Back on June 17, 2009, the Florida Supreme Court issued an order, striking down Florida laws and regulations that let initiative signers remove their names from the petition after they have signed it. The Court did not then explain its reasoning. On February 18, 2010, the Court issued a lengthy opinion in the same case, explaining the basis for its earlier action. Here is the opinion, which is Browning v Florida Hometown Democracy, SC08-884. The vote was 4-2, with one justice not participating. The decision is 39 pages and the dissent is 26 pages.
The law might have withstood constitutional scrutiny if it had been more even-handed. But, it seemed to give opponents of an initiative the ability to keep any initiative off the ballot. This is because it provided that voters could revoke their signatures as late as the date on which the petition was due. Consequently, it would be impossible for initiative proponents to ever know for sure how many signatures they had, because the proponents could not know how many people were revoking their signatures. Also, the law was not symmetrical, because although it let signers remove their names, it did not let signers who had revoked their signatures change their mind again. The law said if anyone revoked his or her signature, that voter could not sign the petition again, and could not even sign a similar initiative in the future.
Page 30 of the decision says, “Placing a signature upon an initiative petition does not signify one’s definitive agreement with a proposed amendment or revision; rather, one is merely agreeing that the proposal is worthy of statewide consideration and discourse for a vote at a later date. If an elector simply changes his or her mind, he or she remains free to participate in public discussion and to vote against the proposal.”
I sympathize with the symmetry argument. But I’m not sure how best to handle the question of revocation of signatures. I feel it should be permitted, but I don’t think I’ve heard of a suggested way to do it that addresses all my concerns.
One reason for the uproar over the soi-disant “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative” (brought to us by Ward Connerly, of California fame, et alia) was the protests of some people who said they’d only signed the petitions because they’d been deceived about what the proposal would do. If such deception were to happen, would it be fair to create a “safe harbor” date by which the signer had to discover and protest the fraud — and after which the petition’s validity could not be challenged even with clear evidence of such wrongful or illegal tactics?
OTOH, what would be acceptable evidence that a signature was rejected by the (purported) signer? Would that person have to testify at some hearing by the state body in charge of certifying referendum and initiative petitions for the ballot? Would depositions be enough? — or would they be enough unless each side had them from the same person on the same date?
And what if someone’s name has been forged on a petition? In that case, unlike the deception scenario, they probably won’t know about their name being on the petition. Does that mean anybody should be able to look at the petition? Or at least that they should be able to check to see if they’re listed as signing it?
(Ahhh, this is getting close to one of the corollaries to Murphy’s Law. There’s one of those that goes: “Nothing can be made foolproof because fools are so ingenious.” Here, though, that might hae to be changed to: “No system can be made fool-proof because ways to fool systems are so ingenious.” And *that* starts to sound more like parts of _Gödel, Escher, Bach_. . . .)
Some people argue that signing a petition is analogous to voting. I don’t agree with that argument. But to the extent that signing a petition is analogous to voting, obviously once somebody votes, that person can’t revoke his or her vote.
What about donations and the *definitive agreement* stuff ??? — and the related left/right purge lists being created nonstop — of both petition and donation names and addresses ???
# 2 Recalls and/or new initiatives ???
# 5 Include the magic words in all election stuff in constitutions —
This [election law] section shall be self-executing.
or the more general —
ALL sections in this constitution shall be self-executing.
— to STOP the EVIL incumbent gerrymander party hacks from subverting constitutional rights with their EVIL nonstop statutory machinations.
P.R. and A.V.
@2: Hmm. Analogizing to votes is understandable, at least — though analogy itself is (pardon me) analogous to translation, of which Kakuzo Okakura says in _The Book of Tea_:
“Translation is always a treason, and as a Ming author observes, can at its best be only the reverse side of a brocade,–all the threads are there, but not the subtlety of color or design.”
But then there are more analogies to draw. . . .
* [=======] *
A voter might mismark a ballot, and we usually let her/him have another one if it isn’t in the tabulator yet. When does a petition sheet, and the signatures on it, go into the ballot box? Offhand, I’d think it was when the board responsible for saying the petition drive had enough valid signatures ruled — but I’m open to arguments otherwise.
For that matter, in close elections there are some ballots we have to examine to determine the intent of the voter. If that’s the key issue, then should a voter have some way of demonstrating that her/his intent was inaccurately presented by the petitioners?
And in some elections there have been errors, omissions, or misleading information on the ballot — and recourse in those situations isn’t easy to get, or easy to perform, but it is sometimes done. Is there no room for (sorry) an analogous path for petitions?
* [=======] *
I guess I do have some leanings on this issue, though I’m not entirely tipped over yet. I lean towards letting people express their will and intent — even if that means more work for those people who are also election workers. But I would welcome further discussion on how to do that as a practical matter.
$ 6 How about voting with rocks (which were recycled) — as in ancient Greece ???
NOT too many paper ballots back then.
Whence the word for the study of voting systems, psephology. . . .
Well, it would have *some* advantages. I mean, talk about your hard copy! :] And the intent of the voter should be easy enough to determine — at least, as long as nobody engaged in any surreptitious manipulation of the ballots. :]
Although there might be some dangers, too. For example, what if some election official somewhere went too high-tech by using different-colored rocks to indicate different candidates (or parties), so as to be more efficient in counting by gathering all ballots into one container for central counting? You’d have to have some safeguard against anybody trying to disguise voter intent by flinging a little mud and hoping it would stick. . . . :]