Latest news with #ballotinitiative
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Hospital initiative fails to pass city commission; needs more signatures
DAYTON, Ohio (WDTN) — One group is back to collecting signatures after the Dayton City Commission failed to pass a ballot initiative for a hospital in West Dayton. The Clergy Community Coalition now has until Aug. 11 to collect 1,250 valid signatures after already collecting thousands for the hospital initiative. This comes after Wednesday morning's Dayton City Commission meeting, where their petition to have the initiative appear on November's ballot failed to pass. One city commissioner, who is also a member of the coalition, says she is upset with this outcome. 'I am disappointed,' said Shenise Turner-Sloss, city commissioner. 'I commitment in doing so and to allow the people to to make the decision to to vote as to whether they will like to support a public hospital. ' Both Turner-Sloss and Mayor Jeffrey Mims Jr. voted in favor of putting the hospital initiative on the ballot. This would have allowed voters to decide if a public hospital is something the city of Dayton should pursue and fund. 'If you have been here for years and decades like myself, you're seeing this city suffer more than other cities around us, and other communities around us, because of the wealth factor,' said Mayor Mims. Commissioner Darryl Fairchild abstained his vote, and commissioners Chris Shaw and Matt Joseph both voted against the ballot initiative, saying while they are not opposed to a hospital, this initiative lacks proper planning and would not be a good idea for Dayton residents. 'It's unfair for Dayton residents to have to pay for a hospital if it even were able to come to fruition,' said Chris Shaw, city commissioner. 'And if the city of Dayton had to fill the gap, we would have to cut fire and police, public works.' Commissioners say health care is a priority but the proposal needs to better align with the city's current capabilities. 'And I want to make sure that folks realize that, I acknowledge, as my colleagues all do, that we need help with health care. There's no doubt about it, it's a countrywide epidemic right now,' said Joseph. 'And if there was a reasonable proposal, I'd be glad to work on it.' Without three 'yes' votes, the hospital proposal cannot go on the November ballot — unless the Community Clergy Coalition collects 1,250 additional signatures in 20 days. 'We got a lot of signatures so far. So I do think that the people of Dayton will do that,' said Sue Sutton, coalition member. 'I just want the people of Dayton to be able to vote on this.' 2 NEWS will continue to follow this story. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
CBS News
15-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Leaders of Calexit petition plan to start over, refile ballot initiative
With a week until the signature deadline, the leaders of the California secession movement dubbed "Calexit" have decided to pull their attempted ballot initiative so they can re-file it later in the summertime. "We are going to re-file the ballot initiative so we can start the clock back for five-and-a-half months," said Marcus Ruiz Evans, the leader of Calexit. Ruiz Evans said the leadership doesn't want to chance not meeting the required signature threshold, so they will not be submitting any by the July 22 deadline set by the California Secretary of State's Office. Proponents had to submit at least 546,651 signatures for their initiative to qualify for the 2028 ballot. "We felt that we had the requisite number of signatures, but we did not have the insulation amount. You want to get about 550,000 signatures, but most people will tell you that you need an additional 100,000-300,000 because a lot of those signatures will be invalidated," he said. "Given that this is a radical political concept, we figured that it would be under a high level of scrutiny." The initiative would not have been a vote for California to actually secede, as the question still raises numerous legal questions and a lot of scrutiny. If voters approved it, it would have put the non-binding question on the 2028 ballot: "Should California leave the United States and become a free and independent country?" The measure also would have established an official commission to study California's viability as an independent nation. Approval would require at least 50% voter participation and 55% voting "yes." CBS News Bay Area asked Ruiz Evans about his response to those who would say Calexit failed because of the decision to re-file. "I say, based on what? We didn't get enough signatures this time? Okay," Ruiz Evans said. He points towards other movements, such as the legalization of cannabis and same-sex marriage, that took several attempts and many years to come to fruition. "Both of those movements took about 10 to 12 years to go from 'that will never happen' to full blown legality," he said. While the movement gained notariety following Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election, Ruiz Evans previously told CBS News Bay Area that his idea for California to secede dates back to 2007. Ruiz Evans explained the Calexit movement's leadership is changing its approach, with the strategy shifting from a grassroots feel to that of a professional operation. He points towards several upcoming events designed to focus on education and fundraising outreach. "The deadline to re-file is mid-August. We're looking to do this at the beginning of August," he said. Though the signature gathering process will start from scratch, he believes the Calexit movement will gain momentum as tensions continue to rise within the current political atmosphere. "The climate is riper than ever," he said. "The soil is more fertile than it's been in 10 years."
Washington Post
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Judge largely denies request to block restrictions on getting measures on Florida's ballot
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A federal judge has largely denied requests by grassroots campaigners to block portions of a new Florida law that restricts the state's citizen-driven process for getting constitutional amendments on the ballot. Organizers of separate campaigns to expand Medicaid and legalize recreational marijuana had urged U.S. District Mark Walker to block implementation of parts of the law, arguing that the new requirements violate their First Amendment rights. But in an order issued Wednesday, Walker granted a narrow injunction, barring state officials from enforcing one section of the law criminalizing ballot petition fraud against one campaign staffer. The order means that at least for now, the campaigns will largely have to operate under the new restrictions as they try to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot. Legislatures in dozens of states have advanced bills recently to crack down on the public's ability to put measures up for a vote, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. Voting rights advocates say the trend betrays the promise of direct democracy. Under Florida's new law, an individual could be charged with a felony if they collect more than 25 signed ballot petitions, other than their own or those of immediate family members, and don't register with the state as a petition circulator. The law signed last month by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis also gives campaigns just 10 days instead of the previous 30 to return signed petition forms to local elections officials. Petitioners could also face stiff fines if they don't return the petitions on time, or send them to the wrong county. Lawmakers argue that the new restrictions are needed to reform a process they claim has been tainted by fraud. The Republican-controlled Legislature pushed the changes months after a majority of Florida voters supported ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights and legalize recreational marijuana, though the measures fell short of the 60% needed to pass. Attorneys for the campaigns Florida Decides Healthcare and Smart & Safe Florida have argued the new law makes gathering enough petitions from voters prohibitively expensive and effectively impossible. In his order, Walker wrote that the new provisions have caused 'an immediate reduction in protected speech' by constraining the campaigns' ability to collect petitions — and volunteers' willingness to help. But Walker said the campaigners didn't prove that their free speech rights had been 'severely burdened.' 'Instead, the record shows that these provisions simply make the process of getting their proposed initiatives on the ballot more expensive and less efficient for Plaintiffs,' Walker wrote. But there are still free speech concerns to address as the lawsuit moves forward, Walker noted: 'this Court is not suggesting that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their First Amendment challenges to the new deadline and associated fines.' In a statement, Mitch Emerson, the executive director for Florida Decides Healthcare, said he remains optimistic for the legal challenge ahead. 'While the Court did not grant every part of our motion for preliminary relief, this is far from the final word,' Emerson said. A spokesperson for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Associated Press
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Judge largely denies request to block restrictions on getting measures on Florida's ballot
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge has largely denied requests by grassroots campaigners to block portions of a new Florida law that restricts the state's citizen-driven process for getting constitutional amendments on the ballot. Organizers of separate campaigns to expand Medicaid and legalize recreational marijuana had urged U.S. District Mark Walker to block implementation of parts of the law, arguing that the new requirements violate their First Amendment rights. But in an order issued Wednesday, Walker granted a narrow injunction, barring state officials from enforcing one section of the law criminalizing ballot petition fraud against one campaign staffer. The order means that at least for now, the campaigns will largely have to operate under the new restrictions as they try to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot. Legislatures in dozens of states have advanced bills recently to crack down on the public's ability to put measures up for a vote, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. Voting rights advocates say the trend betrays the promise of direct democracy. Under Florida's new law, an individual could be charged with a felony if they collect more than 25 signed ballot petitions, other than their own or those of immediate family members, and don't register with the state as a petition circulator. The law signed last month by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis also gives campaigns just 10 days instead of the previous 30 to return signed petition forms to local elections officials. Petitioners could also face stiff fines if they don't return the petitions on time, or send them to the wrong county. Lawmakers argue that the new restrictions are needed to reform a process they claim has been tainted by fraud. The Republican-controlled Legislature pushed the changes months after a majority of Florida voters supported ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights and legalize recreational marijuana, though the measures fell short of the 60% needed to pass. Attorneys for the campaigns Florida Decides Healthcare and Smart & Safe Florida have argued the new law makes gathering enough petitions from voters prohibitively expensive and effectively impossible. In his order, Walker wrote that the new provisions have caused 'an immediate reduction in protected speech' by constraining the campaigns' ability to collect petitions — and volunteers' willingness to help. But Walker said the campaigners didn't prove that their free speech rights had been 'severely burdened.' 'Instead, the record shows that these provisions simply make the process of getting their proposed initiatives on the ballot more expensive and less efficient for Plaintiffs,' Walker wrote. But there are still free speech concerns to address as the lawsuit moves forward, Walker noted: 'this Court is not suggesting that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their First Amendment challenges to the new deadline and associated fines.' In a statement, Mitch Emerson, the executive director for Florida Decides Healthcare, said he remains optimistic for the legal challenge ahead. 'While the Court did not grant every part of our motion for preliminary relief, this is far from the final word,' Emerson said. A spokesperson for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Pernicious and unnecessary' laws make life harder for ordinary Arkansans
Arkansans protest several bills introduced by Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, that would change the citizen-led ballot initiative process Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, at the Arkansas Capitol. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate) Over the course of the recently concluded session of the Arkansas Legislature, the media have reported in bits and pieces on various measures passed by lawmakers that infringe on Arkansans' rights, target marginalized groups, erode the wall of separation between church and state, limit free speech and squash democratic participation, usually with the stated purpose of solving 'problems' that only exist in the minds of Republican legislators. But if we stop and take a moment to look back on their collective handiwork over the last five months, the destructive scope of these pernicious laws — and the expensive litigation they're likely to trigger — becomes breathtakingly clear. Elementary school librarians face possible suspension of their teaching licenses if they don't lock away books about 'sexual ideology,' which is not defined but will almost certainly be aimed at books with LGBTQ themes. Schools will be left to figure out how to comply. Doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients could open themselves up to malpractice suits unless they read their patients a lengthy screed about their care that contains information that's untrue, misleading, or merely misguided opinion sprung from the fevered imagination of Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, who has made targeting transgender Arkansans her pet cause. The process for collecting signatures for ballot initiatives will now be so cumbersome, convoluted and arduous that direct democracy — a cherished constitutional guarantee in a state whose motto is 'The People Rule' — could be a dead letter for grassroots groups without deep pockets. Voters who choose to vote by absentee ballot because they find it more convenient will now have to find a witness to sign their ballot paperwork, impacting minority, disabled and elderly voters in a state that already has tragically high rates of ballot rejection — but almost no voter fraud. Schools and public buildings will have to display a mostly Protestant version of the 10 Commandments, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court forbade 45 years ago. And discrimination against LGBTQ people will be protected by state law if done on religious grounds, including refusing to place kids in adoptive homes with LGBTQ parents. The state plans to start suffocating death row inmates with nitrogen gas, an experimental execution method that's cruel and unusual, and will trigger years of litigation. And noncitizens without legal documentation who commit crimes will face harsher criminal penalties than citizens, up to 20 more years in prison with no chance for parole. Never mind that, like U.S. citizens, noncitizens are protected by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. As you might expect, this tsunami of ill-conceived nonsense is keeping folks at the Arkansas ACLU busy — sorting through which of these new laws are likely to cause the most immediate harm, working with prospective clients, and preparing litigation to counter unwise and unconstitutional laws that state taxpayers will pay to defend. 'Some people ask us what we do to relax and refresh at the end of the session, and I say, 'File lawsuits,'' jokes Holly Dickson, the ACLU's executive director, who likens dealing with legislators on civil liberties issues to 'trying to do ballet across quicksand.' Dickson would not comment on when, or over what, the ACLU might sue, other than to say that 'we'll announce any litigation when it's filed.' But the Arkansas League of Women Voters has already filed a federal lawsuit to strike down the new restrictions on citizen-led ballot initiatives, calling them an unconstitutional restraint on core political speech. Some of the baloney Arkansas legislators offered up to feed their base this year may have limited effect because it's impractical, illogical or will be quickly laughed out of federal court. For instance, even a cursory reading of the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision Stone vs. Graham that forbade posting of the 10 Commandments in public schools — or the scathing decision by a federal judge in Louisiana last November invalidating a similar 10 Commandments law — would have shown legislators that this bill would lead directly to a spanking in federal court. Yet, all but two Republican legislators plunged ahead, because, as Dickson puts it, 'they know that voting against the 10 Commandments is going to affect their reelection.' Likewise, the law that prevents the state from taking action against employers who discriminate against transgender people for religious reasons runs straight into a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision — penned by that well-known radical leftist Justice Neil Gorsuch — that the Civil Rights Act precludes employment discrimination based on gender identity. Another new law allowing people to sue if they — gasp — encounter transgender people in a restroom or changing area in a public facility may be difficult to use because, thankfully, legislators didn't authorize the genitalia inspections necessary to establish someone's gender identity in a court of law. The law expanding malpractice suits against doctors providing gender-affirming care was clearly designed to intimidate them into not treating their patients. Rather than forcing them to give their patients inaccurate information — problematic on First Amendment grounds — it merely entices them to do so by providing a 'safe harbor' against lawsuits if they comply. But Arkansas doctors who provide this care have largely stood up to that pressure by ignoring the 'safe harbor' provision in a similar law passed in 2023 targeting gender transition. 'The game of chicken doesn't really play well with people who aren't chicken,' Dickson said. Unfortunately, legal challenges take time, and some of these ineffectual laws may be hard to challenge because until someone can demonstrate actual harm, it could be difficult to get cases into court. In addition, so-called facial constitutional challenges, which seek to block laws before they go into effect, also have a high bar — made higher by the Arkansas Supreme Court's recent supineness in standing up to legislative excess as well as a new law that takes original jurisdiction in these cases away from judges in Pulaski County Circuit Court, who have been willing to say no to legislators. Perhaps the most disheartening thing about all of this is how unnecessary it is. None of this sound and fury does anything to make the day-to-day lives of ordinary Arkansans easier or better; indeed, it wastes money on litigation that could be better spent on things that would. And what we've seen over the past five months also plays fast and loose with the oath every legislator took when they were sworn into office: 'I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of upon which I am now about to enter.'
