With the shift in partisan power from this week’s election, the results of a number of election related initiatives and referenda in the states probably won’t get the coverage they deserve. Heading the list: Florida voters reject tax-funded campaigns – but to no practical effect.
Back in 1987, the Florida legislature set up a system of tax financing for certain state offices, and in 1998 this program made its way into the state constitution. On Tuesday night, Floridians voted 53%-47% to repeal this provision and abolish the system. However, because a change in the Constitution required a 60% supermajority to pass, the measure was defeated. Nevertheless, it is further proof that tax financing is not particularly popular, and state legislators shouldn’t be cowed by the “reform” advocates who will claim that there is massive support for such plans. Earlier this year, a tax financing measure in California lost by a 2-1 margin.
Other election-related measures on Tuesday’s ballots:
Floridians also appear to have passed an Amendment, with approximately 63 percent of the vote, to establish redistricting criteria to be followed by the legislature. The Amendment states that districts may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. The Amendment also requires districts to be ‘compact,” and to utilize existing city, county and geographical boundaries. Good luck enforcing those provision.
Californians also got into redistricting, passing Proposition 20, which provides for Congressional districts to be drawn by a non-partisan boundary commission.
Illinois voters, reeling from the scandals of former governors Ryan, Blagovich, and others, passed a constitutional amendment providing a mechanism for the voter recall of governors.
Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit the legislature from limiting voting by persons with mental illness.
Persons with mental disabilities also gained increased voting rights in New Mexico, where voters approve a “modern election language ” amendment by a comfortable margin of 57-43%. The measure removes from the state constitution language that discriminates against persons with mental disabilities and felons when it comes to voting. It also removes the reference to “idiots” in the state constitution. The state would remain free to prohibit felon voting by statute.
In Michigan, voters approved by a whopping three to one margin a constitutional amendment to prohibit persons convicted of felony involving deceit and fraud from holding public office for a period of twenty years. This raises a point and a question. The point: in theory, if one is a serial killer serving a life sentence, he can still hold office in Michigan from his jail cell, but if at age 23 one is convicted of embezzlement, serves his time, finds religion, and becomes a leading citizen and philanthropist, at age 42 he’ll still be sitting it out. The question: Has Michigan had a problem with felons convicted of crimes involving fraud and deceit being elected to office?
In the Show Me State, Missouri voters passed a ballot measure, also by a 75-25 margin, requiring the election of county assessors. Voters do jealously protect their right to vote, even though many voters probably have little idea what the county assessor does.
And they also guard their elections when they do know what the office does. In Nevada, voters soundly rejected a proposal to replace the state’s elected judiciary with one appointed by the governor, following the recommendations of a “selection panel,” with periodic retention elections. I’m personally agnostic on judicial elections vs. judicial appointments, but I don’t understand why supporters of an appointed judiciary seem so intent on creating the selection panels, which strike most voters as being elitist and many conservative voters as being inevitably liberal. Why not just have the elected governor appoint them, subject to approval by the elected legislature. I think that’s a model with which voters have some familiarity, and might be more likely to approve.
Utah’s constitution already provides for secret voting in “elections,” but by a 60 percent majority they passed an amendment clarifying that that language applies not only to elections for public officials, but also to elections to authorize employee representation (i.e. unions). It appears that Utah is preparing to challenge the federal “card check” union organizing law, should it be passed, which after Tuesday’s results seems highly unlikely.
In New England, the good people of Vermont voter 81 percent in favor an amendment to allow 17 year olds to vote in primaries if they will be 18 in time to vote in the general election. Portland, Maine, voted by a very narrow margin against allowing immigrants to vote.
And finally, in Arizona, by the narrowest of margins (120 votes out of nearly 1.2 million cast), voters appear to have rejected a proposal to require initiative petitions to be filed two months earlier – an initiative intended to reduce the number of initiatives.
[This post was updated at 8:44 a.m. on Nov. 3]
