In the wake of the close-but-no-cigar
effort to incorporate the city of St. George in East Baton Rouge Parish,
the silver lining to an outcome that smothered democratic impulses and the
exercise of liberty should be to reform a process that instead strengthens
these.
Witnessing this process play out as
by statute
revealed that the law needlessly suppresses people’s abilities to choose their own
form of government, weighing matters far too heavily in favor of opposition
that, in the case of St. George, represented in large part greedy self-interest
of some elements in the city of Baton Rouge. This effort highlighted several
changes that should occur to these laws.
There are some general matters
necessitating change, as noted
previously. The open-ended nature of the process leaves too much uncertainty,
where currently a petition is gathered over any length of time and temporal constraints
don’t begin until this is turned in officially. Over the passage of too much
time, geographic and demographic conditions can change too much, distorting
actual popular will. Thus, the procedure should have a notice of intent first
filed, where the parish registrar in 30 days ascertains the exact number of
registered voters in the specified geographic area. Then, the organizers have
nine months to collect signatures, the registrar 30 days to check them, and
then a final 30 days for organizers to collect the number short, if any. If it
all checks out, the question goes to the ballot at the next regularly scheduled
election if completed prior to the deadline to submit a ballot proposition; if
not, then on the ballot of the one after that.
Other matters should be implemented
to redress the imbalance in favor of opposition, although one of these also should
apply to organizers as well. Current state law regulates no aspect of the
finances involved. This should fall under campaign finance law, where it would
be illegal to spend on materials and venues for gathering signatures or to
promote that as well as any on materials
or meetings to oppose without reporting of donations and expenditures,
including non-pecuniary ones, as is required for ballot propositions. By all
appearances, the opposition to the St. George effort spent huge sums, possibly
much from outside the immediate area from unknown sources in the shadows, but
the interests involved and their extent of involvement never will be known, delivering
a slap in the face of good government. While organizers largely were homegrown
and used local resources, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
and transparency would have been served by having their financial details made
public information as well.
But the signature withdrawal procedure
as it stands gives a clear, unjustifiable advantage to opponents. During the
signature verification process they may submit withdrawal forms while the
supporters cannot add any signatures. A case could be made for this under the
current format that has no time boundaries save the 60 days to collect more
signatures after verification, but under standards outlined above this is not
necessary; thus, signature removals would occur only during periods of
signature collection. And, to maximize choice for the wishy-washy, withdrawals
of signature withdrawals ought to be permitted.
Also as previously noted, opponents
by present statute have no impediments in cajoling nearby incorporated areas to
annex land of the proposed region as a defensive strategy that subverts the
entire extant process. Whenever an intent to incorporate gets filed, any
annexation in the proposed area must be forbidden until supporters either do
not get enough signatures after a year at most or, if they did, the measure
fails at the ballot box. Under present law, at this point two years must pass
before another petition can come forth, but that should be curtailed to one
year after certification of a failed election’s results or the failure to
obtain enough valid signatures, which would give plenty of time for deciding on
the wisdom of annexation and to make efforts to get a majority of residents and
owners representing at least a quarter of the value of the property to assent,
as by law.
Finally, the 25 percent of
registered voter signatures requirement is far too burdensome to trigger an
election. Some states are worse, such as Arkansas which requires half plus one
of the registered voters in an area to petition. But others are more reasonable,
like in Texas where for a city as large as a proposed St. George only 10
percent of voters must petition. The experience of the St. George effort should
demonstrate that the considerable structural barriers to getting signatures constrain
too much the democratic impulse just to get to where the issue can be debated
during an election. In larger jurisdictions particularly, too much is asked of
organizers to reach an eligible population that may be interested in but
unaware of an incorporation effort or some members of whom have no convenient
way to inscribe a signature. By contrast, in voting, government aids in
disseminating information about an election and places to participate are
well-known. The Texas requirement seems balanced enough in ensuring sufficient
interest is out there – particularly in that propositions generally have difficulty
in reaching even the 10 percent level of voter turnout when standing alone on a
ballot – yet not producing unwarranted stifling of democratic impulses.
Next session the Legislature should
adopt these beneficial changes concerning incorporation law to create a level
playing field that does not unduly deny the people’s right to formulate their
own governance at the local level.
No comments:
Post a Comment