Tag: ballot initiatives

Go Vote Now

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I went to my polling place this morning and the lines were so long (at 7:00 am) that I decided to go to work first. My first thought was that maybe I didn’t need to remind anyone to vote today but then I thought better of it. Everyone go vote as early as you can (especially in the Bountiful 18th Precinct) so the lines won’t be so long at 6:00 pm when I will go try again. Due to sickness and the subsequent catching up I was unable to participate in early voting last week so now I will be trying to go after work. I will be waiting in line if necessary.

I talked to Scott, one of my coworkers who voted this morning, and he noticed that one of the things that made the lines go slower was having people standing at the voting booths reading about the issues (such as the Constitutional Amendments). Having done his research in advance, he was able to cast all his votes and leave while the people at the other booths before him were still making their choices. Based on that, perhaps the Lieutenant Governor might provide a one page summary of those types of issues that will be on the ballot so that people can read while they stand in line rather than holding up the line by reading at the booth.

While you are waiting to vote, go have a look at Jordy’s list of potential ways to choose who you vote for.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, civic participation, connections, elections, voting

State

Rejecting Amendment E

While amendment D looks to close a loophole in the Constitution, Constitutional Amendment E appears to be opening a loophole. I admit that there is potential to increase the funds available for public education if we allow some of those funds to be invested in private company stocks or bonds. The problem is that this amendment provides no guidelines or safeguards to such a practice and therefore the only guarantee that we have from this amendment is that we increase the risk attached to the funds available for public education.

If the legislature wants to take public money and make use of stocks and bonds to increase the value of our tax revenues I could be pursuaded to accept that, but they had better put some safeguards on the ways our public funds are invested in the Constitution, rather than relying on future statutes to define any protective measures – the original prohibition serves to safeguard public money, when making such a large exception we should be sure that there are some limitations in place.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

State

Supporting Amendment D

With the insertion of only 12 words Constitutional Amendment D would close a technicality which could be used by some enterprising politicians to wreak havoc on the necessary and often too-political process of redistricting. Now is a good time to do it too because, while redistricting is usually little more than adjusting existing district boundaries, our next redistricting will include the creation of a new district (barring some major surprises). Without this amendment, redistricting could be declared invalid if a special session became necessary on a different subject between the time of the census and the next general session. Also, it could be challenged in the event of the U.S. Census Bureau taking longer than expected to process the census results.

This amendment helps to protect the state from adding any more political maneuvering in this important and often partisan process.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

State

Rejecting Amendment C

My position on Constitutional Amendment C is much like my position on Amendment A – it is unnecessary tinkering with the constitution. I don’t see any advantage to starting the session a week later than we do currently.

I don’t buy his argument that citizens would "more appropriately honor the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., President George Washington, and President Abraham Lincoln" if the legislature were not in session on those two holidays.

I also expect that budget negotiations function just like any other project – they will fill every bit of time available no matter how much time we allow. Giving them an extra 8 days after the final tax revenue amounts are available will only mean that the Legislators will feel rushed in considering the budget adjustments for 22 days instead of feeling rushed about the final numbers for 14 days.

Finally, if the session were set for the first week of January I might see an advantage to moving the session back a week, but starting the third week does not seem any worse than starting the fourth week. I understand the arguments given by Sen. Valentine in favor of the time change but, like the budget adjustments, the draft legislation, budget analysis, and other technical work will fill whatever time is allotted. If our legislature needs more time they could try not considering 5 minor Constitutional amendments in a single session. (How much time was spent crafting, holding hearings, debating, and voting on those?)

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

State

Supporting Amendment B

I was pleased to find that Constitutional Amendment B was absolutely as straightforward in its proposed wording as the description suggested. It simply inserts one line into the Constitution allowing for more flexibility in adding funds to the existing state trust fund without making it easier for the Legislature to remove money from the fund. Believing that the fund is a positive tool funding our government services I am happy to support a no-nonsense change that can make it easier to augment the trust fund when resources are avaiable to do so.

At first I worried that making it easier to add to the trust fund would encourage the Legislature to keep surpluses of revenue, but then I realized that 1) they already do keep portions of any surplus fund one-time contributions to pet projects, and 2) they still have the same incentive to give tax-refunds when possible to fuel their re-election popularity. The difference now is that they have the option when there are surplusses to put some of the surplus in the trust fund so that it can increase funding for services in perpetuity rather than being limited to large, one-time gifts to specific projects.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, State Constitution, Utah

meta State

Rejecting Amendment A

Let me start off by saying that Constitutional Amendment A does not have anything sinister or devious in it. In fact, there is very little in it to raise objections about. My primary objection is rooted in my position on constitutionally based governments in which I prefer to reject any amendment to the established law unless I see good reason for the change – in other words, I default to opposition where constitutional amendments are concerned.

This amendment would clarify the specifics of succession in the office of Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The specifics themselves are fairly mundane, but the situation being addressed is one that hopefully and probably will never occur. (Davis Didjeridu reminds me that a vacancy can happen for less than tragic reasons – such as federal appointment – making this situation more common than I had been thinking.) In the event that one of those vacancies did occur, common sense should allow the succession to happen seamlessly even without these specified specifics being added to the State Constitution.

There is one place where I have a specific objection to the amendment. In the section dealing with the succession of the Lieutenant Governor, it specifies that the Governor must receive the consent of the Senate for the person they would appoint to fill the vacancy. This appears to violate the separation of powers considering that the Governor, when running for office, needs no consent from the Senate when picking a running mate. I see no reason that selecting a replacement should have tighter safeguards than the original selection.

In summary, there is little to recommend this change, and more to discourage it. I won’t be overly concerned if it does pass, but I believe that not making such a change is the better choice.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

culture

Campaigning for Ballot Measures

Post author By David
Post date October 31, 2006
3 Comments on Campaigning for Ballot Measures

As we approach elections next week there is a ballot measure which has been severely underexposed in my opinion. In Utah County it is on the ballot as an “Opinion Question”. In Salt Lake County it is “Proposition 3”. I have no idea how it has been publicized in Salt Lake County, but here we are one week before election day and I have not heard nearly enough about it here in Utah County. I saw a brief article about it at KSL.com yesterday (less than 125 words long) but besides that I have only seen a couple of signs and I got a letter from my mayor on Saturday about the issue.

The subject of the opinion question is funding to expand the commuter rail system in Salt Lake County into Utah County. I am happy to see that everything so far has been in favor of the question. What disappoints me is that so little has been said. I would not be very surprised to learn that the letter from the mayor was the first thing many people had heard about this issue. I even signed up to post a yard sign in favor of the issue, but I have yet to receive a response. We need to find a way to get more information to the voters early enough for people to make informed decisions at the ballot box.

Update 11/8/2006: Here are the results of the elections. The Opinion Question passed but maybe not for the right reasons.

Tags ballot initiatives, openness, reactions, State, thoughts, transportation