The following information is according to an email I received from the Maine Heritage Policy Center.
*****
Last Wednesday, the Maine Public Broadcasting Network announced that the bill sponsored by Assistant House Democratic Leader Seth Berry to undermine Maine's constitutionally protected citizen initiative process failed to win committee support to move through the legislative process.
Earlier this month, MHPC learned of Rep. Berry's bill, which allows names to be removed from a petition without any safeguards against fraud or abuse. Chief executive officer Tarren Bragdon testified in opposition to this bill, as well as two other anti-citizen initiative bills, at a public hearing in Augusta.
MHPC also issued a call to action to its grassroots network to contact Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee members with the message that we oppose ANY bills that restrict our right to engage government through the citizen initiative or people's veto process.
While the defeat of this bill is a victory for Maine people, the Democrat-controlled Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee may still move forward with changes to Maine's citizen-initiative process using a bill that may include provisions in Rep. Berry's original poposal.
The Maine Heritage Policy Center will remain engaged in this process and fight to protect our constitutional rights.
*****
This writer will continue to post ongoing information regarding these issues. Until LD 1692 and LD 1730 are defeated as well, citizen rights in Maine are at risk.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
EDDINGTON PUBLIC HEARINGS SET FOR 2010-2011 TOWN BUDGET
Tuesday March 2 and March 16 (at 6pm) have been set for Public Hearings at the Town Office where the proposed Town Budget will be reviewed - and the Town Warrant signed - for the 2010-2011 Town Budget which will be voted on at the Annual Town Meeting at the end of March at the Eddington Elementary School.
If things go as usual, there will be less than a full room in attendance at either of the Public Hearings, even though this year it is possible (according to rumor) that Homestead Exemptions will be eliminated by the state government and that there will be a reduction of $40,000. (or more) in shared revenue from the state to the town - both of which will add to the possibility of increased property taxes. And this is BEFORE we even deal with the proposed School Budget and state penalty of $167,000 to be divided between Eddington, Clifton and Holden because SAD 63 has done absolutely nothing about consolidating with any other school district since consolidation was not repealed last November. If the School Board goes the way it has in recent years, in spite of the state cutting back on its share of district expenses, we should expect that expense to go up as well - all of which will produce a hefty increase in the 2010 property taxes for everyone in the three town area.
And yet, there continues to be a failure of voters/taxpayers and property owner involvement in any of these elected government structures. Perhaps everyone has just given up and set about making plans to sell and get out while they have any money left.
Maybe we should take a lesson from that town in Rhode Island (that plans to fire all its teachers because of continuing poor school performance) and fire the entire School Board and Central Office. With only 944 students in the entire district, the SAD 63 budget continues to consume over 51 percent of the property tax bills of Eddington town property owners. According to http://www.Cliftonnews.blogspot.com , they have 150 students in the district and are paying over $500,000 per year - and that's BEFORE they will get hit with their share of the tax penalty for a School Board that has done NOTHING regarding consolidation since last November.
In an email exchange I had last week with the new Chairperson of the School Board, she is concerned with the quality of education the students receive. Me, too. But for over two years she was the Chair of the Curriculum Committee (of the School Board) and another member, a teacher, - both of whom are Eddington School Board reps) and there was not a single Curriculum Committee meeting. Seems to this writer that at least one meeting would have been in order, if only with the principals from Bangor, Brewer and John Bapst High Schools where our students go to ascertain how well our students are prepared in the areas of math and science for high school (since those areas were raised in the previous RSU discussions). And maybe a second - or more - meeting would have been in order with the principals from the SAD 63 schools along with the high school principals coordinated by the School board members of the Curriculum Committee. Better that than the excuse that SAD 63 didn't want to initiate anything that would be in conflict with any potential RSU partners. What partners? At the moment there are none - more because of inaction by the SAD 63 board than anything else.
In fact, the Downeast Newspapers are reporting that the Commissioner of Education has proposed to the Legislature that a waiver be approved which would allow an AOS be formed by just two school districts (no minimum number of students would be required) with a consolidated Central Office. That proposal will be voted on this Spring and if passed, the penalty tax will not be levied against the towns involved. When I brought that to the attention to the SAD 63 Chair last week in an email, the response I received was one of disinterest because of her interest in the "quality" of education. As if one could not maintain the same quality of education already in SAD 63 schools if they formed an AOS with CSD 8 or Otis. And BTW, avoid the $167,000 tax penalty looming over our heads in the process...
But unless there are people who will get off their duffs and out of their houses and attend these meetings - or write/call their School Board members and make some noise, nothing will change - except the dollar size of the property tax bills, of course. Those will only continue to go up.
If things go as usual, there will be less than a full room in attendance at either of the Public Hearings, even though this year it is possible (according to rumor) that Homestead Exemptions will be eliminated by the state government and that there will be a reduction of $40,000. (or more) in shared revenue from the state to the town - both of which will add to the possibility of increased property taxes. And this is BEFORE we even deal with the proposed School Budget and state penalty of $167,000 to be divided between Eddington, Clifton and Holden because SAD 63 has done absolutely nothing about consolidating with any other school district since consolidation was not repealed last November. If the School Board goes the way it has in recent years, in spite of the state cutting back on its share of district expenses, we should expect that expense to go up as well - all of which will produce a hefty increase in the 2010 property taxes for everyone in the three town area.
And yet, there continues to be a failure of voters/taxpayers and property owner involvement in any of these elected government structures. Perhaps everyone has just given up and set about making plans to sell and get out while they have any money left.
Maybe we should take a lesson from that town in Rhode Island (that plans to fire all its teachers because of continuing poor school performance) and fire the entire School Board and Central Office. With only 944 students in the entire district, the SAD 63 budget continues to consume over 51 percent of the property tax bills of Eddington town property owners. According to http://www.Cliftonnews.blogspot.com , they have 150 students in the district and are paying over $500,000 per year - and that's BEFORE they will get hit with their share of the tax penalty for a School Board that has done NOTHING regarding consolidation since last November.
In an email exchange I had last week with the new Chairperson of the School Board, she is concerned with the quality of education the students receive. Me, too. But for over two years she was the Chair of the Curriculum Committee (of the School Board) and another member, a teacher, - both of whom are Eddington School Board reps) and there was not a single Curriculum Committee meeting. Seems to this writer that at least one meeting would have been in order, if only with the principals from Bangor, Brewer and John Bapst High Schools where our students go to ascertain how well our students are prepared in the areas of math and science for high school (since those areas were raised in the previous RSU discussions). And maybe a second - or more - meeting would have been in order with the principals from the SAD 63 schools along with the high school principals coordinated by the School board members of the Curriculum Committee. Better that than the excuse that SAD 63 didn't want to initiate anything that would be in conflict with any potential RSU partners. What partners? At the moment there are none - more because of inaction by the SAD 63 board than anything else.
In fact, the Downeast Newspapers are reporting that the Commissioner of Education has proposed to the Legislature that a waiver be approved which would allow an AOS be formed by just two school districts (no minimum number of students would be required) with a consolidated Central Office. That proposal will be voted on this Spring and if passed, the penalty tax will not be levied against the towns involved. When I brought that to the attention to the SAD 63 Chair last week in an email, the response I received was one of disinterest because of her interest in the "quality" of education. As if one could not maintain the same quality of education already in SAD 63 schools if they formed an AOS with CSD 8 or Otis. And BTW, avoid the $167,000 tax penalty looming over our heads in the process...
But unless there are people who will get off their duffs and out of their houses and attend these meetings - or write/call their School Board members and make some noise, nothing will change - except the dollar size of the property tax bills, of course. Those will only continue to go up.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
LD 1692 - and a note regarding Monday
The following is the proposed Bill numbered LD 1692. It would become an amendment to the STATE CONSTITUTION. Following the written bill is a summary and a thought or two - plus a local note.
RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine To Amend the Requirements Governing Direct Initiatives
Constitutional amendment. Resolved: Two thirds of each branch of the Legislature concurring, that the following amendment to the Constitution of Maine be proposed:
Constitution, Art. IV, Pt. Third, §18, sub-§1, as amended by CR 2005, c. 2, is further amended to read:
Section 1. Petition procedure. The electors may propose to the Legislature for its consideration any bill, resolve or resolution, including bills to amend or repeal emergency legislation but not an amendment of the State Constitution, by written petition addressed to the Legislature or to either branch thereof and filed in the office of the Secretary of State by the hour of 5:00 p.m., on or before the 50th day after the date of convening of the Legislature in first regular session or on or before the 25th day after the date of convening of the Legislature in second regular session, except that the written petition may not be filed in the office of the Secretary of State later than 18 months after the date the petition form was furnished or approved by the Secretary of State. The text of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution that is included in the application for a direct initiative of legislation must identify the fiscal impact of, and the amount and source of revenue required to implement, the proposed bill, resolve or resolution. If the proposed bill, resolve or resolution requires a reduction in any source of government revenue, or a reallocation of funding from currently funded programs, the text of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution must identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the proposed bill, resolve or resolution. The Legislature's office of fiscal review shall provide reasonable assistance to the proponent of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution in fulfilling the requirements of this section. If the applicable deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period runs until the hour of 5:00 p.m., of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
; and be it further
Constitutional referendum procedure; form of question; effective date. Resolved: That the municipal officers of this State shall notify the inhabitants of their respective cities, towns and plantations to meet, in the manner prescribed by law for holding a statewide election, at a statewide election held in the month of November following the passage of this resolution, to vote upon the ratification of the amendment proposed in this resolution by voting upon the following question:
"Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to require that the text of a direct initiative of legislation must identify the amount and source of revenue required to implement the initiative and, if applicable, identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the initiative?"
The legal voters of each city, town and plantation shall vote by ballot on this question and designate their choice by a cross or check mark placed within the corresponding square below the word "Yes" or "No." The ballots must be received, sorted, counted and declared in open ward, town and plantation meetings and returns made to the Secretary of State in the same manner as votes for members of the Legislature. The Governor shall review the returns. If it appears that a majority of the legal votes are cast in favor of the amendment, the Governor shall proclaim that fact without delay and the amendment becomes part of the Constitution of Maine on the date of the proclamation; and be it further
Secretary of State shall prepare ballots. Resolved: That the Secretary of State shall prepare and furnish to each city, town and plantation all ballots, returns and copies of this resolution necessary to carry out the purposes of this referendum.
SUMMARY
This resolution proposes to amend the Constitution of Maine to require that the text of a direct initiative of legislation identify the amount and source of revenue required to implement the initiative and, if applicable, identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the initiative. This resolution also directs the Office of Fiscal and Program Review to provide reasonable assistance to the proponent of the direct initiative.
WHAT THIS BILL PROPOSES:
If this Bill is passed, any Citizen Initiative would be REQUIRED to include how the action proposed would be paid for - where the funds would be cut from another program or what taxes would be added (and from what source) to pay for the proposed program.
While this sounds good on its face, the only applies to citizen initiatives. It does not apply to any program or action which the Legislature enacts on its own. Even though the Legislature has all the resources of the State Government necessary to do this kind of analysis - which a citizen-based group in all likelihood would not have. That makes this a double-standard for citizens. Think of how many programs the State government has created and enacted or the courts have mandated with no thought at all of where the funding was to come from to pay for said program or services. But this proposed bill would make it constitutionally required for any citizen group to calculate that information (and probably before it could even begin to collect the 55,000+) signatures necessary.
This is neither right, fair, just or equitable when the legislature doesn't have to do it.
NOTE FOR MONDAY: It's School Board Meeting night. 6:30pm. Probably at Holbrook Middle School. Check with your Town Office to verify location. It would be nice to see local people in attendance just to see IF...(1) What answer did Orrington & Dedham receive from the Commissioner, (2) Did SAD 63 actually send a letter to the Commission requesting direction in light of Orrington & Dedham's actions, and (3) Were any Invitations sent out to Airline & Otis and ??? re: RPC meetings.
RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine To Amend the Requirements Governing Direct Initiatives
Constitutional amendment. Resolved: Two thirds of each branch of the Legislature concurring, that the following amendment to the Constitution of Maine be proposed:
Constitution, Art. IV, Pt. Third, §18, sub-§1, as amended by CR 2005, c. 2, is further amended to read:
Section 1. Petition procedure. The electors may propose to the Legislature for its consideration any bill, resolve or resolution, including bills to amend or repeal emergency legislation but not an amendment of the State Constitution, by written petition addressed to the Legislature or to either branch thereof and filed in the office of the Secretary of State by the hour of 5:00 p.m., on or before the 50th day after the date of convening of the Legislature in first regular session or on or before the 25th day after the date of convening of the Legislature in second regular session, except that the written petition may not be filed in the office of the Secretary of State later than 18 months after the date the petition form was furnished or approved by the Secretary of State. The text of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution that is included in the application for a direct initiative of legislation must identify the fiscal impact of, and the amount and source of revenue required to implement, the proposed bill, resolve or resolution. If the proposed bill, resolve or resolution requires a reduction in any source of government revenue, or a reallocation of funding from currently funded programs, the text of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution must identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the proposed bill, resolve or resolution. The Legislature's office of fiscal review shall provide reasonable assistance to the proponent of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution in fulfilling the requirements of this section. If the applicable deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period runs until the hour of 5:00 p.m., of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
; and be it further
Constitutional referendum procedure; form of question; effective date. Resolved: That the municipal officers of this State shall notify the inhabitants of their respective cities, towns and plantations to meet, in the manner prescribed by law for holding a statewide election, at a statewide election held in the month of November following the passage of this resolution, to vote upon the ratification of the amendment proposed in this resolution by voting upon the following question:
"Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to require that the text of a direct initiative of legislation must identify the amount and source of revenue required to implement the initiative and, if applicable, identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the initiative?"
The legal voters of each city, town and plantation shall vote by ballot on this question and designate their choice by a cross or check mark placed within the corresponding square below the word "Yes" or "No." The ballots must be received, sorted, counted and declared in open ward, town and plantation meetings and returns made to the Secretary of State in the same manner as votes for members of the Legislature. The Governor shall review the returns. If it appears that a majority of the legal votes are cast in favor of the amendment, the Governor shall proclaim that fact without delay and the amendment becomes part of the Constitution of Maine on the date of the proclamation; and be it further
Secretary of State shall prepare ballots. Resolved: That the Secretary of State shall prepare and furnish to each city, town and plantation all ballots, returns and copies of this resolution necessary to carry out the purposes of this referendum.
SUMMARY
This resolution proposes to amend the Constitution of Maine to require that the text of a direct initiative of legislation identify the amount and source of revenue required to implement the initiative and, if applicable, identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the initiative. This resolution also directs the Office of Fiscal and Program Review to provide reasonable assistance to the proponent of the direct initiative.
WHAT THIS BILL PROPOSES:
If this Bill is passed, any Citizen Initiative would be REQUIRED to include how the action proposed would be paid for - where the funds would be cut from another program or what taxes would be added (and from what source) to pay for the proposed program.
While this sounds good on its face, the only applies to citizen initiatives. It does not apply to any program or action which the Legislature enacts on its own. Even though the Legislature has all the resources of the State Government necessary to do this kind of analysis - which a citizen-based group in all likelihood would not have. That makes this a double-standard for citizens. Think of how many programs the State government has created and enacted or the courts have mandated with no thought at all of where the funding was to come from to pay for said program or services. But this proposed bill would make it constitutionally required for any citizen group to calculate that information (and probably before it could even begin to collect the 55,000+) signatures necessary.
This is neither right, fair, just or equitable when the legislature doesn't have to do it.
NOTE FOR MONDAY: It's School Board Meeting night. 6:30pm. Probably at Holbrook Middle School. Check with your Town Office to verify location. It would be nice to see local people in attendance just to see IF...(1) What answer did Orrington & Dedham receive from the Commissioner, (2) Did SAD 63 actually send a letter to the Commission requesting direction in light of Orrington & Dedham's actions, and (3) Were any Invitations sent out to Airline & Otis and ??? re: RPC meetings.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
LD1690 - THE PROPOSED BILL. WHAT IT SAYS & WHAT IT MEANS
The following is a direct "copy/paste" of the proposed LD 1690 as it appears on the Maine State government website. The bill's sponsor is Representative Seth Berry who has been entering "Comments" on the both Monday's and Wednesday's postings regarding this Bill. You can read Rep. Berry's remarks by going to those postings and clicking on "Comments."
I encourage you all to carefully read the proposed Bill which follows. At the conclusion, you will find some comments and observations by this writer. Enjoy. RG
*****
LD1690 Second Regular Session - 124th Maine Legislature
Text:
An Act To Prevent Predatory Signature Gathering and Ensure a Clean Citizen Initiative and People's Veto Process
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 21-A MRSA §197 is enacted to read:
§ 197. List of certified signatures provided
Beginning December 1, 2010, in addition to the records to be made available in accordance with section 196, the Secretary of State shall also make available an electronic list of the names of those voters, along with their voter identification numbers, whose signatures were certified on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum. This list is subject to the fees set forth in section 196, subsection 4 and may not be used for commercial purposes.
Sec. 2. 21-A MRSA §903-B is enacted to read:
§ 903-B. Removal of signature from petition
The Secretary of State may reject certification of a signature on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum in accordance with this section.
1. Written request. A person may make a request to have that person's signature discounted from a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum by submitting a written request to the applicant for the direct initiative or people's veto. The written request must clearly state the requestor's full name and municipality of residence. A copy of the written request must be submitted to the Secretary of State. The written request, including the copy to the Secretary of State, must be submitted no later than 15 days prior to the date the petition is due to the municipal registrar or election clerk as required by section 902.
2. Information provided. The Secretary of State shall post on the Secretary of State's publicly accessible website the name and the contact information of the applicant for each direct initiative of legislation and people's veto referendum to facilitate the provisions described in subsection 1.
Sec. 3. 21-A MRSA §903-C is enacted to read:
§ 903-C. Direct initiative and peoples's(sic)veto petition organization required to be registered
A petition organization shall register with the Secretary of State in accordance with this section. The Secretary of State shall reject the certification of petitions for the direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which the collection of signatures was supported, encouraged or organized by a petition organization that failed to register in accordance with subsection 1 or had its registration denied or revoked in accordance with subsection 2. For the purposes of this section, "petition organization" means a person, corporation or organization that receives or enters into a contract to receive compensation for supporting, encouraging or organizing the collection of petition signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum.
1. Registration. Prior to conducting any activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which compensation will be received, a petition organization, in addition to meeting any other registration requirement to transact business in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall prescribe the form and content of the registration and may charge a fee to administer this registration. The registration must include but is not limited to the following:
A. The ballot question or title of each direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum for which the petition organization will receive compensation;
B. Contact information for the petition organization, including the name of the organization, street address or post office box, telephone number and e-mail address;
C. The name and signature of a designated agent for the petition organization; and
D. The name of each person who will receive compensation for activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum.
The information contained in this registration must be made available for public inspection and must be posted on the publicly accessible website of the Secretary of State.
2. Denial or revocation of registration. The Secretary of State may deny the registration of a petition organization if that petition organization or any of its principals has been found via judicial or administrative proceeding to have violated any laws relating to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum in this State or any other state within the previous 10 years. The Secretary of State may revoke the registration of a petition organization if the petition organization authorized or knowingly permitted any of the following:
A. Allowing a signature on the petition of a person other than the person signing;
B. Allowing someone other than the person who signs the oath on the petition to collect signatures for that petition;
C. Falsifying the name or address of the circulator on the petition;
D. Inducing people to sign a petition or withdraw their names from a petition by offering money or other things of value; and
E. Violating the laws and rules governing notaries public.
Sec. 4. 21-A MRSA §905, sub-§2, as amended by PL 1987, c. 119, §1, is further amended to read:
2. Superior Court. Any voter named in the application under section 901, or any person who has validly signed the petitions, if these petitions are determined to be invalid, or any other voter, if these petitions are determined to be valid, may appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by commencing an action in the Superior Court. This action shall must be conducted in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80C, except as modified by this section. In reviewing the decision of the Secretary of State, the court shall determine whether the description of the subject matter is understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time and will not mislead a reasonable voter who understands the proposed legislation into voting contrary to his that voter's wishes. This action must be commenced within 5 10 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State and shall must be tried, without a jury, within 15 days of the date of that decision.
Upon timely application, anyone may intervene in this action when the applicant claims an interest relating to the subject matter of the petitions, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. The court shall issue its written decision containing its findings of fact and stating the reasons for its decision within 30 days of the commencement of the trial or within 45 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State, if there is no trial.
Sec. 5. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, first ¶, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20 and c. 366, §7 and affected by §12, is repealed and the following enacted in its place:
Any person not defined as a political action committee who receives contributions or makes expenditures, other than by contribution to a political action committee, aggregating in excess of $5,000 for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum must file ballot question reports with the commission in accordance with this section. Within 7 days of receiving contributions or making expenditures that exceed $5,000, the person shall register with the commission as a ballot question committee. For the purposes of this section, expenditures include paid staff time spent for the purpose of influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. The commission must prescribe forms for the registration, and the forms must include specification of a treasurer for the committee, any other principal officers and all individuals who are the primary fund-raisers and decision makers for the committee. In the case of a municipal election, the registration and reports must be filed with the clerk of that municipality.
Sec. 6. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20, is further amended to read:
2. Content. A report must contain an itemized account of each expenditure made to and contribution received from a single source aggregating in excess of $100 in any election; the date of each contribution; the date and purpose of each expenditure; the name and address of each contributor, payee or creditor; and the occupation and principal place of business, if any, for any person who has made contributions exceeding $100 in the aggregate. The filer is required to report only those contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and only those expenditures made for those purposes.
The definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" in section 1052, subsections 3 and 4, respectively, apply to persons required to file ballot question reports.
Sec. 7. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶B, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
B.Funds provided in response to a solicitation that would lead the contributor to believe that the funds would be used specifically for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum;
Sec. 8. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶C, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
C.Funds that can reasonably be determined to have been provided by the contributor for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum when viewed in the context of the contribution and the recipient's activities regarding a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum; and
Sec. 9. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§4, ¶A, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
A.The filer shall keep a detailed account of all contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and all expenditures made for those purposes.
summary
This bill requires the Secretary of State to make electronic lists of certified signatures from petitions for direct initiatives of legislation and people's veto referenda beginning December 2010. The bill also extends the time period that a person has to examine petitions when challenging the decision of the Secretary of State from 5 to 10 days. The bill authorizes the Secretary of State to reject certification of signatures on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto if the person who signed the petition submits a written request to the direct initiative or people's veto applicant 15 days prior to the date when the petitions are due to the municipal clerk for verification. This bill also requires registration of organizations that receive compensation to collect or support the collection of signatures on petitions for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. Finally, this bill makes a technical clarification to the campaign finance and disclosure laws regarding ballot question committees.
(No information was provided to define this "clarification. RG)
*******
COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS:
This writer grew up here in the Bangor area during a time when civic responsibility was taught alongside the meaning of what the American Revolution was all about - the sacrifices by the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) so that we, each of us, would have the freedom and liberty to direct and define our government. And if those we elected failed to "get the message we sent", we retained various ways to get our government back on the track. We can vote them out of office (not a bad idea these days) and we can initiate legislative actions that our state legislators have failed to do on their own despite our communications to do so, and we can initiate initiatives to repeal the actions of our legislatures that we do not support - actions which may have been taken without our support in the first place.
Back in the 50's when I was growing up here and attending public school in Bangor, I can remember some very spirited discussions at Garland Street Junior High (now called William H. Cohan, one of my high school classmates) and then at the "original" Bangor High School next to the Bangor Public Library. Maine was well populated with strong-minded, public spirited people in those days - every bit as adamant in their thinking as many are today. What I don't recall is hearing my parents talk about too many initiatives happening then. But then I married and we began our move Westward Ho. And during those travels I lived in many states where the people's initiatives are not uncommon. Because, in a country that is supposed to be governed by people elected to represent the people, the elected ones are often out of touch with what the PEOPLE really think, want and believe is right. And it is the people's responsibility to speak up and act. It can be via a people's initiative or it can be via a people's Tea Party (in Boston in those early days or a newer version these days). But, this country - AND THIS STATE- belong to the people. Maybe it's time this state's legislature hear that message instead of trying to smother it, hog-tie it, or tax it to death.
Personally, I think that as long as the PEOPLE have the right to petition via initiatives to "set their government straight", we will always be closer to the freedoms the Founding Fathers and Mothers intended for this country - particularly when state governments have the tendency as of late to pass taxation bills at the last minute, with no public hearings, in the dead of the night before shutting down their last session of the season! However, when the people's government attempt to choke off the free access of the people by the establishment of "lists" of names of those who sign petitions to repeal legislation or to force government to do the people's will, it becomes too much like Richard Nixon for his own personal vendetta or too much like Adolph Hitler to my way of thinking.
Let us examine just two small sections of this proposed Bill -
Section 903-B The Removal of Signature From Petition. Nowhere in this section do I find any procedure where the Office of the Secretary of State is required to contact ME to verify that I am the person who wrote a letter requesting to have my name removed from a petition I may (or may not) have signed. The letter writer is only required to provide my name and municipality - not my actual address and mailing address or any other verifier. And what if it is not my actual signature? What if it does not match the signature on the petition? Is anyone required to crosscheck that to verify that I am both the signer on the petition AND the signer of the letter requesting to have my name removed from the petition. This would be easier to do that voter fraud. It seems to me that most petitions have to have the signatures verified by the clerk in the local municipality before the petitions are forwarded to the Secretary of State. That is the place where the signer's signature is most likely to be verifiable.
Also, in the summary, it states the time period would be extended from 5 days to 10 for a party to challenge the Secretary of State's decision to verify the validity of petitions (and the necessary number of certified signatures) to qualify an initiative or repeal action for the ballot.
QUESTION: Where is the fairness in this when the Legislature passes taxation bills in the dark of night with no public hearings at the last moment before shutting down the legislative session? Does this sound like "justice for all" or only for members of the government? If all of the signatures have to be certified BEFORE being submitted to the Secretary of State in the first place (and they are at the local municipalities within 5 days which we all voted on this past election, remember), this little "quirk" seems to be a sneaky attempt to thwart the people's will. And by whom? Must be the Bill's sponsor. One must question his motives, readers. One must.
However, I can see where this proposed Bill would come in very handy to members of the Legislature if they wanted to prevent Mainers from being able to object via the repeal process to actions taken by the Legislature, such as the current activities regarding the so-called Tax Reform Bill or the School Consolidation mandate. Have you ever read how goose pate is made. That's what this proposed Bill makes me think of (forced feeding) with no legal objection process.
Just look at the title of the Bill: An Act To Prevent PREDATORY Signature Gathering ....The title alone is a bit inflammatory - biased, maybe. But perhaps there is a back story to this effort.
With all due respect to Representative Berry, the Legislature's Democratic majority whip, one has to question his motives in sponsoring this bill. Could it be it has something to do with the repeal initiative regarding the Tax Reform Bill that was soooo successful. In a column by Prof. John Frary that appeared in the Machias Valley News Observer on September 16, 2009, the Professor wrote: (now read carefully, people - all the way through)
"The biggest surprise among a number of surprises is that total of over 60,000 signatures is (sic) a short period of time. The experts, the pundits, Those Who Know declared the effort doomed to failure. There wouldn't be enough time. There was no media budget-not a cent. Sen. David Traham (Rep.Wiscasset,etc.) himself, although he knew the tax "reform" bill was a stinker, doubted success until he set about the job of circulating petitions himself. Then he discovered that about 80% of Maine citizens were ready, even eager to sign. He now vows that he will never again question Charlie Webster's political judgement (Charles Webster, Republican State Committee Chairman).
"This has been the fastest and cheapest petition drive in Maine history.
"Another surprise was a unique bi-partisan effort uniting the Republican and the Green Parties. The two parties agree on two things, that the petition process itself is vital to effective democracy and that LD1495 was primarily designed to gouge the working class. In fact. the Greens' contribution turned out to be indespensable to success.
READERS - PAY ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH FROM PROF. FRARY'S ARTICLE.
"The Democrats awoke to the danger to their tax scheme and sprung into action too late to avert the peril. This was not for lack of zeal. Representatives Seth Berry (Bowdoinham, etc.), James Martin (Bangor, Orono, Veazie) and Jon Hink (Portland) made every effort to interfer with people trying to sign. Rep. Berry, Democratic majority whip, made himself especially obnoxious at Windsor Fair; to the extent he put himself in danger of being smacked upside the ear hole by Vickie Webster, normally a peaceable woman who takes a dispassionate view of politics. There's been talk of an ethics charge against this pest.
"One petition worker in Portland had his car windows smashed and 1200 certified petitions stolen. Another, working the Windsor Fair, had 600 uncertified petitions stolen. Rep. Cebra (Naples, Casco, part of Portland) had his car keyed. Someone let the air out of the tires of the GOP state party executive director's SUV...."
Sounds like a bunch of thugs to this writer and not the kind of people to whom any good citizen should be entrusting our democracy, personal rights or liberties.
In conclusion, you readers will have to make up your own minds. But, if you think this Bill - LD1690 - is an affront to your civil liberties and rights as a taxpayer and voter, I strongly suggest you screen down to the posting from this past Monday (February 15) and find the names and email addresses of the various committee members and start sending them a piece of your mind. Your taxes have paid for a long email and I'm sure you will have a word or ten to say on the subject.
As for me, I think this LD 1690 is intended to keep us corraled, silent and in "Sheep Mentality" (while being taxed to death or to the point of leaving this state). As a citizen and voter, I am insulted. I read every petition I sign. I know what I believe and what I disagree with. Don't know too Mainers who differ in that regard.
Now when it comes to PREDATORY Legislators, they're more prevalent around here than cockroaches in Los Angeles.
I encourage you all to carefully read the proposed Bill which follows. At the conclusion, you will find some comments and observations by this writer. Enjoy. RG
*****
LD1690 Second Regular Session - 124th Maine Legislature
Text:
An Act To Prevent Predatory Signature Gathering and Ensure a Clean Citizen Initiative and People's Veto Process
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 21-A MRSA §197 is enacted to read:
§ 197. List of certified signatures provided
Beginning December 1, 2010, in addition to the records to be made available in accordance with section 196, the Secretary of State shall also make available an electronic list of the names of those voters, along with their voter identification numbers, whose signatures were certified on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum. This list is subject to the fees set forth in section 196, subsection 4 and may not be used for commercial purposes.
Sec. 2. 21-A MRSA §903-B is enacted to read:
§ 903-B. Removal of signature from petition
The Secretary of State may reject certification of a signature on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum in accordance with this section.
1. Written request. A person may make a request to have that person's signature discounted from a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum by submitting a written request to the applicant for the direct initiative or people's veto. The written request must clearly state the requestor's full name and municipality of residence. A copy of the written request must be submitted to the Secretary of State. The written request, including the copy to the Secretary of State, must be submitted no later than 15 days prior to the date the petition is due to the municipal registrar or election clerk as required by section 902.
2. Information provided. The Secretary of State shall post on the Secretary of State's publicly accessible website the name and the contact information of the applicant for each direct initiative of legislation and people's veto referendum to facilitate the provisions described in subsection 1.
Sec. 3. 21-A MRSA §903-C is enacted to read:
§ 903-C. Direct initiative and peoples's(sic)veto petition organization required to be registered
A petition organization shall register with the Secretary of State in accordance with this section. The Secretary of State shall reject the certification of petitions for the direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which the collection of signatures was supported, encouraged or organized by a petition organization that failed to register in accordance with subsection 1 or had its registration denied or revoked in accordance with subsection 2. For the purposes of this section, "petition organization" means a person, corporation or organization that receives or enters into a contract to receive compensation for supporting, encouraging or organizing the collection of petition signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum.
1. Registration. Prior to conducting any activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which compensation will be received, a petition organization, in addition to meeting any other registration requirement to transact business in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall prescribe the form and content of the registration and may charge a fee to administer this registration. The registration must include but is not limited to the following:
A. The ballot question or title of each direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum for which the petition organization will receive compensation;
B. Contact information for the petition organization, including the name of the organization, street address or post office box, telephone number and e-mail address;
C. The name and signature of a designated agent for the petition organization; and
D. The name of each person who will receive compensation for activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum.
The information contained in this registration must be made available for public inspection and must be posted on the publicly accessible website of the Secretary of State.
2. Denial or revocation of registration. The Secretary of State may deny the registration of a petition organization if that petition organization or any of its principals has been found via judicial or administrative proceeding to have violated any laws relating to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum in this State or any other state within the previous 10 years. The Secretary of State may revoke the registration of a petition organization if the petition organization authorized or knowingly permitted any of the following:
A. Allowing a signature on the petition of a person other than the person signing;
B. Allowing someone other than the person who signs the oath on the petition to collect signatures for that petition;
C. Falsifying the name or address of the circulator on the petition;
D. Inducing people to sign a petition or withdraw their names from a petition by offering money or other things of value; and
E. Violating the laws and rules governing notaries public.
Sec. 4. 21-A MRSA §905, sub-§2, as amended by PL 1987, c. 119, §1, is further amended to read:
2. Superior Court. Any voter named in the application under section 901, or any person who has validly signed the petitions, if these petitions are determined to be invalid, or any other voter, if these petitions are determined to be valid, may appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by commencing an action in the Superior Court. This action shall must be conducted in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80C, except as modified by this section. In reviewing the decision of the Secretary of State, the court shall determine whether the description of the subject matter is understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time and will not mislead a reasonable voter who understands the proposed legislation into voting contrary to his that voter's wishes. This action must be commenced within 5 10 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State and shall must be tried, without a jury, within 15 days of the date of that decision.
Upon timely application, anyone may intervene in this action when the applicant claims an interest relating to the subject matter of the petitions, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. The court shall issue its written decision containing its findings of fact and stating the reasons for its decision within 30 days of the commencement of the trial or within 45 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State, if there is no trial.
Sec. 5. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, first ¶, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20 and c. 366, §7 and affected by §12, is repealed and the following enacted in its place:
Any person not defined as a political action committee who receives contributions or makes expenditures, other than by contribution to a political action committee, aggregating in excess of $5,000 for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum must file ballot question reports with the commission in accordance with this section. Within 7 days of receiving contributions or making expenditures that exceed $5,000, the person shall register with the commission as a ballot question committee. For the purposes of this section, expenditures include paid staff time spent for the purpose of influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. The commission must prescribe forms for the registration, and the forms must include specification of a treasurer for the committee, any other principal officers and all individuals who are the primary fund-raisers and decision makers for the committee. In the case of a municipal election, the registration and reports must be filed with the clerk of that municipality.
Sec. 6. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20, is further amended to read:
2. Content. A report must contain an itemized account of each expenditure made to and contribution received from a single source aggregating in excess of $100 in any election; the date of each contribution; the date and purpose of each expenditure; the name and address of each contributor, payee or creditor; and the occupation and principal place of business, if any, for any person who has made contributions exceeding $100 in the aggregate. The filer is required to report only those contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and only those expenditures made for those purposes.
The definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" in section 1052, subsections 3 and 4, respectively, apply to persons required to file ballot question reports.
Sec. 7. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶B, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
B.Funds provided in response to a solicitation that would lead the contributor to believe that the funds would be used specifically for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum;
Sec. 8. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶C, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
C.Funds that can reasonably be determined to have been provided by the contributor for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum when viewed in the context of the contribution and the recipient's activities regarding a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum; and
Sec. 9. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§4, ¶A, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
A.The filer shall keep a detailed account of all contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and all expenditures made for those purposes.
summary
This bill requires the Secretary of State to make electronic lists of certified signatures from petitions for direct initiatives of legislation and people's veto referenda beginning December 2010. The bill also extends the time period that a person has to examine petitions when challenging the decision of the Secretary of State from 5 to 10 days. The bill authorizes the Secretary of State to reject certification of signatures on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto if the person who signed the petition submits a written request to the direct initiative or people's veto applicant 15 days prior to the date when the petitions are due to the municipal clerk for verification. This bill also requires registration of organizations that receive compensation to collect or support the collection of signatures on petitions for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. Finally, this bill makes a technical clarification to the campaign finance and disclosure laws regarding ballot question committees.
(No information was provided to define this "clarification. RG)
*******
COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS:
This writer grew up here in the Bangor area during a time when civic responsibility was taught alongside the meaning of what the American Revolution was all about - the sacrifices by the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) so that we, each of us, would have the freedom and liberty to direct and define our government. And if those we elected failed to "get the message we sent", we retained various ways to get our government back on the track. We can vote them out of office (not a bad idea these days) and we can initiate legislative actions that our state legislators have failed to do on their own despite our communications to do so, and we can initiate initiatives to repeal the actions of our legislatures that we do not support - actions which may have been taken without our support in the first place.
Back in the 50's when I was growing up here and attending public school in Bangor, I can remember some very spirited discussions at Garland Street Junior High (now called William H. Cohan, one of my high school classmates) and then at the "original" Bangor High School next to the Bangor Public Library. Maine was well populated with strong-minded, public spirited people in those days - every bit as adamant in their thinking as many are today. What I don't recall is hearing my parents talk about too many initiatives happening then. But then I married and we began our move Westward Ho. And during those travels I lived in many states where the people's initiatives are not uncommon. Because, in a country that is supposed to be governed by people elected to represent the people, the elected ones are often out of touch with what the PEOPLE really think, want and believe is right. And it is the people's responsibility to speak up and act. It can be via a people's initiative or it can be via a people's Tea Party (in Boston in those early days or a newer version these days). But, this country - AND THIS STATE- belong to the people. Maybe it's time this state's legislature hear that message instead of trying to smother it, hog-tie it, or tax it to death.
Personally, I think that as long as the PEOPLE have the right to petition via initiatives to "set their government straight", we will always be closer to the freedoms the Founding Fathers and Mothers intended for this country - particularly when state governments have the tendency as of late to pass taxation bills at the last minute, with no public hearings, in the dead of the night before shutting down their last session of the season! However, when the people's government attempt to choke off the free access of the people by the establishment of "lists" of names of those who sign petitions to repeal legislation or to force government to do the people's will, it becomes too much like Richard Nixon for his own personal vendetta or too much like Adolph Hitler to my way of thinking.
Let us examine just two small sections of this proposed Bill -
Section 903-B The Removal of Signature From Petition. Nowhere in this section do I find any procedure where the Office of the Secretary of State is required to contact ME to verify that I am the person who wrote a letter requesting to have my name removed from a petition I may (or may not) have signed. The letter writer is only required to provide my name and municipality - not my actual address and mailing address or any other verifier. And what if it is not my actual signature? What if it does not match the signature on the petition? Is anyone required to crosscheck that to verify that I am both the signer on the petition AND the signer of the letter requesting to have my name removed from the petition. This would be easier to do that voter fraud. It seems to me that most petitions have to have the signatures verified by the clerk in the local municipality before the petitions are forwarded to the Secretary of State. That is the place where the signer's signature is most likely to be verifiable.
Also, in the summary, it states the time period would be extended from 5 days to 10 for a party to challenge the Secretary of State's decision to verify the validity of petitions (and the necessary number of certified signatures) to qualify an initiative or repeal action for the ballot.
QUESTION: Where is the fairness in this when the Legislature passes taxation bills in the dark of night with no public hearings at the last moment before shutting down the legislative session? Does this sound like "justice for all" or only for members of the government? If all of the signatures have to be certified BEFORE being submitted to the Secretary of State in the first place (and they are at the local municipalities within 5 days which we all voted on this past election, remember), this little "quirk" seems to be a sneaky attempt to thwart the people's will. And by whom? Must be the Bill's sponsor. One must question his motives, readers. One must.
However, I can see where this proposed Bill would come in very handy to members of the Legislature if they wanted to prevent Mainers from being able to object via the repeal process to actions taken by the Legislature, such as the current activities regarding the so-called Tax Reform Bill or the School Consolidation mandate. Have you ever read how goose pate is made. That's what this proposed Bill makes me think of (forced feeding) with no legal objection process.
Just look at the title of the Bill: An Act To Prevent PREDATORY Signature Gathering ....The title alone is a bit inflammatory - biased, maybe. But perhaps there is a back story to this effort.
With all due respect to Representative Berry, the Legislature's Democratic majority whip, one has to question his motives in sponsoring this bill. Could it be it has something to do with the repeal initiative regarding the Tax Reform Bill that was soooo successful. In a column by Prof. John Frary that appeared in the Machias Valley News Observer on September 16, 2009, the Professor wrote: (now read carefully, people - all the way through)
"The biggest surprise among a number of surprises is that total of over 60,000 signatures is (sic) a short period of time. The experts, the pundits, Those Who Know declared the effort doomed to failure. There wouldn't be enough time. There was no media budget-not a cent. Sen. David Traham (Rep.Wiscasset,etc.) himself, although he knew the tax "reform" bill was a stinker, doubted success until he set about the job of circulating petitions himself. Then he discovered that about 80% of Maine citizens were ready, even eager to sign. He now vows that he will never again question Charlie Webster's political judgement (Charles Webster, Republican State Committee Chairman).
"This has been the fastest and cheapest petition drive in Maine history.
"Another surprise was a unique bi-partisan effort uniting the Republican and the Green Parties. The two parties agree on two things, that the petition process itself is vital to effective democracy and that LD1495 was primarily designed to gouge the working class. In fact. the Greens' contribution turned out to be indespensable to success.
READERS - PAY ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH FROM PROF. FRARY'S ARTICLE.
"The Democrats awoke to the danger to their tax scheme and sprung into action too late to avert the peril. This was not for lack of zeal. Representatives Seth Berry (Bowdoinham, etc.), James Martin (Bangor, Orono, Veazie) and Jon Hink (Portland) made every effort to interfer with people trying to sign. Rep. Berry, Democratic majority whip, made himself especially obnoxious at Windsor Fair; to the extent he put himself in danger of being smacked upside the ear hole by Vickie Webster, normally a peaceable woman who takes a dispassionate view of politics. There's been talk of an ethics charge against this pest.
"One petition worker in Portland had his car windows smashed and 1200 certified petitions stolen. Another, working the Windsor Fair, had 600 uncertified petitions stolen. Rep. Cebra (Naples, Casco, part of Portland) had his car keyed. Someone let the air out of the tires of the GOP state party executive director's SUV...."
Sounds like a bunch of thugs to this writer and not the kind of people to whom any good citizen should be entrusting our democracy, personal rights or liberties.
In conclusion, you readers will have to make up your own minds. But, if you think this Bill - LD1690 - is an affront to your civil liberties and rights as a taxpayer and voter, I strongly suggest you screen down to the posting from this past Monday (February 15) and find the names and email addresses of the various committee members and start sending them a piece of your mind. Your taxes have paid for a long email and I'm sure you will have a word or ten to say on the subject.
As for me, I think this LD 1690 is intended to keep us corraled, silent and in "Sheep Mentality" (while being taxed to death or to the point of leaving this state). As a citizen and voter, I am insulted. I read every petition I sign. I know what I believe and what I disagree with. Don't know too Mainers who differ in that regard.
Now when it comes to PREDATORY Legislators, they're more prevalent around here than cockroaches in Los Angeles.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
NOTE: There was a "Comment" posted by Maine State Representative Seth Berry (Bowdoinham) on Monday's posting. You can read Rep. Berry's comments by clicking on the "Comments" for that posting. (Basically, his comments are identified as the statements within the " " which follow and the 3 specific statements which MHPC responded to in a following paragraph.)
I answered Rep. Berry's comment by writing that I would seek out information at the Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC) luncheon today in Bangor where I took a print-out of Rep. Berry's comment. The following is the written response I received from Trevor Bragdon from the MHPC.
***
Rusty,
Below I have outlined the responses to Rep. Berry’s comments
“The bill would do 3 things to empower Maine voters:
1) let you know who is being paid and who is paying for your signature”
[MHPC response] Under current Maine law, payments for signature collection already have to be reported to the Maine Ethics Commission through a PAC or 1056B report. This bill would add an additional layer of bureaucracy and a way for legislators and government officials to easily identify their opponents especially on People’s Veto efforts. We do not require people working for pay on campaigns to register with the state, why should we do it for people working to collect signatures?
2) “Let you be sure the Secretary of State’s count of valid names is in fact accurate”
[MHPC response] To date there has never been a citizen’s initiative or People’s Veto that was approved by the Secretary of State to later be found invalid. The Secretary of State provides one of the most exhaustive processes in the country to verify the petitions and make sure enough were collected. This is just a ploy to allow political opponents of the initiative to have more time to examine the petitions to try to get them thrown through the court system and thwart the people’s will.
3) “Let you retract your signature if lied to by a signature gatherer”
[MHPC response] The Maine petition process is highly regulated and every signature collected needs to be witnessed by a registered Maine voter. By creating a system where people can send in a letter to remove their name from a petition, you open the door for fraud since no one will be able to witness who actually sends in the letters asking for the signature to be removed.
Overall this is a very political bill that is aimed at hurting the citizen initiative and People’s Veto. Currently, under Maine law, to collect signatures to get a legislator on the ballot you do not have to be a Maine resident, a registered voter or even over the age of 18. If Rep. Berry was really interested in reform, he would make the same standards currently in place for signature collection on a citizens initiative for when he collects signatures to get on the ballot. Right now a 10 year old Florida resident could collect all his signatures.
Here is a great story that was written by AJ Higgins of Maine Public Broadcasting about this bill.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/mpbn-capitol-connection/politics-permeate-citizen-initiative-bills/344410934851
Thanks again for coming to the luncheon and let me know if you have any more questions.
Trevor
________________
Trevor Bragdon
*****
TOMORROW: I'll print the proposed bill for readers to read for themselves - and submit a few thoughts of my own. In the meantime, I'm appreciative of the interest and dialogue this topic and blogspot is generating among readers and voters. As always, I believe an informed citizen/voter population is the best protection of the rights and freedoms so many have fought and died to preserve for all Americans.
I answered Rep. Berry's comment by writing that I would seek out information at the Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC) luncheon today in Bangor where I took a print-out of Rep. Berry's comment. The following is the written response I received from Trevor Bragdon from the MHPC.
***
Rusty,
Below I have outlined the responses to Rep. Berry’s comments
“The bill would do 3 things to empower Maine voters:
1) let you know who is being paid and who is paying for your signature”
[MHPC response] Under current Maine law, payments for signature collection already have to be reported to the Maine Ethics Commission through a PAC or 1056B report. This bill would add an additional layer of bureaucracy and a way for legislators and government officials to easily identify their opponents especially on People’s Veto efforts. We do not require people working for pay on campaigns to register with the state, why should we do it for people working to collect signatures?
2) “Let you be sure the Secretary of State’s count of valid names is in fact accurate”
[MHPC response] To date there has never been a citizen’s initiative or People’s Veto that was approved by the Secretary of State to later be found invalid. The Secretary of State provides one of the most exhaustive processes in the country to verify the petitions and make sure enough were collected. This is just a ploy to allow political opponents of the initiative to have more time to examine the petitions to try to get them thrown through the court system and thwart the people’s will.
3) “Let you retract your signature if lied to by a signature gatherer”
[MHPC response] The Maine petition process is highly regulated and every signature collected needs to be witnessed by a registered Maine voter. By creating a system where people can send in a letter to remove their name from a petition, you open the door for fraud since no one will be able to witness who actually sends in the letters asking for the signature to be removed.
Overall this is a very political bill that is aimed at hurting the citizen initiative and People’s Veto. Currently, under Maine law, to collect signatures to get a legislator on the ballot you do not have to be a Maine resident, a registered voter or even over the age of 18. If Rep. Berry was really interested in reform, he would make the same standards currently in place for signature collection on a citizens initiative for when he collects signatures to get on the ballot. Right now a 10 year old Florida resident could collect all his signatures.
Here is a great story that was written by AJ Higgins of Maine Public Broadcasting about this bill.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/mpbn-capitol-connection/politics-permeate-citizen-initiative-bills/344410934851
Thanks again for coming to the luncheon and let me know if you have any more questions.
Trevor
________________
Trevor Bragdon
*****
TOMORROW: I'll print the proposed bill for readers to read for themselves - and submit a few thoughts of my own. In the meantime, I'm appreciative of the interest and dialogue this topic and blogspot is generating among readers and voters. As always, I believe an informed citizen/voter population is the best protection of the rights and freedoms so many have fought and died to preserve for all Americans.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Maine Heritage Policy Center UPDATE - February 15
Updates from Maine's Premier Free-Market Think Tank
February 15, 2010
In This Update
MHPC launches GreatSchoolsForME.org
E-mail to protect direct democracy
GreatSchoolsForME.org has arrived
Tracking all things education in Maine became much easier last Wednesday when The Maine Heritage Policy Center launched GreatSchoolsForME.org. GreatSchoolsForME.org is a one-stop online education tool designed to present important information in a clear and objective way. Users can find local education spending facts, total district spending for each of 22 cost centers (in dollars and percent), district comparisons to statewide averages, school performance data, parent reviews, up-to-date information on education reform ideas like school choice and charter schools, and more.
Since GreatSchoolsForME.org was launched last week, thousands of Mainers have already visited the site. The site's launch also received prominent news coverage from Maine Public Radio, WCSH/Channel 6, WABI/Channel 5, WVII/Channel 7, the Bangor Daily News, and Maine Ahead. National organizations including Americans for Tax Reform, AARP, and Sunshine Review Blog have also noted the GreatSchoolsForME.org launch on their Web sites. MHPC hopes visitors to GreatSchoolsForMe.org will use the information they find to draw their own conclusions about the performance of their local school districts. GreatSchoolsForME.org can transform the way we think about education, and that is a first step toward positive, student-focused education reform in Maine.
Stop politicians from undermining direct democracy in Maine
This Wednesday, the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee begins work sessions for three bills meant to curtail our right to directly engage government through the citizen initiative and people's veto. We need to send a message urging opposition to these anti-democratic bills.
LD 1690 (Rep. Seth Berry-sponsor) allows the removal of petition signatures without safeguards preventing fraud. Your name could be removed from a petition by a stranger who sends a letter pretending to be you! Petition signers may also face coercion from employers, politicians or others oppose to the petition.
LD 1692 (Rep. Emily Cain-sponsor) proposes an amendment to the Maine Constitution to require citizen initiative sponsors to identify how proposed spending cuts would be funded. Augusta politicians face no such requirements, yet Rep. Cain and other sponsors are happy to place this costly burden on citizens.
LD 1730 (Sen. John Nutting-sponsor) creates new requirements and penalties targeting citizen petition circulators, but does nothing to reform the petition process for candidates (candidate petition circulators can be under 18, do not have to be registered to vote, and do not have to reside in Maine). The money collected from the new penalties is earmarked for the Maine Clean Elections Fund, so politicians can continue using other people's money to run political campaigns
On Feb. 8, Chief Executive Officer Tarren Bragdon delivered testimony in opposition to these three bills. More than a dozen other Maine citizens joined Tarren in testifying in opposition. Our victory in stopping the Education Committee from repealing our right to vote on local school budgets proves that Maine people united behind a consistent message are a powerful force. Now, we need to use that power to protect our right to the citizen initiative and people's veto. Please take a minute to send a message to members of the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee that you oppose LD 1690, 1692, 1730, or any other effort to limit our rights to directly engage government.
Sen. Nancy Sullivan - Chair
(207)282-5594
npsullivan@gwi.net
Rep. Pamela Jabar Trinward - Chair
(207) 872-7545
pjtrin@roadrunner.com
Sen. Seth Goodall
(207) 737-4797
seth@sethgoodall.com
Sen. Debra Plowman
(207) 862-4506
debraplowman@cs.com
Rep. Joh Tuttle
(207) 324-5964
RepJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Linda Valentino
(207) 282-5227
lmvalentino54@yahoo.com
Rep. Michael Carey
(207) 344-3017
RepMichael.Carey@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Alexander Cornell du Houx
(207) 319-4511
acornell@alexcornell.org
Rep. Diane Russell
(207) 902-0043
RepDiane.Russell@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Stacey Fitts
(207) 487-5641
RepStacey.Fitts@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Wright Pinkham
(207) 628-2916
wrightfor88@tds.net
Rep. Joan Nass
(207) 477-2607
RepJoan.Nass@legislature.maine.gov
EVENT REMINDER
"Warning Signs for Maine's Economy: New Evidence"
Mr. Scott Moody, Chief Economist, The Maine Heritage Policy Center
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Seadog Brewing Company
26 Front Street, Bangor
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
DiMillo's Floating Restaurant
25 Long Wharf, Portland
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
February 15, 2010
In This Update
MHPC launches GreatSchoolsForME.org
E-mail to protect direct democracy
GreatSchoolsForME.org has arrived
Tracking all things education in Maine became much easier last Wednesday when The Maine Heritage Policy Center launched GreatSchoolsForME.org. GreatSchoolsForME.org is a one-stop online education tool designed to present important information in a clear and objective way. Users can find local education spending facts, total district spending for each of 22 cost centers (in dollars and percent), district comparisons to statewide averages, school performance data, parent reviews, up-to-date information on education reform ideas like school choice and charter schools, and more.
Since GreatSchoolsForME.org was launched last week, thousands of Mainers have already visited the site. The site's launch also received prominent news coverage from Maine Public Radio, WCSH/Channel 6, WABI/Channel 5, WVII/Channel 7, the Bangor Daily News, and Maine Ahead. National organizations including Americans for Tax Reform, AARP, and Sunshine Review Blog have also noted the GreatSchoolsForME.org launch on their Web sites. MHPC hopes visitors to GreatSchoolsForMe.org will use the information they find to draw their own conclusions about the performance of their local school districts. GreatSchoolsForME.org can transform the way we think about education, and that is a first step toward positive, student-focused education reform in Maine.
Stop politicians from undermining direct democracy in Maine
This Wednesday, the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee begins work sessions for three bills meant to curtail our right to directly engage government through the citizen initiative and people's veto. We need to send a message urging opposition to these anti-democratic bills.
LD 1690 (Rep. Seth Berry-sponsor) allows the removal of petition signatures without safeguards preventing fraud. Your name could be removed from a petition by a stranger who sends a letter pretending to be you! Petition signers may also face coercion from employers, politicians or others oppose to the petition.
LD 1692 (Rep. Emily Cain-sponsor) proposes an amendment to the Maine Constitution to require citizen initiative sponsors to identify how proposed spending cuts would be funded. Augusta politicians face no such requirements, yet Rep. Cain and other sponsors are happy to place this costly burden on citizens.
LD 1730 (Sen. John Nutting-sponsor) creates new requirements and penalties targeting citizen petition circulators, but does nothing to reform the petition process for candidates (candidate petition circulators can be under 18, do not have to be registered to vote, and do not have to reside in Maine). The money collected from the new penalties is earmarked for the Maine Clean Elections Fund, so politicians can continue using other people's money to run political campaigns
On Feb. 8, Chief Executive Officer Tarren Bragdon delivered testimony in opposition to these three bills. More than a dozen other Maine citizens joined Tarren in testifying in opposition. Our victory in stopping the Education Committee from repealing our right to vote on local school budgets proves that Maine people united behind a consistent message are a powerful force. Now, we need to use that power to protect our right to the citizen initiative and people's veto. Please take a minute to send a message to members of the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee that you oppose LD 1690, 1692, 1730, or any other effort to limit our rights to directly engage government.
Sen. Nancy Sullivan - Chair
(207)282-5594
npsullivan@gwi.net
Rep. Pamela Jabar Trinward - Chair
(207) 872-7545
pjtrin@roadrunner.com
Sen. Seth Goodall
(207) 737-4797
seth@sethgoodall.com
Sen. Debra Plowman
(207) 862-4506
debraplowman@cs.com
Rep. Joh Tuttle
(207) 324-5964
RepJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Linda Valentino
(207) 282-5227
lmvalentino54@yahoo.com
Rep. Michael Carey
(207) 344-3017
RepMichael.Carey@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Alexander Cornell du Houx
(207) 319-4511
acornell@alexcornell.org
Rep. Diane Russell
(207) 902-0043
RepDiane.Russell@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Stacey Fitts
(207) 487-5641
RepStacey.Fitts@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Wright Pinkham
(207) 628-2916
wrightfor88@tds.net
Rep. Joan Nass
(207) 477-2607
RepJoan.Nass@legislature.maine.gov
EVENT REMINDER
"Warning Signs for Maine's Economy: New Evidence"
Mr. Scott Moody, Chief Economist, The Maine Heritage Policy Center
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Seadog Brewing Company
26 Front Street, Bangor
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
DiMillo's Floating Restaurant
25 Long Wharf, Portland
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
EDDINGTON REPUBLICAN TOWN COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED
While growing up in Bangor (and Eddington) I was too young to vote because the voting age in those days was 21. So I never attended a political caucus. I don't even remember hearing either of my parents discussing, much less attending, such a thing. And then moving to a "Primary State", the whole idea of what a caucus was was completely foreign to my personal experiences.
So going to my first political caucus this past Saturday was something I looked forward to, thanks to my big brother's escort. And there we were at Husson College in the biting wind on the same day that campus's gym was packed for a swimming competition. Lots of cars parked in every parking lot and shuttle buses going all over the place. Fortunately there were also very nice campus police with knowledge and directions to this writer who knew "what" she was looking for but not quite sure "where" it was located (in spite of posted signs).
The large auditorium was packed. Tables with town names posted on signs standing high - Bradley, Carmel, Brewer, Bangor, etc. and there was Eddington. And tables with all the various candidates' campaign materials and petitions for signing. It was quite a place to wander through in search of my brother whom I was to meet in the middle of the masses. But there he was.
After listening to the opening address with a salute to Ronald Reagan, whose birthday it was, we got on with the business at hand - meeting the numerous candidates. They were introduced alphabetically. Some were there in person, others were represented by someone on their campaign staff because the candidate was attending a caucus in another location in the state. Some certainly have impressive qualifications. Others sound more like politicians than leaders who will take this state out of the financial-welfare status this state is mired in. And some needed a moment but need to move on.
Afterwards, each town gathered at their assigned table to conduct their town's business. And that is when EDDINGTON formed its first Republican Town Committee. There were at least nine of us there (and I know of at least two others who would have been but for previous commitments). Troy Morton was unanimously elected Chair. We elected a Vice Chair and Secretary/Treasurer. Troy will be setting up a Committee email address soon which I will post here on the blog for interested readers. We adopted By-Laws in between being visited by Senator Richard Rosen collecting signatures for his run for re-election (this being his last term under term limits) and various gubernatorial candidates.
Any Eddington resident who is a registered Republican is eligible for membership in the Eddington Republican Town Committee. The State Republican Convention will be held the first week in May. With the full field of many good candidates, we fill confident we will be able to field a good one to run for the office - someone who can put this state back on an even keel toward financial stability, business development friendly, reduce this "welfare state status", and take the tax burden off the back of hard-working Mainers.
BTW - The monthly meeting of the Maine Heritage Policy Center will be next Wednesday - the 17th - at the Sea Dog Restaurant - 12noon to 1:30pm. Cost for non-members is $20/members is $15. The topic this month will be the business/financial environment of the state. There are usually extra seats available for those without reservations.
So going to my first political caucus this past Saturday was something I looked forward to, thanks to my big brother's escort. And there we were at Husson College in the biting wind on the same day that campus's gym was packed for a swimming competition. Lots of cars parked in every parking lot and shuttle buses going all over the place. Fortunately there were also very nice campus police with knowledge and directions to this writer who knew "what" she was looking for but not quite sure "where" it was located (in spite of posted signs).
The large auditorium was packed. Tables with town names posted on signs standing high - Bradley, Carmel, Brewer, Bangor, etc. and there was Eddington. And tables with all the various candidates' campaign materials and petitions for signing. It was quite a place to wander through in search of my brother whom I was to meet in the middle of the masses. But there he was.
After listening to the opening address with a salute to Ronald Reagan, whose birthday it was, we got on with the business at hand - meeting the numerous candidates. They were introduced alphabetically. Some were there in person, others were represented by someone on their campaign staff because the candidate was attending a caucus in another location in the state. Some certainly have impressive qualifications. Others sound more like politicians than leaders who will take this state out of the financial-welfare status this state is mired in. And some needed a moment but need to move on.
Afterwards, each town gathered at their assigned table to conduct their town's business. And that is when EDDINGTON formed its first Republican Town Committee. There were at least nine of us there (and I know of at least two others who would have been but for previous commitments). Troy Morton was unanimously elected Chair. We elected a Vice Chair and Secretary/Treasurer. Troy will be setting up a Committee email address soon which I will post here on the blog for interested readers. We adopted By-Laws in between being visited by Senator Richard Rosen collecting signatures for his run for re-election (this being his last term under term limits) and various gubernatorial candidates.
Any Eddington resident who is a registered Republican is eligible for membership in the Eddington Republican Town Committee. The State Republican Convention will be held the first week in May. With the full field of many good candidates, we fill confident we will be able to field a good one to run for the office - someone who can put this state back on an even keel toward financial stability, business development friendly, reduce this "welfare state status", and take the tax burden off the back of hard-working Mainers.
BTW - The monthly meeting of the Maine Heritage Policy Center will be next Wednesday - the 17th - at the Sea Dog Restaurant - 12noon to 1:30pm. Cost for non-members is $20/members is $15. The topic this month will be the business/financial environment of the state. There are usually extra seats available for those without reservations.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
UPDATE ON THE LEGISLATURE - BILLS TO LIMIT CITIZEN RIGHTS
The following is a copy of an email I received yesterday (Friday) from the Maine Heritage Policy Center re: the results last week of the Legislature's Education Committee and the attempt to repeal local voters having the right to vote on proposed local school budgets. The numerous emails sent by voters across the state to the members of the Education Committee made a difference. YOU are strongly urged to send emails to those members even though they are not directly elected from our communities. Their actions can (and do) effect our taxes.
R.
Education Committee hears our message
Direct democracy at risk in Maine
Maine Business InsideOut series launched
Quick Links
The Maine Heritage Policy Center
MaineOpenGov.org
Donate to MHPC
Education Committee hears our message
At a work session today on LD 570, the omnibus education bill to alter Maine's school consolidation law, Education Committee members unanimously voted against including any provisions to repeal the school budget validation vote. The phone calls and e-mails made by hundreds of MHPC members worked. Our message was so strong, not even Committee Senate Chairman Justin Alfond, the most vocal opponent of the school budget referendum, supported the repeal. A big thanks to those MHPC members who joined the fight to protect our right to vote. The members of the Education Committee also deserve our thanks for listening to our concerns and voting to preserve our voting rights. When you have a minute, contact the Education Committee members to thank them for standing up for the voters of Maine. Elected officials who put principles and people ahead of politics should be recognized for their work. Below is the contact information for each member of the Education Committee. Thank them today for their leadership.
Thank the Education Committee
Sen. Justin Alfond, Chair207-232-4187justin@justinalfond.com
Rep. Patricia Sutherland, Chair(207) 764-1490psutherland@sutherlandweston.com
Sen. Carol Weston(207) 589-4481cweston@fairpoint.net
Sen. Elizabeth Schneider207-866-7359schneidersenate@msn.com
Rep. Edward Finch(207) 249-7898edfinch@roadrunner.com
Rep. Alan Casavant(207) 284-4690acasavant@maine.rr.com
Rep. Richard Wagner(207) 784-0645rwagner@bates.edu
Rep. Stephen Lovejoy(207) 773-5538steve.lovejoy@myfairpoint.net
Rep. Mary Nelson(207) 781-3750mpn3@maine.rr.com
Rep. Helen Rankin(207) 625-4620rankin8076@roadrunner.com
Rep. David Richardson(207) 848-3040richardsond@hermon.net
Rep. Howard McFadden(207) 726-4676mcfaddenh@roadrunner.com
Rep. Peter Johnson (207) 695-2019rumridge27@gmail.com
Direct democracy at risk in Maine
Although Maine people scored a big victory with the defeat of the effort to repeal our right to a school budget referendum vote, other politicians irritated with voters who overturned the beverage tax in 2008 and gay marriage last year are still trying to undermine our right to directly engage our government. Three bills are meant to increase the burden on citizens advocating citizen initiatives and people's vetoes.
LD 1690: "An Act To Prevent Predatory Signature Gathering and Ensure a Clean Citizen Initiative and People's Veto Process"
This bill allows signatures to be removed from a petition without any safeguards to prevent fraud or coercion. Under this bill, a total stranger could send a letter to the Secretary of State pretending to be you and demand your name be removed from a people's veto or citizen initiative petition, without any way to verify it was actually you who made the request. This bill also opens the door for petition signers to be coerced to remove their name from a petition by employers, politicians or others who oppose an issue you support.
LD 1692: "RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine To Amend the Requirements Governing Direct Initiatives"
This bill amends the Maine Constitution to require sponsors of citizen initiatives to identify how any spending cuts proposed in the legislation would be funded. Maine legislators are not required to provide this information for a bill they propose in Augusta, yet the supporters of this bill want to burden Maine citizens with the extra time and costs this amendment would create.
LD 1730: "An Act To Strengthen the Ballot Initiative Process"
This bill creates a series of new requirements and penalties only for citizen initiative or people's veto petition circulators, but fails to place these same new burdens on individuals circulating petitions to put candidates on the ballot. The bill also requires any money raised from the new penalties to be deposited into the Maine Clean Election fund to increase the amount of taxpayer dollars politicians have available to run their political campaigns.
The public hearings for each of these bills are Monday, February 8 at 1:00 p.m. at the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee (Room 437 at the Statehouse).
The Maine Heritage Policy Center will testify against these bills. Please join us on Monday to oppose these new regulations on Maine citizens who exercise their right to citizen initiatives and people's vetoes. If you are unable to attend the hearing but wish to submit written testimony on one or all of these bills, you may e-mail us your testimony and we will deliver it to the members of the Committee on your behalf.
MHPC launches Maine Business InsideOut series
MHPC's chief economist, Scott Moody, has launched a new series delving into the trends and demographics of Maine's business community. The Maine Business InsideOut series will include publications and presentations to education the public and elected officials on the realities of Maine's business community, and to propose responsible reforms to boost Maine's economy. Scott released the first publication of the Maine Business InsideOut series, "Understanding Maine's Business Climate" on Wednesday. This publication introduces the series and explains how the powerful NETS Database can inform responsible public policies. Scott will also be the featured speaker at our February policy luncheons in Bangor and Portland. Be sure to reserve your place at one of these luncheons by e-mailing events@mainepolicy.org, or calling (207) 321-2550. You can find more information on both of our policy luncheons below.
EVENT
REMINDER
"Warning Signs for Maine's Economy: New Evidence"
Mr. Scott Moody, Chief Economist, The Maine Heritage Policy Center
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Seadog Brewing Company
26 Front Street, Bangor
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
DiMillo's Floating Restaurant
25 Long Wharf, Portland
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
R.
Education Committee hears our message
Direct democracy at risk in Maine
Maine Business InsideOut series launched
Quick Links
The Maine Heritage Policy Center
MaineOpenGov.org
Donate to MHPC
Education Committee hears our message
At a work session today on LD 570, the omnibus education bill to alter Maine's school consolidation law, Education Committee members unanimously voted against including any provisions to repeal the school budget validation vote. The phone calls and e-mails made by hundreds of MHPC members worked. Our message was so strong, not even Committee Senate Chairman Justin Alfond, the most vocal opponent of the school budget referendum, supported the repeal. A big thanks to those MHPC members who joined the fight to protect our right to vote. The members of the Education Committee also deserve our thanks for listening to our concerns and voting to preserve our voting rights. When you have a minute, contact the Education Committee members to thank them for standing up for the voters of Maine. Elected officials who put principles and people ahead of politics should be recognized for their work. Below is the contact information for each member of the Education Committee. Thank them today for their leadership.
Thank the Education Committee
Sen. Justin Alfond, Chair207-232-4187justin@justinalfond.com
Rep. Patricia Sutherland, Chair(207) 764-1490psutherland@sutherlandweston.com
Sen. Carol Weston(207) 589-4481cweston@fairpoint.net
Sen. Elizabeth Schneider207-866-7359schneidersenate@msn.com
Rep. Edward Finch(207) 249-7898edfinch@roadrunner.com
Rep. Alan Casavant(207) 284-4690acasavant@maine.rr.com
Rep. Richard Wagner(207) 784-0645rwagner@bates.edu
Rep. Stephen Lovejoy(207) 773-5538steve.lovejoy@myfairpoint.net
Rep. Mary Nelson(207) 781-3750mpn3@maine.rr.com
Rep. Helen Rankin(207) 625-4620rankin8076@roadrunner.com
Rep. David Richardson(207) 848-3040richardsond@hermon.net
Rep. Howard McFadden(207) 726-4676mcfaddenh@roadrunner.com
Rep. Peter Johnson (207) 695-2019rumridge27@gmail.com
Direct democracy at risk in Maine
Although Maine people scored a big victory with the defeat of the effort to repeal our right to a school budget referendum vote, other politicians irritated with voters who overturned the beverage tax in 2008 and gay marriage last year are still trying to undermine our right to directly engage our government. Three bills are meant to increase the burden on citizens advocating citizen initiatives and people's vetoes.
LD 1690: "An Act To Prevent Predatory Signature Gathering and Ensure a Clean Citizen Initiative and People's Veto Process"
This bill allows signatures to be removed from a petition without any safeguards to prevent fraud or coercion. Under this bill, a total stranger could send a letter to the Secretary of State pretending to be you and demand your name be removed from a people's veto or citizen initiative petition, without any way to verify it was actually you who made the request. This bill also opens the door for petition signers to be coerced to remove their name from a petition by employers, politicians or others who oppose an issue you support.
LD 1692: "RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine To Amend the Requirements Governing Direct Initiatives"
This bill amends the Maine Constitution to require sponsors of citizen initiatives to identify how any spending cuts proposed in the legislation would be funded. Maine legislators are not required to provide this information for a bill they propose in Augusta, yet the supporters of this bill want to burden Maine citizens with the extra time and costs this amendment would create.
LD 1730: "An Act To Strengthen the Ballot Initiative Process"
This bill creates a series of new requirements and penalties only for citizen initiative or people's veto petition circulators, but fails to place these same new burdens on individuals circulating petitions to put candidates on the ballot. The bill also requires any money raised from the new penalties to be deposited into the Maine Clean Election fund to increase the amount of taxpayer dollars politicians have available to run their political campaigns.
The public hearings for each of these bills are Monday, February 8 at 1:00 p.m. at the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee (Room 437 at the Statehouse).
The Maine Heritage Policy Center will testify against these bills. Please join us on Monday to oppose these new regulations on Maine citizens who exercise their right to citizen initiatives and people's vetoes. If you are unable to attend the hearing but wish to submit written testimony on one or all of these bills, you may e-mail us your testimony and we will deliver it to the members of the Committee on your behalf.
MHPC launches Maine Business InsideOut series
MHPC's chief economist, Scott Moody, has launched a new series delving into the trends and demographics of Maine's business community. The Maine Business InsideOut series will include publications and presentations to education the public and elected officials on the realities of Maine's business community, and to propose responsible reforms to boost Maine's economy. Scott released the first publication of the Maine Business InsideOut series, "Understanding Maine's Business Climate" on Wednesday. This publication introduces the series and explains how the powerful NETS Database can inform responsible public policies. Scott will also be the featured speaker at our February policy luncheons in Bangor and Portland. Be sure to reserve your place at one of these luncheons by e-mailing events@mainepolicy.org, or calling (207) 321-2550. You can find more information on both of our policy luncheons below.
EVENT
REMINDER
"Warning Signs for Maine's Economy: New Evidence"
Mr. Scott Moody, Chief Economist, The Maine Heritage Policy Center
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Seadog Brewing Company
26 Front Street, Bangor
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
DiMillo's Floating Restaurant
25 Long Wharf, Portland
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
