Posted on 12/05/2001 9:30:22 AM PST by ChaseR
"Judge gives initiatives back to Idaho"
Ruling allows tribal gaming, other measures a fighting chance
That's the fallout from U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill's decision Friday to overturn Idaho's 1997 law that had placed so many restrictions on the initiative process that no initiative has made it to the ballot since.
"I think it's a positive ruling in terms of any group that wants to get an initiative on the ballot," said Alice Koskela,legislative affairs director and attorney for the Coeurd'Alene Tribe.
The Coeur d'Alenes are working with the Nez Perce Tribe on the gaming initiative. "We're continuing with our signature-gathering, and we intend to go forward. And if this makes it easier, that's great," Koskela said
The key provision Winmill invalidated had required the signatures of 6 percent of the registered voters in each of 22 counties to qualify an initiative for the ballot. That wasin addition to the overall requirement of gathering the signatures of 6 percent of those registered statewide as of the last general election.
"This is just huge news for the term limits initiative that we've got planned for the November ballot next year," said Don Morgan, head of the Idaho Citizens for Term Limits group.
"With the snow already falling, it was going to be challenging, to say the least, to get the county distributionrequirements met," Morgan said. "Now it's almost certain that we'll have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in November, so that the people will have the ultimate answer and the ultimate oversight of the Legislature if they tamper with the term limits law in this next session."
The term limits law, enacted by voter initiative in 1994, prevents officials at all levels of state and local government from appearing on the ballot for re-election once they've served a certain number of years in office. A state district court ruled the law unconstitutional, saying it violated the state constitution's guarantee of suffrage, but that decision was appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, which is expected to issue its decision shortly.
Kootenai County Commissioner Ron Rankin, who as head of the Idaho State Property Owners Association has sponsored anti-tax initiatives in the past, said, "I'll probably be term-limited out this year, and just sitting around with nothing to do except possibly having another initiative."
He's got a host of ideas, all centering around ways the state could be forced to give counties more state tax money so the counties could lower property taxes. And he figures with Winmill's decision, his group will be able to get measures on the ballot again.
"It's going to make it to where a common citizen that doesn't have an IACI bankroll can put something on the ballot, can correct some of the errors of the Legislature, of which there are many," Rankin said. IACI is the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, an influential business lobby group.
Rankin and Morgan were among those who sued to challenge the restrictive initiative law, along with the Initiative & Referendum Institute and the Idaho Coalition United for Bears, a group that sponsored an unsuccessful anti-bear baiting initiative in 1996. Lynn Fritchman, head of I-CUB, called Winmill's ruling "a splendid decision." His group hasn't decided whether to try another initiative, he said.
But he added that he wouldn't be surprised to see lawmakers try to tinker with the initiative process again in the coming year.
"When a citizens group starts to field an initiative, regardless of what the field of interest is, whether it's taxes or term limits or bears, it tells the Legislature one of two things: Either they have done something they shouldn't have done as a legislature, or they have failed to do something they should've done," Fritchman said. "And legislators don't like to be told that."
Winmill invalidated three sections of the 1997 law that trimmed initiatives in Idaho. He eliminated the county distribution requirement, did away with criminal sanctions for misleading or incomplete statements by signature gatherers, and invalidated a section preventing petition circulators from being paid by the signature.
All three provisions violated the U.S. Constitution, the judge wrote. He let stand a requirement that petition circulators must be Idaho residents.
Koskela said the tribes are proceeding cautiously, because the state could appeal Winmill's ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kriss Bivens, a spokesman for the Idaho attorney general's office, said Monday that the office is still reviewing the ruling and has made no decision on whether to appeal.
Koskela said the tribes may find it "prudent" to comply with the county-distribution rules regardless.
"We haven't made any decisions yet on how this might change our signature gathering effort, if it will," she said.
Samuel Penney, chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe, said, "We're pleased with the signature gathering up until this point. ... I think we're just confident that we will have the necessary signatures under either the current law or the old law.
"The tribes worked hard to gather the signatures under the old law. We were told it would be difficult, and I think it has been," Penney said. But, he said, the tribes might have all the signatures they need, under either law, by the end of this month.
By law, they don't need to have those signatures until April to make the November 2002 ballot.
"I think we're getting a largely positive response from people," Koskela said, in part because of widespread awareness of the economic boost tribal gaming has brought some of the state's rural areas.
"I think the voters of the state are really supportive of the idea that Indians should be able to conduct gaming, approved-by-compact gaming, on their own lands."
This seems like a minor story, but it is important. What the judge struck down was the "distribution" requirement, that a certain number of signatures come from each county. Consider for a moment what would happen if the law said a candidate for office had to get a minimum portion of his/her votes from all the counties in a state. That would be struck down in a heartbeat as violating the freedom of choice of the voters -- in the cities, in the suburbs, in rural areas -- wherever that candidate's logical base of support was located.
The more telling point is that the Idaho legislature has said to the people, "You can have an initiative," but then set up requirements that have never been met by anyone. Every step that increases the ability of the people of a state to overrule their legislature when they think the legislature is wrong, is healthy for American politics.
For historical reasons, most of the states with a history of citizen uprisings are in the West, because those state constitutions were being written when the Progressive Party was on the rise. Massachusetts is an exception with its active history of initiatives. California is famous for its initiatives.
Given that Massachusetts and California are the primary current bases for our broadcast audiences, I think we should feature this story.
Congressman Billybob
It is important. Someone referred me to this article and even though I don't hunt for articles, I posted this one. BTTT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.