Edited by Al Ortiz

While the 2012 ballot measure count remained unchanged this week following the last report’s increase, the issue of taxes has started to take over news developments across the country.

Washington lawmakers are currently considering a 2012 measure that would implement a temporary, half-cent sales tax increase in the state. It is estimated that it would raise $500 million a year, which would be used to restore cuts made in the proposed budget; including K-12, higher education, health care, prisons, and social programs.^[1]

The temporary tax increase is being proposed by Gov. Chris Gregoire in efforts to close the $2 billion budget shortfall. According to news reports, the governor is aiming for a March 13, 2012 special election date. This would require a decision by the legislature by December 30, 2011.

A sales tax increase, based on the state’s history, is a rare occurrence. If approved, the sales tax increase would mark the first sales tax increase in the State of Washington in 28 years. Additionally, Washington would be tied with five other states for the second-highest state sales tax (7 percent) according to the Washington Department of Revenue.

In efforts similar to that of his Washington counterpart, California Governor Jerry Brown is also planning to introduce a tax hike, but not with the state legislature. Instead, Brown has stated his intentions to propose the measure via the state citizens’ initiative process.

Brown’s proposal, revealed on December 4, would raise income taxes by 1% to 2% for state residents who make $250,000 or more, as well as increase the state sales tax by a half-cent for the next five years. The intentions behind Brown’s proposal are to use the generated revenue to fund public education and assist local prisons in housing more inmates.^[2]

The initiative has not yet been filed with the California Attorney General.

Last week, it was reported that the first Massachusetts filing deadline passed on November 23, marking the first encounter of many obstacles supporters face in the state’s initiative process. Although it was initially reported by state newspapers that three measures were planning to file signatures, the final outcome revealed that four proposals submitted signatures to local registrars that day.

The four measures include the “death with dignity” initiative, the proposal to require car manufacturers to give non-proprietary diagnostic directly to consumers to repair their cars, the initiative to create a new teacher evaluation process and the medical marijuana initiative.

The initiative process in the state of Massachusetts is among the most complicated in the country, leaving only a handful in recent years to go through the entire process. Read more about this process here.

Staying in New England, a proposal in the Maine Legislature concerning voter identification is now beginning to turn heads among state lawmaking officials. The measure would mandate that identification be shown before residents vote in an election. The bill was introduced in the state legislature during the 2011 state legislative session, and was carried over to the 2012 state legislative session. The bill’s formal title is LD 199.

The measure is similar to the November 2011 voter-approved Mississippi Initiative 27. That measure passed with 62% of the vote.

Quick hits

• Michigan up in smoke: A local 2011 marijuana measure in the city of Kalamazoo may spur a similar statewide ballot measure in 2012. A Kalamazoo attorney who helped write the local ballot measure stated that the success of the proposal could lead to more initiatives at a state level.^[3]

• New Minnesota marriage poll: A new poll conducted in early November shows a tighter race between supporters and opponents of the 2012 same-gender marriage proposal in the state. See results of the poll here.

• Gambling that doesn’t sleep? A new gambling amendment has been proposed in the state of New York by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The measure would be placed on the 2013 state ballot, and would propose allowing casino gambling statewide.

• Initiative filings climbing: As of December 1, there have been a total of 388 initiatives filed for the 2012 ballot across the country. This is 40 initiatives more than the last time Ballotpedia counted the number of filings.

SPOTLIGHT:Two November Boulder measures totaled $1 million in campaign contributions
On November 1, residents in the city of Boulder voted whether or not the city should create its own utility company as well as increase the current electricity rate in order to pay for that proposed utility. Both measures were approved by voters, allowing the city to move ahead with its plans. Final finance reports, which election law requires to be filed 30 days after the vote, show that a total of $1,073,828 was spent both in favor and against the two measures. Xcel Energy, the energy provider for the city, spent a total of $960,689 in opposition to municipalization of energy by the city, while other opponents added $6,379 to the campaign. Opponents spent far more than proponents of the measure, with just $106,760 spent to promote the two measures. A spokesman for Xcel Energy issued a statement that they did not see their money as wasted, even though they ultimately lost, and that the close election results show there was not a strong feeling for the two measures. Proponents stated that while they were outspent they were still able to reach residents at the community level and got their message across without the large budget. The County Clerk noted that this election was the most expensive in Boulder’s history, but that with those two measures, it was a surprise that the totals were not higher.^[4]

From 2004 through 2010, over $1.8 billion was donated to the 84 ballot propositions on the California ballot. Click to find out!

BALLOT LAW UPDATE

Washington State Liquor Privatization: Two labor unions, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters, are challenging Washington’s recently passed liquor privatization initiative. Beside privatizing liquor sales, the unions note that the measure also changes regulations on wine distribution, liquor franchises, and alcohol advertising. This, they argue, violates the state’s single-subject rule. They also argue that these changes were designed to benefit the chief backer of the measure, Costco. About 1,000 union workers are expected to lose their current jobs under the plan.^[5]

• The press release for the lawsuit can be found here.

Oregon Pension Ruling Lawsuit: An Oregon attorney, Daniel C. Re, is challenging two State Supreme Court rulings on state pensions. One of the rulings threw out a 1994 initiative that put limits on public pensions. The second held that state lawmakers may not cut benefits already promised to state employees. Re contends that, as future pension recipients, the Supreme Court justices have an unacceptable conflict of interest. Although nearly all justices are required to participate in the plan, judges who begin their career after the age of 70 are not required to join. Although court originally decided to hear the case out necessity, Re argues that older judges should have been appointed.^[6]

• See decision in Oregon State Police Officers’ Association v. State of Oregon (1996)

• See decision in Strunk v. Public Employee Retirement Board (2006)

A new update will be released tomorrow. Click here for past Ballot Law Update reports!

By Al Ortiz

DENVER, Colorado: Colorado faces one ballot question tomorrow, but it all started on May 16, 2011.

On that day, Colorado State Senator Rollie Heath, a candidate for the Governor of Colorado in 2002, introduced the final details of his proposed sales and income tax increase for education funding. The initiated state statute was then circulated, gathering enough signatures to be placed on the 2011 ballot as Proposition 103.^[1]

The measure would increase the state income and sales tax. Specifically, it would increase the state income tax to 5 percent and the sales tax to 3 percent. Currently, the income tax is 4.63 percent and the sales tax is 2.9 percent. It is estimated that the measure would generate about $3 billion, according to reports.

Heath said at that time: “Doing nothing in the face of these horrible budget cuts is just not an option.”

Now, with the statewide election set to take place on the first day of November, it has become clear that for as much support Heath has gathered, there is also strong opposition.

Sides have been clashing since Heath unveiled his tax increase, with notable supporters and opponents surfacing to give their opinions on what impacts the measure could or could not have.

Supporters

Alongside Heath are a slew of supporters including the Colorado Education Association, The Colorado Association of School Boards, The Colorado Association of School Executives and The Colorado Commission on Higher Education

A main argument from supporters is that an increase in state taxes will not hurt the state economy, but instead point to potential cutbacks in education should the tax increase not be approved. Heath emphasized this by saying the measure would “hopefully keep schools open, keep teachers on the job, keep librarians in place, allow for all the extra curricular activities, provide computers for kids. We’ve taken out over 500 million dollars the last two years, this would help replace that.”

When the Colorado Education Association came out to endorse the measure, after initial silence, CEA president Beverly Ingle said in a statement: “We’re greatly encouraged to see that so many voters share our view that great economies start with great education. This wonderful coalition of concerned civic groups, businesses and families is tired of hearing that student growth isn’t a budget priority. We stand with them to remind all Coloradans that the education of our children is the state’s most pressing obligation and most critical investment.”^[2]

Opponents

Opponents of the proposed tax increase argue that although the tax may generate an estimated $3 billion in new taxes, it will cost the state 119,000 jobs after five years. Additionally, opponents argue that despite budget cuts, education is not in need of the additional revenue that may generated by the proposed measure. “K-12 is not lacking funding. K-12 is lacking structural reform,” said former state Rep. Victor Mitchell, who is heading Save Colorado Jobs, a group in opposition of the proposal.

Among those who stand in opposition to the measure include the newly formed Compass Colorado, the Colorado Progressive Coalition, State Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp and Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute.

Caldara stated: “It is difficult to get something on the ballot purely with volunteers, especially something like this. It’s easier to get something on the ballot like abortion and gun control, something very easy to understand. This one’s not quite as easy.”^[3][4]

Quick hits

• Supporters were required to collected at least 85,853 signatures from registered state voters by the August 1, 2011 petition drive deadline in order for the measure to make the ballot.

• On the day of the deadline, Heath and supporters submitted 142,160 signatures, more than the 86,105 valid signatures needed to place the measure on the ballot.

• Opponents filed a complaint with the secretary of state’s office stating that a signature gatherer for the initiative broke the law with “false and misleading statements” about the measure. No action was taken.

• Because of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, any tax increase in the state must be approved by voters.

Will history repeat itself?

Since 2000, there have been 5 measures on the Colorado ballot dealing with increasing taxes in some form. The following is how those measures fared when voters flocked to the polls to decide their fate:

Year	Measure	Impact	Result
2003	Amendment 32	Would have increased taxable portion of residential property	d
2004	Amendment 35	Proposed to increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by 64 cents	a
2006	Referendum H	Would increase state business income taxes owed by some businesses.	a
2008	Amendment 51	Proposed to increase state sales tax to fund services for developmentally disabled	d
2008	Amendment 52	Would have increased severance tax, create the Colorado Transportation Trust Fund	d

• Average margin for defeated measures: About 35.7%
• Average margin for approved measures: About 12.4%

How will you vote?

The following is the ballot language of the measure, provided by the Colorado Secretary of State:

State taxes shall be increased $536.1 million annually in the first full fiscal year and by such amounts as are raised annually thereafter by amendments to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a temporary increase in certain state taxes for additional public education funding, and, in connection therewith, increasing the rate of the state income tax imposed on all taxpayers from 4.63% to 5% for the 2012 through 2016 income tax years; increasing the rate of the state sales and use tax from 2.9% to 3% for a period of five years commencing on January 1, 2012; requiring that the additional revenues resulting from these increased tax rates be spent only to fund public education from preschool through twelfth grade and public postsecondary education; specifying that the appropriation of the additional tax revenues be in addition to and not substituted for moneys otherwise appropriated for public education from preschool through twelfth grade and public postsecondary education for the 2011-12 fiscal year; and allowing the additional tax revenues to be collected, kept, and spent notwithstanding any limitations provided by law.^[5]

By Al Ortiz

LOUISIANA and MAINE, United States: This week’s Ballot Measure Breakdown magnifies yet another state that did not have any measures on the ballot in 2009. The previous breakdown featured the states of Arkansas and Colorado, both with empty ballots for ballot measures two years ago. Now, we magnify the next two alphabetically-ordered states: Louisiana, absent of ballot measures in 2009, and Maine.

Both states have measures on the ballot that garnered much attention, with issues such as taxes, gambling and redistricting daring voters to make a decision.

Breakdown of 2011 ballot measures: Louisiana and Maine

While all measures in Louisiana are legislative referrals, Maine, an initiative and referendum state, will see three citizen initiatives out of four ballot proposals.

Overview

Magnifying the states

Louisiana

The election for five out of the six measures on the ballot in Louisiana is coming fast. The election is set for October 22, 2011, where residents will have a chance to vote on three state budget measures, one health care proposal and one tax question.

Amendment 1 would redirect Tobacco Settlement Proceeds to the TOPS (Taylor Opportunity Program for Students) scholarship program once the balance in the Millennium Trust reaches $1.38 billion. Amendment 2 would allow for a minimum of 10% of nonrecurring revenue to be applied toward the state retirement systems. The lone health care measure, Amendment 3, would authorize the Louisiana Legislature to establish a private custodial fund.

To read the last two measures that will be on the October ballot, click here.

Jumping to the November 19 statewide election, voters will get to decide on one constitutional amendment. Amendment 1 would prohibit levying new taxes or fees upon the sale or transfer of immovable property.

The 2011 legislative session began April 25 and convened on June 23. Of the approximately 31 proposals, only the above six were certified for ballot access.^[1]

All six proposals are legislatively-referred constitutional amendments. If 2/3rds of the members of both houses of the Louisiana State Legislature vote in the affirmative, a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment can be placed on a statewide ballot.
Impacts of 2011 measures:

• Louisiana TOPS Scholarship Program, Amendment 1 (October 2011) – Article VII, Section 10.8 and more
• Louisiana Public Retirement System, Amendment 2 (October 2011) – Article VII, Section 10 (D)(2)(b)
• Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, Amendment 3 (October 2011) – Article XII, Section 16
• Louisiana Budget Stabilization Fund, Amendment 4 (October 2011) – Article VII, Section 10.3(C)(5)
• Louisiana Property Tax Sales, Amendment 5 (October 2011) – Article VII, Section 25A
• Louisiana Immovable Property Tax, Amendment 1 (2011) – Article VII, Section 2.3

Notable Quotes:

• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal stating support for October’s Amendment 1, dealing with the TOPS Scholarship Program:

“We have met with the Taylor Foundation over the last few weeks to discuss how we can continue to protect the program even during times of budget reductions. This amendment will be very important to protecting the future of the TOPS program because it constitutionally protects more TOPS dollars. Currently, about $15 million is protected through the TOPS Fund –and under this constitutional amendment – that will increase to about $58 million.”^[2]

• The News-Star’s editorial board stating opposition to October’s Amendment 1:

“The TOPS program is established in statute, and it is up to the Legislature to fund it each year. The governor opposed renewing the cigarette tax, calling it a tax increase. Funding for TOPS should be made available by the Legislature as money is available, and the Legislature should renew the cigarette tax statutorily and override a gubernatorial veto to maintain it.”^[3]

Looking ahead:

The Louisiana State Legislature is set to start legislative session on March 25, 2012, where legislative referrals can be placed on the 2012 ballot.

Maine

Maine voters are no strangers to seeing ballot measures in odd-numbered years. In the last decade, Maine saw ballot questions on each odd-numbered year’s ballot. More recently, the 2009 ballot was filled with 7 statewide proposals. In fact, Ballotpedia was even in the state two years ago reporting on the most notable 2009 measures.

Although 2011′s ballot is three questions smaller this time around, controversy continues to hover around the election. Two measures dealing with gambling have gained the most attention in the state, one relating to racinos, another regarding slot machines. Question 2 would allow a racino facility at a harness racing track in Biddeford and at a harness racing track in Washington County. Question 3 would allow a casino with table games and slot machines in Lewiston, Maine.

The other two questions on the ballot don’t exactly pale in comparison to the other two measures. Another controversial measure on the ballot, Question 1, was placed on the ballot by way of People’s Veto, a process in the state where voters decide on a piece of approved legislation by gathering signatures and placing it on the ballot. The measure would overturn a same-day election registration repeal signed by the governor on June 21, 2011. The veto effort was led by Engage Maine, which is directed by Ben Dudley, executive director. The law that the referendum is seeking to overturn is LD 1376.

Finally, Question 4 would would amend the Maine Constitution to change the years of redistricting the lawmaking body, congressional districts and county commissioner districts after 2013 from 2023 and every 10th years after that to 2021 and every 10th year after that.

Impacts of 2011 measures:

• Maine Same-Day Registration Veto Referendum, Question 1 (2011) – (Targeted law) LD 1376
• Maine Racino Initiative, Question 2 (2011) – MRSA §275-A, §1011, §1020
• Maine Slot Machine Facility Initiative, Question 3 (2011) – MRSA §1001, §1003, §1011 and more
• Maine Redistricting Measure, Question 4 (2011) – Maine Constitution (Sections not yet obtained)

Notable quotes:

• Edward McColl, the attorney for Scarborough Downs and for the Biddeford Downs project arguing for Question 2:

“I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that racinos have been a tremendous boon to harness racing everywhere they’ve been tried.”^[4]

• Dennis Bailey, president of the media relations firm Savvy Inc., and leader at the CasinosNO! advocacy group, writing his opposition against Question 2:

“…our major point still stands – now that the ballot question has been changed, voters will know that they are potentially voting for a racetrack casino in communities within 25 miles of Scarborough Downs, not just Biddeford. That’s important. What this episode really illustrates is that Maine now has such a confusing mishmash of laws and regulations regarding slot machines, casinos and racinos — most of them written by the proponents of these facilities — that it’s a wonder anyone really knows what we’re voting on. Our view is when in doubt, just say no.”^[5]

Looking ahead:

The following measure has been proposed for the Maine 2012 ballot:

• Maine Same-Sex Marriage Question (2012) – The measure would overturn a voter-approved 2009 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Next week’s Breakdown: Mississippi and New Jersey

Last week’s Breakdown: Arkansas and Colorado

August 2, 2011

Edited by Bailey Ludlam

The 2011 ballot measure count is beginning to snowball with a little over three months until the November 2011 elections. An initiative in Washington was added to the count this week, and if indications from various reports are correct, another certification could pop up soon in Colorado. For now, though, the measure count increases by one to 28 statewide questions in 7 states.

Initiative 1183 bumped the number of Washington certified measures from three to four. The initiative was certified by the Washington Secretary of State after enough signatures were deemed valid. The measure calls for closing state liquor stores and would allow state licensing of private parties. Privately owned stores would be required to have at least 10,000 square feet of retail space to sell and distribute liquor.

Although the proposed initiative is similar to a 2010 ballot measure effort – Initiative 1100, the 2011 proposal does include some differences. According to reports, the new initiative calls for a 17 percent fee from retailers on all liquor sales, as well as other fees from distributors.

The Colorado petition drive deadline of August 1 came and went, with only one initiative effort filing signatures. The initiative, a proposed tax increase measure introduced by a state lawmaker, was the only measure eligible for the 2011 ballot. When contacted on July 27, the Colorado Secretary of State‘s office stated that Senator Rollie Heath verbally committed to submitting signatures for the proposal by the August 1 deadline. Heath didn’t disappoint.

On the day of the deadline, Heath and supporters submitted 142,160 signatures, more than the 86,105 valid signatures needed to place the measure on the ballot. The Secretary of State must now check signatures in order to deem the initiative qualified for ballot access. The measure would increase the state income and sales tax. Specifically, it would increase the income tax to 5 percent (currently 4.63 percent) and the sales tax to 3 percent (currently 2.9 percent). The measure is expected to make the ballot, according to reports.

The 2011 ballot measure count could have taken a hit this past week, due to an ongoing lawsuit in Mississippi. However, the eminent domain measure was cleared for a vote on July 29, 2011 when Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Winston Kidd ruled that the initiative could stay on the ballot.

Kidd ruled that the initiative did not conflict with the Mississippi Constitution‘s Bill of Rights. According to Governor of Mississippi Haley Barbour, who is against eminent domain restrictions, the ruling could be appealed in the Mississippi Supreme Court.

The lawsuit was filed on June 5, 2011 against the Mississippi Secretary of State‘s office by Leland Speed, a Mississippi businessman who is the leader of the Mississippi Development Authority. However, Speed stated that he filed the lawsuit as a private citizen.

According to Speed, “This initiative will hurt opportunities for thousands of Mississippians for better jobs and for better lives.” Specifically, the lawsuit challenged that the measure was unconstitutional. Speed argued that it attempted to amend the state’s Bill of Rights, which he said cannot be changed by initiative.

In 2012 news, the North Carolina Legislature is considering three proposed constitutional amendments for voters to decide on next year. The three amendments deal with the following: establishing term limits of legislators to two terms, eminent domain restrictions and reorganizing the State Board of Education. The legislature plans to meet in September 2011, where those amendments could be considered.^[1]

Section 4 of Article XIII of the North Carolina Constitution says that a legislatively-referred amendments can go on the ballot if approved by a 60% vote of each house of the legislature.

SPOTLIGHT: Local elections being today in Michigan, Missouri and Ohio
Three states – Michigan, Missouri and Ohio – are conducting local elections today, August 2.

Michigan has listed a total of 15 counties that have provided online information on their local elections. All of the issues being voted on are tax or bond questions, 31 total measures are listed. Of those, 7 are school bond or tax issues and the other 24 are city or county levy and bond issues.

At least one notable issue will appear on the ballot in Michigan – Troy City Library Levy Increase measure. Both opposition and support have come out strong during the length of the ballot measure; significantly opposition stated that closing the library would mean that they would be able to burn the books.

Missouri posted less information on their website about today’s local elections; only 7 counties have posted information. Six measures total will be voted on, 2 of those measures are school issues. The other measures include various tax issues and a sewer bond measure.

Ohio has a total 15 counties listed with online election information. Though fewer measures than Michigan, a total of 26 measures are listed on the ballots. Nineteen of them deal with school bond and tax issues. Many of the school measures are repeated tries by the different districts, hoping voters will change their minds and approve the different school projects. The remaining 7 measures deal with city and district property taxes and one rezoning question.

Results to these elections will be posted as soon as results are given by the counties!

Of citizen initiatives, what are the two political topics that will be found on the 2011 ballot in the state of Ohio? Click to find out!

BALLOT LAW UPDATE

A new Ballot Law Update will be released tomorrow. Here’s a preview…

Bill updates: On Monday, Governor Jerry Brown (D) vetoed the controversial SB 168. The bill was intended to curtail fraud by banning pay-per-signature. As evidence of the extent of initiative fraud, Secretary of State Debra Bowen testified that there were 33 convictions for petition fraud between 1994 and 2010. However, opponents of the bill have challenged these findings. The Citizens in Charge Foundation published a report which found that of the 19 records extant, five were not related to initiative petition fraud/forgery. In addition, CICF found that most of the convictions occurred in the 90s. Since 2001, there have only been 5 convictions for initiative petition fraud (not counting the 5 cases excluded by CICF).^[2]

Regardless of the debate on the merits of the bill, Gov. Brown may have had more practical motives for his veto. Some have speculated that Brown will back an initiated measure to increase taxes, a measure that could have become more expensive under Senate Bill 168.^[3]

Click here for the last Ballot Law Update report!

August 1, 2011

SALEM, Oregon: Bill Sizemore, an Oregon anti-tax activist and well-known ballot initiative activist, is facing three counts of tax evasion. In the grand jury indictment issued October 27, 2009 Sizemore and his wife, Cindy Sizemore, allegedly failed to file state tax returns for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008.^[1]

According to officials, Sizemore admitted under oath in a 2008 civil case that he hadn’t filed tax returns. Sizemore did not take advantage of the tax amnesty period, which ended November 19, according to the Oregon Justice Department. The period allows taxpayers to amend their returns without penalty.

On October 15, 2010 Cindy Sizemore pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion. She was ordered to serve 18 months of probation. Bill Sizemore, however, has pleaded not guilty to all counts.^[2]

The trial is schedule for August 9, 2011.^[3]

The charges carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a $125,000 fine.

August 2, 2011

DENVER, Colorado: When contacted by Ballotpedia on July 27, the Colorado Secretary of State‘s office stated that Senator Rollie Heath verbally committed to submitting signatures for his proposed tax increase initiative by the August 1 deadline. Heath didn’t disappoint.

On the day of the deadline, Heath and supporters submitted 142,160 signatures, more than the 86,105 valid signatures needed to place the measure on the ballot. The Secretary of State must now check signatures in order to deem the initiative worthy of ballot access.

The measure would increase the state income and sales tax. Specifically, it would increase the state income tax to 5 percent and the sales tax to 3 percent. Currently, the income tax is 4.63 percent and the sales tax is 2.9 percent.

According to Heath, “When people see what we’re doing to schools and classrooms, and closing schools and classrooms, and cutting back, they realize that this is reality and that education is economic development and jobs, and that we’re virtually last in the country for funding higher education and K-12, I’m hoping that people will understand that this cuts into the future, and regardless of how difficult the times, we need to invest in our kids”

However, opponents of the proposed ballot question, such as Jon Caldara, president of the libertarian Independence Institute, argue, “It is difficult to get something on the ballot purely with volunteers, especially something like this. It’s easier to get something on the ballot like abortion and gun control, something very easy to understand. This one’s not quite as easy.”^[1]

By Al Ortiz

DENVER, Colorado: Then there was one. The days before the petition drive deadline in Colorado are shrinking, and while 36 initiatives are listed on the Colorado Secretary of State‘s website, only one will be eligible for the 2011 ballot. Ballotpedia contacted the secretary‘s office, who stated that the tax increase initiative, proposed by State Senator Rollie Heath, was the only initiative eligible to submit signatures. The office also stated that supporters of the measure called in to state their intentions of filing petitions on the day of the deadline.

The measure would increase the state income and sales tax. Specifically, it would increase the state income tax to 5 percent and the sales tax to 3 percent. Currently, the income tax is 4.63 percent and the sales tax is 2.9 percent.

According to Heath, “When people see what we’re doing to schools and classrooms, and closing schools and classrooms, and cutting back, they realize that this is reality and that education is economic development and jobs, and that we’re virtually last in the country for funding higher education and K-12, I’m hoping that people will understand that this cuts into the future, and regardless of how difficult the times, we need to invest in our kids”

However, opponents of the proposed ballot question, such as Jon Caldara, president of the libertarian Independence Institute, argue, “It is difficult to get something on the ballot purely with volunteers, especially something like this. It’s easier to get something on the ballot like abortion and gun control, something very easy to understand. This one’s not quite as easy.”^[1]

SACRAMENTO, California: As budget negotiations drag on between Jerry Brown and the California State Legislature about a potential State Tax Hike Proposition for the June 7, 2011 ballot, the logistical and practical considerations involved in organizing an election mean that there is a drop-dead deadline past which it will be impossible to declare that an election will take place.

John Myers, Sacramento Bureau Chief for KQED’s The California Report, wrote on February 16: “The bottom line is that lawmakers can rejigger the process in a number of ways. But under any scenario, getting beyond March 11 is risky business.”^[1]

In election administration parlance, March 11 is “E-88″, or 88 days before the June 7, 2011.

Jerry Brown said earlier in the year that March 10 was his drop-dead deadline, but on March 9, he instead asked the California State Legislature to delay its vote on the proposal that would lead to the June 7 special election.^[2]

The extra time is needed to find a few Republicans in each chamber of the state legislature, the California State Senate and the California State Assembly, who will go along with Brown’s plan to put a tax hike on the June ballot. Democrats are two votes short of a two-thirds majority in the lower house and three votes short in the upper house.

The governor’s team is negotiating with five moderate Republican state senators, Tom Berryhill, Sam Blakeslee, Anthony Cannella, Bill Emmerson and Tom Harman.^[3]

What the Republicans are said to be likely to ask for, in return for their vote to put the tax hike proposal on the June ballot, are:

• Revisions to the pension system for public employees.^[3]
• A state spending cap.^[3]

DENVER, Colorado: The initiative effort to get a measure on the ballot that would implement a graduated corporate and individual income taxes in the state has taken it up a notch. On February 3, 2011, The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute filed six similar initiatives, deciding to move forward from their original filing that was thrown out on technicality in December 2010. According to the group’s director, Carol Hedges, “We feel pretty strongly that we have some pretty serious problems that we’re facing. We are interested in beginning the process of bringing something to the ballot in 2011.” The reason for the six different filings, according to reports, is so the group will have initiatives ready for circulation if some are thrown out by lawsuits or other reasons.^[1]

Prior to circulating initiative petitions for qualification for the statewide ballot, the measure’s title must be approved by the Title Setting Review Board. The Board’s responsibility is to certify that the initiative complies with the state’s initiative laws, including the single-subject requirement.

The Title Setting Review Board heard the measure on December 15, 2010, however the initiative was thrown out after a late change was made to the text.

By Eileen McGuire-Mahony

OMAHA, Nebraska: Mayor Jim Suttle just barely still has a job, and he says he gets the message, now.

75,000 people turned out, almost as many as cost ballots in the 2009 election that made Suttle the Mayor of Omaha. By 2.2%, the recall has failed, pending the February 5, 2011 certification of the vote. ^[1]

Late yesterday, the Democrat gave a preemptive victory speech when the final results of the night showed him to be ahead, uttering a politically classic phrase: “…we must begin a time of healing and reconciliation.” ^[2] Suttle’s inaccessibility to citizens and his perceived unwillingness to listen to input from concerned voters were big parts of the recall effort. Last fall, when his opponents were gathering petition signatures and when Suttle was trying to head off those efforts, the Mayor did admit on a radio interview that he had failed to listen to average Omahans and that his office needed to revamp its PR strategy.

However, the other part of the anger that came within points of ousting the Mayor is related to taxes. Only months after taking office, Suttle’s first budget demanded 15% more in property taxes from his citizens, this despite a campaign promise not to raise property taxes at all. Suttle argued that he had not understood the severity of Omaha’s fiscal shortfall when he made that promise, but it did little to soothe homeowners.

Suttle’s policies hit voters right in the wallet

Next came a 42% bump in the wheel tax on and a 2.5% increase in the tax on all restaurant meals and bar tabs. The latter ended up showing just what outraged eatery owners are capable of. Campaign finance reports showed the restaurant sector was a major donor to the recall committee. A key complaint members of the Omaha Restaurant Association made was that, in a spring 2010 meeting with Suttle, the Mayor had promised he would leverage a broader ‘entertainment tax’. When he instead announced a tax that fell only on restaurants, ORA members cried foul; Suttle maintained he had only promised to try for a wider tax and that business owners had misunderstood him.

The numerous tax increases made it easy for varying groups to get together behind shared grievances. They also gave rise to fears that Suttle would continue to add new taxes across sectors of the economy. The immediacy with which Suttle announced the news taxes also became a sticking point. Critics, some of whom were unwilling to go so far as backing the recall, still opined that the Mayor should have spent more time cutting spending and listening to proposals. Instead, he almost doubled salaries for some members of his private staff and leased an SUV for his personal use.

Suttle and his supporters referred to recall efforts as a “farce” and a “waste of time”, suggesting that voters should wait until the next election, in 2013, if they disliked their Mayor. They also played up the potential costs of a special election and the chance the Omaha might not necessarily get anyone better, while blaming the city’s deficit on Suttle’s predecessors. Omaha does have major financial woes; much does owe to years of overpromised benefits and neglecting infrastructure. The worst is a $620 million longterm shortfall in pension obligations to police and firefighters; taxpayers will pay $18 million in 2011 toward those pensions. After Suttle personally negotiated a deal with the police and fire unions, which was publicly seen as caving in to the unions and passing costs on to strapped citizens, the pension issue became part of the recall.

An unusual recall tests new waters

What recall supporters never had was any actual crime or single incident to justify the recall. Instead, the petition named broken campaign promises and poor performance. That made the recall a remarkable experiment in citizen driven political activities. Ultimately, the test to see if general dissatisfaction and low approval could pass muster with voters as a reason to oust an elected official failed. Still, voter unease at voting out Suttle without an actual high crime is probably the reason Suttle survived the recall. Approval ratings and voter surveys make it clear that Suttle has been low in citizens’ eyes for most of his tenure; recall advocates just weren’t able to convince enough of those people to vote for removing Suttle.

The Mayor is now legally protected from a second recall effort for one year and will likely finish his term. Some argue this means Suttle has cleared a major cloud that hung over him and has an opportunity to make a fresh start. Former Republican state chair David Kramer said, “the bottom line is: people said they wanted him to stay on as mayor.” If Suttle can shore up his approval ratings in his remaining time in office, he could become the comeback kid everyone loves. But not everyone is so sanguine. Political scientist Randy Adkins saw a different message in the results; “This is not any type of vindication for the mayor. This isn’t going to change his approval rating.”

Now what?

On election day, updates were released every 45 minutes starting after polls closed. For most of the night, Suttle was barely above water, having a microscopic two-vote edge at one point. The final tally included all 284 precincts and early votes but not the absentee ballots. At that point, Suttle was up by 1,652 and recall leaders conceded it was unlikely the remaining ballots would give them a win.^[3] If Suttle changes the tone of his governance, recall supporters might still count it as a partial win. Indeed, it does look like the Mayor will be newly accessible so long as the memory of the recall is fresh.

Taxation is a bigger problems; with laws passed and budgets approved, it would take a not insignificant effort to change that. And the enviable, fully packed pensions for police officers and fire fighters aren’t going anywhere without a fresh round of union negotiations. That labor leaders would make major concessions to save Suttle’s hopes of a second term is unlikely.

One thing that is certain is that two years is a long time both for Suttle to capitalize on his narrow victory and for his opponents to buttress their case against him.