So you always wanted to put an initiative on the Oregon ballot? part 1

Before I can discuss the process for getting an initiative on a ballot in Oregon, we probably need some preliminary explanations.

Referenda, Initiatives, Propositions, etc.
There are many different names for different forms of direct democratic procedures. The first thing to know is that there isn't one formal name for an election where individual voters, rather than the legislature, enacts law.

Many, as I just did, call it "Direct Democracy." Some prefer "Plebiscite," but that name seems too elitist to properly describe such a populist mechanism. (Plebiscite is also used to describe a particular type of ballot measure.) On the other hand, I do sometimes call the actual vote a "plebiscite," to distinguish it from an election, which implies candidates. Some writers call it "pure democracy," in the sense that having individual citizens vote on laws is democratic in the ancient Greek aspect of the term; I avoid it because while "pure" is used in the sense of "actual," it implies "free from flaw," which it isn't.

There are several basic forms of Direct Democracy: Recall/Retention, the Referendum/Referral, and the Initiative. Other sources describe and group them differently; for example Ballotpedia says that there are "seven generally acknowledged forms of direct democracy." It doesn't include retention elections, and groups/separates the categories based on other criteria.

More after the break...

More on Lisa M

A few followup items on Lisa Murkowski's write-in campaign for Senate in Alaska.

First, Slate's Explainer discusses the "How badly can you spell Murkowski but still have your vote count?" issue: What Happens If You Misspell A Write-In Vote? An interesting read, echoing what I discussed. From a journalistic perspective, I'm interested that they spelled out the "dirty version" of Sekula-Gibbs' name, rather than hinting at it.

Second, Rick Hasen on his Election Law Blog discusses why she's running as a write-in Republican rather than run "on ballot" as an Independent or pick up the standard of a third party. (There's no link to just the article).

Hasen notes that no less a political eminence gris as Cokie Roberts proffered a plausibly political, but clearly incorrect explanation for Murkowski running a write-in campaign. Roberts suggested on NPR that Murkowski made a decision to run as a Republican, rather than as an independent to show that she's the real Republican candidate, and will be a Republican if she is re-elected to the Senate. Plausible, but shows an interestingly myopic vision of election law.

Maybe not even myopic; perhaps completely ignorant of the more likely reason: Murkowski didn't have a choice. Murkowski wasn't allowed to run as a Libertarian, reports Political Wire (It's unclear from the report whether she requested either the ballot line or the meeting); and Alaska law prevents her from officially entering the race as an independent candidate. Alaska, like many states, has what is sometimes known as a "Sore Loser Law," that, one way or the other, prevents a candidate that loses a party primary from switching parties or running as an independent. Accordingly, Alaska requires that independent candidates must have registered before August 24, the day of the primary election, which prevents a loser from just adding themselves to the ballot. In Alaska, a losing candidate may only run as a write-in, unless another party had an officially-registered candidate who then withdraws; in that case, anyone may step into that candidate's shoes. Other than the Democrats and Republicans, only the Libertarians were running a candidate... thus, once the Libertarians spurned her, her only choice was to run as a write-in.

And, sorry, Cokie, write-ins don't have a party. (Although I agree that Murkowski's best bet is to run as the "real Republican" and hope that Joe Miller has an "I-dabbled-in-Witchcraft" moment.)


http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/08/25/alaska-politics-blog-suggests-new-candidates-could-conceivably-enter-u-s-senate-race/

Record Spending on Campaigns in NW... just the beginning?

Despite 2010 being a "midterm" year, Jeff Mapes reports that Washington is on course to break the previous record for spending on a single ballot measure. The projected spending also shatters the previous Oregon record.

Fairly incredibly, the American Beverage Association has donated nearly $14.5 million to defeat a proposed 2 cent tax on cans of soda. Supporters of the increase have raised less than $500,000.

With the looser laws regulating campaign and election-related spending after Citizens United, I believe this is a harbinger of things to come.

Oregon Redistricting Measure fails to make ballot

Reported in late July by Oregon Live/The Oregonian.

Although I'm not familiar with the details of the proposed measure, in a broad stroke, it would create a panel of retired state judges to oversee the state political districting process. Under current state law, the process is up to the Legislature (who, of course, are the ones who benefit from owning the process). The process has become increasingly political (and, as with most things "political" recently) correspondingly less cordial.

In general, passage of such a law, placing oversight in a relatively neutral third-party's hands, would be a good thing. Oh well... Next time, count your signatures better, guys!