Measure 37 and its Progeny
Courts Striking Property Rights Initiatives
By Dan Richardson, 9-19-06
Sheesh. The quality of help these days. I mean, you spread around a few million dollars to fuel 20 or 30 political initiatives, you expect your hired help to get the job done right. Then, you have a bunch of the initiatives thrown out because your hired signature-gatherers faked, gamed and defrauded the system.Man, what a month.
It was only a week or two ago that the machine of libertarian political initiatives was rolling swiftly around the West. We recently wrote about the “Kelo-plus” property rights initiatives funded by a New York real estate developer and longtime Libertarian Party activist, Howard Rich. Rich and his allies have pushed those and also parallel initiatives to limit government spending and institute term limits in states from Oregon to Arizona.
But the hired help has fouled up the works. Courts in Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Michigan and Missouri have disqualified part or entire initiatives that otherwise would have gone to voters. The decisions come in reaction to complaints about petition-circulators’ problematic, or illegal, signature-gathering tactics.
Some are said to have tricked people who would sign one of Rich’s petition by into signing others (“we need to get multiple copies, ma’am”) or by misrepresenting the initiatives themselves. The Nevada Supreme Court struck the Tax and Spending Control (or, TASC) measure from the November ballot, for example, when activists there filed one version with the state and sent out another for residents’ signatures.
And because Rich, his front organizations like Americans for Limited Government and U.S. Term Limits, and fellow libertarian activists, shared not just ideas and money, but also nomadic signature-gatherers, some of the same problems hopped from state to state.
So when Montana District Judge Dirk Sandefur struck down three ballot initiatives in Montana, writing, "The court finds that the signature-gathering process was permeated by a pervasive and general pattern and practice of deceit, fraud and procedural non-compliance," — well, that’s not good news for similar initiatives, fielded by the same people hiring the same signature-gathering firms, around the West. That faint dripping sound you hear is lawyers salivating.
Sandefur noted that 43 or more of the signature-gatherers in Montana (who were paid at least $675,000) listed false or fake addresses on their sworn affidavits turned in with the signatures. The initiatives they’d gathered signatures for would have limited state spending growth, allowed wider latitude for citizen recall of judges, and allowed property owners to claim damages from government land-use regulations.
Likewise, in late August, the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously threw out a spending limits initiative, writing that “The evidence supports substantial illegal participation of out-of-state circulators.”
In Michigan, spending-limit activists turned in more than 500,000 signatures. They needed 317,757 valid signatures. They failed. State officials say there were vast numbers of duplicate signatures and names of people not registered to vote in Michigan.
The swift reversal of fortune, though partial, also shows that the libertarian initiative campaign may have populist rhetoric, popular antigovernment ideas and money in its corner, but that it faces two serious problems. One, its paid signature-gatherers are, gosh, motivated by profit, and can’t seem to resist forging names, signing up dead people and listing false addresses on their petition sheets. And, two, there is a muscular counter-campaign.
At least one writer, ahem, warned the Richies about mixing ideas in their property rights measures, saying that a shell game that pushes a bad idea under the cover of a good one could sour voters on both. That was only half the reality; the front groups, out-of-state funding and half-hidden alliances has aroused an angry opposition from the political left. Lining up in opposition to the Rich measures are environmental groups fearful of pro-development measures, unions opposed to limiting government spending, and the Democratic governors of Oregon and Montana.
Earlier this month, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (running for re-election), challenged Rich to come debate him on Measure 48, Oregon’s spending limits initiative, fronted by longtime anti-tax activist Don McIntire. Rich refused (“I'm happy that I could help out the local group in Oregon — they've faced a real uphill climb against public employee unions and special interests.”); offered a counter-idea for the guv to debate McIntire; the guv refused (Rich “purchased this ballot measure for Oregon, and he ought to be willing to defend what he bought”) ; now, McIntire gets to bash Gov. Kulongoski and challenge “the real leader of the government class in Oregon – Tim Nesbitt, recent President of the Oregon AFL-CIO.”
As if reading from the same play book, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, within a day or two, also challenged Rich to a debate — with the same outcome. (The chief Montana activist pushing initiatives there is Winifred rancher Trevis Butcher.)
Another measure of the increasingly energetic, or at least well-heeled, opposition is the contest around Washington’s Initiative 933, one of the half-dozen pay-or-waive property rights measures around the West. Bankrolled by Rich’s Americans for Limited Government, and by the state Farm Bureau, the I-933 “Property Fairness” effort made a strong initial showing, and collecting more than 317,000 signatures. However, galvanized by Oregon’s Measure 37 — a pay-or-waive initiative that voters approved in 2004 — opposition to I-933 was quick in organizing, backed by union and environmental dollars. As of the Sept. 11 reporting date, the property rights activists had raised $693,000, about half of it from Americans for Limited Government, according to documents filed with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission. The opposition (“Citizens for Community Protection”) has raised nearly three times as much ($1.6 million), most of it from a handful of wealthy Washington residents, several of whom gave $100,000 to the campaign.
So, Howie Rich isn’t the only rich guy willing to write checks for political initiatives. (Ironically, Rich and company’s money-shuffling secrecy — fund a campaign here, have it send money to another group there — has gained them much more publicity than any of the out-in-the-open wealthy donors opposed to the initiatives.)
Ballot wars complete with point-man activists and big-money backers are nothing new in states with citizen initiatives and referenda. In my own state, Oregon, for example, McIntire is one of the chief organizers of anti-tax and tax reform legislation; groups like his Taxpayer Association of Oregon and Bill Sizemore’s Oregon Taxpayers United have placed anti-tax initiatives on the ballot, and fought other, Legislature-referred tax proposals, for years. They have been funded, in part, by national groups like Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.
This year alone, Rich-affiliated organizations have donated $2.8 million for Oregon ballot initiatives.
The political left in Oregon has a parallel system of activists and front groups backed by labor unions. There are activists like Patty Wentz, a former Willamette Week reporter, who now works for the union-funded Our Oregon coalition, which opposes “right-wing ballot measures.” Similarly, the state’s unions — particularly its public employee unions, like the Oregon Education Association and the SEIU/OPEU — fund activist front groups and web sites, like Defend Oregon and the Voter Education Project.
(How much have unions spent to oppose Rich and McIntire? We’ll start finding out in early October, when the opposition groups have to start filing campaign finance reports. One report I’ve seen circulated, though, puts the number in excess of $2 million.)
Union ballot activists were responsible for documenting signature-gathering fraud in years past. In 2003, the OEA won a $2.3-million court judgment against Sizemore’s anti-tax group for violating racketeering laws.
For their part, libertarian and anti-tax activists have blasted unions for bringing in “thugs”to block and harass signature-gatherers. The union-funded Voter Education Project became infamous for its red-shirted “educators” confronting signature-gatherers, for instance.
Oregon’s not alone: Rich-backed activists in Nevada trying to get a spending limit initiative (called TASC) on the ballot have been confronted by union workers and volunteers from “Nevadans for Nevada.” That same group successfully challenged the TASC initiative in court recently.
Looking over from Oregon, Rich’s West-wide ballot initiatives seem less an innovation than a higher-octane version of similar, previous ideas — albeit, a uniquely ambitious multi-pronged effort that has simultaneously tried to change the political landscape while flying under the radar. No, there is nothing new under the sun, just a lot more of it. What the recent court decisions striking down a number of these initiatives suggest is this: Watch for judges to strike down additional proposed ballot measures, citing fraudulent, deceptive or improper signature-gathering.
Watch for union activists with wide smiles with each new court decision; and libertarian activists smiling on election day.
And watch for the campaign finance reports filed on both sides in the coming months. Note who the big spenders are, both Rich and the others. We’ll be hearing from their hirelings again.
[End of article]
Good synopsis, Dan. It should also be noted that yesterday, a district court judge in Helena, MT threw out CI-97 (the cap on state spending). His ruling said it would illegally amend more than one part of the Montana Constitution. Unfortunately, CI-97 (and CI-98 and I-154) will still be on the ballot as the Supreme Court probably won't hear the appeals until after the Nov. 7 election.
Comment By Jimurl, 9-20-06It looks like your howierich.com link is broken, Dan. Perhaps you were aiming for [url=http://www.howierichexposed.com]http://www.howierichexposed.com[/url].
Comment By Eric Dondero, 9-20-06Mr. Richardson's article is full of lies and gross distortions.
I am one of the petitioners Mr. Richardson speaks of. I collected nearly 10,000 signatures on the ballot initiatives in Montana, Oregon, and Missouri.
I am a US Navy Veteran. Apparently Mr. Richardson does not believe that Americans have a right to campaign in politics in states other than those they reside in. When I served my country for 4 years overseas I served THE ENTIRE NATION; that's all 50 states including Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. I care about preserving freedom for the entire United States of America, not just my home state of Texas.
Funny, Mr. Richardson doesn't mention the fact that Left-wing peititioners do exactly the same thing. They travel all over the US for Minimum Wage petitions, and other Left-wing causes. Funny that the Left-wing press isn't saying anything about possible shenanigans in those Left-wing petitions. Funny that the Left-wing press has completely ignored the story of how we Fiscal Conservative petitioners were harrassed severely by Left-wing AARP and Union Thug blockers throughout the petition drive, most notably in Butte, Anaconda and Helena, Montana and St. Louis, Missouri.
The difference though between us Fiscal Conservative petitioners and socialist petitioners, is that those of us who are libertarian petitioners, ONLY CARRY LIBERTARIAN AND FISCAL CONSERVATIVE PETITIONS. The Left-wing petitioners are almost to a person petitioning whores. They will carry whatever comes their way so long as they pay the most money.
But us Fiscal Conservatives only carry those initiatives that we believe in.
Also, contrary to what Mr. Richardson asserts, the pay we receive is pittifully low. On paper it appears that we make some good money. But that's only before you figure in our hotel bills, gas (!!!), food and the massive amount of other expenses that come up in these efforts.
And those of us who are Fiscal Conservatives petitioners, many times petition or campaign without pay.
The last two nights for instance, I've been living in my truck sleeping in Wal-Mart parking lots. I'm down to $9.00 to my name. I'm here campaigning for the Stop the Over Spending and Property Rights Initiatives CAUSE I BELIEVE IN THEM!!! And wish to see them pass.
I'm not some mercenary as Mr. Richardson implies.
All this big money coming in to these campaigns is being spent on lawyers to fight all the Big Government backers who want to see the initiatives thrown off the ballot. Very little of it is spent on those of us who are fighting for these causes on the grass roots level. If it was being spent on us, then I wouldn't have to sleep in my truck and take showers at truck stops.
Furthermore, Mr. Richardson implies that we Fiscal Conservative petitioners are idiots; that we're just out for a buck and are more than willing to misrepresent an issue to "get a sig." Nothing could be further from the truth. We libertarian/fiscal conservative petitioners are smart to the games of the Democrats and other Left-wing freedom-haters. We know that they've got an army of lawyers waiting in the wings. Thus, we are extra, extra, extra, careful to make sure that we honestly and straightforwardly represent these petitions to the voters. We want these initiatives to pass! Why in the world would we want to screw it up, just for one extra sig?
Mr. Richardson has deeply offended those of us who support freedom and human liberty.
I left a good job with nice benefits as an interpreter in Houston for an international insurance group to come support these intiatives here in the Northwest.
I have other friends in the libertarian/fiscal conservative movement who have similarly dropped everything this year to help out these efforts.
How dare Mr. Richardson insult us by this disgraceful article by insinuating that we engaged in shenanigans, and misrepresented these issues to voters. How dare he insult those of us who believe in freedom and liberty, as our founding fathers did, and want to see our government limited rather than become some socialist behemoth.
Mr. Richardson, you are a horribly biased and incredibly inaccurate reporter. You spread filthy lies. And anyone I know I will be sure to tell them not to read your rag of a publication.
Wow. Next time don't sugar coat your comments.... Didn't Dan use this example:
"The political left in Oregon has a parallel system of activists and front groups backed by labor unions. There are activists like Patty Wentz, a former Willamette Week reporter, who now works for the union-funded Our Oregon coalition, which opposes “right-wing ballot measures.” Similarly, the state’s unions — particularly its public employee unions, like the Oregon Education Association and the SEIU/OPEU — fund activist front groups and web sites, like Defend Oregon and the Voter Education Project."
Notice the above forementioned does not state what Ms. Wentz actually does. I see no reference to her as a "petitioner." One could gather from that paragraph that she was indeed one of the very blockers who tried to keep us libertarian/fiscaly conservative petitioners from trying to gather signatures in front of post offices, grocery stores and public sidewalks.
Also, not a single mention of the fact that the Left-wing Freedom-haters blocked us from getting signatures, sometimes severely. Meanwhile, the Leftists did not receive the same treatment at all, when gathering their sigs.
Furthermore, Mr. Richardson did not at all imply that there were any shenanigans among the Left wing petitioners, as he did with us libertarian/fiscal conservatives.
Mr. Richardson's column is riddled with horrible inaccuracies and gross overstatements.
Here's just one:
He identifies Howie Rich as a "Libertarian Party activist." This is laughable. Howie has not been involved with the LP since 1983. Howie was essentially purged cause he and others like Cato Institute President Ed Crane wanted to mainstream the LP.
Howie is a much more of a middle of the road centrist libertarian. In fact, many Libertarians hardly consider Howie to be a libertarian at all, for his support for term limits and other middle-of-the-road stances.
The Stop the Over Spending initiatives for instance, don't even cut spending. They're just mild limits on growth in spending.
Hardcore Libertarians believe this is a sell-out. They laugh at Left-wingers, and even some Conservatives who portray these initiatives as "deep spending cuts."
I have Libertarian Party friends who won't vote for Howie's initiatives cause they view them as too mild, and phony spending cuts.
Sheesh! (To borrow a term from Left-wing crazies like Richardson.) Imagine if the Libertarian Party were to petition for real spending cuts in state governments. They Left-wing Hugo Chavez America-haters would probably shoot Libertarian Party members on site, at the very least lock them up for "crimes against the state."
Can't have any of that Thomas Jefferson stuff now. Can't be going around saying radical stuff like "government is best, which governs least."
Are we living in Orwell's 1984 or what?
"Cuts in growth of spending" are now "spending cuts."
"Property rights" are now "infringements on government's ability to grow itself and provide for public services."
Scary, very scary indeed.
Hi Eric, thanks for your thoughtful and temperate comments. I'm happy to read how my reporting has resonated with you.
Addressing your own, well, to borrow a phrase, "horrible inaccuracies and gross overstatements," would be a labor for Hercules; I mean, really, if I'd written half the things you wrote I wrote, I'd have a much longer article.
Let me address just two points. First, please notice that those statements in the article that the signature-gathering process (certainly not by you, of course, but others) involved "substantial illegal participation of out-of-state circulators", and that the "signature-gathering process was permeated by a pervasive and general pattern and practice of deceit, fraud and procedural non-compliance" -- those are not my words. They are quotes. They they were written by these other people. Judges, I guess you'd call them.
Secondly, it is true that the documentation (party minutes, newsletters, etc) for Mr. Rich's Libertarian Party involvement comes from the 1970s and 1980s. He and his wife, however, until about two years ago operated a bookstore (Laissez Faire Books — see http://www.lfb.org/index.php?action=help&helpfile=lfbhistory.html), which sells and promotes the usual libertarian library. (Ayn Rand for all!) The Party may not have found Howard mainstream enough for them, but it's pretty clear that he and they share basic ideas about government. Not to mention reading preferences.
I do thank you for your Navy service, Eric, and sympathize with your personal situation. Sleeping in a truck in parking lots is hard on the back. (I've done that.)
You know, seeing the kind of money being thrown around (by groups of all political affiliations) might make you and your fellow signature-gatherers demand better treatment and support. At least better pay. It's probably a labor of love for you, but, shoot, you shouldn't have to spend yourself into bankruptcy driving from state to state, injecting yourself into other peoples' politics.
Why should the lawyers and political activists get all the dough? Maybe you could unionize.
Thanks again for your comments.
Dan
For those interested, as a follow-up, I was featured in the Christian Science Monitor this week regarding my activism on behalf of property rights initiatives.
You can see a link to the article at:
http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com