On March 1, the Idaho Senate passed SB 1110 by 26-9. It changes the petition requirements for statewide initiatives. Currently they need the signatures of 6% of the last vote cast in eighteen of the state’s thirty-five legislative districts. The bill changes this so that the petition would need 6% in all thirty-five districts.
All seven of the Senate’s Democrats voted “no”. In addition, two Republican Senators, Daniel Johnson and Jim Woodward, voted “no.” The bill appears to violate the Idaho Constitution, which has language protecting the initiative process. It is virtually impossible to qualify any petition when it must have a substantial number of signatures from every unit of the state. If the subject matter of the initiative had vast popular appeal in the overwhelming majority of parts of the state, but it was unpopular in just a small segment of that state, it could not get on the ballot. There is no state that has ever required any type of petition to get a large number of signatures in every legislative district.
ID RRRR fascists — with their contempt for Democracy —
just following orders from RNC fascist HQ in Devil City ???
ALL voter petition stuff [candidates / issues] must be in Consts [with self enforcing clause] —
to NOT have gerrymander monsters rig/stop such petitions.
Anyone who votes to make the initiative and/or referendum and/or recall process so difficult that it becomes essentially useless should be removed from office.
One good example of a state which has an initiative and referendum process on paper, but where it has been made so difficult that it is practically unusable, is Wyoming. It is so difficult to get an issue on the ballot there via citizens petition that it has not happened since the early 1990’s.
It is already difficult enough to place an issue on the ballot in Idaho. If anything, it is too difficult. There is no rational need to make it more difficult than it already is.
Notice how in states where Republicans have a majority, they are the ones who attack ballot access, and in states where Democrats have a majority, they are the ones who attack ballot access. This indicates that they don’t really have any principles.
Andy’s spot on there.
Andy – uh, not in California. In CA, both sides use the process to circumvent the legislation process. The supermajority Dem legislators in particular love it b/c they don’t have to go on the record as supporting massive statewide tax expenditures that benefit their friends, benefactors, and local precincts. Mysterious/unknowable corporate entities get stuff on the ballot for The People to decide, so that 18 year olds will say, “That sounds like a good idea! I’ll vote for it!” Which is how CA got the unnecessary multi-BILLION $ bullet train, for example. Which still isn’t built, but oh, the price tag’s gone up and up and up. It’s really a catch-22 b/c the people should have an opportunity to present initiatives, esp. as a check on legislators, but this is a dangerous game, as the entire process can be co-opted by large/corporate, powerful, hidden, special interests. It’s nearly impossible in CA to tell who is actually behind an initiative. So transparency requirements need to be very strict, if Idaho wants to loosen up on this.
I am very familiar with California, and I know for a fact that it has mostly been the Democrats there that have launched attacks against the petition process. Sure, some Democrats use the initiative process, but this does not means others do not attack it.
Andy, please reread the second sentence in my post. I did not say that others do not attack it, as you wrongly assert; in fact, I said the opposite. Instead, could you reply to my discussion of the problem of “unknowable” sponsors, regardless of party, and using the bullet train as an $80 billion dollar example? (Again, NOT saying only Dems misuse the process). That said, the bullet train not only was/is a Silicon Valley-backed proposal, but Dianne Feinstein’s husband got a contract for it too. https://w,ww.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/dianne_feinsteins_husband_wins_nearbillion_dollar_california_high_speed_rail_contract.html
…I meant, I did not say that others do not use it, as you wrongly assert.