Tag Archives: ballot initiatives

Will GOP-Backed Ballot Questions Help or Hurt DFL Candidates?

Posted on by

This year, Minnesota Republicans are pushing two controversial constitutional amendments on the ballot, requiring voters to have photo IDs and banning gay Minnesotans from getting married. Why? Well, political operatives typically add constitutional amendments to the ballot for three primary reasons.  The first two are fairly well-known:

CONVICTION.  First, many genuinely believe in these issues.  Much of the rationale for ballot initiatives is borne of politics, but some of it is borne of values and conviction.  Some really do view unfamiliar forms of love and commitment as a personal or cultural threat, for instance. It’s grossly misguided conviction, but it’s conviction nonetheless.

 PARTICIPATION.  Second, impacting turnout is also a primary goal of ballot initiatives.  Political operators want the existence of the ballot questions to lure like-minded voters to the polls to help their candidates win.  For instance, Republicans know that some on the Christian right hate gays more than they love Romney, so promoting an amendment to take away the rights of gays is their back door way of ensuring that unenthusiastic conservatives show up to hold their nose and vote for Romney.    (And of course, in the case of the photo ID amendment, conservatives want to suppress long-term electoral participation of groups with an annoying propensity to vote against them.)

Finally, there is a  third, less discussed, reason ballot initiatives are promoted:

DISTRACTION.  Beyond conviction and turnout-related motivations, ballot initiative proponents often hope to distract their opponents from the primary electoral task at hand.  In 2012, Republicans put the photo ID and marriage ban questions on the ballot to spread liberal donors and volunteers thin, and distract them from other important campaign tasks.

I was reminded of this distraction motive when recently visiting with a friend who is very involved in supporting a school levy referendum issue in his community.  While my friend is a strong opponent of the idiotic marriage ban amendment promoted by Republicans, he was lamenting the fact that it was difficult to get liberal volunteers and donations for the school funding campaign, because there is so much energy rightfully flowing into playing defense on the Republicans’ marriage ban.  I’ve heard candidates say the same thing.

I’m not arguing that civil rights is less important than school funding, or vice versa, I’m just pointing out that the conservative ballot initiative shenanigans do, to some extent, tie liberal activists into pretzels.  When liberals are playing defense on attempts to deny marriage and voting rights, they have fewer volunteers and dollars to play offense when it comes to Issue A and Candidate B.  It’s subtraction by addition, and it’s very intentional.

But the question remains, will it work out as Republicans intended?   GOP amendment sponsors should be wary of that old Law of Unintended Consequences.  The marriage ban amendment has lit a fire under a large, passionate and well-funded army of GLTB-supportive donors and volunteers, and that army will be driving turnout on Election Day that will help liberals up and down the ballot.  A polarizing issue like gay marriage generates more turnout on both sides.  Historically, it has produced a net benefit for conservatives.  But polls show that the popular tide is rapidly turning on that issue, and this could be the year that the existence of this GOP-sponsored issue on the ballot actually helps liberals more than conservatives.

– Loveland

 

Note:  The post was also featured in the Politics in Minnesota Morning Report’s “Best of the Blogs” feature.

Ballot Language Ruling Easily Could Come Back To Bite Minnesota GOP

Posted on by

In the wake of yesterday’s Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the GOP Legislature’s ballot wording for two proposed constitutional amendments, endzone-dancing Republican leaders should keep something in mind.

The Supremes did not rule in favor of the Republican Party.  They ruled in favor of the legislature branch.   Important difference.

Here is what the Court said:

The proper role for the judiciary, however, is not to second-guess the wisdom of policy decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches.

…

The Secretary of State exceeded his authority … when he provided titles different from those passed by the Legislature.”

Granted, that’s good news for Republicans this year, because they’re the ones currently controlling  the legislative “policy decisions” of which the Court speaks.

But in future years, the same ruling could easily turn out to be very bad news for Republicans.  After all, the way Minnesota’s long-term demographics are trending – with the most rapid population growth happening in demographic groups historically more supportive of DFL candidates – the prospect of permanent GOP control of the Legislature is far from certain.

Future DFL-controlled Legislatures, stinging from the constitutional word games Republicans have played during their leadership reign, could do something equally absurd, or even more absurd.

For instance, a DFL-controlled Legislature could propose a constitutional amendment to require an enormous tax on the wealthiest Minnesotans to finance, let’s say, vacation homes for DFL leaders, or something else completely reckless.  Furthermore, taking a page out of the GOP’ 2012 playbook, the DFL-controlled Legislature could then deceptively present this proposal to voters on their ballots in benign-sounding euphamisms:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to support fairness in housing financing in Minnesota, effective July 1, 2015?”

As I understand yesterday’s ruling, the Supremes wouldn’t overrule that kind of a hypothetical ballot wording scam.  Not their job.  I exaggerate in my example, for I am a blogger and exaggeration is what we do, but you get the general idea.

This is not a problem that is going to go away under the status quo approach to wording ballot questions.  The majority party in the Legislature will probably continue to play word games in their drafting, and, again, the majority party may not always be to Speaker Zellers’ liking.

A few days ago I proposed what seems to me to be a more fair way of drafting ballot questions.  Whether the reform comes off of my cocktail napkin, or from someone who actually knows what they’re doing, reform of the current ballot initiative drafting system is needed.   If Minnesota politicians are going to persist in continually trying to amend the State Constitution to tickle their political fancy — and it seems pretty certain that they are — we need to at least get the proposals described to voters clearly and fairly.

– Loveland

A Better Way to Write Minnesota’s Ballot Questions?

Posted on by

Frankly, I don’t know what to make of the debate over the wording of Constitutional Amemdment summaries appearing on Minnesota ballots.   Secretary of State Ritchie’s wording seems significantly more clear and descriptive of the actual amendment content.  But I’m not sure if a Secretary of State has authority to change the language that the Legislature passes.  Soon, the Minnesota Supremes will clarity that question.

But regardless of what the justices say about authority, I wonder if there is a better way to draft clear and accurate ballot language in the future?

I have a rough idea that I recently developed over a few adult beverages.  What, you think the Founding Dads didn’t scribble on the occasional ale house napkin?

Anyway, here is my idea:  The Legislature and Governor could pass a statute to create a “Ballot Initiative Commission,” or some such proper sounding name. The Commission’s job would be to develop the wording of ballot summaries, which means neither the Legislature nor the Secretary of State would have drafting authority in the future.

Sample Commission details:  The Governor could appoint three members, and legislative leaders could appoint three members.  None of the members could be current elected officials or government employees, or have served as an elected official or government employee for the past 10 years.

To help get the focus on clarity, the first draft of the ballot language would be developed by whoever is the current head of the University of Minnesota’s Department of English.  The English Department Chair’s role would be advisory only.

The Commission could alter the draft however it collectively wanted.  There would need to be a majority vote of the Commission supporting the final wording before the language would be conveyed to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the ballot.  There would be deadlines to ensure they got their work done in a timely fashion.

The Commission’s wording obviously could still be challenged in the courts, as is happening now with the status quo system.  But the big change would be that the language would originate from this less partisan Commission that is structurally required to compromise, not elected officials in either the Legislature or the Secretary of State’s office, or their staffs.

I don’t feel especially strongly about the details of the proposal.  The pointy-heads at the Capitol can add all the “whereases,” “in lieu ofs” and “heretofores” they want.  The underlying principles are what matter:

REDUCE THE POLITICIZATION OF THE DRAFTING PROCESS.  Get ballot language drafting out of the hands of elected officials, who will always be tempted to be more concerned about partisan advantage than clarity or accuracy.   Instead, get the drafting into the hands of less partisan Minnesotans.

BAKE THE NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE INTO THE PROCESS.  Numerically speaking, structure the Commission so that the Legislature’s appointees can’t attain a majority without winning over at least one vote from a gubernatorial appointee, or vice versa.

PUT MORE INITIAL FOCUS ON CLARITY.  At least begin the process with a writer who is paid to be clear, not a writer who is paid to win elections.

A perfect process?  Of course, not.  Games would still be played.  But it would be much better than the current process that is currently in the throes of a messy food fight in the State Supreme Court.

Anyway, if anyone out there is interested, I think I still have the napkin.

– Loveland

 

This post was also featured as a “best of the best” on MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.