« ACLU Loses One, Wins One | Main | Brainwashing Children Through Trauma »

February 01, 2007

Initiative Reform Side Notes

Yesterday, a House Committee of the Oregon Legislature took public comments on proposals to reform the initiative process. I've been looking all over for any write-up on what happened yesterday, but so far have heard nothing. Unfortunately, I was working at the time of the hearing and was unable to listen in on the Internet. So for now, I wanted to put some comments out there about some of the proposals being bandied about and also give you my take on Tim Trickey, the owner of Democracy Direct – the right wing's petitioning company of choice.

I have long believed that a number of our political leaders do not like the initiative process and are actively working to shut it down, for whatever reason. I believe that is why the Secretary of State and the Attorney General refuse to seriously prosecute people who break initiative laws. You will notice investigations are many, but prosecutions are few. And some of the worst offenders, against whom large piles of evidence were available, have never been prosecuted at all. All of this works to undermine the people's confidence in the initiative process and their willingness to sign their name to a peititon.

People have all sorts of theories as to why the initiative process is under attack. Those on the right who make their livings putting measures on the ballot claim that the hatred for the initiative process is because it takes the power from the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people. Personally, I think that is a silly over-simplification, at best. I think the reason many oppose the initiative process is because it circumvents the deliberative process, resulting in unintended, unforeseen consequences that could have been avoided with more exploration and debate, and that favor the interests of a minority rather than taking into consideration the interests of the majority. Others believe that in some cases, too much debate and compromise end up diluting and slowing down a much-needed piece of legislation to the point where it can no longer achieve anything meaningful, and that the deliberative process often gives too much power to partisans and special interests. I think this philosophical division is fairly close to where people fall when it comes to the initiative process and I think solid truth can be found on both sides.

So what has led me to believe that those who oppose the initiative process are attempting to shut it down? First of all, just look at some of the proposed reforms:

(1) One year time limit for gathering signatures (A 50% cut)

(2) Raise signature requirement threshold by 20%

(3) Raise number of sponsors to qualify petition to start

(4) Require all ballot measure election complaints (frivolous or not) to be listed in the state voters’ pamphlet (yet not list any election complaints aimed at measure opponents)

(5) Require official legislative blessings for all voter approved measures before they become law

(6) Make chief petitioners liable for what any signature gatherer may do while collecting signatures.

Add to this list a desire to prevent payment for signatures and you have created an impossible situation for anyone wishing to use the initiative process to either place a proposal before the voters or refer to the voters a piece of legislation that may be unpopular. You simply cannot, with volunteers, gather more signatures than are now required in half the time, let alone find chief petitioners willing to put themselves on the line to pay for any crimes committed by the people collecting the signatures – people who will be collecting in places and at times of their own choosing, all out of sight of the chief petitioner. Increasing the number of signatures required is particularly irritating, considering that by round-about methods this has already been done. The increased level of scrutiny and, in the opinion of many (including myself), wrongful elimination of signatures from petitions has so heavily affected validity rates on petitions as to be a travesty. Literally tens of thousands of honest citizens' signatures are eliminated from each petition for technical reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the person was indeed a registered voter who wished to legitimately express his or her opinion on the form provided. Those people are being disenfranchised.

A couple of these proposals are directly targeted at destroying the process on the back end. First, increasing the number of sponsors before a measure can be filed is a step intended to prevent ballot title shopping, which occurs because the ballot title is perhaps the single most important factor in whether a measure will pass or fail. This proposal is a bandaid solution to a problem that its proponents have steadfastly refused to admit exists – that ballot titles are being intentionally slanted by the Attorney General's office to make them either more or less attractive to the voters. I've had many people swear to me this does not occur, but I have seen scores of ballot titles and commented on many of them and it is patently obvious to me that it does occur. A better process is needed for the drafting of ballot titles to ensure that they fairly and accurately describe the measure. I would suggest a panel effort similar to the one used to write the official Voter Pamphlet statement – wherein two proponents, two opponents, and a mutually acceptable neutral fifth person sit down and write it together so that all parties agree it is fair. The very fact that chief petitioners will have to give up their personal time, find other individuals to participate, and travel to Salem to attend these meetings will in itself reduce a lot of the frivolous filing of multiple ballot measures.

Second, requiring ballot measure election complaints to be listed in the Voter Pamphlet would simply open the door to legal libel of a measure. One could file even more frivolous complaints than are already being filed, and they would be listed as if they were accurate. It would be very easy for opponents to sabotage an unwanted ballot measure this way.

Third, the suggestion that the people's passage of legislation that the Legislature would not pass on its own should not then become law unless approved by the Legislature is truly absurd. I don't think I even need to explain why. But it is clear that anyone who would propose such ideas is only attempting to kill unwanted ballot measures after they have passed. Perhaps they are tired of spending so much money on legal fees and lobbying fees to try to accomplish their goals via the existing process.

I think my readers know by know that I absolutely detest fraud and shady dealings and resent the impact that such behavior has had on Oregon politics. I particularly resent the fact that this behavior has nearly destroyed the people's belief in the initiative process itself. Those who have perpetrated it – and continue to do so – ought to be ashamed of what they have done, yet they are unapologetic and seek only to push the rules as far and as hard as they can to eke out what little profits are left to be made before the system crashes for good. Shame! Shame! Shame!

So let me get to Tim Trickey. I have never met the man personally and information about him is fairly scarce, though I think from his various posts on blogs and other things that I have a feel for who he is. I'd like to take the young man aside and have a long talk with him about the dangers ahead on the path he has chosen, but honestly, I think he is quite full of testosterone and the thrill of the fight, so I doubt he'd listen to me at all.

I am not sure if this is the Tim Trickey, but I believe it is. This person lives in Portland, is about the right age, appears to be tall (as I've heard him described), looks to be bright and energetic, and has as a slogan, "Ask yourself, What Would "Jack Bauer" Do?'" It all fits him to a "T."

It is not difficult to find a lot of inflammatory things about Trickey and his company, Democracy Direct, on left-leaning blogs. In my opinion, much of it is overstated or clearly slanted. For the record, I do not believe Trickey is an evil crook – yet. But I think he is too cavalier and I think he is too willing to push the line. It's going to get him into trouble someday. What is clear is that he is very right wing and nearly militant about it. You can find several instances in which he has been inhospitable to the press and refused to answer questions. Yet this sort of protectionist behavior is new for him.

Before he went to work with Bill Sizemore, he was more politically adept at hiding his cockiness about his right wing beliefs than he is now. Trickey graduated from Oregon State University with a degree in political science. While still in college, he wrote a letter decrying the "vicious and hateful" treatment of those who say homosexuality is "deviant," "abnormal," "disgusting or offensive," but carefully avoided stating his own opinion on the matter. He recently expressed his support for students working to privatize Social Security. In 2004, he kissed up to the GOP establishment by writing that anti-war protesters were being disrespectful to the troops. He has served both as Chair and as Political Director for the Multnomah County Republicans, and he was a consultant to former House Speaker Karen Minnis. Recently, however, in addition to hiding from the press, he is demonstrating his slipping political skills by attempting to humiliate and isolate me (it didn't work).

I have not seen anything conclusive to demonstrate anything other than that Trickey is naïve and enthusiastic. But a couple of things I have read about him give me pause. The first thing has to do with an incident that occurred while he was involved with the Multhomah County GOP. The party was getting some pretty bad press at the time because stories had come out about Republicans registering people to vote and then ripping up the Democratic cards or changing people's registration cards. One night, a rock was thrown through the Multnomah County GOP's office window. Amazingly, Trickey was the "first person on the scene." Even more amazingly, it was discovered that the security camera happened to not be working that night. It sounds like one of Karl Rove's early shenanigans (remember the time he bugged his own office?). It all reminds me of the way Sizemore has used the mysterious arson fire at the OTU offices to garner sympathy for his cause.

Trickey also has been very effusive with his praise of some people who are strongly suspected of having broken campaign finance laws to enrich themselves (personally, I believe both of these people actually did it): Bill Sizemore and Kevin Mannix. Trickey once described Kevin Mannix as "one of the most honorable men I have ever met." He has made similar statements about Sizemore.

He may indeed be completely naïve, energetic, and starry-eyed. But the rock through the window incident makes me doubt it. I think perhaps he doesn't yet realize that politics isn't a team sport. It's something that affects real people's lives. The processes of government that we have are the result of thousands of years of testing what works and what doesn't. And his cavalier attitude is adding to the damage that has already been done to the political process in Oregon – damage that could very well include the destruction of the initiative process.

One final note while I'm on subjects related to Sizemore: The Wendt family, who are apparently heavily subsidizing Sizemore's current efforts and who seem to have a finger in every pot, have just donated $2.5 million to the Atkinson Graduate School of Management in Salem. Believe it or not, however, that's not such a big deal. The family's foundation has donated more than $33 million to the school over the past five years. This particular contribution is earmarked to fund an endowed chair who will teach classes at the school, do research, and make presentations to professional organizations and community groups about free enterprise issues.

Posted by Becky at February 1, 2007 12:27 PM