SB 690 - Senator Wentworth
SB 690 would increase the number of signatures of citizens that would be required to place a charter amendment on the local ballot in home rule cities – from 5% to 10% of likely/registered voters. The full text of SB 690 can be found: http://tinyurl.com/cln9bu
Fortunately for me, I was preceded in giving my testimony by Brian Rodgers of Change Austin.org (http://changeaustin.org/Blog/ ) and Mr. Mike Ford - both eloquent and persuasive speakers - (Note for future blogs: I was able to use my mini voice recording device and could use some help to figure out how I can post recordings on the blog. Brian Rodgers creatively posts on his blog the Senate RealMedia Video Archives reference for this committee (http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive/):
"You democracy junkies might get some entertainment watching the actual testimony here (go to Intergovernmental Relations Committee, Part II, 56 minutes 12 seconds in to the tape). You’ll see Republican Roger Borgelt, Green parttime lobbyist Bill Stout, and a gal who came in from Bryan, Texas, to beg Wentworth not to make this more difficult for citizen activists there and in 345 other Home Rule cities.)"
In his testimony Brian Rodgers pointed out that the main reason this bill has surfaced is that the Real Estate lobby got their feathers twisted over last year's Domain Subsidies fight, a high-end shopping mall receiving $60 Million in tax break subsidies from the City of Austin, because of a citizen referendum to change the city charter, Proposition 2. Over 500 local businesses supported the referendum including the Travis County Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian Party and the Green Party, The referendum was beaten by a small margin, 48% to 52% because of a last minute $400,000 media blitz by the Mall owner and RECA (Real Estate Council of Austin - and supported by the Mayor by advertising "Keep your word Austin"; the Mayor is a noted friend of the chamber of commerce). The good news, Brian notes, was that because of this battle there have been a series of ordinances passed to increase transparency in the process.
In regards to the cost of an election being more if a citizen initiative is on the ballot, he pointed out that there is no additional net cost, just that the cost would be spread out over several government entities; if for example the city and the county both have an election at the same time the cost is shared, not added in addition to, because the same number of machines or ballots have to be used.
Mr. Rodgers also made the point that the 5% of signatures collected actually had to be much higher because in the vetting process some signatures are thrown out; so in reality it was more like 27,000 that had to be gathered instead of the 18,000 that was required - with the proposed increase to 10% the number of signatures would double!
In my testimony I read the quote from The City of Austin’s manual for petition review which states that the 10% requirement that exists today for some initiatives is virtually impossible to meet: "... it would be difficult for citizens to get enough signatures prior to the effective date of an ordinance to qualify for a referendum. Therefore, it is unlikely [the office of the city clerk] will ever receive a referendum petition.”
Senator Wentworth asked me a question that not only seemed like a curve-ball but his questioning in general sounded like he had not researched the bill himself: Referencing an past City of Austin initiative that was an amendment to the city charter which would, something to the effect to, require city council members and the mayor to report on-line their meetings and (lunch) expenditures within a short window of time, the Senator was wondering whether I knew about this referendum, but then shifted to his concern being that one wealthy individual would be able to finance a citizen referendum. In retrospect, I would have liked to have told him that by raising the bar to 10% you essentially are doing that - taking the process out of the hands of the 'grass-roots' and forcing the need for the services of a signature gathering company! Instead I suggested that in our present democratic process that the deck is already stacked in favor of those with money to spend on (elections) ballot initiatives - after which, Senator Patrick chimed in (in support against the bill) that he was less concerned about the financial origins of a citizen initiative but that he was concerned that additional barriers or impediments should not be put in place to make it more difficult to obtain signatures.
Brian Rodgers also noted that reaching the current 5% requirement has become more difficult since the S.O.S. Ordinance got 10% of the voting population's signatures: Many groups fail to collect enough signatures because private property owners refuse to allow petition gatherers on their property (liability reasons) and petitioners instead are limited to places like Congress Avenue or the hike-and-bike trails while public property managers will limit signature gatherers to parts of the property where there is no pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Mike Ford is 'a 77 year old citizen from Austin', speaking for himself he made the point that very few citizen initiatives have made it to the ballot because the requirements are already difficult, he estimated something like 2 in twenty years, and that it would be unfair to allow developers to continue to reap $100's of Millions of dollars in subsidies, the use of public money, while citizens find it harder if not impossible to exercise the little direct democracy they have available to them! Mike provides many excellent references on his website http://InitiativeforTexas.org/
Note the bi-partisan political coalition: Republicans, Independent Texans, Libertarians, Greens, other independents.
It is also pretty clear which organizations are not interested in citizen involvement in the democratic process; the list of witnesses was forwarded via e-mail as part of communications in which the coalition is drafting a resolution opposing any diminishment toward utilizing Ballot Access Initiatives:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/witlistmtg/html/C5202009031809301.HTM
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Solutions to ballot initiative problems have been generally agreed on and available for many decades. But legislators NEVER improve the process, only make it harder (not affecting the wealthy much) and trying to hobble it in various ways (this year, with AZ Prop. 105 and CO Ref. O, both wisely defeated by voters).
ReplyDeleteVoters on ballot initiatives need what legislators get: public hearings, expert testimony, amendments, reports, etc. The best project for such deliberative process is the National Initiative for Democracy, led by former Sen. Mike Gravel: http://Vote.org. Also http://healthydemocracyoregon.org/ and http://cirwa.org
In Switzerland, petitions are left at government offices and stores for people to read and sign at leisure, so there are less aggressive petitioners, more informed signers, and less $ required. The Swiss vote on initiatives 3-7 times a year so there's never too many on one ballot. Because they have real power (including national initiatives), the Swiss read more newspapers/capita than anyone else.
In Switzerland, representatives are humbler and more representative after centuries of local and cantonal (state) ballot initiatives, and national initiatives since 1891. They call their system "co-determination." This works for all relationships!