Your Signature Is Already Electronic, and Other Notes from the San Mateo Case
Guess what? Electronic signatures aren’t new to California politics. In most counties of this state, records of voter registration are kept in electronic form. So when the clerk’s office checks to see if your pen-and-paper signature on an initiative petition matches the signature they have on file, the signature they’re comparing it with is an electronic one.
I learned more about this through reading the fascinating court filings in the case of Ni v. Slocum, a new lawsuit that asks a superior court judge in San Mateo County to find that an electronic signature on the marijuana initiative – Michael Ni signed it electronically with the touch screen of his iPhone – is valid and should be counted. The county’s chief elections officer, Warren Slocum, ruled the signature invalid.
Prop 14 Lawsuit: People-1, Politicians-0
A scheme by legislative leaders to torpedo Prop 14, the open primary initiative on the June ballot was revealed this week in a Sacramento Superior Courtroom.
It’s no secret that political insiders are opposed to open primaries. They see the idea as a threat to their power and influence over what happens in the Capitol. That’s why it wasn’t surprising to see them ramp up their calculated attacks on the open primary as voters begin to become more aware of the idea.
What was surprising, however, was the blatant audacity of insiders who this week tried to engineer a last-minute, total rewrite of the title and summary of Proposition 14, one that included absurdly prejudicial language designed to deceive voters and kill the measure.
The Real Danger behind the Citizens United Decision
While many elected officials, members of the media, and members of the general public have expressed outrage over the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United, the real danger of that decision lurks beneath the surface. The decision, which allows corporations to use general treasury funds to make ads that support or oppose candidates for elected office, has been widely criticized as giving corporations a larger voice in elections. There can be little doubt that the Court’s decision will do just that.
However, the truly dangerous part of the decision is not its outcome; it is instead the way that the Court decided the case.
Citizens United is a conservative non-profit corporation which sought to air a movie on Video-On-Demand critical of then-Presidential Candidate Hilary Clinton during her primary election battle with now-President Barack Obama. When it brought its case to the Supreme Court, Citizens United brought forth a narrow challenge, claiming that a portion of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as McCain-Feingold) was unconstitutional only as applied to it. Citizens United had abandoned its much broader claim which asked the Court to declare a provision of McCain-Feingold to be unconstitutional as applied to everyone.
Stand Up to Redistricting Wars Targeting Citizens Commission
Voters beware: A group of California Democratic lawmakers is attempting one of the most cynical power-grabs in recent memory. The goal is to overturn voter-approved Proposition 11 in order to give themselves the authority to redraw their own district boundaries and choose the voters they want to represent.
Two years ago, California voters ended this inherent conflict of interest by passing Proposition 11. The initiative established an independent citizens commission to draw new legislative districts following the 2010 census. The new process is transparent and will reflect the state’s political and ethnic diversity. That’s why good government organizations such as California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and AARP joined the Chamber in championing this initiative. It’s also why political leaders spent millions of dollars opposing the initiative.