Ballot initiatives

I saw an ad on the Metro this morning from Econ4U.org, a project of the Center for Economic and Entrepreneurial Literacy (CEEL) ...

It got me thinking: gambling is one of those issues where there are two distinct opinions on the Right. Libertarians argue that all forms gambling should be legalized. Social conservatives argue that the negative externalities and social consequences overwhelm any argument for the freedom to gamble. Some states have extensive licensing for gambling (like Nevada and New Jersey) and other states have strict restrictions or prohibitions on it (Utah and Alaska).

Both sides have valid arguments on gambling itself. But what about government-run/government-monopoly gambling for the purposes of raising revenue for their general funds?

Last November, Maryland passed a ballot initiative allowing for government-run video lottery terminals to raise money for education. Gerald Prante and Alicia Hansen of the Tax Foundation wrote opposing views on government-run slots a day before the election. Prante argued for passage, saying that while "under an ideal fiscal system in Maryland, slots would be permitted to operate freely and the rate of return in the marketplace would be close to competitive," the current prohibition is an implicit tax and passage could eventually lead to a free market for slots. Hansen argued against passage, noting that any government-run gambling is actually a hidden tax that's regressive and non-neutral.

With many states in fiscal crises, lawmakers are looking for new ways to raise revenue. Aside from any of your feelings on gambling itself, how do you, as someone on the center-right, feel about government-run gambling as a way to raise revenue? I look forward to the answers.

Last month, I started The Next Right's 50 State Strategy Project, contacting all of the state party chairmen and chairwomen to get on-the-ground reports about what's going on in each state and what we should be paying attention to. Now that the convention is over, I resent my request to state party leadership, and I'm starting to get responses.

The first one is from Nebraska Republican Party Chairman Mark Quandahl. His responses are short, but I'll add some commentary to the answers:

Q: What are the most important races to watch from any level?

A: U.S. Senate (Mike Johanns) and 2nd District (Lee Terry)

The only numbers I could find on the Senate race was a late-July Rasmussen Reports poll that showed a 56% to 31% lead for Johanns over his Democratic opponent, Scott Kleeb. Terry leads Jim Esch 47% to 38%.

Q: Are there any ballot initiatives that are important to conservatives in your state?

A: Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative

I wrote on three civil rights initiatives earlier this summer, including the one in Nebraska. These initiatives are very important to the conservative movement: ending racial preferences, and emphasizing equal opportunity over equality of condition.

Q: Everyone knows that the issues of the day are energy, the economy, health care, Iraq, national security, etc. What are the issues that are unique to your state that John McCain should pay attention to and respond to?

A: Tax Burden

According to the Tax Foundation, Nebraska has the 17th highest state-local tax burden in the country. It also ranks 43rd when it comes to favorable business tax climate.

Q: The internet and new media have developed new features and facets within many parts of a campaign organization (GOTV, fundraising, communications, etc.) Which one part of a campaign or party organization would you like to see young, Web2.0 savvy Republican develop tools for?

A: Fundraising

Any ideas we can develop for Mark?

I emailed Mark back with an addition question: can Obama win Omaha's 1 electoral vote in their congressional distrcit electoral system? Apparently, McCain only leads by 4 points there, 46% to 42%.

If you can, encourage your state party chairs to reply back to me. The more info, the merrier.

Once again, Barack Obama is trying to defend himself against attacks that don't exist. Many, including myself, documented this back in late June. Yes, Barack, we know that you don't look "like all those other presidents on the dollar bills," but you're trying to play both sides of the race card. Chales Hurt of the New York Post put it best today:

This racial calumny is completely unfair, diminishes his own campaign, and certainly is the worst possible way to win over those blue-collar white Democrats in Ohio and Pennsylvania who picked Hillary Rodham Clinton over him in the primary. Barack Obama should ... quit this whining and fantasizing about Republicans making fun of him because he doesn't look like George Washington.

So it's no surprise that Barack Obama has publicly stated his opposition to Arizona Proposition 104, the Arizona Civil Rights Inititiave. (See my previous post on Ending Racial Preferences This November.) Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute has been sponsoring similar campaigns for initiatives in Colorado and Nebraska. They have been successful in California and Michigan, but came under fire in Missouri this year. Connerly responds to Obama's opposition in the National Review today:

What he fails to say is that it is not only “communities of color” that experience hardships and difficulties. Nor does he say how, as president, he can achieve his stated goal of uniting the American people while asking those not “of color” to look the other way when discriminated against. If Obama is truly concerned about divisiveness, why didn’t he speak out when his foot soldiers at ACORN were taking pride in blocking our petition circulators from gathering signatures in Missouri? Their despicable tactics of harassment give new meaning to the term “divisive.”

In a response to my previous post, Jeff Roberts wanted to see Obama take a position on this. Jon Sandor lamented that McCain probably woulnd't take a position. Not to fear! John McCain has come out in support of this initiative, and should go to Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri to support their causes.

When building a farm team, it's not only important to identify potential leaders; it's important to identify issues that can create sustainable majorites in critical states. This issue, along with bread-and-butter economic issues at the local and state level, have to be well-analyzed. And making the presidential candidates take positions on these issues that have a more direct impact with folks on Main Street, instead of focusing solely on national issues, is important to do.

Thoughts?

This past week, 15,677 signatures were filed with the North Dakota Secretary of State's office for the Income Tax Cut Inititiave. Sponsored by the North Dakota chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the initiative, if certified for the November ballot, would slash North Dakota's state corporate income tax rates by 15 percent and the individual income tax rates by 50 percent starting in 2009.

Apparently, North Dakota exepcts a budget surplus of anywhere between $700 million to $1 billion next year, so supporters of the initiative are looking for both tax relief and restrained government spending during these "sunny days." Smart!

But the AARP is opposing the measure because "it would hamper state and local governments’ and school boards’ ability to respond to emergencies or shifting priorities in the future." The North Dakota Farm Bureau is also opposing the measure citing "worries that it would place the burden of spending on increased property taxes." Now maybe North Dakota should start a government "rainy day fund" that is concomitant with this tax cut, but it's amazing what poor excuses are made to not cut taxes. (But I invite any North Dakotans to explain why voting Yes on this inititiave would be a bad idea.)

This will be the second income tax related ballot initiative this year, joining the Massachusetts Income Tax Repeal. While well intentioned, the Massachusetts initiative is a bit extreme as it would completely get rid of the 5.3% tax on wages.

With so much focus on the national economy during this presidential election cycle, there has been a lot of emphasis on the candidates' tax and economic growth policies. Folks in the broader national conservative movement need to realize that not only do local and state taxes have just as much of an effect on the economy as national taxes do; state and local tax, budget, government transparency, and other localized bread and butter issues can help build our farm team, as previously discussed.

Ballot Initiative Alert from AZ, CO, and NE:

Three states have certified inititiaves for the November 4th ballot that would ban racial preferences and ethnic discrimination. Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska have "Civil Rights Initiatives" on the ballot that would end preferential treatment based on race for public employment, public education, and public contracting. Predictably, lawsuits have been filed by affirmative action proponents to keep these measures off the ballot.

The American Civil Rights Institute, founded by Ward Connerly and Dusty Rhodes, have sponsored and helped set up these statewide campaigns in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska. They have been similarly successful in California, where it passed with 54% of the vote in 1996, and Michigan, where it passed with 58% of the vote in 2006.

Visit this blog which promotes Super Tuesday for Civil Rights.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed from late April by Harry Stein makes an interesting point:

"Though the racial-preference ballot measures are officially nonpartisan, they stand to make a dramatic impact on the fall campaign. With the question of racial preferences effectively nationalized by its presence on multiple state ballots, neither party's presidential candidate will be able to evade the issue. While this might pose a dilemma for Mr. McCain -- who, like most Republicans, has long shied away from the topic and might worry about jeopardizing Hispanic support -- it could be catastrophic for Mr. Obama. As Mr. Connerly says, 'This is a guy who's tried awfully hard for a long time not to appear what he is -- just another left-winger who supports preferences.'"

I'm not sure that Stein's electoral analysis works. Did the marriage amendments and ballot initiatives create increased social-conservative turnout in certain states in the past to help presidential and statewide congressional candidates? Sure. I'm not so sure that the civil rights initiatives will do the same, because it will probably galvanize both sides of the affirmative action crowd equally. But if Stein's analysis is correct, helping to compete in a swing state like Colorado and securing a traditionally red state like Nebraska where Obama is playing small-ball for it's divided electoral votes.

In response to the multiple posts on racism and Jesse Helms: ending racial preferences is something that could be a galavinizing issue for right the next generation of both "Spring-Aheads" and "Fall-Backers", as described by John Zogby. I believe that the next generation of "super-voters" of all ethnicities, both over- and under-represented, will want to move beyond affirmative action.

Public institutions of higher education have been the focus, but the initiatives go in the right direction by targeting public employment and contracting. When it comes to education, socioeconomically-based preference programs might be the answer. Even some African-Americans are starting to support the end of racial preference programs, like Professor Stephen Carter of Yale, who said the following in a NTY op-ed on Sunday:

"University affirmative action programs, whatever their benefits, are no remedy for the problems of the black poor. Perhaps this is why Barack Obama has questioned publicly whether his children should benefit from them and also why leading voices on the black left — Cornel West comes to mind — have proposed that college admissions programs give preferential consideration based on economic class."

BOTTOM LINE: Support the Civil Rights Initiatives in AZ, CO, and NE. And start thinking about how the next conservative movement can create a broad coalition that moves beyond race.

- MM

In response to convictions of former state legislators in Alaska, liberal organizations and labor unions have placed the "Clean Elections Act," Ballot Initiative #3, on the August 26th primary ballot, which would institute public funding for legislative campaigns. Taxpayers in Maine and Arizona, states which have recently approved public financing, are learning that their money, which could be going towards legitimate government priorities like infrastructure improvement and education, are instead financing partisan politics.

Public financing actually decreases competitiveness in elections, which decreases choice for voters in a democracy. Incumbents in Arizona were re-elected at a higher rate after public financing was enacted; the number of candidates fell from 247 to 195 according to the Goldwater Institute. Furthermore, public financing limits a challenger’s ability to communicate with voters. By limiting the amount of money that can be spent in campaigns, it limits the amount of information that voters receive.

Voters in Oregon have a chance to prohibit public financing in November. Ballot Measure #25 would ban the use of public resources for political campaigns. Bill Sizemore, the initiative’s sponsor, tried twice to pass similar measures within the last decade, only to be defeated by labor union money.

If voters want tackle corruption in government, they should look at South Dakota's Open and Clean Government Act, Initiated Measure #10. It would not only prohibit taxpayer funded campaigns and lobbying. It would also create "information on state contracts that would be available for review on a searchable website."

BOTTOM LINE: When it comes to solving corruption and lack of ethics in government, public financing of campaigns is the wrong answer; instead, the conservative movement should support policies that increase transparency in campaigns and in government.

Certified for the November ballot in Colorado is Amendment 47, the Colorado Right to Work Initiative.

The clear choice is to vote "YES" on 47. Prospective workers should never be forced to join a union in order to be employed; they should also not be forced to pay dues that support partisan political operations without their consent.  The future of the conservative movement should not be completely anti-union: workers should still have the right to organize a union, strike, and bargain collectively. But the fact is that compulsory union membership fosters both corruption and a bad business climate.

A group called "A Better Colorado" has been supporting this initiative. But the unions aren't going down without a fight. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 7 has filed 5 retaliatory ballot initiatives; this includes mandating full coverage health insurance for companies with 20 or more employees, increasing the valuation of non-residential property assessments for property taxes, mandating an annual "cost-of-living" wage increase, and requiring "safe and healthy workplaces" .... without actually defining "safe" and "healthy".

Bottom line: Support CO - Amendment 47. It's not anti-union. It's anti-monopolistic unions and pro-worker rights

 One of the wonders of being a voter in California is that you have so many opportunities to vote, and yet so little of it matters according to the courts.  California voters made it clear in 2000 that marriage is going to be between a man and a woman.  You know the rest.  

Starting June 16, thousands of homosexuals will marry.  

In November we have another opportunity to ban gay marriage again.  However, I am skeptical that the same campaign of values can be run again in California and expect that to be sufficient. The pro-tradition supporters need to update their talking points to be more inclusive.  

I think the campaign needs to send out a contemporary message that recognizes that the state has changed, and that gays need their relationships affirmed.  California is one of the few states that all but grants marriage rights to gays in the guise of the 'civil unions'.  If there are any drawbacks to gay marriages compared to gay partnerships (gay divorce for one), that should be part of the campaign.  Anyone else has ideas how gay marriages will be inferior to gay partnerships?