CLT UPDATE
Friday, February 18, 2010
Initiative petition process under attack, sheesh again
| |
[State Sen. Stan Rosenberg, D-Amherst], who has
examined and proposed changes to the ballot initiative process in
the past, said he's also filing two bills to correct the problem of
fraudulent signature gathering and to make it less easily controlled
by out-of-state interests.
"We're concerned on the one hand about fraud in
the collection of signatures and in special interest groups largely
from out of state paying for and driving the process in the state,"
he said.
One bill [SD870] would prohibit paying signature
gatherers based on the number of signatures collected and prohibit
simultaneous circulation of petitions relating to multiple
initiatives, while also requiring state registration of paid
signature gatherers and restricting persons with criminal records of
forgery, identity theft, election fraud and sex offenders from paid
signature gathering.
Another measure [SD695] would seek a
constitutional change to bring the number of required signatures
more in line with the requirement of other states.
"We're still way out of line with the rest of the
country," said Rosenberg, because it's based on the number of
participating voters, which has largely declined.
The current 1950 standard for placing a question
on the ballot requires 3 percent of ballots cast in the governor's
race in the previous election. For the upcoming 2012 election, only
68,640 signatures will be required.
Rosenberg's bill would create a two-tiered
threshold for signatures: requiring the number of signatures equal
to 7 percent of voters in the previous gubernatorial election in the
case of a question to change state law, or equal to 4.5 percent in
the case of ballot questions seeking the more complicated process of
a change in the state constitution.
After grassroots groups had to spend about $11
million to fight 2010 questions at the polls seeking to cut taxes,
Rosenberg said, they have joined a coalition seeking to raise the
bar for placing initiatives on the ballot.
The Daily Hampshire Gazette
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Rosenberg backs graduated income tax;
legalizing marijuana for medical use
Referendums
Trademark of the Stanley Steamer
1897-1924
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The
Stanley Steamer is firing up his boiler again; rolling out on
his latest assault on the initiative referendum process. State Sen.
Stan Rosenberg (D-People's Republic of Amherst) really does detest
direct democracy. He won't cool his motor until he crushes it
or his tires go flat trying.
As the Boston Herald opined during one of his
past failed assaults ("Ballot
questions targeted," Apr. 10, 2003): "Direct democracy would be
an endangered species in Massachusetts if state Sen. Stan Rosenberg
(D-Amherst) gets his way and gains support for his proposals to gut
the initiative petition process."
Eagle-Tribune columnist Taylor Armerding back
then wrote ("Voters
too wise to fall for this bill," Jan 5, 2003):
You
probably didn't realize it, but one of the first things you need in
the year 2003 is to be saved from yourself. But that, you see, is
because you are vulnerable to manipulation.
This favor comes courtesy of state Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg,
D-Amherst, yet another in a long line of selfless legislators
willing to put themselves on the line, to stand up, to fight for us,
the hapless, helpless, clueless average voters of Massachusetts.
Rosenberg has filed a bill that would make it much more difficult to
file citizens' initiative petitions to create or amend laws. Instead
of requiring 72,000 certified signatures of registered voters to put
a question on the ballot, his bill would require 100,000 -- nearly
50 percent more. . . .
CLT and others citizens' groups on both sides of the political
spectrum leaped into action (CLT's
Save Democracy Project)
That defeat didn't put the brakes on The Steamer
and his cohorts.
They were back two years later with another
assault (CLT Update, Jul. 19, 2005 - "Execution
of the I&R steamrolls on").
The Boston Herald editorial of Jul. 19, 2005 ("Sign
of the times: Bill overreaches") opined:
If
you can't beat 'em, just change the rules.
That appears to be the message behind a movement on Beacon Hill that
would make it more difficult to pass laws or amend the state
Constitution through the ballot....
Never mind that groups already have to tie themselves practically in
knots to get approval for a question to appear on the ballot in
Massachusetts....
Supporters say the changes are meant to root out fraud, citing
examples of solicitors misleading voters about their cause to boost
their signature count.
But you shouldn't monkey with the entire system to combat isolated
cases of cheating.
In the CLT Update of Jul. 21, 2005 ("We
actually won one!"), Barbara wrote:
I
couldn't wait to tell you -- we actually won one! The Election Laws
Committee is not going forward with the bill to kill the initiative
petition process. It didn't get to the Senate floor yesterday for a
vote, and we were told that it will stay in third reading until the
fall -- when we expect it will continue to languish, since it will
be too late to damage the fall petition drives.
As we publicly charged, the intent of the bill was to just make it
harder for "defense of marriage" folks to get their signatures: I
suspect some proponents had no idea what they were getting into.
After we sounded the alarm, petition advocates from left to right
were objecting -- even John Businger, the liberal former state rep
from Brookline, came out of political retirement to argue against
restoring the jurat, which he had removed when he was House Election
Laws chairman in 1985. We are also grateful to Secretary of State
Bill Galvin for his strong opposition. Thanks to everyone who called
their legislators, and those groups who have been organizing their
own members.
They were back again last year, still trying to
drive a stake through the heart of direct democracy with a vengeance
(CLT Update: Jul. 28, 2010 -
Initiative Petition Process Under Attack). Barbara wrote:
However, Senate Bill 23, sponsored by Senator Cynthia Creem
(D-Newton), and its equivalent, House Bill 3537, sponsored by Reps.
Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge) and Byron Rushing (D-Boston), would add the
following prohibited subjects: “The rights to freedom and equality;
the right of each individual to be protected by society in the
enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing
laws.”
If approved, this broad, undefined language would guarantee that
virtually no initiative petition could pass muster, since all laws
or public policy proposals have some impact on life, liberty or
property. . . .
CLT and its allies routed the heathens at the
barricades once again, but Stanley and his mob are back again for
yet another assault, his lust to crush democracy undiminished.
"After grassroots groups had to spend about $11
million to fight 2010 questions at the polls seeking to cut taxes,"
the Hampshire Gazette reported, "Rosenberg said, they have joined a
coalition seeking to raise the bar for placing initiatives on the
ballot."
Time out, Stanley: What "grassroots groups"
had to spend that money?
Let's take a look at his latest Big Lie. Let's
look at Question 3 on last year's ballot, the proposal to reduce the
state income tax from its recently hiked 6.25 percent down to 3
percent. How'd that work, Stanley?
According to the Secretary of State's Elections
Division, here is the amount raised by the proponents and opponents:
Proponents: Alliance to Roll Back Taxes
$263,838.66
Opponents: Mass. Coalition for our Communities
$5,673,178.18
According to
BallotPedia.org, the largest contributors opposing the 2010
sales tax cut ballot question (Question 3) were:
|
National Education Association |
$1,325,000 |
|
Massachusetts Teachers Association |
$1,062,000 |
|
Service Employees International Union |
$888,000 |
|
American Federation of Teachers -
Massachusetts |
$704,000 |
|
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees |
$200,000 |
|
Boston Teachers Union |
$150,000 |
|
Mass. Nurses Association |
$104,000 |
"After grassroots groups had to spend about
$11 million to fight 2010 questions at the polls seeking to cut
taxes, Rosenberg said, they have joined a coalition seeking to raise
the bar for placing initiatives on the ballot."
"Grassroot groups" indeed! What hogwash.
Almost eight years ago, on Apr. 13, 2003 the
Eagle-Tribune editorial ("A
wolf in sheep's clothing") stated:
State Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, says
his bill to "reform" the initiative petition process is not an
attempt to kill it. He says if he wanted to destroy the ability of
average voters to pass laws, he would have filed a bill to do
exactly that.
Don't believe it. Legislators rarely do things directly. It is much
safer, and usually more successful, to do it indirectly.
Rosenberg is indeed trying to kill the only avenue to direct
democracy in Massachusetts. He is just trying to kill it softly. He
is hoping that, just like the frog in the cook pot, voters won't
notice the heat gradually increasing on their already limited powers
until it is too late and those powers are boiled out of
existence....
It is not that Rosenberg has a problem with
manipulating public opinion. He just wants himself and his
colleagues to be the ones doing it.
The more things change, the more they remain the
same. It looks like Sen. Stan Rosenberg has saved the Eagle-Tribune
and others the effort of writing another editorial.
 |
1908 Stanley
Steamer Gentleman's Speedy Roadster
"In 1897 the Stanleys had a small, chain drive
steamer running
around the
streets of Newton."
Newton -- that figures! |
As if yet another assault on the I&R process
isn't retro enough, Stanley's back with another attack on taxpayers,
pushing another graduated income tax constitutional amendment. Never
mind that it's been defeated on the ballot six time over the past
three decades -- the very reason for CLT to be founded in 1974.
"NO, NO, a thousand times NO!" just isn't good enough for Sen.
Stanley Rosenberg.
Bill S00018
By Mr. Rosenberg, petition (accompanied by proposal, Senate, No. 18)
of Stanley Rosenberg, Peter V. Kocot, Patricia Jehlen and other
members of the General Court proposal for a legislative amendment to
the Constitution to allow for a graduated income tax. Revenue.
Sponsors: Stanley Rosenberg
Petitioners: Stanley Rosenberg, Peter V. Kocot, Patricia Jehlen,
Elizabeth A. Malia, Sonia Chang-Diaz, Alice K. Wolf, Jonathan Hecht,
David B. Sullivan, Jason M. Lewis, Daniel Wolf, James Eldridge, Jay
Kaufman
SECTION 1: Article XLIV of the Amendments to the Constitution is
hereby amended by striking out the second and third sentences
and inserting in place thereof the following:- “In order that
the burden of such a tax is fairly and equitably distributed,
such tax shall be levied at graduated rates, so that higher
rates are imposed on taxpayers in higher income brackets and
lower rates on those in lower income brackets. The general court
may grant reasonable exemptions and abatements and establish the
number and range of brackets.”
http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/BillText/14234?generalCourtId=1
Bill History:
1/21/2011 - Senate Bill Filed.
1/24/2011 - Senate Referred to Joint Committee on Revenue.
1/24/2011 - Senate House concurs.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00018
We'll have more to say about this in the days
ahead, but we citizens and taxpayers have our work cut out for us in
the coming year -- and it's only February. Get ready to again mount
up and ride into battle, folks.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
The Daily Hampshire Gazette
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Rosenberg backs graduated income tax;
legalizing marijuana for medical use
By Richie Davis
AMHERST - State Sen. Stanley Rosenberg wants to tax the rich more in
Massachusetts.
He's proposing an amendment to the state constitution that would
allow Massachusetts to have a graduated income tax.
He also plans to file legislation to legalize marijuana in the state
for medical purposes, and to return the ballot initiative process to
one he says would be closer to its origins "as a grassroots,
volunteer-driven endeavor."
Rosenberg said replacing the state's flat income tax rate to one
more like the federal approach, requiring higher income earners to
pay a greater share of the burden, "is not about punishing the
wealthy. This is about finding reasonable ways to finance a
compassionate, civilized and just society, something I think
benefits everyone."
It's been about 20 years since the flat tax, which is written into
the state constitution, has come up for a vote.
Gov. Deval Patrick has said he favors a graduated income tax, and
last fall, a State House New Service poll showed that about 57
percent of 400 voters surveyed favored a graduated tax, while 34
percent opposed such a system and 9 percent were undecided. The
proposal was favored by 62 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of
independents while being opposed by 52 percent of Republicans.
"It's time we had a serious discussion about how we pay for the
education of our young people, for the care of our eldest and most
vulnerable citizens, and for all the other services the citizens of
our commonwealth want and are entitled to," Rosenberg said.
If a Constitutional Convention approved of an amendment in the next
two consecutive sessions, Rosenberg said, voters could decide on a
change as early as the 2014 ballot.
There's been an effort three or four times over the past 60 years to
remove the constitutional prohibition against a graduated tax,
Rosenberg said, "but each time it's failed because of an active
campaign designed to scare people about losing their jobs because
companies would flee Massachusetts, so you end up with people voting
against their own interests."
He said the time for a graduated income tax has come.
"There's growing income inequality, and both lower-income workers
and middle-income workers have seen their earning capacity and
take-home pay stagnated, with a growing number of millionaires and
zillionaires gaining enormous income and shares of wealth, without
adding new wealth to the economy."
Medical marijuana
Rosenberg is also filing a bill, modeled after legislation approved
in the past couple of years in Maine and Rhode Island, that would
legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
The bill is designed to protect patients with debilitating medical
conditions, as well as their designated caregivers, from arrest and
prosecution, criminal and other penalties, and property forfeiture
if they use medicinal marijuana. It's also designed to create "a
responsible system" for providing it to patients diagnosed by a
licensed physician as having such conditions as: cancer, glaucoma,
AIDS, hepatitis C, post traumatic stress disorder as well as other
specific debilitating conditions.
"This is an issue that requires serious, thoughtful discussion,"
Rosenberg said. "Marijuana has been shown to alleviate some of the
worst symptoms of some of the worst diseases imaginable. I think the
reasonable, compassionate thing to do is to give patients and their
doctors this option."
As discussion of a bill progresses in Massachusetts, he said,
legislators can apply lessons learned in neighboring Maine and Rhode
Island.
Referendums
Rosenberg, who has examined and proposed changes to the ballot
initiative process in the past, said he's also filing two bills to
correct the problem of fraudulent signature gathering and to make it
less easily controlled by out-of-state interests.
"We're concerned on the one hand about fraud in the collection of
signatures and in special interest groups largely from out of state
paying for and driving the process in the state," he said.
One bill would prohibit paying signature gatherers based on the
number of signatures collected and prohibit simultaneous circulation
of petitions relating to multiple initiatives, while also requiring
state registration of paid signature gatherers and restricting
persons with criminal records of forgery, identity theft, election
fraud and sex offenders from paid signature gathering.
Another measure would seek a constitutional change to bring the
number of required signatures more in line with the requirement of
other states.
"We're still way out of line with the rest of the country," said
Rosenberg, because it's based on the number of participating voters,
which has largely declined.
The current 1950 standard for placing a question on the ballot
requires 3 percent of ballots cast in the governor's race in the
previous election. For the upcoming 2012 election, only 68,640
signatures will be required.
Rosenberg's bill would create a two-tiered threshold for signatures:
requiring the number of signatures equal to 7 percent of voters in
the previous gubernatorial election in the case of a question to
change state law, or equal to 4.5 percent in the case of ballot
questions seeking the more complicated process of a change in the
state constitution.
After grassroots groups had to spend about $11 million to fight 2010
questions at the polls seeking to cut taxes, Rosenberg said, they
have joined a coalition seeking to raise the bar for placing
initiatives on the ballot.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, April 13,
2003
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
A wolf in sheep's clothing
OUR VIEW
Don't believe it.
State Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, says his bill to
"reform" the initiative petition process is not an attempt to kill
it. He says if he wanted to destroy the ability of average voters to
pass laws, he would have filed a bill to do exactly that.
Don't believe it. Legislators rarely do things directly. It is much
safer, and usually more successful, to do it indirectly.
Rosenberg is indeed trying to kill the only avenue to direct
democracy in Massachusetts. He is just trying to kill it softly. He
is hoping that, just like the frog in the cook pot, voters won't
notice the heat gradually increasing on their already limited powers
until it is too late and those powers are boiled out of existence.
Rosenberg's bill, Senate 362, which came before the Legislature's
Committee on Election Laws this past week, would increase the number
of signatures necessary to put a question on the ballot by at least
50 percent -- almost 100 percent in the case of a constitutional
amendment. It would also give local elected officials a much greater
voice on ballot question summaries, again giving more power to
government to control information about those questions.
This, Rosenberg says, is necessary because the initiative process is
out of control.
Not really. It's more that it is out of *his* control. He and other
legislators can't stand the thought of their constituents actually
ordering them to do something that they would rather ignore. Their
flagrant disregard of the express will of the voters in the Clean
Elections referendum is evidence enough of that.
This bill, the senator says, is necessary because the process is
being increasingly controlled by powerful special-interest groups
who have learned how to "game the system."
If that is true, this bill will make that problem even worse. The
reality is that the initiative petition is about the only thing that
can trump special interests. If the barriers to petitions are raised
even higher, only powerful and wealthy special interests will be
able to marshal the forces to collect enough signatures to put
something on the ballot. Smaller, grass-roots groups will be
disenfranchised.
And if, as Rosenberg says, voters are being manipulated by those
powerful special interests, his next move should be to shut down
town meetings, elections, legislative hearings and any other
elements of participatory democracy. As the senator should know,
they are all subject to interest groups, large and small, who have
learned how to game the system.
Every political campaign is an effort to control information, to
reduce complicated issues to simple slogans -- in short, to
manipulate public opinion.
It is not that Rosenberg has a problem with manipulating public
opinion. He just wants himself and his colleagues to be the ones
doing it.
Citizens, don't let it happen. Call your legislators and tell them
to kill this bill before it silences one of the last voices you have
remaining.
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|
