The Ballot Initiative Process: Ripe for Reform?

My recent Initiativv blog post:

Ballot initiatives give voters a chance to chance to propose and create their own laws. These initiatives hold the power to change policy at the local level as well as at a state level. Ballot initiatives are a type of ballot measure that allow voters to directly propose and, by extension, enact laws. Initiatives do so by sidestepping the legislature, relying instead on the signatures and votes of citizens themselves to determine whether an idea becomes law.

Citizen-initiated ballot measures can be used by the general public to ignite constitutional or legislative reform by proposing, placing on the ballot, and voting on statutes or constitutional amendments in 24 states. Typically, ballot initiatives are placed on the ballot when a threshold number of signatures are gathered on a petition to express public support. After the signature threshold has been met, the measure is certified for the election and then presented to the public on a ballot so that all voters’ can directly choose whether or not the initiative should become law.

The ballot initiative is a useful vehicle for direct, fair, and representational democracy. Through the initiative process, all eligible voters can participate in decision-making instead of only a select few. In this way, ballot initiatives serve as a check on the “tyranny of the majority” by the playing field so no one group or individual has more influence because of status or other factors. This is why ballot initiatives can be an important tool for tackling issues that have not adequately been resolved through formal legislative channels.

When implemented as a tool of direct democracy in the context of greater reform efforts, ballot initiatives hold the potential to expand civic participation and promote the integrity of the democratic process. However, the ballot initiative process is not always so direct in implementation. All too often, a lack of access and education about the process excludes citizens from the ballot initiative process, depriving them of their rights to directly participate in the democratic process.

This is where technology comes into play.

The use of technology to increase accessibility to information about ballot initiatives as well as the ballot measure process itself can enhance the system’s responsiveness to the public’s interests. The right technology holds the capacity to level playing field through the empowerment of all citizens to actively participate in the democratic process regardless of disability, language barriers, and socioeconomic status.

A majority of the public supports changes to the ballot initiative system more accountable, accessible, and representative. We must begin cultivating more broad civic involvement, critical inquiry, and candid dialogue central to a more accessible, empowering, and sustainable democratic vision.

Want to learn more about the ballot initiative process and what Initiativv is doing to reform that process? Stay tuned.

Source: https://blog.initiativv.com/2015/08/the-ballot-initiative-process-ripe-for-reform/

Takeaways from Last Week’s Voting and Elections Events

Voting

My recent collaboration with Initiativv:

Last week, we had the opportunity to attend two events on recent innovations in voting and elections: “The Future of Voting” in San Francisco, California and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Election Data Summit in Washington, D.C.

Hosted by CivicMakers, We Vote USA, and Brigade, “The Future of Voting” celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act with an insightful discussion of voting and election technology. The event highlighted the importance of accessibility, transparency, and accountability as technology continues to sculpt the future of voting and elections administration, as well as the tremendous progress civic tech companies and organizations have using modern technologies and citizen-centric solutions.

Later in the week, we also had the privilege of attending the EAC’s Election Data Summit. It was an honor to hear from such a transformative group of skilled election officials, academics, and other interested groups who leverage modern approaches to constantly improve election administration and voter experiences with data. The Summit featured 42 individuals representing 21 different states discussing their tremendous progress in addressing election administration challenges through data and technology. Punctuating the need for more proactive efforts to encourage accuracy and accountability, a recurring theme was the encouragement of sharing, training, and communicating to improve election performance.

Many panelists stressed the importance of sharing through benchmarking as well as collaboration between IT and policy people to validate best practices in the creation, collection, and transparency of data. Participants also posed the question of identifying key stakeholders, as well as their interests and role of those stakeholders in voting and elections. While data can undoubtedly be used to advance technology by telling us what is efficient and secure, it also encompass an unparalleled capacity to tell stories, to animate and to illuminate as well as to inform policy decisions to identify It is in this way that we can better identify and meet the needs of those stakeholders, including federal, state, and local government, interested organizations, and voters themselves.

The relationship between data and current, relevant, deployable, usable technology particularly resonated with us. Both events punctuated how election administrators, researchers, organizations, and civic tech innovators are leading the world through the integration and advancement of technology as a mechanism to provide more secure, transparent, comprehensive, and citizen-centric elections. We were struck by the abundance of groundbreaking ideas and excited to have encountered so many like-minded innovators working to engage, educate, and empower voters.

Our key take-away? Light the fire, keep it burning.

We not only need to start a dialogue on these important issues, we need to continue it. At Initiativv, we want to extend our thanks to everyone who made these events possible.

Source: https://blog.initiativv.com/2015/08/recent-events/

ABA Election law CLE

Campaign Finance, Law, Voting

My op-ed on the Hill’s Congress Blog on the Voting Rights Amendment Act was included in the ABA Section on State & Local Government’s Election Law, Campaign Finance and Redistricting Issues in Federal, State and Local Elections CLE as one of the Recent Decisions and Secondary Authorities Regarding Election law, campaign finance and redistricting issues in federal, state and local elections.

Strength and weakness of the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014

Law, Policy, Voting

My op-ed for The Hill’s Congress Blog:

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which includes a provision mandating that specified states “preclear” any changes in election regulations with the federal government. The court upheld other provisions of the Voting Rights Act intact, including Section 2, a permanent provision that prohibits racially discriminatory voting laws nationwide, but determined that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional. Section 4(b) constitutes the “coverage formula” used to apply Section 5. As enacted, Section 4 requires certain states and jurisdictions that were determined by the formula to have a history of racially unbalanced voting to preclear any changes in election regulation with the federal government, even changes as minor as moving a polling station from one building to another.

The Court in Shelby found that the provision was unconstitutional because it was based on outmoded data from voter turnout in 1964, 1968, or 1972 elections. Further, many states and vicinities subject to preclearance no longer correspond to the same incidence of racial discrimination in voting. In fact, the Census Bureau has reported that black voters voted at substantially higher rates than whites in seven of the states covered by Section 5, a rate higher than many other states that remain unaffected by Section 5.

A main qualm that many proponents of the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 have with the holding in Shelby is not its invalidation of Section 4 itself, but the consequential rendering of Section 5 as toothless. What many liberals overlook is that Section 5 is a temporary, emergency provision passed in 1965 that was originally supposed to expire after five years. In fact, the emergency provision was enacted for the purpose of providing temporary federal receivership of state elections. However, Congress renewed the so-called emergency provision for the fourth time in 2006.

I couldn’t agree more with proponents of the bill who contend that individuals should not have to jump through hoops to register to vote and locate their proper voting locations. However, I also believe that state officials should not have to overcome significant obstacles to manage insignificant changes to elections and placing the burden of proving that voting change “neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color” on each jurisdiction every time the voting location changes from one building to another.

Requiring federal preclearance with the Justice Department or a federal court of any minuscule change to voting laws is essentially putting these states into the equivalent of federal receivership. The few benefits of the bill are simply not worth the far-reaching political intrusion that this version of the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 would permit.

In addition to the fundamentally intrusive nature of the bill, the protections provided for are sorely inadequate. Two glaring example of essential weakness of the current version of the bill is the exceptions for voter identification laws and the increased reliance on federal litigation as the only means of enforcing the provisions.

How, then, has a bill that flagrantly infringes upon state rights and arbitrarily imposes obstacles on local election boards based on outmoded data without even touching on one of the most controversial modern voting restrictions gained such wide bipartisan support?

Perhaps the answer can be found in a nonpartisan common goal shared by legislators across America: reelection. Politicians can enact gerrymanders that, depending on the composition of the legislature, give incumbents or one party a substantial electoral advantage while more easily attributing the structure of districts on Section 5.
The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 oversteps its mark by a longshot and would be a substantial step back for the freedom of voters across the county. In Shelby, Chief Justice John Roberts invited Congress to “draft another formula based on current conditions.” I strongly encourage Congress to keep drafting.

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/198922-strengths-and-weakness-of-the-voting-rights-amendment-act-of

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: