Thinking politically, you tell me what's up

[TayTay]

This is a story that you can skim (cuz it's kinda boring and inside baseball and full of dull details and pivotal to the elections to come.)

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/16/ballot_initiative_limits_sought/

Ballot initiative limits sought
Gay marriage foes seen as target
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | July 16, 2005

As conservative groups launch a drive for a referendum to ban same-sex marriage, Beacon Hill Democrats are moving swiftly to pass a bill that would make it more difficult for such a question or any other to reach the state election ballot.

The bill, which could be voted on in the Senate as early as next week, is provoking an outcry from government watchdogs, the administration of Governor Mitt Romney, and Secretary of State William F. Galvin, among others.

The measure would prohibit groups backing ballot questions from paying outside firms for each signature gathered, a common practice that critics see as encouraging fraud but that backers view as essential given the short time in which groups must gather signatures required under state law.

The legislation would impose new penalties for fraud or misrepresentation during signature-gathering and make it possible for groups opposing ballot questions to gain almost immediate access to the names and addresses of the people who signed the petitions, providing them an opportunity to persuade signatories to retract their support. In addition, it would disqualify signature sheets not signed by the individual who gathered them, which Galvin contends would punish voters for the inattentiveness of those collecting signatures.

TayTay, sez you, who frickin cares about a ballot unitive in Massachusetts? (You friggin provincial homer ya. There is a greater world than MA, ya know.)

Fair enough. Let's tease the strings out on this one. This is a 'slap yourself upside the head, why didn't I think of that' easy one, but it'll do.

This is about a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts in 2008. Massachusetts may have two Presidential candidates in 2008. (Virginia may as well.) Which candidate benefits if the ballot initiative gets on the ballot? Which candidate benefits if it never comes up and never sees the light of day? Romney or Kerry?

Massachusetts has an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. (87% of the Court is Dem.) They can overrule Romney on his veto to make ballot initiatives even harder to put on the ballot. So, who is pushing for this. I didn't see any names in the story that Non-MA residents would know. Do you think it might have crossed Sen. Kerry's mind to make a few calls, maybe inquire as to what was up and make his own wishes known on this?

Liberals hate, hate, hate this kind of stuff. There is an argument to be made that this is anti-democratic and is a way for the powerful interests in the State MA Dem Party to overwhelm the democratic process and substitute their wishes for the votes of the people. (I'm not sure that lefty actually like politics, but that is another thread.)

Everyone wants the Democratic Party to 'show some spine' and 'get tough' with Rethugs. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Getting a spine can also mean that difficult decisions as to who runs, who gets money, how the ballot is structured and who can get support from the local Dem Party gets made by a small group of people who have taken the reins of the process. They can control access and money and can field candidates based on viability and the ability to run a perceived good race. Great! In fact, wonderful! But what about those who get shut out? (And is this still liberal? Or should we say, screw liberalism, it doesn't matter anyway unless we start to win some races. Have the powerful screen some candidates and make those behind-the-scenes decisions. It's for the good of the Party, overall. Chicken or the egg?)

So, tell me some stuff from your state. This happens in everywhere. Thinking politically, what is going on for Democrats in the great USA? (Especially Ohio. Boy oh boy is Ohio getting interesting.)

[ginnyinWI]

1. Wisconsin

here you go: http://www.wisdems.org/
If I run across anything juicy, I'll post it. ;)

[sandnsea]

2. We have some of that stuff

I'd need to go look at exactly what passed and what didn't, I just don't remember. But I know we've been looking at changing ballot initiative laws because our Republicans keep putting the craziest shit on the ballot, it's mostly tax stuff that is causing problems here. Sound good in theory, but awful in practice. Like the initiative that says people can claim losses over development laws, which sounds good in theory until you realize it's the complete end of zoning. Bunch of garbage like this that is causing a change in the initiative process and I say thank god. I wouldn't chalk it up to just gay marriage in Mass, and I don't think it has anything to do with the party apparatus or getting shut out of the process. I'm confused about how initiative access leads to control of who runs for stuff. I'm probably missing something.

[MH1]

3. Well, I'll post on PA later, but on the Mass bill -

It looks like it has some good points. My gut feel is that people should not be paid for gathering signature - if the ballot initiative has enough merit, it shouldn't be that hard for people to get the needed signatures.

That said, is it possible to make the window longer for gathering signatures? Perhaps that would deflect some of the criticism of being "anti-democratic." Although frankly, I don't see why it's anti-democratic at all. Especially, reducing fraud is a good thing.

I know nothing about the current situation in Mass other than what you've said here, but I've heard about the hell California goes through with all the ballot initiatives (referendums? same thing?) that they have. Maybe it's not a bad idea to set the bar high for getting on the ballot.

How this plays into the gay-marriage thing is also of course interesting. Would such an initiative have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in Massachusetts, though? And if it doesn't, then there seems to me there is something wrong with a ballot petition process that allowed something to get on the ballot that would so clearly be defeated.

p.s. I love wonk stuff like this. Post more! More!
:7

[Island Blue]

4. A small group of powerful people making decisions

and controlling the process - isn't that how the world works, or at the very least, isn't that how it works here in the US? I know your point is, is that a legitimate liberal way of getting things done. I don't know. Do we really live in a true Democracy? Maybe not.

I do know that even at the very basic, lowest level of government (or of any organization) that seems to be the way it works. There are a handful of people willing, ready and able to take the reins and make decisions that will affect the larger group. Likewise, there is a very limited number of people who are willing, ready and able to run for office at any given level. You might be the smartest person on the planet, but that doesn't mean you'd make a good candidate for county dog catcher much less for POTUS.

I consider myself a liberal, but I am willing to accept that sometimes, things are just the way they are. I think where the "we the people" part comes in, is when a group of concerned citizens are able to influence the powers that be. Even then though, there is usually a leadership core (even if informal) within the group making decisions and leading the way. Does that make any sense or am I just rambling? I'm trying to wrap my head around what you are saying.

[TayTay]

5. There really is a lot going on behind the scenes.

Again, I don't want to get hung-up on the dull minutae of MA State politics. (Yawn.) But some of this stuff is setup. And I know it's going on in other states.

Briefly (I hope) I can relate what I see in this for John Kerry.

No potentially embarassing 'Gay Marriage' amendment on the MA ballot in '08. (A very good thing to not have to worry about.) Also, Romney doesn't get this to point to as a legacy triumph for him. And that article did not mention Kerry at all. It left the interest groups out front to battle it out. Nice.

MA must have a Dem Gov in '06. This is vital for lots of local reasons that I won't go into. But it is also vital in case we have a Dem nominee. Romney created diversions last time that it would be nice to not have next time.

To that end. there have been changes in MA. The convention that I attended voted itself into irrelevancy. (Unwittingly) The State Party no longer has to abide by the conventions wishes when it comes to candidates. If the con nominates someone, there is no obligation to release State Dem funds to the guy. The Powers That Be can decide that Candidate X has a better chance and will get the backing and money. All in the name of getting a stronger candidate in.

These kinds of trade-offs happen all the time. (And they tend to engender war in MA. This is not loved at all in LiberalLand. It is risky.)

[Island Blue]

6. North Carolina has virtually nothing going on in '06

but in '08 we elect a new Governor (our current Gov is a Democrat), a senator (Dole is up for re-election) and a President. That should be interesting. I wish Edwards would just stay at home and run for Governor but alas, he seems to be a wee bit to ambitious for that. (Actually I wish Elizabeth Edwards would run for Governor.)

[TayTay]

7. I adore Elizabeth Edwards

She was so down-to-earth and wonderful during the campaign. I couldn't agree with you more.

So, is Liddy Dole popular? Is the Gov re-running? Is Edwards still popular? I know that Sen. Edwards is making the Iowa/NH/SC rounds, but is there a chance he could go for Gov?

[Island Blue]

8. I know what you mean about Elizabeth Edwards being down to earth.

I saw her on C-Span at a town hall style meeting explaining how stem cells were used, and it was the first time I really, truly understood exactly what was involved in the process.

As far as Dole being popular, I just checked the ratings for senators and it looks like she's at about a 55% approval rating with 32% disapproving and 13% unsure. I see how it would be easy to be unsure about her job performance - I never hear of her doing much and I'm not sure if she could find the state on a map. (I'm probably joking.)

Our Governor can't run again because his two terms will be up. I've heard his name mentioned as a potential Presidential contender - he's done a pretty good job here, but I don't think he's Presidential material. I haven't heard yet of any potential candidates for the position.

I'm not really sure how popular Edwards still is to tell you the truth. I don't think he's thinking of running for Governor. I just wish that if he was going to run for something that would be it - I don't think he has nearly the experience needed to be President. Obviously, I am perfectly qualified to decide who is, and who is not Presidential material! :)

[LittleClarkie]

9. I got it right away. Very good point

If the same sex referendums had anything to do with our last loss, then we need to make sure the process by which they get on the ballot isn't being abused.

Our state Repubs have been trying to get a Voter Id bill passed. In fact, I think they did get it passed, but our Dem Governor is going to veto it, he has already said.

We also have the Accenture people in our state making up voter lists. After what's happened with those people, I can't believe we did. But they insist that it wasn't them mucking up the lists, but the Repub governments in each state that mucked them up. So we went with them for our list making. What are they, the only game in town? Eesh.

The State Senator from my district keeps trying to get a Same Sex Referendum on the state ballot (Gundrum, bleck) but I don't think he's having much success.

[JohnKleeb]

10. Well

Governor's, Lt Governor's race, and AG race here, and some referendums including a gay marriage ban one.
The governors race I have as a toss up, the Lt Governor's race sigh will be won by that asshole Bill Bolling, I dont know enough about the AG candidates but suspect it will be close, and the gay marriage referedum will pass.