The 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy includes a several relevant panels and workshops.

Brother Noel is moderating what promises to be an interesting talk, as part of the Re:Group: Beyond Models of Consensus exhibition.

In March the Assembly once again voted to stop mayors’ being able to knock charter amendments off the ballot.  The matter now idles, as it has in the past, in the hands of the Cities Committee.  If you happen to live in one of its member’s districts, take a minute to ask them to move on this.  Below is the relevant legislative info.

A6019  Gottfried (MS)     Same as S7110.

TITLE….Repeals certain provisions regarding adoption of new or revised city charter proposed by charter commission which limit submission of questions to city’s electors
02/24/09     referred to cities
04/28/09     reported
04/30/09     advanced to third reading cal.472
05/04/09     passed assembly
05/04/09     delivered to senate
05/04/09     REFERRED TO CITIES
01/06/10     DIED IN SENATE
01/06/10     RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
01/06/10     ordered to third reading cal.419
03/10/10     passed assembly
03/10/10     delivered to senate
03/10/10     REFERRED TO CITIES

SUMMARY:

GOTTFRIED, FARRELL, ESPAILLAT, GLICK, CLARK, DINOWITZ, MILLMAN, HIKIND, COLTON; M-S: Brennan, Cook, Jacobs, McEneny, Pheffer, Scarborough
Rpld S36 sub (5) PP(e), (f) & (g), Munic Home R L
Repeals certain provisions regarding the adoption of a new or revised city charter proposed by a charter commission which limit the submission of questions to a city’s qualified electors: eliminates the rule that provides that whenever a city charter commission puts a proposal on the local ballot, all other local referendum proposals are barred from the ballot.

BILL TEXT:

6019    2009-2010 Regular Sessions   IN ASSEMBLY   February 24, 2009
___________

Introduced  by  M.  of  A.  GOTTFRIED, FARRELL, ESPAILLAT, GLICK, CLARK, GREENE, DINOWITZ, MILLMAN, HIKIND, COLTON — Multi-Sponsored by –  M. of  A.  BRENNAN,  COOK,  JACOBS, McENENY, PHEFFER, SCARBOROUGH — read once and referred to the Committee on Cities

AN ACT to repeal paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of section 36 of the municipal home rule law,  relating  to  limitations  on  the submitting  of  a  question  to  the qualified electors of a city when there is a question submitted by a charter commission

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and  Assembly, do enact as follows:

1     Section  1. Paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of section 36
2            of the municipal home rule law are REPEALED.
3    § 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
REPEAL NOTE.–Paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of  section 36  of  the  municipal home rule law proposed to be repealed by this act provides limitations including prohibition on submission by  local  law, ordinance,  resolution  or petition of a question to the qualified electors of a city when any question is submitted by a charter commission.

EXPLANATION–Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.

SPONSORS MEMO:

BILL NUMBER: A6019
SPONSOR: Gottfried (MS)

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to repeal paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of section 36 of the municipal home rule law, relating to limitations on the submitting of a question to the qualified electors of a city when there is a question submitted by a charter commission

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:  This bill would delete the “bumping” provision from the Municipal Home Rule Law, which provides that whenever a city charter revision commission puts any proposal on the local ballot, all other local referendum proposals are barred from the ballot.

JUSTIFICATION: In 1998, the New York City Council proposed a referendum on a city charter amendment relating to Yankee Stadium. In response, Mayor Giuliani took advantage of the “bumping” provision in the Municipal Home Rule Law, to prevent the City Council from placing referenda on the ballot that year. Using his power unilaterally, he appointed a charter revision commission to put proposals on the ballot, bumping not only the Yankee Stadium question, but a campaign finance initiative, as well.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
1999-00 A.7670 - referred to Cities Committee
2001-02: A.8914 - referred to Cities Committee
2003-04: A.5585 - referred to Cities Committee
2005: A.4117 - reported to Rules Committee
2006: A.4117 - advanced to 3rd reading
2007: A.5504 - advanced to 3rd reading; 2008: A.5504 - passed Assembly

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None               EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately.

As far as I can tell, by removing spending limits by outside groups in candidate elections today’s crummy Supreme Court decision practically obliterated the already bogus argument that direct democracy might allow corporations more influence.  At least in direct democracy they have to convince the public of something more than the career ending character assassination they can threaten any politician with.

There’s a test case afoot in California for signing a petition to qualify a ballot measure electronically.  In this case, since California law requires petitions be filled out in one’s own hand, the measure in question is using a touchscreen technology to ease collection of actual signatures, which goes a bit beyond simply using electronic signatures.  Fair enough, given they’re simply testing the limits on existing petitioning law to advance an unrelated measure.  It remains to be seen whether such signatures will be accepted.  In any case, it seems about time voting catch up with commerce when it comes to the use verifiable electronic transactions.

I’ve been meaning to put together a bibliography for those interested.  In the meantime, here’s a new book about online deliberation, available for free as a pdf, that Tiago Peixoto tipped us off to via his participatory budgeting facebook group.

Sometime in late 2010 or early 2011 we’ll begin circulating petitions!  Until then we’ll be focusing on crafting the proposed amendments (input welcome).

In the meantime, sign up on the bottom right, and think of three NYC voters you can get a signature from, each solid enough to go on to collect three of their own the following week.