BREAKING: Voter-Owned Elections Safe! (for now)
Willamette Week is reporting that the First Things First Commitee has failed to collect the necessary number of valid signatures to place Portland's innovative public campaign finance system on the May ballot.
Last month, the First Things First Committee, a group dominated by downtown business interests—many of whom are large political donors—turned in 40,988 signatures in an effort to repeal voter-owned elections.That signature-gathering effort, which cost about $350,000, seemed sure to succeed, given that repeal advocates needed only 26,691 valid signatures to get on the ballot.
There were two counts done, and they failed both times.
But on Monday, when county elections turned over the results to the city auditor's office, the news was a surprise—the repeal appeared to have fallen short thanks in large part to unregistered voters and duplicate signatures. Running the county figures through the state formula, First Things First appears to have fallen short by about 300 signatures.
No word yet on whether First Things First will make a second attempt.
|
Feb. 13, 2006
Posted in in the news 2006. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 13, '06
Oh my. This is a shame--alot that money and not getting the job done!! Wow, sounds like something the President would be proud!!
Feb 13, '06
WOW....only 300 short out of 27,000 required. That's bad news. They most certainly will be back. In act, expect an appeal if the result is really that close.
I thought this thing would ie with only about 10,000 valid signatures. What a disappointment.
Feb 13, '06
HA ha!
5:58 p.m.
Feb 13, '06
Well, when it comes to running referenda, ya gotta get the signatures... first things first, you know. rimshot
Feb 13, '06
What a wonderful democracy - We've deprived the voters a chance to voice their opinion on whether or not they actually own the elections. I suppose waiting for Erik Sten to put this on the ballot is beyond hope. Who knows it might have passed and all the nay-sayers would have had to shut up.
7:09 p.m.
Feb 13, '06
Well, when it comes to running referenda, ya gotta get the signatures... first things first, you know. rimshot
Wow! They spent $9 per signature and only came in with a 60 percent validity rate? In a high population density city like Portland? Either that's the worst-run signature gathering campaign in the history of Oregon politics, or the people of Portland have already made their choice about the public financing of elections.
Feb 13, '06
First, while this seems like great news for reform advocates, it's not over until it's over. It looks good, but I wouldn't count out the people who convinced voters to save Oregon's bottle bill by voting against stengthening it until Thursday.
Charlie In Gresham wrote: They most certainly will be back.
You may be right, but before they do anything they have at least $150,000 in debt to pay off. Trying to retire this debt without a campaign is going to be a huge problem for them.
This also is a setback for Ginny Burdick, who supported public financing in 2000 but has made opposition to Portland's system central to her city council run. (WW also published a story last noting that despite her newfound opposition to public financing, Burdick is in fact receiving public financing from the state.)
Feb 13, '06
Either that's the worst-run signature gathering campaign in the history of Oregon politics, or the people of Portland have already made their choice about the public financing of elections.
I don't know that the two are mutually exclusive. For those keeping score, Ted "never failed to qualify an initiative" Blazsak gathered the signatures and Gard and Gerber, Ginny Burdick's high priced media firm, did messaging.
Feb 13, '06
Ahhh, DUDE! I TOLD you! No. Sign. Twice.
Whoaaaa.
I totally learned my lesson.
7:30 p.m.
Feb 13, '06
Steve wrote: What a wonderful democracy - We've deprived the voters a chance to voice their opinion on whether or not they actually own the elections. I suppose waiting for Erik Sten to put this on the ballot is beyond hope.
First, if you read the actual measure, there's a provision in it to have the system refered to voters after they've been given a chance to see if they like it.
Second, at $350,000 spent on signature gathering (as noted above), it's not like you can reasonably argue that Qwest, PGE and other opponents didn't have the resources to mount a signature campaign. What they lacked is willing voters to sign their petition.
That's the way the system works - and yeah, it is a wonderful democracy.
Feb 13, '06
"First, if you read the actual measure, there's a provision in it to have the system refered to voters after they've been given a chance to see if they like it."
True, after about 5 years. I am really confused why people are so afraid to let voters vote on this since it is a major change in the way elections are done. The City Council could have put this on the ballot, if they are so convinced. It just seems ironic that voter don't get to vote on voter-owned elections.
8:09 p.m.
Feb 13, '06
I am really confused why people are so afraid to let voters vote on this since it is a major change in the way elections are done. It just seems ironic that voter don't get to vote on voter-owned elections.
Well, in a pretty significant way, voters appear to be expressing their preference by their lack of signatures. To put it in perspective, if there's a groundswell to return power back to PGE, Qwest and other downtown business interests, this would have qualified in a second.
Also, I think people looked at the money being spent on the repeal and saw it for what it was: a handful of powerful donors worried that the new system might work & reduce their political power. Nothing confusing about that.
8:14 p.m.
Feb 13, '06
Also, I think people looked at the money being spent on the repeal and saw it for what it was: a handful of powerful donors worried that the new system might work & reduce their political power. Nothing confusing about that.
It's true. for $350,000 -- I'm pretty sure I could get 40,000 valid signatures to repeal Christmas.
Feb 13, '06
Well, in a pretty significant way, voters appear to be expressing their preference by their lack of signatures.
Totally. This lady was up in my grill about how I needed to get more signatures, and I was like 'If you want them so bad, why don't you go get them yourself?"
And she was all 'That's what we pay you for.'
And I was all 'It's not that hard, you just have to talk to people. Watch...'
But she just rolled her eyes and made a grunt noise and got in her Lexus and drove off. So I just sat there with my friend Carlo and hung out and made bank and talked to girls.
Feb 13, '06
BLUE.....you could have $3,500,000 and not get 40000 signatures to repeal all taxes. You son, are only a mile north from being inept.
As for the repeal effort....I agree Sten and Potter would have been true progressives if they had put public campaign funding up for a vote from the start. BUT....like most of us progressives, they really lack enough self confidence in their pet measure to risk it. Better to back door this thing for as long as possible. It's worth having five fair elections.....but then sadly it will all come to an end when the voters get their say.
8:29 p.m.
Feb 13, '06
It's true. for $350,000 -- I'm pretty sure I could get 40,000 valid signatures to repeal Christmas.
Well, if you listen to John Gibson and Fox news we've already got that one covered.
Feb 13, '06
You son, are only a mile north from being inept.
You dick!
Feb 13, '06
So, that's what happened to the money...
Democracy Resources blew the $350,000 on having Van Halen play for the kickoff party. Dude.
Feb 13, '06
dude.
duuuude
Ixnay on the An Halen Vay, or I'll get so canned!
Feb 13, '06
Uhhhhh... these are the movers and shakers of PDX? The can-do people with the cow-choker sized bankroll?
Reality is so much better than the movies.
Feb 13, '06
Crap. I totally muffed the italics. My bad.
Feb 13, '06
Well, at least you didn't muff a $350,000 campaign!
Feb 13, '06
Charlie in Gresham wrote: BLUE.....you could have $3,500,000 and not get 40000 signatures to repeal all taxes. You son, are only a mile north from being inept.
Are talking about signature collection in general, or just with Democracy Resources?
9:47 p.m.
Feb 13, '06
here's a thought: maybe the signature campaign was fine and Portlanders didn't want to sign. 2 years ago, after the Benton County Commissioners suspended marriage licenses (because gays and lesbians were prohibited), a recall was launched against Linda Modrell (the only commish not running that year). now it does not take a lot of signatures in Benton County to get that on the ballot, and given that most of the churches were playing along (often right in church), we were girding ourselves for battle. i organized a meeting with BRO, ACLU, Modrell and others to look at the issues and learn how we'd be able to support Linda. but lo and behold, they did not get enough signatures. we were absolutely stunned. turns out there just were not enough Bentonites willing to toss Linda out for doing her job according to her conscience (and the other two commissioners were re-elected).
so maybe it's that Portland likes its voter-owned elections. hey, thinks Portland, i sure don't like the status quo. yea, it costs some money, but i get something for it. i get a better election. i think i want to give this a try. and because Portland is busying ignoring this signature drive, the petitioners have to resort to cheating, and it doesn't work. sometimes the system works just fine. given how easy it is to get a measure on the ballot, a competent firm that fails to do so has to admit the obvious: no one wants what they're selling. right on, Portland.
Feb 13, '06
T. A. Barnhart. Hey, I know that dude. What's up dude? You making any righteous bucks?
If you want, I can see about hooking you up with a gig with the Portland Business Alliance. I heard they're hiring anybody who shows.
I do it like this. I clock in, get some babe to write down her name, address (and digits!), and then sneak off for some tasty waves and a cool buzz. Yeah!
Just watch out for that uptight mama with the serious look. Gnarly!
12:38 a.m.
Feb 14, '06
I have a little fantasy that Spicoli is actually Sean Penn sitting in his underwear, reading Blue Oregon and drinking cognac.
Steve says it's a major elections change. Actually, it's a pretty minor one. For one thing, it's opt-in. If everyone ignored it, it wouldn't cost the city a dime. A non-VOE candidate may see reduced advantage to spending large amounts of his own money, but he is free to spend as he or she sees fit.
What it is, is a CAMPAIGNS change. And that was the point. The way people were running for election was broken. VOE allows people to run a straight up campaign and be seriously recognized as a contender for office based on a (tough) minimum of support.
I don't know about repealing Christmas, but if you gave Amanda Fritz or Ms. Boyles (who apparently also got enough signatures this week) the sheets and told them to get signatures for repeal, they wouldn't have come up short, and they wouldn't have needed $350K.
By the way, that wasn't all for signature gathering. A sizeable amount went to legal fees, in kind, and about $40K to Laura Imeson to run things. If you want to point fingers...
PS Good to see Nelson was here to give the only appropriate response. Beat me to it.
1:30 a.m.
Feb 14, '06
Ted Blaszak is a highly competent individual. His firm, Democracy Resources, is also highly competent. More often than not (but not every time) I agree with the positive and progressive campaigns they run. They pay a living wage, and provide their signature collectors health care. They are in a different universe from the right-wing mercenary scuzzbals circulating junk from Sizemore, McIntire, and FreedomWorks.
Why do I mention all this? Because it proves to me that Portlanders didn't want to repeal voter-owned elections.
The monopolists at Qwest and Enron can kick and scream all they want, but if voters don't want it, you can't spend enough money to get the signatures. (In the per-signature bounty days, you could drive the price up high enough to motivate fraudulent behavior - but not any more.)
Steve wrote, What a wonderful democracy - We've deprived the voters a chance to voice their opinion on whether or not they actually own the elections
Wrong-o, Steve. This is how democracy should work. When the people have the power, the money boys lose. You'll get your vote. But first you're going to have to see how the system works.
1:30 a.m.
Feb 14, '06
p.s. Disclaimer - I built the website for Democracy Resources. Ted Blaszak is a friend.
Feb 14, '06
Regardless of what you think of the law (not being a Portlander, I haven't paid much attention to it but am interested to see how it works out), I find this news distressing. It's distressing because I've watched signature validity rates drop steadily over the past 8 years and I don't believe they really are dropping. I've watched these campaigns pour carefully over signatures sheets, even some going to the extreme of cataloging signatures to get rid of duplicates, and they're validity rates are still dropping. I've seen elections officials validate obvious forgeries and invalidate signatures when the person who signed the petition provided a notorized statement that it was their signature. I know this is an outrageous thing to say, but I think a concerted effort is on in elections offices to be as picky as possible - and I believe in some cases they are even knowingly too picky. It just doesn't make sense that there is some grand conspiracy amongst petition signers to foul up initiative campaigns. The odds are that they could not be this effective at it.
What has bothered me most about this for the past few years is what happens when these same voters sign their vote by mail ballots? Have their signatures slightly changed since they first registered to vote? And are those of a particular party more or less likely to be found valid? I think these are legitimate question to ask.
Feb 14, '06
Kari -
"it proves to me that Portlanders didn't want to repeal voter-owned elections."
I agree. I suspect what happened was a lot of people who weren't residents signed the petitions. But I am surprised that the campaign wasn't checking signatures themselves. Maybe they made the mistake of letting Ginny Burdick run the campaign, not just be its public front.
"The monopolists at Qwest and Enron can kick and scream all they want, but if voters don't want it, you can't spend enough money to get the signatures."
I don't believe that. There are 27,000 people in Portland who would sign. Finding them may be expensive, but if money is no object you should be able to do it. I am sure if they knew they needed 300 more signatures the business folks would have put up the money to go find them.
But from the level of controversy, getting the signatures should have been easy. I think this demonstrates that, like many issues in the City of Portland, a lot of people in the larger region participated in the public discussion. Those people don't have a vote and can't sign a petition. So the public controversy doesn't reflect the level of controversy among those who actually can participate in the decision.
Feb 14, '06
Let’s do away with the euphemisms and call it what it is, Voter Funded Campaigns, we already own and pay for the elections.
Quite simply, the citizens should have a chance to vote on this bit of welfare for politicians. If Mayor Potter and the city council were honest they would have put it on the ballot instead of ramming it down the voter’s throats in the condescending way they did.
But they must have known that with an open debate they would have surely lost the argument.
8:10 a.m.
Feb 14, '06
hey Buckman, remember: before anyone gets any funding, they have to demonstrate a certain level of public support. you don't get to just hold out your hand for money; you pretty much have to prove you are running a grassroots-oriented campaign.
Becky, go down to your local elections office and ask them about how they check signatures. i sat through a training 2 years ago sponsored by BRO for M36; it's pretty intensive stuff. one part of it you don't mention: representatives of a group can watch the process step-by-step. this stuff does not happen in a back room in private; it happens in public. if a campaign manages to fall short of the level required, you can be sure they did indeed fall short. i don't think either the Secretary of State's office is going to cheat on these things, or local election offices; look at the fallout in King County, not for cheating but for incompetence. these people aren't stupid. faking results is too risky, and the penalty is jail. i think we can trust the honesty, at least, of the folks checking signatures. especially with advocates sitting over their shoulder and watching.
Feb 14, '06
As for the accusations that city council was afraid of losing at the ballot, don't forget that they were the first legislative body to pass this system for itself. It was passed by the voters in Maine, Arizona and Albuquerque (where it's usually called "Clean Elections" rather than "Voter Owned Elections").
This is the nature of representative democracy: we entrust other people to sort through policy issues and figure them out. That's exactly what city council did.
If you don't like a decision, we have a process that requires you to collect a certain number of petition signatures before it gets to a vote. This guarantees that the idea has enough public support to warrant public debate. It looks like the repeal didn't. Democratically speaking, that's the same as losing at the ballot box.
Feb 14, '06
It just goes to show, the private sector can't do anything right, no matter how much money they throw at a problem.
Feb 14, '06
Tom...I bet the private sector can build trams a whole lot cheaper.
10:44 a.m.
Feb 14, '06
I agree with a lot of what Kari wrote about Ted Blaszak, even though I disagree pretty strongly with some of the more lucrative, less progressive measures he takes on (VOE repeal, limiting patients' jury rights in 04).
Still, this doesn't seem like a failure of one company, Democracy Resources, but rather the result of a competent signature gathering company trying to find support for a position - shifting power from everyday citizens back to a narrow group of donors - that enjoyed little public support. The momentum - and signatures - just weren't there, and that doesn't have anything to do with Ted.
I have to admit, even though I support Portland's innovative new system, defeating the repeal in the primary by a direct public vote did have some appeal. The same voters unwilling to sign the petition seemed poised to defeat this power grab on the ballot, but in a way they've already spoken.
Feb 14, '06
Gresham Charlie seems more interested in sarcasm than in talking about the topic at hand.
What do trams have to do with VOE except that tram is a Portland problem and just one more thing to bash?
I am getting really tired of the "have no positive proposal but love to bash opponents" people posting here.
11:03 a.m.
Feb 14, '06
Speaking of people who are afraid the voters won't agree with them, seems to me "Big Bidness" doesn't want to give the voters a chance to see how this works for fear they'll like it so much that even the ususal high-priced campaign full of lies won't be enough to get rid of it.
Feb 14, '06
Charlie in Gresham!
You, my friend, have missed the boat. The tram is being brought to you by the exact same people who bought the attempted murder of the public finance system.
Meth, my brother, will damage your synapses.
3:25 p.m.
Feb 14, '06
As someone who has worked at the elections office and has checked signatures, I can tell you that people watch over you like a hawk.
If they felt you shouldn't have allowed a signature, or should have allowed one that you didn't, they go and report it.
As much as they spent on this signature gathering, I am certain they had people in there watching.
They'll now go over the signatures and see if the county was indeed wrong.
Since there were that many duplicate signatures and unregistered voters on the sheets, it appears they didn't spend too much time checking their sheets before turning them in.
I have the feeling that a good number of the unregistered people who signed thought they were at one time registered-- but forgot to re-register after moving or have not voted in a while and have been de-activated. Having dealt with hundreds of these people myself during the 2004 election, I can tell you there are a good number of them.
You probably also got people who worked in Portland, but didn't live there, signing the petitions as well. Or they have a "Portland" mailing address, but actually live in another city-- such as Gresham, Milwaukie, or Beaverton.