|
How NCs Can Change the Law |
|
|
Modest Proposal
By Greg Nelson
The City Charter provides two ways that voters can protect themselves against bad lawmaking, or no lawmaking at all.
One is the Referendum process that allows voters to sign petitions and force repeal of a newly-enacted policy or ordinance, such as, oh say, the ordinance that enacted the state’s SB 1818 density bonus bill.
The Initiative process allows voters to place on the ballot a new policy or ordinance, perhaps one that was too uncomfortable for the City Council to touch, to repeal an ordinance, or even to amend the City Charter.
The problem is that city’s process is so tough that no one can remember a time when it was used.
The number of signatures required is equal to a percentage of those who voted for mayor in the last election.
For an Initiative, the public needs to collect 73,963 valid signatures from city voters, but the kicker is that this must be done within just 120 days. And, of course, in order to ensure that there are enough valid signatures, circulators need to collect many extras.
For a Referendum, “only” 49,304 signatures are needed, but they must be collected within the 30 days after the ordinance has been published in a newspaper.
The reality is that only groups who can afford to hire paid circulators have a chance of practicing this kind of “grass-roots” democracy.
A solution that neighborhood councils should consider is forming a coalition with others who also feel that democracy should be available to everyone regardless of their wealth.
Some of the groups joining the coalition may be able to generate enough money to hire enough paid circulators to qualify for the ballot a measure that simply changes the requirements for placing an Initiative or Referendum on the city ballot.
Although members of the coalition may have different, and even conflicting, causes to ultimately pursue, they would be brought together by the common need to make it easier for their voices to be heard when the City Council won’t act, or acts so incorrectly that the voters need to make the decision for them.
Whether the requirements remain the same or are modified, there are some who still complain that legislating through citizen petition will still be dominated by those who can afford the paid circulators.
An outright ban on the use of paid professional circulators has not been attempted by any state of which I am aware, perhaps because legal experts have advised that it wouldn’t survive a legal challenge.
However, six states have banned circulators who are paid per signature.
Five states have seen federal district courts strike down their laws. In late 2006, a federal judge struck down Ohio’s law, but it is being appealed. A circuit court upheld North Dakota’s law, and Oregon’s law was upheld by a federal district judge.
Despite all legal uncertainty, Nebraska enacted such a ban over a veto by the governor this year.
Starting this year, Oregon requires paid circulators to take a government-administered training class first.
Interestingly, there are no state election laws that attempt to place restrictions on paid petition blockers, or those people who stand close to the people who are circulating petitions at fixed locations and attempt to dissuade, or are some may describe it, intimidate voters from signing petitions, even though such activity is prohibited at the polling place.
This is but one way though which neighborhood councils can pursue a populist crusade that will change the culture of city government. Each one only requires a single leader. (You can reach Greg Nelson at
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
) _
CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 33
Pub: Apr 22, 2008
|
