My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-21-1979
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
1978-1989
>
1979
>
Minutes
>
02-21-1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2018 5:37:52 AM
Creation date
9/10/2018 5:37:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Charter Commission
DOCTYPE
minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• <br /> insure that this cannot happen except in the case where legislation is indeed urgent. Some <br /> states require measures identified as emergency be passed by a two-thirds majority of the <br /> legislature. <br /> • Enabling Legislation -- Constitution or Statute? <br /> Constitutions vary considerably in the level of detail with which I and R pro-- <br /> cedures are specified. Utah, Idaho, South Dakota, and Maryland merely provided for initiative - <br /> and referendum and left the details of its mechanism to their legislatures. Utah and Idaho <br /> had to wait nearly 50 years for their legislatures to pass the enabling legislation. On the <br /> other hand, some states outline every procedural detail in the constitution. <br /> According to the 1968 Constitutional Convention study prepared by the Legis- <br /> lative Reference Bureau of the State of Hawaii: <br /> "Most constitutional previsions are more lengthy and detailed. <br /> The problem of detail is important for two reasons. The extent to <br /> which the provision can be implemented without enabling legislation <br /> affects the extent to which the legislature can adversely or favor- <br /> ably affgct the ability of the people to utilize the provision. In <br /> . addition, the procedural requirements determine the real availability <br /> of the Initiative. Where requirements are rigid, initiated legisla- <br /> tion is more theoretical than real and where requirements are loose, - <br /> almost any motivated group can get its proposition on the ballot." <br /> The case for not putting too much detail in the constitution is that when <br /> changes in -procedure are needed (and in'many cases they are) it takes a constitutional amend- <br /> ment. This argument states that only the most important features of the legislation should <br /> go into the constitution and the details into the statutes. <br /> • <br /> Circulation of Petition <br /> • Some constitutions go into considerable detail as to who may circulate and <br /> sign petitions Most states say that any "eligible voter" may sign but there is a problem in <br /> interpretation as to who is an eligible\voter.. This is_an .impDrtant issue because if:signatures <br /> must be from registered voters, as opposed to all who are over 18 years of age, the difficulty <br /> obtaining the required number is increased. <br /> Some states prohibit paid circulators, hoping-to lessen the advantage-of monied <br /> interests but this is hard to enforce as some organizations have access to member-workers who <br /> are not always volunteers. It also makes it extremely difficult for small or less-organized <br /> groups to mount a campaign. <br /> Filing and Review of Petition <br /> Most state constitutions specify with whom petitions are to be filed and the <br /> minimum time prior to the election in which this must be done. The most common requirement' <br /> is a period not less than four months before the election. At that time the petitions are <br /> checked for number and validity. <br /> In some states, when the petitions have been found valid, the proposed legisla- <br /> tion is subject to review to see if it is in proper legal form to avoid future litigation. If <br /> somechangeis necessary, the originators of the petitions have the power to approve it. <br /> Massachusetts- and -California require a preliminary review by the State Attorney General before <br /> circulation of the petition. <br /> The wording of ballot measures is very important. All too often a proposition <br /> has been worded in such a way that a "yes" vote meant opposition and vice-versa, so care must <br /> be taken to insure that the wording clearly reflects the intent of the proposal. <br /> The agents in charge of these procedures are usually the secretary of state <br /> and the attorney general. California has .a legislative analyst who reviews each proposal and <br /> estimates its cost, and this figure is included on the ballot. <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.