Author Archives: Scott Tillman

Cut Taxes Or Let Voters Decide Tax Cuts, WA Statewide Initiative

Tax cuts are popular with voters, but not very popular with legislators. Tim Eyman has decided to take advantage of this to empower taxpayers. I-1366 would lower the state sales tax from 6.5 to 5.5 percent unless the Legislature places a constitutional amendment on the ballot by next April 15 requiring two-thirds legislative approval — or majority voter approval — for any tax increases.

Initiators in Washington must be more creative because the legislature can undo citizen approved statutes, this initiative can potentially make the legislators obey the will of the voters.
 

Donate to the campaign here.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Support These Campaigns!

Tualatin, OR Term Limits

Municipal term limits are hot right now. Recently approved in Grand Rapids, MI, initiators around the county are busy gathering signatures to term limit their own elected officials.
Citizens in Tualatin, OR recently began their petition drive only to have the city council respond by cutting the number of days citizens are allowed to gather signatures. The city council has been playing games with public involvement ever since voters blocked the council from expanding light rail without voter approval.

You can check out their facebook page and support their campaign here.

 

 

Municipal Term Limits

Leave a Comment

Filed under Support These Campaigns!

Arkansas Term Limits

ARTL

Arkansas voters love term limits, but Arkansas legislators hate term limits. And the legislators worked to trick voters last year into gutting the term limits law.

Let me sum up the issue: Legislators put a bunch of feel good anti-lobbyist and limiting pay raise fluff into a 20+ page constitutional amendment package and included a provision to weaken voter approved term limits at the very end. Voters got a sweet sounding ballot title (read more here) and narrowly  approved the measure 53-47. After the measure passed the lobbyist rules quickly become irrelevant and the legislators get a huge pay raise.

Tim Jacobs explains in this video.

 

Now term limits supporters have organized and are getting ready to circulate petitions to bring back voter supported term limits.

Dr. Patricia Mays explains in this video:

 

 

Please support this campaign.
Donate here.

Like their facebook page.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Support These Campaigns!, Uncategorized

Ferguson Police Cameras

handsup

Police transparency a winner for everyone.

Last fall in Ferguson, MO a police shooting resulted in mass demonstrations. Lack of recorded evidence increased community distrust and the demonstrations escalated resulting in millions of dollars in property damage. Most of this could have been avoided if the officer had been using a body camera and the video had been shared with the public immediately.

Citizens waited for the state and local government to take action. Unfortunately the legislature did not take action to correct these issues. The city council now requires the police to use body cameras but they have not mandated constant use instead they allow for officers to use their own judgment. They also make no provisions for citizen access to the video.

Fortunately local initiators have taken it upon themselves to propose legislation to remedy these problems. They are now circulating a petition let voters decide the issue. Their proposed charter amendment will:

  • Require all on duty officers to wear a functioning camera to record all their on duty activities.
  • Require all recorded data be accessible to persons who appear in the video.
  • Require use of force incidents be reviewed by the city council.
  • Require documented action be taken when a civilian makes a complaint against an officer.
  • Require all video recordings be deleted after 2 years unless otherwise required by law.

This measure has great potential.

Police are protected in the case of frivolous complaints, citizens are protected in the case of police misconduct.

Who will watch the watchers? Citizens.

Elected officials will be forced to take ownership of police misconduct.

Nick Kasoff a local community leader has provided this great write up.

Please consider supporting their campaign. They need assistance gathering signatures and educating voters on the details of the initiative. If you are able to donate even $10 or $25 it will make a big difference. If you’re able to circulate petitions or help in other ways please reach out to the campaign through their website, www.policecamerasforferguson.com .

Donate to the campaign here.

 

 

Leave a Comment

by | July 10, 2015 · 3:11 pm

Tax Cap In Ocean City Maryland

The city attorney in Ocean City does not think citizens are allowed to petition for a tax cap. He’s basing his opinion on a tax rollback restriction. However, it is unlikely the court will decide until the city confirms enough petition signatures were submitted.

According to Charter Amendment Procedures for Maryland Municipalities, “the residents of an incorporated city or town may initiate an amendment to a municipal charter by gathering the signatures of at least 20 percent of qualified municipal voters on a petition in the same fashion that a charter amendment approved by a municipal governing body may be petitioned to referendum.”

Once the appropriate number of signatures is verified, the Town of Ocean City will be required to conduct the referendum within 90 days or at the next scheduled election, which is in November of 2016.

“I suspect that there may be some litigation over this petition, and the court is not going to reach a determination if the petition has not been verified with the requisite number of signatures,” Ayres said. “The issue is with the substance of the petition. In my opinion, the substance of the petition violates Section 6-303 of the Tax Property Article of the Maryland Code Annotated. The substance of the petition would amend the charter, so your ability to tax would be capped at the 2009 level of taxes, and that is known as a ‘tax rollback.’ In the case of Board of Election Supervisors vs. Smallwood … the court had ruled tax rollbacks are not proper charter material and violate Section 6-303.”

The Mayor and City Council voted unanimously to request the Board of Elections verify the number of signatures on the petition.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Ballot measures, Ballot Question, charter amendment, Initiative, Petition Drive, politicians, referendum

ACLU Body Camera Model Language

5/21/2015 ACLU released model language for police body cameras.

aclu_police_body_cameras_model_legislation_may_2015

A Model Act for Regulating the Use of Wearable Body Cameras by Law Enforcement

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Police Body Cameras

Michigan Forfeiture Reporting 2015

From Michigan Capitol Confidential:

A package of bills designed to give the public access to information on property seized by, or forfeited to, government entities is under consideration by a state House committee. The legislation would require government entities across the state to submit annual reports to the Michigan State Police (MSP) on property they’ve seized or received through forfeiture. The information would be compiled, issued in an annual report to the Legislature and posted on the MSP website.

AssetForfeitureBillsSummary

HB 4500 Introduced by Representative Jim Runestad

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
SEC. 79D. (1) BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 2016, EACH REPORTING AGENCY SHALL REPORT ALL SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS ACT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.
(2) BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 2016, EACH REPORTING AGENCY IS SUBJECT TO AUDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.
(3) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “REPORTING AGENCY” MEANS THAT TERM AS DEFINED IN SECTION 7 OF THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING  ACT.

HB 4503 Introduced by Representative Triston Cole

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
SEC. 4710. (1) BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 2016, EACH REPORTING AGENCY SHALL REPORT ALL SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.
(2) BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 2016, EACH REPORTING AGENCY IS SUBJECT TO AUDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.
(3) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “REPORTING AGENCY” MEANS THAT TERM AS DEFINED IN SECTION 7 OF THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.

HB 4504 Introduced by Representative Klint Kesto

A bill to create the uniform forfeiture reporting act; to require certain reports by reporting agencies regarding seized and forfeited property; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain local and state officials; to provide for certain fees and the expenditure of those fees; to require certain audits; to require certain reports by the department of state police; to provide for the withholding of law enforcement funds under certain circumstances; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “uniform forfeiture reporting act”.
Sec. 2. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), before February 1 of each year, each reporting agency shall submit a report to the department of state police summarizing the reporting agency’s activities for the preceding calendar year regarding the forfeiture of property under sections 7521 to 7533 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7521 to 333.7533, chapter 38 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.3801 to 600.3840, and chapter 47 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.4701 to 600.4709. The annual report shall contain the following information, as applicable:
(a) The number of forfeiture proceedings that were instituted in the circuit court by the reporting agency.
(b) The number of forfeiture proceedings instituted by the reporting agency that were concluded in the circuit court.
(c) The number of all forfeiture proceedings instituted by the reporting agency that were pending in the circuit court at the end of the year.
(d) The number of forfeitures effectuated by the reporting agency without a forfeiture proceeding in the circuit court.
(e) The number of forfeiture proceedings subject to a plea or any other similar agreement involving the property owner and reporting agency.
(f) An inventory of property received by the reporting agency. Property shall be reported in accordance with each of the following categories:
(i) Residential real property.
(ii) Industrial or commercial real property.
(iii) Agricultural real property.
(iv) Money, negotiable instruments, and securities.
(v) Weapons.
(vi) Motor vehicles and other conveyances.
(vii) Other personal property of value.
(g) Each property inventoried under subdivision (f) shall include a description that contains the following information, as applicable:
(i) The date the property was seized.
(ii) The final disposition of the property, including the date the property was ordered forfeited or disposed of.
(iii) The estimated value of the property.
(iv) The violation or nuisance alleged to have been committed for which forfeiture is authorized.
(v) Whether any person was charged with the violation for which forfeiture is authorized and whether that person was ultimately convicted of that violation.
(vi) The number of claimants to the property.
(vii) Whether the forfeiture resulted from an adoptive seizure. As used in this subdivision, “adoptive seizure” means that all of the following apply:
(A) The seizure resulted from a violation of state law and there is a federal basis for the forfeiture action.
(B) All of the preseizure activity and related investigations were performed by this state or the local reporting agency before a request was made to the federal government for adoption.
(C) The seizure did not result from a joint investigation or task force case.
(h) The net total proceeds of all property forfeited through actions instituted by the reporting agency that the reporting agency is required to account for and report to the state treasurer under either of the following, as applicable:
(i) 1919 PA 71, MCL 21.41 to 21.55.
(ii) The uniform budgeting and accounting act, 1968 PA 2, MCL  141.421 to 141.440a.
(i) For forfeiture proceedings instituted under the public
health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.1101 to 333.25211:
(i) A statement explaining how any money received by the reporting agency under section 7524(1)(b)(ii) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7524, has been used or is being used for law enforcement purposes.
(ii) A statement of the number of lights for plant growth or scales donated under section 7524(2) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7524, the total value of those lights or scales, and the elementary or secondary schools or institutions of higher education to which they were donated.
(j) For nuisance proceedings instituted under chapter 38 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.3801 to 600.3840, a statement explaining how net proceeds were directed under section 3835 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.3835.
(k) For forfeiture proceedings instituted under chapter 47 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.4701 to 600.4709, the amount of money received under section 4708(1)(f) of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 235, MCL 600.4708, that was used to enhance enforcement of criminal laws and the amount of money that was used to implement the William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.751 to 780.834.
(2) Subsection (1) applies only to proceedings commenced on or after the effective date of this act.
(3) Subsection (1)(g) through (k) applies only to proceedings that have been finalized for purposes of appeal.
Sec. 3. A null report shall be filed under this act by a reporting agency that did not engage in any forfeitures during the reporting period.
Sec. 4. A reporting agency may use forfeiture proceeds to pay the reasonable costs associated with compiling, analyzing, and reporting data under this act.
Sec. 5. (1) The records of a reporting agency regarding the forfeiture of any property that is required to be reported under this act shall be audited in accordance with 1 of the following, as applicable:
(a) 1919 PA 71, MCL 21.41 to 21.55.
(b) The uniform budgeting and accounting act, 1968 PA 2, MCL 141.421 to 141.440a.
(2) The records of a reporting agency regarding the forfeiture of any property required to be reported under this act may be audited by an auditor of the local unit of government.
Sec. 6. The department of state police shall compile the information reported to the department under sections 2 and 3. Beginning January 1, 2016, the department shall file an annual report of its findings under this section with the secretary of the senate and with the clerk of the house of representatives and shall place a copy of the report on its departmental website. The report shall be filed not later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify any state departments or agencies or local units of government that have failed to properly report the information required under sections 2 and 3 with the department of state police.
Sec. 7. As used in this act:
(a) “Local unit of government” means a village, city, township, or county.
(b) “Reporting agency” means 1 of the following:
(i) If property is seized by or forfeited to a local unit of government, that local unit of government.
(ii) If property is seized by or forfeited to this state, the state department or agency effectuating the seizure or forfeiture.

HB 4506 Introduced by Representative Jason Sheppard

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
SEC. 7524B. (1) BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 2016, EACH REPORTING AGENCY SHALL REPORT ALL SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS ARTICLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.
(2) BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 2016, EACH REPORTING AGENCY IS SUBJECT TO AUDIT OR REQUIRED UNDER THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.
(3) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “REPORTING AGENCY” MEANS THAT TERM AS DEFINED IN SECTION 7 OF THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.

HB 4507 Introduced by Representative Brandt Iden 

 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
SEC. 3841. (1) BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 2016, EACH REPORTING AGENCY SHALL REPORT ALL SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.
(2) BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 2016, EACH REPORTING AGENCY IS SUBJECT TO AUDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.
(3) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “REPORTING AGENCY” MEANS THAT TERM AS DEFINED IN SECTION 7 OF THE UNIFORM FORFEITURE REPORTING ACT.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under asset forfeiture, transparency, Uncategorized

Reform Or Restriction

Disclosure of funding, should petitions require a higher standard than candidates? One San Diego city council member thinks they should.

At a special session of the City Council, meeting as a “committee of the whole,” Gloria will propose a package of regulations that require that petition advertisements identify the top two donors contributing to the drive; impose tighter deadlines for publicly reporting petition campaign contributions and expenses; and revamp the rules on how petitions are formatted

It’s easy for legislators to propose new regulations like these for petitions, they don’t bear the costs. New formatting rules will mean paying attorneys more to draft petitions. These types of regulations are always added to protect us from big money special interests, but they result in making the process more difficult and sometimes impossible for volunteers and small money drives. Big money special interests can pay for lobbyists, they can pay for attorneys to wade through the regulations. Volunteers and grassroots will be the ones tripped up by this law, they don’t have funding to pay CPAs and attorneys to prepare campaign finance reports or spend hours designing new petition templates.

It’s also a bit hypocritical, does councilman Todd Gloria put the names of his two biggest campaign donor on each piece of legislation he proposes? That’s a reform people might want to see.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Ballot measures, Ballot Question, charter amendment, Initiative, politicians, referendum, transparency

Decline To Sign Campaigns

Every petition drive cycle we see campaigns organized encouraging people not to sign petitions.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce recently launched a decline to sign campaign in opposition to a petition to ban fracking.

Decline to sign is most effective when you have a large organization or money to spend on paid media.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Confused Voters Rarely Vote Yes

Anyone who works ballot question campaigns will tell you, confusing language almost always results in votes against the question. Ballot titles are a big deal. If voters don’t understand they will often vote it down because they don’t understand it. I’ve written about misleading ballot titles here.

What do you think of these recent ballot titles?

San Antonio, Texas, Voters approved an amendment to require public votes before allowing for light rail or streetcar track.

SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT NO GRANT OF PERMISSION TO ALTER OR DAMAGE ANY PUBLIC WAY OF THE CITY FOR THE LAYING OF STREETCAR OR LIGHT RAIL TRACKS SHALL EVER BE VALID, AND NO FUNDS SHALL BE APPROPRIATED AND NO BONDS OR NOTES SHALL BE ISSUED OR SOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF STREETCAR OR LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS, UNLESS FIRST APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY VOTING AT AN ELECTION CONTAINING A PROPOSITION SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED FOR AND LIMITED TO SUCH PURPOSE?

Yes or No

Some reports claimed this was confusing, but voters approved it by about 2-1.

 

Arlington, Texas, Voters approve a ban on red light cameras.

Addition of Section 12 of Article X of the City Charter to prohibit photographic traffic signal enforcement.

For or Against

I consider this a little more confusing. Voters approved it 59% to 41%

 

Michigan voters denied a tax increase measure to fund roads.

A proposal to amend the State Constitution to increase the sales/use tax from 6% to 7% to replace and supplement reduced revenue to the School Aid Fund and local units of government caused by the elimination of the sales/use tax on gasoline and diesel fuel for vehicles operating on public roads, and to give effect to laws that provide additional money for roads and other transportation purposes by increasing the gas tax and vehicle registration fees.

The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Eliminate sales / use taxes on gasoline / diesel fuel for vehicles on public roads.
• Increase portion of use tax dedicated to School Aid Fund (SAF).
• Expand use of SAF to community colleges and career / technical education, and prohibit use for 4-year colleges / universities.
• Give effect to laws, including those that:

o Increase sales / use tax to 7%, as authorized by constitutional amendment.
o Increase gasoline / diesel fuel tax and adjust annually for inflation, increase vehicle registration fees, and dedicate revenue for roads and other transportation purposes.
o Expand competitive bidding and warranties for road projects.
o Increase earned income tax credit

Should this proposal be adopted?

Yes or No

Confusing? Voters shot this down 80% to 19%.

 

A referendum can be even more confusing. Sturgis, Michigan voters voted to keep this law 69% to 31%.

Should the City of Sturgis repeal Part II – Chapter 10 Animals
– Article II Dogs and Cats –
Section 10-33 of the City of Sturgis Code of Ordinances?
Sec. 10-33. – Operating a dog kennel in city prohibited.
No person, group of persons, association or corporation shall keep, operate, or maintain a dog kennel within the limits of the city. A dog kennel, as used in this section means any establishment wherein or whereon more than two dogs are owned, kept, or harbored. This section shall not apply to the owning, keeping, or harboring of any dog pups until they attain the age of four months.
Yes or No

As you can see, ballot titles are not always easy to understand.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Ballot measures, Ballot Question, charter amendment, Initiative, Our million dollar vote, politicians