complaint, the ads had not stopped as of July 23, 2010. Alaskans for Parental Rights are concerned with the ads because the ads allegedly do not include the top three contributors to the group, which is a state law. According to the law, radio advertisements and internet ads must include who paid for the advertisement, the top three contributors and the address of their residence or business.

According to APOC Executive Director Holly Hill, the APOC hasn't formally accepted the complaint due to an uncertainty if it was served properly on the Alaskans Against Government Mandates. The complaint also calls for the APOC to pull the ads and for the group against the measure to rework them to include the proper material. Alaskans for Parental Rights also want penalties imposed on the group.[17]


Arizona Judge rules ballot wording fair in Prop 302

PHOENIX, Arizona: After hearing arguments for both sides on the validity and neutrality of Arizona Proposition 302's ballot wording on July 26, 2010, Judge Robert Oberbillig of Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the measure's wording is impartial and fair. If enacted by voters, the measure would repeal the First Things First program, which is an early childhood services program, and put it's $324 million into the general fund.[18]

The current description of the measure will now be on the state pamphlet that is sent to voters before the November 2, 2010 general election. According to attorney Rhonda Barnes, her clients will not appeal the judge's decision. The suit, filed on behalf of the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board, claimed that Proposition 302's description mislead voters and hid important facts to consider.[19]

Some of the facts that the board said were hidden was that the measure's description did not tell residents that voters approved the program in a ballot measure in 2006. Rhiann Allvin, executive director of the First Things First program, stated that their accusations stemmed from their "impartial analysis" of each ballot measure when their council met in June 2010.

Oberbillig has been busy in the world of ballot measures in Arizona, as the judge, in another ballot measure lawsuit, struck Proposition 108 from the Arizona ballot after ruling that the proposal violated Arizona's single subject rule. The measure would have let voters decide to extend the right of Arizonans to use a secret ballot in union organizing votes and public votes.

The judge stated that proponents may have had other motives for placing this measure on the ballot. Oberbillig then officially ruled that the measure violated Arizona's single subject rule, deciding that public votes and union votes were not "sufficiently or logically related to one another." The judge also stated that the Arizona Constitution already required secret ballot for public elections. The measure was then removed from the ballot[20]


Florida's Education Association files lawsuit to block Amendment 8

TALLAHASSEE, Florida: Last week, on July 23, the Florida Education Association filed a lawsuit to block Amendment 8 from the 2010 statewide ballot. The teachers union argues that the proposed measure is misleading and an under-handed attempt to reduce state funding for education. "The Florida Legislature devised a classic scheme of ‘hiding the ball’ from Florida voters by misrepresenting the chief purpose of Amendment 8 – which is to free the state’s obligation to adequately fund public schools," said Ron Meyer, the union’s attorney.[21] In a press release, Meyers added,"The failure of the legislature to be honest with parents - to tell them that Amendment 8 cuts funding to public schools which will result in crowded classrooms once again - is what makes this lawsuit necessary."[22]

In response to the filed lawsuit, Rep. Will Weatherford, who sponsored the amendment, said he believed the amendment was "very honest." Weatherford added, "We're trying to protect the integrity of small class sizes in the state of Florida. At the same time, we're providing flexibility for the thousands of principals and administrators and school board members and superintendents and, frankly, the hundreds of parents...whose children are not able to go to the school they want because of the class size restraints."[23][24]

The filed lawsuit can be found here.


Missouri Litigators Honored for Work to Protect Initiative Campaign’s First Amendment Rights

Lake Rdige, Virginia:

The John Lilburne Award for the month of July has been given to two litigators from Missouri, Dale Doerhoff and Heidi Doerhoff Vollet. Both were honored for their outstanding advocacy on behalf of the Humane Society of Missouri in a court case dealing with the state’s initiative & referendum process. For more information about the award recipients and case check out the press release here.

Recently, Citizens in Charge Foundation issued a coalition letter regarding the case Dale and Heidi are involved in. CICF applauded the Missouri Court of Appeals for temporarily halting the release of sensitive campaign data. The decision is a great win and first step for citizen initiative rights in the state and can be attributed a great deal to the hard work of Dale and Heidi Doerhoff. To see the coalition letter click here.

Signers of the Coalition Letter:

  • Paul Jacob, President of Citizens in Charge Foundation and Citizens in Charge
  • Christina Tobin, Founder & CEO The Free and Equal Elections Foundation
  • Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government
  • Bradley J. Ketcher, Treasurer of Citizens for a Better St. Louis
  • Whit Ayres, President of the American Association of Political Consultants
  • P.J. Wilson, Director of Renew Missouri
  • Jeff Ordower, Executive Director of Missourians Advocating for Reform and Empowerment
  • Ross Day, Executive Director of Common Sense for Oregon
  • Dean Christopher Arterton, Graduate School of Political Management The George Washington University

Another Florida measure bites the dust, Amendment 3 off the ballot

TALLAHASSEE, Florida: In July alone, two certified ballot measures have been tossed off the statewide ballot. Today marked the end of Amendment 3 for the 2010 general election ballot. Less than a day following the court hearings, Circuit Judge John Cooper ruled that Amendment 3 should be removed from the ballot. According to reports, the ruling is expected to be appealed.[25]

The legislatively-referred constitutional amendment proposed providing additional tax exemption for some homeowners of at least 25% in the first year. The exemptions would have continued for four years and would be reduced incrementally. However, a challenge was filed by the Florida AFL-CIO and Jacksonville resident Brian K. Doyle. Both argued that the the title and summary of the amendment were flawed. Specifically they said that the text did not mention the purchase date.

On July 23, a day following the court hearing, Judge Cooper said, "Neither the title nor the summary provide notice that the additional exemption is only available for properties purchased on or after Jan.1, 2010. The failure of the title to give notice of this condition is materially misleading."[26][27]

This marks the second measure to be removed from the ballot. Removed measures and pending cases are listed below.


Oregon redistricting amendment supporters challenge the state's signature laws

SALEM, Oregon: The final petition count for the proposed Oregon Independent Redistricting Commission Amendment has yet to be announced but this week initiative supporters filed a challenge of the state's signature laws. Specifically, the lawsuit filed against the Oregon Secretary of State argues that the state's current signature checking rules are more restrictive than stipulated by state law.[28]

Prior to the final validation of the signatures, the Elections Division said they had thrown out 12,975 signatures. According to reports, the dismissal of the signatures makes it unlikely that the measure will qualify for the 2010 ballot. "We know we can't make it on the ballot if they pull this many without even looking at them," said Kevin Mannix, who helped write the initiative.[29]

Disqualifying signatures is "a very normal part of the process" according to state officials. of the total number of signatures submitted by supporters, approximately 10% were thrown out. According to reports, signatures were disqualified if a petitioner wrote the date incorrectly, the signers' dates did not match or because an address was listed more than once in similar writing. According to state's administrative rules, all are valid reasons to disqualify petitions.[29] According to Tyler Smith, attorney for the initiative backers, the state's rules for disqualifying a petition due to at least one error is "not a legitimate exercise" and is unfair.[29]


SQ 153 removed from Oklahoma ballot

OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma: Instead of 12 questions, Oklahoma will see 11 ballot measures this fall after State Question 753 was removed from the ballot. The measure would have granted to the Oklahoma State Senate the right to review and approve any person chosen by the Governor of Oklahoma to fill a position on the Workers' Compensation Court. It would have amended Section 1 of Article VII of the Oklahoma Constitution.[30]

According to the Oklahoma Secretary of State's website, the measure was removed from the ballot by SJR 66, which is to be enacted upon approval of HB 2652. HB 2652 deals with the issue of Workers' Compensation Court appointment, which is what SQ 753 dealt with, therefore leaving a vote on the matter in November unnecessary. The description of the bill reads as follows:[31]

"Workers' Compensation Court; relating to membership and terms of Workers' Compensation Court Judges; providing for permanent assignment of certain positions; modifying expiration dates of certain terms; requiring legislative approval for the closure of certain court. Effective date."

South Dakota high court upholds Amendment K ballot summary

PIERRE, South Dakota: The South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ballot summary for Amendment K on Thursday, July 22. According to the high court's ruling, the attorney general's summary "objectively educates the voters of its purpose and effect."[32] Months earlier, South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge John Brown denied the the request to remove the measure from the ballot and upheld the South Dakota attorney general's official ballot explanation of the measure.[33]

The South Dakota State Federation of Labor filed a lawsuit in May 2010 to either rewrite Amendment K's ballot summary or remove it from the ballot. "The bottom line is we would like the court to go ahead and strike the measure, or at the very least to direct the attorney general to write a better explanation," said Steven Sandven, a Sioux Falls lawyer representing the federation. Specifically the federation argues that the summary incorrectly explains the measures and does not explain that voter approval of the amendment may make the state "vulnerable to an expensive lawsuit." However, Attorney General Marty Jackley argued that it was not his job to revise what legislators have approved. He defended the summary and said the measure should appear on the ballot for voters to decide.[34]

The high court, however, ruled that the mere possibility of a lawsuit does not justify the amendment of the summary. "In deciding what to state and how to state it, the attorney general is limited to 200 words. We have repeatedly held that how the attorney general says it is up to his professional discretion as attorney for the state. This court does not sit as an editorial review board," according to the opinion, written by Chief Justice David Gilbertson.[32]

Justices added that any further constitutional challenges to Amendment K will have to wait until after the November 2 general election.[35]


4 Missouri initiatives have total sigs tallied

Jefferson City, Missouri:

The Missouri SOS has tallied up the total amount of signatures turned in for all 4 statewide initiatives this year. This tally is of total raw signatures, not total valid signatures.

294,313 signatures were submitted for initiative 2010-046 relating to real estate taxation. Around 150,000 valids are needed to achieve ballot access for an initiated constitutional amendment. If the validity rate is at least 51%, then this initiative could appear on the ballot.

210,928 signatures were submitted for initiative 2010-071 relating to repeal of the nonpartisan court plan. Around 150,000 valids are needed to achieve ballot access for an initiated constitutional amendment. If that validity rate is at least 72%, this initiative could appear on the ballot.

231,662 signatures were submitted for initiative 2010-077 relating to earnings taxes. Around 90,000 valids are needed to achieve ballot access for an initiated state statute. If the validity rate is at least 39%, this initiative could appear on the ballot.

199,210 signatures were submitted for initiative 2010-085 relating to dog breeders. Around 90,000 valids are needed to achieve ballot access for an initiated state statute. If the validity rate is at least 46%, this initiative could appear on the ballot.

Missouri also has a distribution requirement that must be meet to achieve ballot access.

[36]



Georgia Primary Roundup - Landslides and Run-offs

Former Dougherty County District Attorney Ken Hodges

By Joseph Kastner

ATLANTA, Georgia: On Tuesday, July 20, 2010, the voters of Georgia went to the polls to choose candidates for both the Democratic and Republican sides in the following contests: Attorney General, Governor, and Secretary of State.

The main focus of the local media in regards to the state attorney general campaign centered on the bitter contest between former Dougherty County District Attorney Ken Hodges and State Representative Rob Teilhet, both of whom sought the Democratic nomination. Although Hodges received a substantial following among local Democrats, there were those who questioned his credibility given the Phoebe Factoids case, a high-profile legal matter in which he admitted using grand jury subpoena in 2003 to trace the source of the leaked memos that showed that the Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital located in Albany, Georgia, one of the poorer areas of the state, had "$2.6 billion in cash and transferred millions to offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands." [37] He later attracted further controversy when during the course of the primary campaign he was accused twice by his opponent, Rob Teilhet, of claiming endorsements for his campaign that he had not earned.

On the primary election date, the contest proved to be no where near as close as some had predicted it would be. In the end, Hodges was able to easily stave off Teilhet by a nearly 3-to-2 margin.

2010 Race for Attorney General - Democratic Primary [38]
Candidates Percentage
Ken Hodges (D) 65.5%
Rob Teilhet (D) 34.5%
Total votes 337,460

On the Republican side, three candidates vied for their party's state attorney general nomination - Cobb County Commission Chairman Samuel S. Olens, State Senator Preston Smith, and Max Wood, former United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. Despite Wood being designated as the true conservative choice, he could not compete with Olens who was endorsed early on in the race by former Massachusetts Governor and presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

2010 Race for Attorney General - Republican Primary [38]
Candidates Percentage
Samuel S. Olens (R) 39.9% [39]
Preston Smith (R) 30.6%
Max Wood (R) 29.5%
Total votes 575,773

Since neither Olens nor Smith received over fifty percent of the vote, both candidates will move on to the primary run-off election to be held on August 10.

The Republican primary contest for Secretary of State drew the most attention as incumbent Brian Kemp and challenger Doug MacGinnite, City Commissioner for Sandy Springs, were routinely at each other's throats throughout the campaign. Kemp was appointed to the statewide position by Republican Governor Sonny Perdue in January 2010 to fill the vacancy left behind by Karen Handel following her resignation to work full time on her gubernatorial campaign. [40] [41] Both candidates attacked one another's voting record - MacGinnite accusing Kemp of breaking with the Republican Party for having voted twice in Democratic primary run-off contests while Kemp slammed his opponent for having not voted in a Republican primary for almost 20 years until 2008. The incumbent Secretary of State went so far as to even accuse MacGinnite's camp of using pictures taken of supporters and their children at a Kemp fundraiser to intimidate them.

Again, the contest proved to be no where near as close as had been argued. Kemp easily defeated MacGinnite by a 3-to-2 margin of victory.

2010 Race for Secretary of State - Republican Primary [38]
Candidates Percentage
Brian Kemp (R) 59.2%
Doug MacGinnitie (R) 40.8%
Total votes 609,478
Georgia

Despite featuring five candidates, the Democratic side of the Secretary of State contest failed to attract the attention of either of the public or the local media as none of them distinguished themselves from their opponents. For two of the candidates, Gail Buckner and Angela Moore, this was their second attempt in a row for the statewide position - Moore lost in the Democratic primary and Buckner placed second in the general election contest. Lack of interest by voters in the campaign showed as the turn-out was nearly half what it was on the Republican side.

2010 Race for Secretary of State - Democratic Primary [38]
Candidates Percentage
Gail Buckner (D) 35.1% [42]
Georganna Sinkfield (D) 22.6%
Angela Moore (D) 20.4%
Michael Mills (D) 15.5%
Gary Horlacher (D) 6.4%
Total votes 341,395

Since neither Buckner nor Sinkfield received over fifty percent of the vote, both candidates will move on to the primary run-off election to be held on August 10.

In the state's gubernatorial contests, the Republican primary produced twice the turnout of the Democratic race. This may be likely due to the fact that the winner of the Democratic gubernatorial campaign was never in doubt, despite featuring as many as seven challengers for the nomination. The former Governor has remained extremely popular with state liberal voters. His nearest challenger, three-term State Attorney General Thurbert Baker, never once came close to matching the following Barnes had accumulated, despite his best efforts.

Former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel
2010 Race for Governor - Democratic Primary [38]
Candidates Percentage
Roy E. Barnes (D) 65.8%
Thurbert Baker (D) 21.7%
David Poythress (D) 5.5%
DuBose Porter (D) 4.2%
Carl Camon (D) 1.1%
Bill Bolton (D) 0.9%
Randal Mangham (D) 0.8%
Total votes 392,472

Tensions ran high throughout the course of the Republican primary campaign, particularly in the last two weeks after former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin endorsed former Secretary of State Karen Handel. This expression of support from a popular conservative national figure, along with her rising public opinion poll figures, helped Handel gain the upper hand in the race, despite being outspent by both the former United States Congressman, Nathan Deal, and John Oxendine, the one time front runner in the campaign. Still, the former Secretary of State was not able garner enough votes to afford facing a run-off election against Deal in three weeks.

2010 Race for Governor - Republican Primary [38]
Candidates Percentage
Karen Handel (R) 34.1% [43]
Nathan Deal (R) 22.9%
Eric Johnson (R) 20.1%
John W. Oxendine (R) 16.9%
Jeff Chapman (R) 3.0%
Ray McBerry (R) 2.5%
Otis Putnam (R) 0.4%
Total votes 678,880

Florida oil drilling special session abruptly ends with no vote

TALLAHASSEE, Florida: After months of discussion, the special session ended the very day that it started. After less than 50 minutes from convening the House voted 67-44 to adjourn the session.[44] The Senate voted 18-16 to adjourn.[45] The session, called for by Gov. Charlie Crist, was arranged to discuss and vote on referring a constitutional amendment to the 2010 general election ballot.

The proposed Oil Drilling Ban Amendment called for permanently ending efforts to open Florida's near-shore waters to oil and gas exploration. The measure was developed following the 2010 explosion on an oil drilling rig that lead to a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Some called the measure redundant because a statewide law currently exists that doesn't allow oil drilling between three to 10 miles offshore. Others, however, called it necessary.

In reaction to the votes by the legislature to end the session, Gov. Crist said, "I am significantly disappointed for the people of Florida...I call this legislature the do-nothing legislature. And I'm going to give them hell for it." Additionally, Crist said that he does not plan to call the legislature back for a second special session. It is reported that the next attempt for a drilling ban amendment may not be until the 2012 ballot.[46]

Of the decision to adjourn the session, House Speaker Larry Cretul said, "The fact remains that he has called us here at the last possible moment to consider a constitutional amendment for which he never proposed language and permitted far too little time for reflection and review. That is a terrible way to propose constitutional changes." According to reports, Cretul and Senate President Jeffrey Atwater planned to review the oil spill situation in the Gulf and planned to convene later in 2010.[47]


Missouri health care measure cleared for August vote, no appeal sought

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri: Late last week, three days following the July 13 court hearing for the proposed Missouri Health Care Freedom, Proposition C, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Paul Wilson ruled to uphold the proposed measure and dismissed the lawsuit.[48] In his decision, Judge Wilson wrote that despite arguments that the measure's title was too broad, the Missouri Supreme Court had previously upheld bills that had broader titles. Additionally, Wilson noted that both parts of the proposed measure relate to insurance and thus comply with the single subject rule. The changes made to the text, he noted, remain in line with the bill's original purpose.[49][50] In his decision Judge Wilson criticized the timing of the suit. He noted that the plaintiffs had more than sufficient opportunities to file a complaint prior to the lawsuit filing.[51]

In reaction to the July 16 court ruling, Jefferson City Attorney Chip Gentry announced that the plaintiffs did not plan to further pursue the case. "We thought about it and have decided not to appeal at this time; in light of the fact that ultimately what this case was about was to avoid voter confusion and the impossible choice of having two questions in one box. Even if we were successful on appeal, which we feel we would be; the ultimate remedy of actually removing that confusing language from the ballot wouldn’t happen and that the ballots simply would not be counted and would not be certified," said Gentry. In addition to bad timing, Gentry said the plaintiffs did not want to cost the state more money. Absentee ballots had already been cast and ballots had already been printed.[52]

Despite the plaintiffs' decision not to appeal the judge's ruling, a challenge following the August election, should the measure be approved, is not out of the question.[52]

The full text of the measure can be found here.


Citizen initiatives thrust Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count to 161

By Bailey Ludlam

Ballot activity is on the rise and this week is no exception. Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count is reporting a total of 161 certified measures in 36 states for 2010 elections. Expect the count to continue rising as certification in four states and petition drive deadlines in three states remain pending.

Initiatives were approved in Washington, Oregon and Montana. In Washington, the secretary of state's office has been diligently reviewing filed petitions for six initiatives. Last week Secretary of State Sam Reed certified I-100 and I-1082. This week, the citizen initiatives were joined by Initiative 1098, known as the "Establish a State Income Tax Initiative," and Initiative 1053, another tax related measure. Despite an investigation of fraudulent signatures, submitted for I-1098, the initiative had more than sufficient signatures to qualify for the November 2, 2010 general election ballot.

In Oregon, the secretary of state's office is also working through thousands of signatures for six filed initiatives. Thus far, two initiatives have been certified for the statewide ballot. Unlikes Washington's certified tax-related initiatives this week, Oregon's relate to law enforcement and marijuana. Initiative 13, also known as the "minimum criminal sentence increase initiative," proposes requiring an increased minimum sentence for some sex crimes and repeat DUIs. Initiative 28, on the other hand, would allow the establishment of privately owned, non-profit dispensaries. All dispensaries and growers, however, would be subject to state regulations.

Like Oregon, Montana officials certified initiatives regarding a wide range of topics. Specifically, three initiatives were certified this week. The Montana Secretary of State had until August 19, 2010 to certify initiatives for the ballot, but stated that three measures had enough signatures to make the ballot well before that date. This bumps the number of measures scheduled to appear on the statewide ballot to four.

The three measures that were certified in Montana include: the Hunter Access Funding initiative, the New Property Tax Elimination amendment, and the Loan Interest Rate Limit initiative.

Elsewhere, legislatively-referred measures saw activity in South Carolina and Oklahoma. South Carolina lawmakers referred a measure that proposes authorizing that the Capital Reserve Fund be used to replenish the General Reserve Fund at the "applicable percentage." In Oklahoma, State Question 753 was removed from the ballot.

Stay tuned for continuing ballot lawsuit news, as hearings continue for several 2010 certified measures.

Local elections:

Upcoming petition drive deadlines:


Lawsuits hit Florida, Amendment 3 hearing this week

TALLAHASSEE, Florida: The Florida AFL-CIO and Jacksonville resident Brian K. Doyle filed a lawsuit challenging proposed Amendment 3. Both argue that the the title and summary of the amendment are flawed. Specifically they said that the text does not mention the purchase date. The proposal calls for limiting the maximum annual increase in the assessed values of nonhomestead property to 5%. Additionally, it calls for providing a $25,000 exemption for people who have not owned a principal property in the previous 8 years.[54] The proposal would give people who haven't owned a home for at least 8 years an addition, temporary homestead exemption. The exemption would only apply to residences purchases on or after January 1, 2010.[55]

Additionally, plaintiffs argue that the title and the summary conflict because the title states that the exemption applies to "new homestead owners," while the summary states that it applies to "a first-time homestead." The provision, however, allows for previous homeowners to qualify.[55]

In response to the filed lawsuit, the state said the title and summary accurately describe the proposal and that the purchase date is not required by law to be included in the ballot text. In regards to the text conflict between the title and the summary, state officials said that it is clear, according to the text, who can qualify for the tax break.[55]

A hearing is scheduled for July 22 and will be heard by a Tallahassee judge.


This marks the fourth lawsuit in the state of Florida against certified ballot measures.


Lawsuit filed to block personhood initiative from Mississippi ballot

JACKSON, Mississippi: The Mississippi Life Begins at the Moment of Fertilization Initiative isn't scheduled to appear on the Mississippi statewide ballot until 2011 but already the certified initiative is facing a lawsuit attempting to block it from the ballot.

On July 15, 2010 Jackson Attorney Robert McDuff filed a lawsuit against the state of Mississippi on behalf of two Lafayette County residents (Deborah Hughes and Cristen Hemmins).[56][57]

In a statement, McDuff said, "This lawsuit is brought to preserve Mississippi's Bill of Rights. This Initiative specifically attempts to modify the Mississippi Bill of Rights by changing the word "person" to include a fertilized egg. Like the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, the Mississippi constitution states that 'the initiative process shall not be used...for the proposal, modification or repeal of any portion of the bill of rights of this constitution.'"[56] McDuff argues that the change could lead to government interference in the doctor-patient relationship and may lead to numerous lawsuits against physicians. Steve Crampton, an attorney for the Liberty Counsel who helped circulate petitions for the proposed measure, said the McDuffs arguments are "speculative."[58]

In response to the lawsuit, Personhood Mississippi's Les Riley, the sponsor of the amendment, said, "This is clearly a preposterous lawsuit, intended to interfere with Mississippi citizens’ right to vote, and to protect Planned Parenthood’s abortion cash cow. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are seeking to protect Planned Parenthood’s one billion dollar a year profit, while Mississippi voters are seeking to protect innocent life. We intend to fight this suit, defending our rights as Mississippi voters and the most basic right of preborn children, the right to life."[59]

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, the defendant in the case, said he supports the proposed amendment. In reaction to the lawsuit, Hosemann said, "I believe Mississippians do have the right to amend their laws and the constitution by the initiative process followed by an open vote of the electorate. I think that’s what the Legislature intended." Attorney General Jim Hood is scheduled to defend the state in the lawsuit.[58]

A trial date has not yet been scheduled.


Florida Supreme Court to hear redistricting cases

TALLAHASSEE, Florida: The legal battle in Florida's lower courts surrounding two proposed redistricting initiatives came to a halt on Monday, July 19, when the Florida Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The hearing, however, will most likely remain pending until the high court returns from vacation in August.[60][61]

The high court's announcement comes less than a week after a Leon County judge denied a request by Secretary of State Dawn Roberts and FairDistricts Florida to dismiss the lawsuit against Amendments 5 & 6. According to July reports the case was scheduled to heard on July 26 before Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford.[62]

The lawsuit was initiated by U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart. Both Brown and Diaz-Balart argue that Amendment 6 is not only misleading but would dilute minority voting powers in the state.

The case number is 10-1362. Court briefings and documents can be found here.


Three initiatives certified for the 2010 ballot in Montana (Updated)

HELENA, Montana: Bringing the total count of ballot measures in Montana to four, three initiatives were certified on July 19, 2010 for the general election ballot. The Montana Secretary of State had until August 19, 2010 to certify initiatives for the ballot, but stated that three measures had enough signatures to make the ballot well before that date. This leaves eight other initiatives hoping for ballot access dead, leaving sponsors to decide whether or not to try for a future ballot. Signatures must have been filed by June 18, 2010 to county clerks' offices. The deadline for those county clerks to submit signatures was July 16, 2010. The required amount of signatures for a state statute was 24,337, while the required number of signatures for constitutional amendments was 48,673. The three measures that were certified for the ballot are:[6]

  • The New Property Tax Elimination amendment, which seeks to eliminate real estate or realty transfer tax. The tax, according to Montana law, is implemented when a sale is closed or if property is being transferred, along with other fees.

It is particularly difficult to get an initiative on the ballot in Montana, percentages for this year show, as the 11 circulating initiatives were less than half of the actual proposed measures that were filed with the Secretary of State. According to Linda McCulloch, "Out of 26 proposed ballot measures, three have successfully met the requirements needed to qualify for the November ballot. Even after we tabulate the remaining signatures, none of the other ballot issues will have enough signatures to qualify.”[63]

Archives

References

v • d • e
The Ballot Initiative Gazette
States
Other
Retrieved from "http://www.ballotpedia.com/wiki/index.php/The_Ballot_Initiative_Gazette"
Personal tools