Three bills in the California legislature propose the Indirect Initiative. The Indirect Initiative combines the initiative with state legislative action.

The bill most favorable to the initiative process is SCA 16, by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord). Currently, initiatives to change a state law require signatures equal to 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, and then they go on the ballot. SCA 16 would provide that if proponents of a statutory change submit petitions with 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, at that point their proposal would go to the legislature. The legislature might then enact the proposal, although the legislature would be free to alter it, and then the initiative proponents could decide whether they are satisfied with the legislature’s changes. If the initiative backers didn’t like the changes, they would be free to get more signatures (2% of the last gubernatorial vote).

SCA 16 has a hearing in the Senate Elections Committee on July 7.

ACA 13, by Assemblymember Ed Hernandez (D-Baldwin Park) is the least favorable to the initiative process. Proponents of an initiative would be required to collect 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, as under current law. Then the legislature would look at the proposal and possibly change it. If the legislature rejected the idea, or changed it in ways unacceptable to the proponents, the proponents would then need to go back on the street and collect signatures equal to another 5% of the last gubernatorial vote. ACA 13 passed the Assembly Elections Committee on June 26 and is now in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Assemblymember Hernandez’ hostility to the initiative process is revealed in another of his bills, ACA 14. It would provide that only five initiatives would go on any ballot. The first five to qualify would be accepted; all others would be rejected, and all of the proponents’ signatures would go to waste. If they wanted it on a future ballot, they would need to start all over again getting signatures. ACA 14 has not made any headway.

SCA 10, by Senator Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), is somewhat in the middle of the other two bills. It retains the existing number of signatures for initiatives, and when the proponents gather those signatures, the legislature would look at the measure and possibly change it and pass it. If the legislature did not pass it, or if the legislative changes are not acceptable to the sponsors, no more signatures would be required. However, the legislature’s criticisms of the measure would be printed in the Voters Handbook. SCA 10 passed the Senate Elections Committee on June 16 and is now in the Senate Approproations Committee.

On June 26, the Connecticut House defeated an amendment to the budget bill, SB 1801, that would have defunded public financing for candidates for state office. The amendment was offered by Corky Mazurek, a Democrat from Wolcott. His amendment was defeated 37-98. All Republicans but one voted for it, but all Democrats except three voted against it.

The regular session of the Connecticut legislature ended several weeks ago, but the legislature is sitting in special session for the budget bills.

On June 26, the Green Parties of Iowa and Wisconsin jointly filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Davenport, Iowa. The issue is the city’s policy of banning petitioning at its annual street fair, the Bix Street Fest. The ACLU is representing the parties. The case is Bussiere v Davenport, southern district, 3:09-cv-101.

The incident that prompted the lawsuit arose last year, when Green Party volunteers were collecting signatures in Davenport to get Cynthia McKinney on the ballot. The city believes that the organization that sponsors the street festival has a right to curtail First Amendment activity on public streets during that festival. The city lost a similar case in 1999 over the same issue.