CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Rep. Provost's ballot assault condemned
|
Government by initiative petition isn’t our
favorite way of getting things done. But a proposal by a state
lawmaker that would make it more difficult for citizens to petition
for changes in state law is woefully misguided....
Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) wants to more
than double the required number of signatures to qualify a question
for the statewide ballot....
Provost is also concerned that the current system
favors moneyed interests, arguing that “a single well-funded
individual can basically purchase signatures.” But she seriously
underestimates the brains and savvy of Massachusetts voters — the
ones who actually cast ballots — if she thinks they can be bought by
the highest bidder....
The simple truth is that our lawmakers-for-life
bristle at anything that might loosen their grip on power, and
ballot questions give voters an opportunity to get around an
unresponsive Legislature.
Meanwhile the recent tax-cutting petitions have
struck fear in the hearts of tax-and-spend Democrats and their union
supporters, who naturally favor more restrictive ballot access
rules.
We may not always agree with the end result, but
all in all Massachusetts voters have handled the power that comes
with access to the ballot responsibly. Provost and other supporters
have said nothing to convince us otherwise.
A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, March 25, 2011
No ballot ‘fix’ needed
A proposed constitutional amendment before the
legislature's Election Laws Committee would more than double the
number of signatures required to put a ballot question before
voters.
That's angering the Marblehead activist who
successfully passed perhaps the state's best-known ballot initiative
— Proposition 2½.
"They don't want questions on the ballot,"
Barbara Anderson, the executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, said of state lawmakers. "They don't want any
of us doing their job for them." ...
Representatives from the Massachusetts Teachers
Association and the Service Employees International Union Local 509
— two unions that spoke in favor of the proposal at a hearing this
week — could not be reached for comment yesterday....
But other citizen groups, including Common Cause,
the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group and the
Massachusetts Family Institute, joined Citizens for Limited Taxation
at the Beacon Hill hearing to oppose the bill.
Anderson said she felt the bill had no momentum.
"I think we're making enough of a fuss about it
that they'll back off," said Anderson. "But we need the whole thing
to die."
The Salem News
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Bill could double signature requirement for ballot questions
"All that's necessary to expose what this latest
assault is really about is recognition of who is supporting the
attempted destruction of the initiative and referendum petition
process: The unions, particularly public employee unions."
— Chip Ford of Citizens for Limited
Taxation
The Salem News
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Quips & Quotes
Apparently, state Rep. Denise Provost,
D-Somerville, doesn’t like the idea of state voters getting
carried away with their right to express themselves at the
ballot box....
It looks like a simple slam against
democracy. You can’t have voters deciding too much after all,
she seems to think....
It’s a bad idea and there is no valid reason
for changing it, despite Provost’s weak theory of state
“equality.”
It’s not as if the ballot is clogged with
referendum questions. In the statewide election in November
2010, there were just three questions on the ballot, along with
local questions in some cities or towns.
In November 2008, it was the same – just
three questions.
Does Provost not want voters “asking” any
questions at all?
We think voters should have more control over
the ballot and their lives, not less. There is no reason to mess
with the state Constitution to change the standard for ballot
initiatives.
If you disagree, keep this in mind:
Proposition 2½, which limits property tax increases, barely made
it to the 3 percent standard in 1980. If that question didn’t
get on the ballot – and pass overwhelmingly – we wouldn’t be
able to count the number of people property-taxed out of their
homes.
Go back to the Statehouse, Rep. Provost, and
come up with something else to benefit the people of
Massachusetts – and be wary the next time your name is on the
ballot.
A Brockton Enterprise editorial
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Let the voters control the ballot
Of all the misguided and laughable proposals
for “reforming” the political process in Massachusetts, we think
Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) has taken the cake with her
bill to more than double the number of signatures needed to put
a question on the ballot....
This past fall, for example, a question that
would have dramatically slashed the state’s income tax rate was
soundly rejected.
Moreover, even when voters do speak clearly
on behalf of cutting taxes, they are hardly unreasonable about
it.
Also on November’s ballot was a question
seeking repeal of the new tax on alcohol. It passed narrowly.
Finally, why should the Legislature set the
bar higher when it already refuses to enact the will of the
people — such as their demand that the “temporary” income tax
hike be returned to 5 percent? The Legislature sure has taken
its sweet time on that — 22 years and counting.
It seems to us that it’s just about as hard
as it should be to get a question on the state ballot. Forcing
citizens to find thousands more to sign their petitions would
frustrate political participation — exactly the opposite of what
Massachusetts needs.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Monday, March 28, 2011
Ballot blockade
No further signatures needed
In a legislature filled with those who acted
only in the best interests of their constituents, there would be
no need for the initiative process. But the General Court of
Massachusetts is far from that perfect representative body,
which is why voters should still have recourse to the ballot
when they wish to change things.
The current process allowed for passage of
Proposition 2½ some three decades ago, and we shudder to think
what property taxes might look like today had voters not imposed
that restriction on cities and towns....
Yet, for some, including apparently the
leadership of the public-sector unions, the voters are not to be
trusted. Which is why they've come out in support of a measure
introduced by state Rep. Denise Provost, D-Somerville, that
would more than double the number of signatures required to get
a matter on the statewide ballot....
Opponents of the bill range from Common Cause
to Citizens for Limited Taxation. Supporters include the
Massachusetts Teachers Association and Service Employees
International Union.
Marblehead's Barbara Anderson, CLT's
executive director, says the proposed higher signature threshold
would make it very difficult for citizen activists to get their
ideas before the voters. "It would be impossible to do unless
you had a lot of money and could buy the signatures and buy the
people to get them," she told reporter Chris Cassidy.
Which means access to the ballot would be
restricted to those with a lot of money like big corporations
and labor unions.
This is one aspect of our political process
that does not need reform.
A Newburyport Daily News editorial
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ballot petitions should stand as is
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
We are not alone, just at the vanguard. The latest assault on the
initiative and referendum process has been near-universally
condemned — except of course for its true sponsors, big government
employee unions.
At this time it doesn't appear that Rep. Denise
Provost's payback to her allies will get out of the Committee on
Election Laws. Just by sponsoring it, though, in the midst of this
climate of mounting disdain and anger with government employee
unions, should qualify her for their continued support. As the
Brockton Enterprise editorial suggested:
"Go back to the Statehouse, Rep. Provost, and
come up with something else to benefit the people of
Massachusetts – and be wary the next time your name is on the
ballot."
Let's hope the good voters of Somerville hold her
to account the next time she stands for election, for trying to hand
their rights over to the tax-borrow-and-spend special interests.
We'll need to watch those
numerous other attacks on the constitution and our rights that
still lurk in the shadows in the Statehouse. At least the sponsors
of those can now hold a finger to the wind and feel which way it's
blowing — before they too announce their arrogance, fall on their
swords for their patrons, the unions.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 25, 2011
A Boston Herald editorial
No ballot ‘fix’ needed
Government by initiative petition isn’t our favorite way of getting
things done. But a proposal by a state lawmaker that would make it
more difficult for citizens to petition for changes in state law is
woefully misguided.
Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) wants to more than double the
required number of signatures to qualify a question for the
statewide ballot. Among her stated reasons: the current requirement
— 3 percent of the number of registered voters who cast ballots in
the previous gubernatorial election (68,911 in 2010) — is lower than
what other states require. Some of California’s budget problems can
be attributed to its loose initiative petition rules, Provost
suggests.
But what does that have to do with the price of fish?
Massachusetts voters last November rejected one ballot question that
would have slashed their own taxes and created a fiscal crisis for
the state, making Provost’s comparison untimely and, frankly,
ridiculous.
Provost is also concerned that the current system favors moneyed
interests, arguing that “a single well-funded individual can
basically purchase signatures.” But she seriously underestimates the
brains and savvy of Massachusetts voters — the ones who actually
cast ballots — if she thinks they can be bought by the highest
bidder.
The simple truth is that our lawmakers-for-life bristle at anything
that might loosen their grip on power, and ballot questions give
voters an opportunity to get around an unresponsive Legislature.
Meanwhile the recent tax-cutting petitions have struck fear in the
hearts of tax-and-spend Democrats and their union supporters, who
naturally favor more restrictive ballot access rules.
We may not always agree with the end result, but all in all
Massachusetts voters have handled the power that comes with access
to the ballot responsibly. Provost and other supporters have said
nothing to convince us otherwise.
The Salem News
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Bill could double signature requirement for ballot questions
By Chris Cassidy
Bay State lawmakers are considering a proposal that would make it
more difficult for activists to place a question on the statewide
ballot.
A proposed constitutional amendment before the legislature's
Election Laws Committee would more than double the number of
signatures required to put a ballot question before voters.
That's angering the Marblehead activist who successfully passed
perhaps the state's best-known ballot initiative — Proposition 2½.
"They don't want questions on the ballot," Barbara Anderson, the
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said of state
lawmakers. "They don't want any of us doing their job for them."
Currently, activists must gather signatures equal to at least 3
percent of the number of voters in the most recent gubernatorial
election — or about 66,000 signatures as of the last election cycle.
The bill under consideration would raise that benchmark to 7
percent, more than doubling the current requirement.
Anderson argued the new requirements would limit ballot initiatives
only to well-funded groups who could afford to pay for professional
signature-gatherers.
"They're trying to make it impossible," said Anderson. "It would be
impossible to do unless you had a lot of money and could buy the
signatures and buy the people to get them."
Anderson said activists essentially have an eight-week window to
collect signatures, then must verify each name with the
corresponding city or town clerk. State regulations also prevent
signature-gatherers from only targeting voters from a single county,
Anderson said.
However, the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Denise Provost,
D-Somerville, contended during committee testimony that the Bay
State's ballot question requirements are actually looser than most
other states.
"Massachusetts has the second-lowest threshold of signatures as a
percentage of the population," Provost said. "The only state that
has a lower threshold is California, and everything that I have read
recently about the budget crisis in California has suggested that
one of the reasons for the disfunctionality of the government is the
referendum process there."
Representatives from the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the
Service Employees International Union Local 509 — two unions that
spoke in favor of the proposal at a hearing this week — could not be
reached for comment yesterday.
But in written testimony, Sean King of the MTA told the legislative
committee his group doesn't oppose the ballot initiative process,
but does think the minimum number of required signatures is too low.
"The threshold in Massachusetts is in fact so low that if only MTA
members were to sign a petition it would greatly exceed the current
threshold required for a question to get on the ballot," said King.
But other citizen groups, including Common Cause, the Massachusetts
Public Interest Research Group and the Massachusetts Family
Institute, joined Citizens for Limited Taxation at the Beacon
Hill hearing to oppose the bill.
Anderson said she felt the bill had no momentum.
"I think we're making enough of a fuss about it that they'll back
off," said Anderson. "But we need the whole thing to die."
At least one North Shore legislator yesterday agreed the citizen
ballot questions are an important part of the democratic process.
"I can't say I'm in favor of raising the hurdle," said state Rep.
John Keenan, D-Salem. "When people get informed, they make good
decisions."
Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.
The Salem News
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Quips & Quotes
From News staff and wire reports
"All that's necessary to expose what this latest assault is really
about is recognition of who is supporting the attempted destruction
of the initiative and referendum petition process: The unions,
particularly public employee unions."
Chip Ford of Citizens for Limited Taxation
commenting on bill that would more than double number of signatures
needed to get initiative petitions on the ballot
The Brockton Enterprise
Sunday, March 27, 2011
An Enterprise editorial
Let the voters control the ballot
Apparently, state Rep. Denise Provost, D-Somerville, doesn’t like
the idea of state voters getting carried away with their right to
express themselves at the ballot box.
Provost wants a constitutional amendment that would more than double
the number of signatures to be collected to get a referendum
question on the ballot. She said she just wants to bring
Massachusetts in line with other states, but since when did
legislators here ever care about what happened in other states?
It looks like a simple slam against democracy. You can’t have voters
deciding too much after all, she seems to think.
Sponsors who want to get an initiative on the ballot must collect
signatures equal to at least 3 percent of the number of voters in
the last election for governor. That would be about 66,000
signatures. Provost wants to more than double it – to 7 percent.
It’s a bad idea and there is no valid reason for changing it,
despite Provost’s weak theory of state “equality.”
It’s not as if the ballot is clogged with referendum questions. In
the statewide election in November 2010, there were just three
questions on the ballot, along with local questions in some cities
or towns.
In November 2008, it was the same – just three questions.
Does Provost not want voters “asking” any questions at all?
We think voters should have more control over the ballot and their
lives, not less. There is no reason to mess with the state
Constitution to change the standard for ballot initiatives.
If you disagree, keep this in mind: Proposition 2½, which limits
property tax increases, barely made it to the 3 percent standard in
1980. If that question didn’t get on the ballot – and pass
overwhelmingly – we wouldn’t be able to count the number of people
property-taxed out of their homes.
Go back to the Statehouse, Rep. Provost, and come up with something
else to benefit the people of Massachusetts – and be wary the next
time your name is on the ballot.
The Telegram & Gazette
Monday, March 28, 2011
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Ballot blockade
No further signatures needed
Of all the misguided and laughable proposals for “reforming” the
political process in Massachusetts, we think Rep. Denise Provost
(D-Somerville) has taken the cake with her bill to more than double
the number of signatures needed to put a question on the ballot.
It’s hard to understand what Ms. Provost is worried about. Democrats
enjoy huge majorities in the Legislature, incumbents are routinely
re-elected, and we don’t detect anything resembling a “people’s
revolution” at the ballot box.
The ballot questions that do get passed — such as banning certain
methods of trapping or killing dog racing — are usually pet peeves
of liberal elites who tend not to ask a lot of questions about the
ultimate impact of their feel-good initiatives.
Even when serious questions pertaining to tax cuts survive the
process and make it onto the ballot, voters already exhibit a
remarkable reluctance to just take their money and run.
This past fall, for example, a question that would have dramatically
slashed the state’s income tax rate was soundly rejected.
Moreover, even when voters do speak clearly on behalf of cutting
taxes, they are hardly unreasonable about it.
Also on November’s ballot was a question seeking repeal of the new
tax on alcohol. It passed narrowly.
Finally, why should the Legislature set the bar higher when it
already refuses to enact the will of the people — such as their
demand that the “temporary” income tax hike be returned to 5
percent? The Legislature sure has taken its sweet time on that — 22
years and counting.
It seems to us that it’s just about as hard as it should be to get a
question on the state ballot. Forcing citizens to find thousands
more to sign their petitions would frustrate political participation
— exactly the opposite of what Massachusetts needs.
The Daily News of Newburyport
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
A Daily News editorial
Ballot petitions should stand as is
In a legislature filled with those who acted only in the best
interests of their constituents, there would be no need for the
initiative process. But the General Court of Massachusetts is far
from that perfect representative body, which is why voters should
still have recourse to the ballot when they wish to change things.
The current process allowed for passage of Proposition 2½ some three
decades ago, and we shudder to think what property taxes might look
like today had voters not imposed that restriction on cities and
towns. Yet, last year, voters had the wisdom to reject a proposal
that would have cut the sales tax by more than half and wreaked
fiscal havoc.
Yet, for some, including apparently the leadership of the
public-sector unions, the voters are not to be trusted. Which is why
they've come out in support of a measure introduced by state Rep.
Denise Provost, D-Somerville, that would more than double the number
of signatures required to get a matter on the statewide ballot.
Her bill would require petition supporters to gather signatures
equivalent to 7 percent of the number of people who voted in the
last gubernatorial election (162,397), as opposed to the current 3
percent (68,911).
We would urge members of this region's delegation to reject this
measure. As freshman Rep. James Lyons, R-Andover, testified last
week, "Nothing is more debilitating to democracy than narrowing the
role of voters and monopolizing power in the hands of the
professional political class."
Opponents of the bill range from Common Cause to Citizens for
Limited Taxation. Supporters include the Massachusetts Teachers
Association and Service Employees International Union.
Marblehead's Barbara Anderson, CLT's executive director, says
the proposed higher signature threshold would make it very difficult
for citizen activists to get their ideas before the voters. "It
would be impossible to do unless you had a lot of money and could
buy the signatures and buy the people to get them," she told
reporter Chris Cassidy.
Which means access to the ballot would be restricted to those with a
lot of money like big corporations and labor unions.
This is one aspect of our political process that does not need
reform.
|
| |
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
|
