Question of the day
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The setup…
Voters in Maine overwhelmingly approved a “people’s veto” of a Republican-backed law that tightened voting regulations. The vote on Nov. 8 restores Maine’s decades-old policy of allowing same-day registration at polling places.
The state’s Republican-led legislature passed a law earlier this year requiring new voters to register at least two business days prior to an election. Supporters of the law said it would prevent voter fraud. Opponents argued fraud is not an issue in Maine and said the law would make it more difficult to vote. […]
In Maine, the people’s veto was included on the state-wide referendum election ballot after receiving more than 70,000 petition signatures. Roughly 60 percent of voters approved the veto, favoring same-day registration.
Other state voters vetoed laws as well. Ohio, for example…
Last week, Ohio voters resoundingly rejected a ballot measure known as Issue 2 by a 61 percent to 39 percent margin. A “yes” vote would have affirmed Ohio’s version of Wisconsin’s collective bargaining law, which would have made it more difficult for public sector workers to organize and bargain with the state government. By rejecting Issue 2, Ohio voters repealed the law championed by Gov. John Kasich, and did so by a wide margin.
* The Question: Would you favor a “voter veto” of recently enacted Illinois state laws? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
- downstate hack - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:17 pm:
Yes,
But only with a 60% majority.
- bored now - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:19 pm:
yeah, i’d want some kind of above the majority, too. 60% of those voting on the question sounds about right…
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:21 pm:
Nope. That’s what legislators are for.
- Roadiepig - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:24 pm:
I voted yes, but considering “the voters” elected the present bozos in the GA and governors mansion I might have made a mistake
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:25 pm:
I voted no, but only because I’m skeptical of direct democracy and where it could lead (California).
In addition to the rejection of Issue 2, recent polling suggests Scott Walker is likely to be recalled. It sure looks like these Republicans overplayed their hands.
And while I’m not a fan of direct democracy, kudos to Maine voters for restoring same-day voting. We need to make it easier, not harder, to vote in this country. I realize Republicans don’t want poor people to vote, but their cynical attempts to restrict voting are unAmerican and need to be stopped and where necessary, reversed.
More voters, not fewer voters, should be our common goal.
- Timmeh - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:26 pm:
I voted no. Let laws work for a while and then look at the results.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:27 pm:
Yes, it allows the voters some control over the process. While the legislators feel that we (the voters) don’t know what we really want, it will ensure we still have the power over them.
- Wensicia - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:29 pm:
I believe many of these laws should be decided by the people in the first place. I’m not for a California type government, but trying to cut a person’s voting rights goes too far.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:30 pm:
Sure but what do Illinoians know? More than their legislators? Shhhh! Don’t spread that around, OK?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:32 pm:
People, try to stick to the question, please. Thanks.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:32 pm:
Sounds like a great Make Work Bill for political consultants.
The upside is obvious.
The downside is that the first target would be legislation like the tax hike that was completely necessary
But IF were going to do it, id include all legislTion, not just the recently enacted. Weve got lots of corporate tax loopholes we could abolish straightaway.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:33 pm:
No. I don’t want to go down the path of California democracy, where contradictory initiatives are passed at the same time.
- The Captain - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:34 pm:
It’s very rare that I’m in favor of these types of questions, for example I did not favor recall, but I could be for this so long as the signature requirement was high enough to weed out the less serious efforts. I voted yes in the poll.
- Justin Boland - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:39 pm:
Real simple: Democracy needs to be easily accessible or it’s a lie.
It’s bad enough how much systemic mediation is already in place to dilute the power of individual American’s votes. There is NO need for further obstruction. There is MUCH need for the demolition of existing hurdles and red tape.
- Dirty Red - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:45 pm:
This would encourage lawmakers to draft passable/populist legislation. People don’t have opinions on finite details until they are presented with a spin.
- Cubby Fan and a Dem - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:49 pm:
This injects even more money into these decisions and the influence of the well heeled increases. This would allow a decision to never be final. There could be annual efforts to “veto” certain pieces of legislation.
- Tommydanger - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 1:58 pm:
The point has been argued in the past that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may well not have passed if it were put up to a popular vote. Legislators are elected to do what they believe is best, based upon their knowledge of the issue and considering whatever level of importance they attach to constituent input. If enough people believe their legislator is not representing them in the fashion they like, then they can vote for a different candidate. Just because our legislature/legislators create laws we don’t like or fails to act in manner we would prefer, doesn’t mean we have a ’system’ problem so much as a ‘personnel’ problem.
- Ray del Camino - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:01 pm:
No, too crazy and volatile. It would be like California, not like staid Maine.
I sure would favor easier access to the initiative and referendum process, though.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:18 pm:
No. For the reasons Cubby cited.
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:20 pm:
NO
While the fees from the ensuing campaigns would help needy PR and campaign consultants, the work would tire out all hands. Especially hard hit are those representing the Wingnuts. Lord knows they are fatigued enough already
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:35 pm:
Yes, but I would want the law creating the “people’s veto” to also allow me to get credit in the GA pension system for my one day’s work. I’ll then buy in the time from the rest of my life in Illinois. Seems like a win-win for everyone.
- Alexander Cut The Knot - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:41 pm:
No. If you’re going to give that power to the people, then also give them the power to enact laws by referendum, like the Gov has wanted for a long time. Only mobilized special interests will hold sway in either set of elections.
- Knome Sane - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:43 pm:
I voted no. I think it flies in the face of a “reprsentative” form of government.
- NIref - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:46 pm:
I voted no. The big problem comes down to informed voters. Turnout on ballot questions is so low that it’s insulting. Furthermore, the electorate as a whole is woefully underinformed to consistently make these decisions. Take California for instance. Their average ballot is six pages long, and even with voter guides (200+ pages), public campaigns (that effectively reduce the question down to a matter of heuristics and endorsements), and traditional information sources, the percentage of voters on ballot measures tops out at about 40% of those who voted in the top-ballot races.
In effect, a voter veto, gives power to a more select portion and undefined portion of the electorate. Even if we knew who they were, there is no means to hold those decision-makers accountable. Leave it to the legislators, they are informed on the matter (contrary to popular belief), and they can be held accountable.
- Ahoy - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:49 pm:
I voted no, elections are expensive and sometimes legislation is extremly complicated. If we’re going to allow for voter veto, let’s allow for voters to call for legislation to be voted on as well.
- truther - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:54 pm:
Voters are generally uniformed and unaware, so why would anyone give them “keys” to the car?
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 2:54 pm:
Again, yes, but only if we can also be given the power to recall voters by public referenda.
- wishbone - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 3:10 pm:
No. We have too much gridlock as it is. Voter initiatives have all but destroyed California, and they would push us over the brink.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 3:11 pm:
No. We hire legislators and the citizenry has the right to vote said legislators out if they are made unhappy.
I see CA and don’t want IL to go there.
- Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 3:13 pm:
Has the legislature actually enacted any laws recently?
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 3:18 pm:
Voted no, because I don’t think anything done in the past few years in Illnois merits such an extreme correction, that it has to be taken out of the elected representatives’ hands. Blago was taken care of with established constitutional processes.
However, in some cases direct recission might become necessary, e.g. in order to protect civil rights or access to polls, if the hurdles are sufficiently high.
- downhereforyears - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 3:26 pm:
Up until this year I probably would have voted no for all of the reasons stated so well above. But I’ve had a serious change of heart and believe that it may help get us out of this terrible mess we find ourselves in. Something has to change, we are in a crisis.
- Cal Skinner - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 3:36 pm:
No chance Madigan would allow this option, but a nullification possibility might provide something of a check on insanities such as the Democrats’ 67% income tax hike.
If such a question were on the ballot when legislators were, it could provide a reason for some to hesitate from voting the way their leaders desire when it is against their constituents’ wishes.
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 4:06 pm:
I voted no simply because I do not trust the electorate’s response to matters in this political environment. For example, how much time and money would the Catholic Church spend to veto Civil Unions?
- mokenavince - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 4:08 pm:
Damn right we should have veto power,lobbyist have all the say.Who reallys thinks politicans
care what we think, they all act as if their Gods.
A veto would at least get them to listen.
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 4:29 pm:
I voted yes. It can limit the influence of paid off legislators, such as the recent electric rate increase. If we have that right, no matter how much lobbyists pay the unethical politicans, it can be vetoed. A 60% vote would be appropriate.
- springpatch - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 7:11 pm:
I vote yes as a double check on the legislature to actually represent their constituency. I don’t trust them to do anything other than what is self-serving for the most part. This means laws are enacted to keep congressmen in favor of the majority, in favor of their party, in favor of lobbyists that control their purse strings. The voters are low man on the totem pole for why laws are enacted.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 9:53 pm:
I voted no. In case some weren’t aware of this, we live in a republic. We elect people to make decisions for us. And Cal Skinner provides an example of exactly why I also oppose such an option.