Etopia News

West Virginia is “keeping its options open” for online voting for overseas West Virginians in November, 2012

2012-01-31T13:01:00.000-08:00

West Virginia, which broke new ground in 2010 by allowing some of its overseas and military voters to cast their ballots over the Internet in a pilot project, hasn’t yet decided if that option will be available for them in November, 2012.

According to Dave Nichols, Manager of Elections in West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant’s office, the legislation that authorized remote Internet voting on a trial basis in 2010 “has expired and not been renewed.”

As for the future of remote Internet voting for its overseas citizens, “We’re not ruling it out. We may do it again. We haven’t decided yet,” the election official told Etopia News. He said that the pilot Internet voting program “was successful,” but that further study was needed regarding the security and cost of Internet voting systems before a decision could be made on continuing or expanding Internet voting in his state for overseas West Virginians.

In the “Findings” section of a Legislative Report on the remote Internet voting trial from Secretary of State Tennant’s office it was stated that:

“There is no doubt that online voting is a popular option for those voters having the opportunity to utilize the full system. The process is convenient-- allowing the voter to cast a ballot at a time suitable to the time zone in which he is currently located. The process is efficient-- there is no need to print a ballot, travel to a postal facility or access a fax machine. The process is adaptable--accessible to users in a variety of circumstances, including those with limited access to printers, faxes, or traditional mail systems. Following are some of the comments received from online voters:

“'Thank you for allowing Monroe County as a Pilot Program in Voting Online. I am presently in Iraq on assignment with Operation Iraqi Freedom and this online voting process gave me a chance to Vote here while in a Combat Zone. Many of our soldiers last election did not have their vote counted due to being overseas in a combat zone. That was wrong for their vote Not to count. This way that you have developed is excellent. Thank You.'

“'I will be working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for at least the next two years. This program has enabled me to still cast my vote from 8500 miles away. I have nothing but praise for this system.'”

The Legislative Report concludes with a recommendation by the Secretary of State that a study committee be convened to consider “voter participation and feedback, security considerations, cost-per-voter, legislative mandates and administrative requirements.”

According to Manager of Elections Nichols, this recommendation has been implemented through “several meetings with state and local officials.” As of now, he said, overseas and military voters in the May 8th primary election will be able to vote using e-mailed .pdf ballots that they will mark and return by traditional methods.

As for the November 8th general election, he added, “we are keeping our options open.” He elaborated by saying that those options include being able to electronically mark the blank ballot and print it out, before returning it through legacy channels and/or “online voting.”

Asked about the criteria that will be used to determine if online voting will be an option, Nichols listed, “security, cost-efficiency, and what best serves the voter.”

Pew Center on the States’ plans to modernize overseas voting don’t include remote Internet voting

2012-01-28T14:52:00.000-08:00

The Pew Center on the States is working to modernize the system that allows military and overseas voters to participate fully in stateside elections. According to their web site:

“The Pew Center on the States is committed to ensuring that the election system works optimally for all voters, including those serving in our armed forces and civilians living overseas. Currently, our outmoded system hinders this important group by not giving them time to vote. Pew supports reforms that will bring 21st century technology to America’s election system and guarantee all citizens abroad can participate in our democracy from a distance.”

Their commitment to “bring 21st century technology” to overseas voting does not, however, extend to the use of the Internet for the casting and collection of ballots.

According to Pew Center on the States spokesperson Olivia Doherty, “we have only advocated for using the Internet to send blank unvoted ballots to those voters but have not weighed in on the casting of ballots online.”

Overseas Mexicans from Mexico City will be able to vote on the Internet in local but not federal races

2012-01-25T14:18:00.000-08:00

Ricardo Alday is the spokesman of the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C. He explained to Etopia News this afternoon that the recent Mexican court decision allowing overseas Mexican citizens registered to vote in Mexico City to vote over the Internet only allows them to vote in local Mexico City elections using that technology. As far as voting for federal officials, overseas Mexicans from Mexico City, like overseas Mexicans from the rest of the country, will only be able to do so by postal means.

Asked why only Mexicans from Mexico City will be able to use the Internet to vote for local officials, such as the Mayor and the City Assembly, Mr. Alday indicated that this was in response to a proposal by Mexico City officials, approved by relevant electoral authorities. Mexico City is known as one of the most progressive cities in the Western Hemisphere. With a population of more than 20 million people, it is considered to be at the forefront of social change in many areas.

The embassy spokesman explained further that only registered voters who indicate prior to March 15, 2012, their interest in using the Internet to vote in the July 1st elections will be allowed to do so. He also said that the process of appeal against the decision allowing for the Internet voting was “exhausted,” so that the Internet voting will definitely proceed.

Overseas “chilangos,” as residents of Mexico City are known, can get more information about this worldwide Internet voting opportunity and sign up for the electronic vote at:

http://www.votachilango.org.mx/index.php?cadena

“Everybody,” Mr. Alday added, “Is watching this with a lot of attention.”

British Columbia’s Attorney General is appointing an expert panel to review online voting for the province.

2011-12-08T17:19:00.000-08:00

Shirley Bond, the Attorney General of the Canadian province of British Columbia, today told Etopia News that her office is working to appoint an expert panel to review online voting for this Pacific Coast province.

A spokesperson for Attorney General Bond today sent the following statement to Etopia News in response to our inquiries:

“Our government is committed to looking at new ways of voting and investigating whether online voting is a viable voting option for British Columbians. Premier Christy Clark and I support voting options that make it easier for British Columbians to participate, however, before we make any decisions we’ll need to be certain that all security-related concerns and other issues can be addressed. As promised, the work related to appointing an expert panel to review online voting is currently underway."

According to Wikipedia:

"In 2009, British Columbia had an estimated population of 4,419,974 (about two and a half million of whom were in Greater Vancouver). The province is currently governed by the BC Liberal Party, led by Premier Christy Clark, who became leader as a result of the party election on February 26, 2011."

William Kelleher, author and Internet voting advocate, calls OVF solution “silly”

2011-12-06T13:28:00.000-08:00

Etopia News recently published, in their entirety, comments opposing the use of remote Internet voting for uniformed and overseas voters from Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, President and CEO of the Overseas Vote Foundation. Herewith is a response to these comments by William Keller, a strong supporter of using the Internet for this purpose, and the author of Internet Voting Now!:

“In my view, their ‘solution’ is silly. Why wait three days, assuming the best of circumstances, for delivery of a voted ballot? When professionally set up and operated, Internet voting can reduce the voting and ballot return time to minutes.

“How is the US Postal Service going to pick up voted ballots in remote mountain locations, or hot war zones? It isn’t going to happen. Military personnel in harm's way deserve the right to vote more than any of us in our comfy homes.

“OVF suffers from failing to follow its own advice. They rely exclusively on ardent anti-Internet voting activists as their source of proof that the technology is insecure. Yet, they must disregard the plain facts of Internet voting successes in West Virginia and around the world. They have failed to do their ‘homework.’ The existence of these systems also shows that OVFs claim that ‘nearly every computer scientist or cyber security expert’ is against Internet voting is false. Scores of these professionals are out there doing what a minority of vocal opponents say can’t be done. It’s a classic case of Nervous Nellie Luddites making up facts and telling scary stories to validate their scientifically unsound fears.

“Finally, OVFs solution entrusts the professionals at FedEx and the Post Office to carry voted ballots. But the more humans are involved in the transportation of paper, the higher the likelihood of human error resulting in the loss of votes. There are also the threats of accident, natural disaster, or enemy attack that could cause a loss of voted ballots.

“As long as we must entrust professionals, we might as well do what Natalie Tennant does in West Virginia – trust the Internet voting professionals.”

Crystal Brown at GLACVCD talks about preventing the spread of West Nile Virus

2011-08-23T15:53:00.000-07:00

Crystal Brown, Public Information Officer at the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District (GLACVCD), talks about ways to prevent the spread of the West Nile Virus, recorded from Santa Fe Springs, California, on August 23, 2011.

Rod MacGregor talks about EOR using GlassPoint technology

2011-08-22T13:49:00.000-07:00

Listen to Rod MacGregor, CEO of GlassPoint, talk about using his company's solar thermal technology to replace the need for burning natural gas in enhanced oil recovery (EOR), in a remotely-recorded video interview conducted on Friday, August 19, 2011.

Peter Meisen talks about the World Resources Simulation Center

2011-08-04T16:02:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Peter Meisen, Executive Director of the Global Energy Network Institute (GENI), talks about the origins, operations, and goals of the World Resources Simulation Center (WRSC), recorded from San Diego, California, on August 4, 2011

Janice Thomson at Involve on the European Citizens' Initiative

2011-04-28T13:22:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Janice Thomson, EU Public Engagement Advisor at Involve, talks about the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) as a means of building public participation in European Union governance, recorded from Brussels, Belgium, on April 28, 2011

Bruno Kaufmann on activation of ECI

2011-03-31T13:27:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Bruno Kaufmann, President of the Institute for Initiative and Referendum-Europe, talks about the coming into force on April 1, 2011, of the European Citizens' Initiative, which allows a minimum of one million citizens in a minimum of seven countries in the European Union to propose EU legislation, recorded from Falun, Sweden, on March 30/31, 2011

Senator Simitian’s pending RPS bill gets support from Assemblymember Gatto

2011-03-24T11:57:00.000-07:00

While SB x1 2, California State Senator Joe Simitian’s bill to establish a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard for the State of California, remains pending in the California State Assembly, Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-43rd Assembly District) has strongly endorsed the bill, saying in a statement:

“I get a little angry when the local or national debate becomes a discussion on ‘global warming,’ because seeking renewable energy is about so much more than climate change. To me, renewable energy means clean air and water, blue skies, and fulfilling our generational duty to pass along a planet that is in the same or better shape as we found it. For all of these reasons, I support SB x1 2.”

Etopia News was lucky to get a statement from Assemblymember Gatto about the bill, given the stress under which Assemblymembers are now operating. A request for comment from the Speaker of the Assembly garnered this response:

“As far as a comment from Assembly Speaker Pérez, we are completely inundated with budget issues and negotiations right now, making it difficult to focus on much else.”

California’s investor-owned utilities support and oppose Senator Simitian’s 33% RPS by 2020 bill

2011-03-16T15:56:00.000-07:00

In yesterday’s Etopia News video interview with California State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) about his bill establishing a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for California by 2020, he said that the bill was being supported by two of the state’s large investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and opposed by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

Etopia News contacted all three of California’s IOUs and asked them to provide statements containing their views on Senator Simitian’s RPS bill, which is called either SB 2 (Senate Bill 2) or SB x1 2 (Senate Bill 2, 1st Extraordinary Session). Here’s what they had to say:

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E)

“SDG&E supports the state's efforts to achieve a 33 percent renewable portfolio standard and voluntarily committed to reaching 33 percent by 2020.

“SDG&E supported last year's effort to establish the 33 percent policy and the company again supports RPS legislation this year, including SBX1 2.

“The state's RPS is an important element in its achievement in a low-carbon energy future and SBX1 2 reinforces California's commitment to clean energy and clean energy jobs.”

Southern California Edison (SCE)

A March 7, 2011, letter from SCE Senior Vice President Gaddi H. Vasquez to Assembly Appropriations Committee Chair Felipe Fuentes, while that committee was considering the bill, contains that company’s views on the legislation:

“Re: Senate Bill SB x1 2 (Simitian), as introduced February 1, 2011: SUPPORT

“Dear Chairman Fuentes:

“Southern California Edison (SCE), the United States’ leading purchaser of renewable energy, is pleased to support SB x1 2, which will provide a meaningful and comprehensive framework for moving California to a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

“The framework for RPS reform in SB x1 2 has resulted in 33% RPS legislation that is consistent with the principles we feel are critical to a successful program: cost containment, flexible compliance, access to broad markets, and equal rules for all load serving entities. SB x1 2 combines all of these principles to create a procurement path that protects customers while providing ample opportunity for the development of new renewables and creating new jobs and revenues.

“Despite our support for the RPS sections of SB x1 2, SCE remains concerned about SB x1 2’s pricing language for a small feed-in tariff.

“Additionally, SCE expects that this legislation, when it becomes law, will supplant the California Air Resources Board’s Renewable Electricity Standard (RES).

“For these reasons, and with the exception of the concerns expressed herein, SCE supports SB x1 2 and respectfully asks for your ‘aye’ vote on this measure.”

Odd utility out is Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), which had this to say in a March 9, 2011, letter from Vice President, Government Relations, Edward T. Bedwell to Assembly Committee on Appropriations Chair Felipe Fuentes:

“RE: SBX1 2 (Simitian, Kehoe, Steinberg) -- OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED

“As you know, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is among the most avid and active proponents of policies that will advance California’s transition to a low-carbon energy future. Increasing California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) is a cornerstone of the State’s leadership on climate change and PG&E and its customers share this same goal. With this leadership comes a commitment and responsibility to seek effective solutions on behalf of our customers. Going forward, our focus should be on establishing clear rules, setting realistic and achievable goals that demonstrate California’s leadership, and providing procurement tools to manage costs for California’s consumers. We look forward to supporting an amended bill that achieves these objectives.

“California’s bold renewable energy goals are not without significant cost. In fact, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) estimated in June 2009 that, over the next decade, $115 billion of infrastructure investment is needed across the state to achieve the 33 percent RPS goal.

“PG&E is concerned that, in its current form, SBX1 2 misses critical opportunities to provide adequate tools and set clear rules that will ensure cost protections for our customers. More specifically, PG&E supports mitigating costs to our customers by ensuring that every megawatt-hour (MWh) of RPS-eligible energy our customers pay for counts toward the goal, allowing procurement flexibility, and ensuring gradual and realistic timelines for achieving the goal. As a result, PG&E must oppose this bill until it is strengthened to address our concerns about undue customer costs. (bolding added) PG&E’s suggested amendments make sense for our customers and help create the sustained job growth in California that we all desire.

“Consistent with our long-standing key principles--expanded eligibility, flexible compliance, cost containment and equal rules--PG&E supports three specific changes to the bill to mitigate costs for our customers.”

The letter goes on to list these specific changes: modification of the bill to “mirror the limitations set forth in the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) recent Tradable Renewable Energy Credit decision (D.11-01-025), which limits our procurement to no more than 25 percent of our annual RPS requirement from renewable generators that are not directly connected to a California balancing authority or delivering their energy in real time to California”; adding “the ability to bank in-state contracts of at least five years in duration”; and that “the targets be modified to reflect those adopted in the California Air Resources Board’s 33% Renewable Energy Standard on September 23, 2010.”

The letter concludes:

“PG&E has been proud to stand in support of California’s bold renewable, energy efficiency and climate change goals. When properly designed and implemented, a 33 percent RPS can help the state continue to be a leader in the clean energy economy while managing costs to California’s consumers and businesses. We remain committed to working with you, the author and all interested stakeholders to ensure that SBX1 2 meets this test.”

SBx1 2 went on to be approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and now awaits action by the whole Assembly, expected next week.

Joe Simitian on his 33% RPS by 2020 bill

2011-03-15T17:11:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

California State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) talks about SB 2X, a bill now pending in the California State Assembly that will require California to get 33% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, recorded from Sacramento, California, on March 15, 2011

David Irvine comments on Utah's undemocratic republic

2011-03-11T14:41:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

David Irvine, co-counsel of Utahns for Ethical Government, talks about the passage of S.B. 165 and the eclipse of the democratic process in Utah

Anti-electronic signature bill passes in Utah; Democratic leader calls passage “a dramatic farce”

2011-03-09T15:06:00.000-08:00

While S.B. 55, which would have made it easier for Utah’s electoral authorities to refuse acceptance of electronic signatures for electoral purposes such as initiative or referendum signing, or ballot access, continues to languish in the Senate Rules Committee, another bill, S.B. 165, which outright prohibits the use of e-signatures for these purposes, has easily passed in the Utah State Senate on a 52 to 23 vote.

According to Todd Taylor, Executive Director of the Utah Democratic Party, “The State House just passed SB165 outlawing e-signatures for petitions by a super-majority vote that gives it an immediate effective date and does not allow it to be the subject of a referendum.”

Paul Neuenschwander, Chief of Staff Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell, welcomed the result, telling Etopia News:

“As the Executive Branch, we of course don't make the laws, we administer them. In this case, the legislature, by a clear margin, determined that electronic signatures need further work before being allowed in the election process. To my knowledge, no other state has accepted electronic signatures for this process and we believe it will be a slow, deliberative progression before they will be widely accepted.”

Democrat Taylor was not as supportive. In a statement, he said:

“Over the years Utah’s legislators have jealously guarded what they see as their sole prerogative to make policy. They strike out at judges, tame the governor, punish city and county leaders who don’t tow the line, and now once again they strike out at the constitutional right of citizens to petition their government.

“The Utah State House vote today on SB165 to eliminate electronic signatures from the political process of petitioning our government was a dramatic farce while they held the vote open to get the super-majority they needed to keep the bill from being the subject of a referendum and to make sure it went into effect immediately. There is little doubt that Governor Herbert will sign this bill. Electronic signatures have been on his chopping block since before his ascendancy to the high office. He opposed them vigorously when he was the head of the State Election Department. He believes the law that is good enough for the transaction of billions of dollars is not good enough for citizens to obtain a vote on issues of importance to them.

“It is a sad day when a government tries to silence its own citizens. Today is a sad day for direct democracy in Utah.”

New, simpler attack on electoral electronic signatures gains momentum in Utah; Utah ACLU and e-sig executive fight back

2011-03-08T18:20:00.000-08:00

In the 1981 film Raiders of the Los Ark, hero Indiana Jones resolves a complex situation as the potential victim of a whip-wielding villain by the simple expedient of pulling out a gun and simply shooting him. Opponents of the use of electronic signatures for electoral purposes in the State of Utah have taken a page from Indy’s playbook with a simple tactic designed to overcome the complex, and increasingly doubtful, fate of a bill designed for this purpose by supporting another bill that directly prohibits the use of electronic signatures for any electoral function in the state.

As recently reported by Etopia News, Utah’s S.B. 55, which would require each state agency in Utah to perform a formal rule-setting procedure before it could accept electronic signatures, is now at least temporarily languishing in the State Senate Rules Committee, where it landed after spending an extended period on hold, as a “circled” bill on the Senate’s Second Reading Calendar. S.B. 55 will die if it’s not reported out of the Rules Committee in the next two days, the last of the current legislative session, which ends on March 10th.

Officials in the office of the Utah Lieutenant Governor, Greg Bell, the state’s Chief Elections Officer, have indicated that, under the complicated terms of S.B. 55, they could and would refuse to accept electronic signatures on ballot access petitions, let alone official petitions designed to place ballot propositions, such as initiatives or referenda, before the state’s voters for their approval or rejection.

Another bill heard from

But opponents of using electronic signatures in Utah for electoral purposes no longer need to depend on the passage of S.B. 55 to achieve their goal. Another bill, S.B. 165 (second substitute), which directly prohibits the use of electronic signatures to qualify candidates, initiatives, or referenda for the ballot or to register a new political party yesterday (March 7th) passed its second reading in the State Senate on a vote of 24-4-1 (in favor-opposed-present) and today passed its third reading on an even stronger vote of 26-1-2.

It’s been expeditiously sent to the Utah House of Representatives’ Rule Committee, from which it now has two days to emerge and go through the House before the Legislature adjourns for the year. Managing the passage in the House of S.B. 165 will be Utah State Representative Brad Daw, who had a similar role in the shepherding of S.B. 55.

Here’s the plain language of S.B. 165, which avoids the complexity and circumlocutions of S.B. 55, and directly rules out the use of online signatures for electoral purposes in Utah:

20A-1-306. Electronic signatures.

Notwithstanding Title 46, Chapter 4, Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and Subsections 68-3-12 (1)(e) and 68-3-12.5 (24) and (33), an electronic signature may not be used to sign a petition to:

(1) qualify a ballot proposition for the ballot under Chapter 7, Issues Submitted to the Voters;

(2) organize and register a political party under Chapter 8, Political Party Formation and Procedures; or

(3) qualify a candidate for the ballot under Chapter 9, Candidate Qualifications and Nominating Procedures

The ACLU counter-attacks

The Utah ACLU, which argued successfully for plaintiff Farley Anderson in Anderson v. Bell, the case in the Utah Supreme Court that allowed independent gubernatorial candidates to use electronic signatures to gain ballot access and seemed to create a precedent for allowing their use for ballot propositions, reacted strongly and negatively to the sudden emergence of S.B. 165.

Darcy Goddard, Legal Director for the Utah ACLU, today issued this statement expressing the group’s views about the legality and appropriateness of S.B. 165:

“By explicitly singling out and treating differently e-signatures submitted for purposes of ballot access and citizens' petitions, the language at lines 378-386 of SB165 appears to violate, among other laws, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment rights of political association and freedom of expression, and the state and federal rights of citizens to petition their government.

“Although we are aware that the case law dealing with ballot access issues has at times been inconsistent, we think laws that would purport to permit e-signatures in all respects other than in the context of nominating petitions and citizens' petitions would impermissibly burden and infringe on the rights of candidates, voters, and other Utah citizens without even an arguably compelling (or lesser) state interest as would justify that burden.

"Indeed, in the context of SB55, Senator Urquhart and the Lieutenant Governor's office made it abundantly clear in public statements that the intent of the bill was not, for example, to protect against potential fraud--an argument that would fail in any event given the additional protections in place to confirm the validity of e-signatures as opposed to paper signatures--but was instead to ‘correct’ the supposed ‘ills’ created by the Utah Supreme Court's decision in Anderson v. Bell.

"Presumably, that is what also motivates SB165 (second substitute); we note, for example, that the substitute language came late in the session, only after SB55 was roundly criticized for its potentially devastating impact on e-commerce in the State of Utah, and there seems no other reasonable explanation for inserting this language into the more general election code bill at that time.

“Especially given the Supreme Court's reliance in Anderson on well-established common law in rejecting the Lieutenant Governor's attempt to overturn the decisions of various county clerks throughout the State, we are hard-pressed to understand what ‘ills’ these bills would purport to ‘correct.’ Regardless, any attempt to ‘correct’ those claimed ‘ills’ with a law that would substantially burden the constitutional rights of Utah voters and candidates would likely be subject to a well-founded legal challenge that the State would do well to avoid.

“The provisions in SB165 (second substitute) that would seek to ban the acceptance of e-signatures for ballot access and citizens petitions would impermissibly burden the state and federal constitutional rights of all Utahns, and should be deleted from the proposed bill.”

E-sig executive voices concern

Ken Moyle, Chief Legal Officer at leading electronic signature company DocuSign, joined the chorus of opposition to S.B. 165 with a statement issued late Tuesday evening, saying:

"Should the House pass SB165, citizens of Utah would be deprived of the benefit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anderson v. Bell. The Court interpreted Utah’s 10-year old Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) to require state agencies to demonstrate the need for paper on an exception basis, rather than allowing them to hold up e-commerce until they get around to adopting rules.

"It is clear that a reversal of that decision was the whole intent of the bill. The legislative intent of the UETA was to do just the opposite of what this bill says; the UETA (and subsequently ESIGN) were adopted as a way to jumpstart electronic transactions by redefining what a 'writing' or a 'signature' is WITHOUT having to rewrite the laws or promulgate new rules.

"Is this really the direction we want to go? Back to 1999?"

A potentially wild ride for S.B. 55 in Utah Legislature as the session nears its end

2011-03-08T13:52:00.000-08:00

S.B. 55, a bill now pending in the Utah State Senate, would require each state agency to perform a formal rule-making procedure before it could accept any electronic signatures in the course of its operations. The bill is widely-understood to be an effort by the state’s top election official, Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell, to reverse a recent decision by the state Supreme Court (Anderson v. Bell) that allows electronic signatures on official ballot access petitions and to make sure that such electronic signatures aren’t allowed on initiative, referendum or recall petitions either.

LB 566, a bill now pending in the Nebraska Legislature, would do precisely the opposite of S.B. 55, authorizing the use of electronic signatures on initiative, referendum, and recall petitions in that state.

After its approval by the Senate Business and Labor Committee on February 15, 2011, S.B. 55 was placed on the “Second Reading Calendar” of the State Senate. A week later, on February 22nd, it was “circled,” or placed on hold, where it remained until yesterday, March 7th, when it was transferred to the Senate Rules Committee.

Its further consideration now depends on having a senator, presumably its sponsor, Utah State Senator Stephen Urquhart, request the “lifting” of the bill from the Rules Committee. A motion in the State Senate to lift a bill from the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds vote of a quorum of the Senate.

Should S.B. 55 be lifted from the Rules Committee, it would need to be read for a second and then a third time in the Senate in order to be passed by that body. Or, as is common at the end of a legislative session, if the normal rules are suspended, it could be passed by a single vote corresponding to both a second and third reading, but only after a successful two-thirds vote to lift it from the Rules Committee.

If all this happens, the electronic signatures bill would then need to be considered and passed by the Utah State House of Representatives and signed by Utah Governor Gary Herbert in order to become law.

The entire Utah State Legislature is set to adjourn on Thursday, March 10th.

Concern, support, greet Nebraska’s “Smart Initiatives” bill, LB 566, during committee hearing

2011-03-03T18:49:00.000-08:00

LB 566, a bill now pending in Nebraska’s unique unicameral legislature, would create a system of “Smart Initiatives” in that state, allowing Nebraskans to electronically sign initiative, referendum, and recall petitions online. The bill, authored by State Senator Paul Schumacher, was heard by the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee on March 2nd.

According to Senator Schumacher’s staff member Peg Jones, the Senator “felt good about the reception the bill got and the questions that were asked.” A transcript of the hearing won’t be available until next week, so Etopia News is relying at this point principally on Ms. Jones’ account of what happened at the hearing.

She related that Neal Erickson, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, appearing before the committee on behalf of Secretary of State John Gale, expressed some concerns about the bill, principally the fact that it would cost, by his estimate, $385,000 to implement its provisions for a system that would allow Nebraska citizens to read and electronically sign online versions of proposed initiatives, referendums, and recalls. Contacted directly for comment on his concerns, Mr. Erickson said that “the record speaks for itself.”

Also appearing to testify with reservations about the legislation, according to the official transcript of the hearing, was Jason Kvols, director for District 3 on the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation's Board of Directors. Mr. Kvols' concerns focused on the alleged inability of people on farms to access the Internet, which would exclude them from taking advantage of a Smart Initiatives system. He also expressed concern that the measure would empower potential attacks on farmers' interests by their urban opponents. The continued manual circulation and signature of official initiative, referendum, and recall petitions would still be allowed if LB 566 becomes law.

A single witness appeared before the committee to testify in its favor. He was Kent Bernbeck, a “petition veteran,” according to an article in the Lexington Clipper-Herald. Contacted by Etopia News, Mr. Bernbeck promptly provided by e-mail text containing his description of the hearing and an elucidation of his reasons for supporting LB 566.

Here’s what he had to say about the hearing:

“The Government Committee heard testimony today on a online petition bill. Senator Schumacher acknowledged that it would be better to advance a comprehensive election/petition rights bill after an interim study and combine it with other election-related bills. Paul Schumacher (former petition sponsor) was excellent as he gave the committee a history lesson of the doubling of signature thresholds to the ban on payment per signature.”

“Thanks, Paul,” he added. He continued:

“This legislation gained momentum today although the Deputy Secretary of State, Neal Erickson, opposed the bill based on costs and [that] it would be difficult to implement. Watch this one next session...along with the bill to restrict reasons for recall.”

Mr. Bernbeck then provided a general statement in support of the bill and a list of reasons why he thought the bill would make a desirable change in Nebraska’s laws governing the collection of signatures on official petitions, which now, among other restrictions, prohibit the payment of signature gatherers on a per-signature basis for the signatures they collect, which makes it difficult to find people to circulate these petitions.

He endorsed the bill by saying that:

“LB 566 is a logical and well-thought-out advancement of the deliberative process of citizen-led legislation by allowing petition signers to go to a secure, Secretary of State website, read and understand the measure and register their support for an initiative, referendum or recall petition.”

He gave a dozen specific reasons for supporting LB 566:

1.) Facilitate the initiative and referendum rights
2.) The need to overcome obstacles in exercising these rights
3.) Advance existing, modern technology
4.) Provide for a contemplative environment for those rights to be exercised
5.) Provide for a secure and valid method to prevent fraud
6.) Long overdue definition of sponsor
7.) Opt-out provision
8.) Provides for cost to be paid by sponsor yet allows for low budget, grassroots access
9.) Will save county election commissioners money
10.) Provides for an audit trail to help prevent fraud
11.) Allows for privacy of voter information
12.) Less reliance on circulators

He concluded by saying that:

“Most importantly, this measure would help level the playing field for low-budget, grassroots petitions while promoting a 'contemplative environment' to evaluate the measures being advanced through I&R [initiative and referendum].”

Senator Schumacher’s staff member Peg Jones explained that the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee could now “advance, kill or hold” LB 566. She said that if it were to be “held,” this would give Senator Schumacher “time to look at the issues raised” by the spokespeople for the Secretary of State and the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation. She expressed hope that the bill would be “held over the interim,” the period between June 8, 2011, when the Nebraska Unicameral adjourns for the year, and January, 2012, when the second session of this term of the legislature will begin.

While the Nebraska Unicameral is considering LB 566, the 500-million strong European Union (EU) already has in place a Smart Initiatives process, known as the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI). Under the terms of the ECI, if one million citizens of the 27-member EU sign an initiative petition, either manually or electronically online, the proposed legislation is officially submitted to the European Commission for consideration by the European Parliament.

For an update on the status of the European Smart Initiatives ECI, watch a February 1, 2011, remotely-recorded video interview with Bruno Kaufmann, President of the Institute for Initiative and Referendum-Euope, here.

S.B. 55 is still on hold and nobody knows why except its sponsor, who isn’t saying

2011-02-28T15:03:00.000-08:00

S.B. 55, now pending in the Utah State Senate, “requires a governmental agency to adopt a policy concerning electronic signatures before the governmental agency may accept an electronic signature.” It is widely understood to represent an effort by the state’s Lieutenant Governor, Greg Bell, to reverse last year’s Utah Supreme Court decision in Anderson v. Bell that required his office to accept electronic signatures on independent gubernatorial candidate Farley Anderson’s ballot access petition. It is also understood to be intended to preempt the possibility of letting people in Utah electronically sign initiative or referendum petitions.

While most of the bills pending a few days ago on the Utah Senate’s Second Reading Calendar have been considered by that body, S.B. 55 remains, as it has been for several days, “circled,” or put on hold, as of 4:00 pm Mountain Standard Time on February 28th. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking down for consideration of the bill. After March 2nd, there are no more committee hearings, so if S.B. 55 does pass the Senate, it may have to be taken directly to the House floor without consideration in a House committee. The legislature itself is set to adjourn on March 10th. If the bill is still circled then, it will die, unpassed.

The bill’s Senate sponsor, Senator Stephen Urquhart, hasn’t said why the bill is circled or how long it will stay in that status. The bill’s sponsor in the Utah House of Representatives, Bradley Daw, said through a spokesperson that he “has no idea why it’s circled.” He also said that he thought the bill would be “fairly easy to pass in the House.”

Senator Urquhart’s intern, Abby Pike, told Etopia News today that she would ask her boss about the bill, but there’s been no word yet from him or her as this article was posted around 4:00 pm Mountain Standard Time on Monday, February 28th.

Asked for a comment on the bill from Utah Governor Gary Herbert, the governor’s spokesperson said that as “a general position, we can’t comment on bills until they reach the governor’s desk,” due to the fact that until then the bill’s final content is unknown. The spokesperson referred the inquiry to the Lieutenant Governor’s office, which has already stated its intention not to accept electronic signatures if S.B. 55 is passed and has commended Senator Urquhart for “running” this bill through the legislature.

S.B. 55 is still “circled”; another electronic signature executive weighs in

2011-02-24T14:41:00.000-08:00

As of 3:37 pm Mountain Standard Time on Thursday, February 24, 2011, S.B. 55, which would require each state agency in Utah to go through a formal rule-making process before it could accept electronic signatures, is still “circled” on the legislative calendar there, meaning that it is on hold until further notice.

According to Leslie McLean, Manager of Senate Services, “they’re still working on it.” She said she didn’t “know if they’re amending it or substituting it.” She said what would be done with the bill was entirely up to its sponsor, Utah State Senator Stephen Urquhart.

Meanwhile, another leading electronic signature industry executive has commented on this proposed law. Ken Moyle, Chief Legal Officer at DocuSign told Etopia News today that he finds S.B. 55 “disappointing.” He said that passage of that bill into law would “have the effect of holding up electronic transactions in regulated industries in Utah until the secretary of state got around to adopting rules. That runs counter to the whole intent of UETA and ESIGN.”

UETA is the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, currently in place in 47 U.S. states, including Utah. ESIGN is the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, which, according to Wikipedia, is intended “to facilitate the use of electronic records and signatures in interstate and foreign commerce by ensuring the validity and legal effect of contracts entered into electronically.”

He was fulsome in his praise for the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson v. Bell, which S.B. 55 would overturn, calling it “eloquent” and “brilliant.” He said that “The eloquence is in the way the Court concisely dispelled the myth that a pen and paper document was somehow self-authenticating; the brilliance was in the way the Court interpreted the UETA to require state agencies to demonstrate the need for paper on an exception basis, rather than allowing them to hold up e-commerce until they get around to adopting rules.”

Mr. Moyle was also supportive of efforts in Nebraska to pass LB 566, which would allow Nebraskans to electronically sign initiative, referendum, and recall petitions online, calling it a “positive” development. “They want to affirmatively say that they support ESIGN. That makes sense.” It was, he said, a way of “saying that we really mean it” when it comes to the acceptance of electronic signatures.

Apologizing for the use of what is by now a somewhat hackneyed term, Mr. Moyle referred to the “paradigm shift” involved in the transition to the routine acceptance and use of electronic signatures. He agreed with Thomas Kuhn’s contention in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (published in 1962) that this transition would only fully take place as new people come to power in the institutions undergoing this change.

Moyle said that young people more familiar with new technology coming to fill positions in various sectors of the economy brings about a “tipping point” in the adoption of a new way of looking at things. He said that such a tipping point was now being reached in the financial services sector and that the governmental and judicial sectors “were getting there.”

Leading e-signature executive endorses Nebraska’s Smart Initiatives bill; sponsor works cautiously to move it forward

2011-02-23T16:12:00.000-08:00

Michael Laurie, VP and co-founder of Silanis, a leading electronic signature company, today endorsed the passage of LB 566, Nebraska’s pending Smart Initiatives legislation, which would allow Nebraskans to electronically sign official initiative, referendum, and recall petitions online.

In a prepared statement, Mr. Laurie said:

“We applaud the Nebraska Smart Initiatives Bill as a great potential step toward making collaborative, accessible government a reality in Nebraska. There is no reason that a smart initiative could not succeed – affordable, proven technology is available and citizens are certainly ready to embrace the convenience and cost-cutting benefits of electronic processes.”

For more about the history and development of the Smart Initiatives concept, click here.

Meanwhile, the bill’s author, Nebraska State Senator Paul Schumacher is moving forward cautiously in his efforts to get the bill passed into law.

A hearing on LB 566 is scheduled for March 2nd before the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. His goal during this session of the legislature, according to a spokesperson in his office, is “just to get the issue in front of the committee.” State Senator Schumacher won’t be bringing anyone to testify on the bill’s behalf, but welcomes walk-ins who might want to support it. “He’s not soliciting testimony,” the spokesperson said, adding that “he’s just feeling his way through” in educating legislators about the idea of using the Internet to collect electronic signatures on official government petitions, something not yet explicitly authorized in any of the 50 states.

The current session of the unicameral Nebraska legislature runs until June 3rd. According to his spokesperson, Senator Schumacher “may push more during the next session of the legislature,” which will meet in 2012.

Previous Etopia News coverage of the Nebraska Smart Initiatives bill, LB 566, can be found in these three articles:

Nebraska's LB 566 would implement Smart Initiatives in the Cornhusker State

Mixed prospects ahead for LB 566 in committee

Governor of Nebraska has not taken a position on LB 566, Nebraska’s “Smart Initiative” bill

For more about Smart Initiatives in the global context, go to:

A spectre is haunting more than Europe--the spectre of Smart Initiatives

Egypt, Utah, EU: Support for, and opposition to, Internet-mediated efforts to expand democratic governance

S.B. 55 is still “circled”; leading electronic signature executive calls it “a step back for digital government in Utah”

2011-02-23T13:15:00.000-08:00

As this article is being posted, at 2:16 pm Mountain Standard Time on Wednesday, February 23, 2011, Utah’s S.B. 55, a bill that would require rule-making by each state agency in that state before it could accept electronic signatures, is still “circled” on the Utah State Senate’s legislative calendar, meaning that it is on hold while its sponsor, Utah State Senator Stephen Urquhart, says he is “working some things out, working some bugs out” of the proposed law.

Meanwhile, Michael Laurie, VP and co-founder of leading electronic signature company Silanis, issued the following statement regarding S.B. 55, which he characterized as “a step back for digital government in Utah at a time when citizens are looking for greater convenience in interacting with government.”

Here’s what Mr. Laurie said:

“The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act is intended to provide a consistent, technology-neutral framework for electronic signatures and records in government and business. While it doesn’t require state agencies to accept e-signatures, it does give electronic signatures the same legal weight as their paper counterparts. Legislating that individual state agencies need to make their own rules related to the acceptance of electronic signatures would be a step back for digital government in Utah at a time when citizens are looking for greater convenience in interacting with government. Any concerns over security and fraud in electronic petitions are unfounded. The reality is that viable technology solutions are available to make the electronic process not only as secure, but more secure than paper.”

Brent Manning, a Utah attorney who argued for the plaintiff in Anderson v. Bell, in which the Utah Supreme Court decided that electronic signatures could be used to qualify an independent gubernatorial candidate for the ballot, today re-iterated to Etopia News his view that S.B. 55 “won’t do what they are trying to accomplish” while it will create new problems.

The Anderson decision, he said, “was cautious and mandated by state law.” He went on to say that “there was nothing wrong with the decision and there’s nothing wrong with accepting electronic signatures.”

“I’m hopeful,” he concluded “that they’ll just abandon the whole thing.”

S.B. 55 is “circled” and state Democratic spokesperson calls it “bad law”

2011-02-22T16:49:00.000-08:00

Democrats are a beleaguered minority in Utah. They hold seven out of twenty-nine seats in the State Senate and seventeen out of seventy-five in the State House. But they can still make their voice heard on important issues such as S.B. 55, a bill supporters claim will rationalize the state’s electronic signature law and which opponents say will stifle the free exercise of democratic rights in the signing of official state documents electronically.

Todd Taylor, Executive Director of the Utah State Democratic Committee today responded to an inquiry about S.B. 55 from Etopia News with a detailed statement expressing the Democratic Party’s views on this proposed legislation, which was, as this article was being composed, a “circled” bill, meaning that it was on hold for a "second reading" in the Utah State Senate.

According to Leslie McKean, Manager of Senate Services, its sponsor, State Senator Stephen Urquhart, told her that he had had it circled because he “was still working some things out, still working out some bugs.” “At this time,” she said, “he doesn’t know when he’ll uncircle it.” This was at 5:30 pm, Mountain Standard Time, on February 22nd.

Here’s what Mr. Taylor had to say about S.B. 55, on behalf of the Democratic Party of Utah:

“The Utah Legislature is entertaining a provision SB055 Electronic Signatures that could severely limit electronic transactions with the State of Utah. Under the provision, the State of Utah will no longer consider electronic signatures valid unless there has been an agency rule making procedure to allow them.

“As with many things, this issue stems from an election controversy. But it could have unintended consequences for commerce and legal situations far beyond the intended issue by the State Elections Department.

“A little history: In early November 2009, the Utah Democratic Party was approached by the sponsors of more than one citizens’ initiative about the prospect of devising an on-line system to collect petition signatures for these initiatives. Our initial reaction was one of resistance and skepticism. It was quickly overcome.

“It became apparent that there was no impediment in law. It was simply a matter of getting the state election department to acknowledge that the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act was applicable to the election law dealing with initiatives and referenda. It also became apparent that there was no ethical impediment in that we could ensure the validity of the transaction at the same level or better with protection against fraudulent signers as would be the case with the current “in person” process.

“The circulation and collection of petition signatures is not the function of government, but a private function given to the sponsors of the measure. The government’s function is limited to verification and counting to determine if the number collected is sufficient. Electronic signatures make both of these government functions easier and more accurate. The current verification process does not require a comparison of holographic signatures between the petition and the voter registration. It only looks at the name, address and optional date of birth for a match. Common law has long recognized that signatures could be holographic, a mark, or fingerprint, and under Utah law an electronic indication of assent (or electronic signature).

“There has been case law established that contracts are valid where the actor simply checks the “I agree” button on a contract thereby providing their electronic signature. An example is that Microsoft licensing agreements are done in this manner. The State of Utah already uses electronic signatures for renewal of professional and driver’s licenses; application for hunting and fishing licenses; filing tax returns for individual income taxes, sales and use taxes, unemployment insurance; many court documents; registration of products, brands, corporation names, motor vehicles; applications for unemployment, health and insurance benefits, and many, many more services and transactions amounting to millions of dollars. The State of Utah has also already passed a law to allow for electronic voter registration where holographic signatures are required by using links to the driver’s license database.

“In addition to the new voter registration law allowing voter registration with an electronic signature, they have long been in use for filing lobbyist finance disclosure reports, signing the polling books, and campaign finance reports.

“So we were somewhat surprised when we were met with uncompromising resistance from the State Election Department. They tried every method possible to shut down the process. Eventually, the Utah Supreme Court, in a case about signatures allowing candidate access to the ballot, required the State Election Department to accept electronic signatures.

“Utah’s State Election Department is still opposed to setting up a process to accept such signatures and therefore is supporting SB055 to allow them to prevent future acceptance. They claim that their support is to provide for thoughtful rule making but instead it provides a prohibition unless they affirmatively set a rule.

“Commercial entities need to be very careful about doing business with the State of Utah if this measure passes. Unless a state agency has adopted a rule on electronic signatures, they would not be valid. Software licenses, products order online by employees of the agencies, requests for proposals, purchase orders delivered via facsimile or e-mail may all be invalid unless the agency has promulgated a rule.

The Utah Democratic Party understands the need for an orderly process for things like petition signatures and encourages the State Election Department to adopt a workable rule. SB055 is bad law. State agencies will have no impetus to accept electronic submissions if they can “Just say No!” Rule making should not be a matter of whether electronic signatures are acceptable, but rather the appropriate manner. All electronic signatures should be valid unless rule making has provided a more specific manner of submission.”

Sponsor of Utah’s S.B. 55 proclaims his support for referenda, initiatives, and electronic signatures, but doubts remain

2011-02-20T12:50:00.000-08:00

Utah State Senator Stephen Urquhart is the author of Senate Bill 55 (S.B. 55), which would require state agencies to engage in a formal rule-making procedure regarding the acceptance of electronic signatures before any such signatures could be accepted. Critics of the bill say it is an attempt to contravene a recent Utah State Supreme Court decision (Anderson v. Bell) legitimizing the use of electronic signatures on official state petitions, such as those used to qualify independent gubernatorial candidates for the state ballot.

At a hearing on this bill before the Utah legislature’s Business and Labor committee on February 15th, Senator Urquhart spoke out strongly in support of the referendum and initiative processes and of electronic signatures. He offered no assurances, however, that, should his bill pass, Utahns would be able to sign referendum or initiative petitions, or ballot access petitions, electronically.

In a February 10th interview with Etopia News, Paul Neuenschwander, Chief of Staff to Utah Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell, the state’s chief election officer, said that, in his view, S.B. 55 would return regulation of electronic signatures “back to the way it was” before the Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson v. Bell and indicated that the Lieutenant Governor’s office would not be accepting electronic signatures for ballot access if the bill passed.

During the February 15th meeting, after accepting an amendment of the bill by its author that he said was designed to narrow its applicability, the committee favorably recommended the bill, sending it on to a second reading in the Utah State Senate, where it is now pending.

As currently worded, S.B. 55 would prohibit the acceptance of electronic signatures in Utah by any “state agency” that had not first gone through a rule-making procedure to determine the criteria for accepting such signatures.

The only member of the general public to testify before the committee was attorney Brent Manning, who represented Farley Anderson, the independent gubernatorial candidate in Anderson v. Bell who sought to use electronic signatures to gain access to the state ballot.

He told the committee, as he had previously told Etopia News, that the passage of S.B. 55 “would absolutely cripple the ability of the state to conduct electronic commerce” because it would render invalid even the most commonly-occurring instances of electronic commerce involving electronic signatures, such as buying a book online.

Asked by Senator Karen Mayne why, if the bill would do so much damage to electronic commerce in Utah, he was the only person testifying against it, Mr. Manning attributed this to the fact that “it’s been under the radar,” and went on to say that “the ACLU alerted me to this happening and I looked at the bill and commented upon it in the Internet press. I think that sparked the amendment that was made just now.”

Also appearing before the panel was Mark Thomas, Director of Elections for the Lieutenant Governor’s office, who thanked “the sponsor for running this bill.”

During consideration of the bill, Senator Urquhart spoke passionately about his support for the initiative and referendum processes, electronic signatures, and the digital domain generally, saying at one point that “I think I’ve been out on the digital frontier for a while and I like being there and I like our state being there. It is so convenient for our citizens and, as Mr. Manning said, this can be done with tremendous reliability.”

He asserted his support for referenda and initiatives, saying, during his summation of the legislation, that “On my blog I’ve talked repeatedly about referenda and initiative, having the distinction of being the only legislator ever to have a piece of legislation overturned by referendum. I have opinions on the topic and my opinion is that they’re great. I’m an enthusiastic supporter of referenda and initiatives. I do not want to chill democratic participation at all. We need more of it, and so let’s make it easier, but anything we love and want to encourage we have to make sure that it works and that’s the intent of this.”

But he was vague about actually saying if his bill would allow for the electronic signing of referendum, initiative and ballot access petitions. Asked by Senator Gene Davis, “Does that mean that the Lieutenant Governor’s office or a clerk in one of the counties could recognize those signatures and they would be valid or would that have to go to the Lieutenant Governor’s office and they’d have to set the policy to be able to do those?,” Senator Urquhart replied:

“Well, if it’s a statewide referendum then that would go through our elections office and they would have to set a policy for accepting electronic signatures. You know, let me state I want us to be very active in this. I would love for us to be the state that is the most aggressive on accepting electronic signatures but let’s just do this in a thought-out manner.”

Asked further by Senator Davis “Would the electronic signature have to go through the Lieutenant Governor’s office or a portal that was set up by those who were trying to put the referendum in place?,” Senator Urquhart said:

“Well, I wouldn’t want to tell the Lieutenant Governor’s office, the Elections Office, how it would best go about this, so it would set the rules determining the answer to your question, it would look at this situation, it would look to see the ways that it could be the most convenient for the citizenry, the most conducive to democratic participation and also the way best to secure against fraud. And so it would come up with the answer to your question. I can’t do that right here and now.”

To repeat, what Senator Urquhart said during the February 15th hearing on S.B. 55 in no way contradicted what was said in the February 10th interview with Etopia News by Paul Neuenschwander, Chief of Staff to Utah Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell, the state’s chief election officer, when he said that, in his view, S.B. 55 would return regulation of electronic signatures “back to the way it was” before the Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson v. Bell and indicated that the Lieutenant Governor’s office would not be accepting electronic signatures for ballot access (nor, presumably, for initiatives or referenda, either) if the bill is enacted into law.

Egypt, Utah, EU: Support for, and opposition to, Internet-mediated efforts to expand democratic governance

2011-02-17T20:50:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

a video op-ed discussing efforts to expand or restrict Internet-mediated democratic governance, recorded by its author, Marc Strassman, on February 17, 2011, in Studio City, California

Egypt, Utah, EU: Support for, and opposition to, Internet-mediated efforts to expand democratic governance

2011-02-17T18:44:00.000-08:00

(If you'd prefer to watch the author read this article, instead of reading it yourself, or in addition to reading it yourself, click here.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and her deputies in the U.S. State Department have been going crazy lately supporting the rights of people worldwide to use the Internet to more widely “distribute leadership” (in the words of Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for Innovation to the Secretary of State). She is speaking, of course, of efforts by Tunisians, Egyptians, and Iranians to organize peaceful protests against despotic regimes. She is very supportive of the use of Twitter and Facebook to schedule demonstrations, distribute video footage of these protests, and convey the spirit of peoples in revolt.

Not part of Secretary Clinton’s exhortations is the fact that the Internet can also be used, once democracy is achieved, to directly channel the will of the people into legislation that will determine how these people themselves will be governed. “Smart Initiatives” is a system whereby the citizens in a democracy can electronically sign officially-recognized petitions that call for the submission to a vote of proposed legislation.

The Next Step in the Evolution of Internet Political Activism

The European Union (EU) has already adopted Smart Initiatives, in the form of the European Citizens’ Initiative, which requires the consideration of proposed legislation by the European Commission and the European Parliament when one million Europeans electronically and/or manually sign that proposed legislation.

No individual country, including none of the nascent democracies in North Africa or the Middle East, has yet adopted Smart Initiatives for its own people. But, in the wake of the surging democratic tide breaking over this region, powered by the Internet, it may be only a matter of time before the concept of Smart Initiatives begins to permeate these digital crowds and they start clamoring for the right, not just to overthrow authoritarian regimes using the indispensable modern technology of the Internet, but to use this same Internet as a means for formulating the laws under which they are governed.

Obstacles to this Evolution in the U.S.

Back in the U.S., little despots are doing what they can to block the way forward to a Internet-powered democratic future. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are working hard trying to block the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s recently-issued and limited regulations designed to insure “net neutrality,” a code word for open and non-discriminatory access to the broadband information superhighway.

In Utah, members of the State Senate, frightened that a legislative ethics reform initiative sponsored by Utahns for Ethical Government will qualify for the ballot if electronic signatures collected in its support are counted, are pushing S.B. 55, which would curtail the use of electronic signatures throughout government in that State, including, they hope, on initiative petitions.

In a recent interview with the Etopia News Channel, Utahns for Ethical Government founder and spokesperson David Irvine said he thought the motivations behind authoritarian governments’ efforts to curtail the use of the Internet to organize their populations were the same as those behind the efforts of legislators in his state to stifle the use of the Internet to organize that state’s population in support of what he considers to be badly-needed ethics legislation.

In fact, it is hard to see the difference in intent between Utah legislators trying to prevent their own reform by limiting the use of the Internet and the efforts by national dictators elsewhere to prevent their own reform by limiting the use of the Internet.

Wait and Hope

Meanwhile, we can only wait and hope for the large numbers of Internet-users rising up against repressive regimes to take the next conceptual step and realize that the same tool they are using to gain their freedom can be effectively used to exercise it going forward, in the shape of their own indigenous forms of Smart Initiatives.

Utah Senate committee amends and favorably recommends S.B. 55; opposing attorney still opposed.

2011-02-15T17:09:00.000-08:00

S.B. 55, a bill that would fundamentally restructure Utah’s approach to electronic signatures, was today amended and favorably recommended on a 6-0-2 vote of the Utah State Senate’s Business and Labor Committee.

Voting to favorably recommend the measure were: Senators Gene Davis, David Hinkins, Karen Mayne, Stephen Urquhart (the bill’s primary sponsor), John Valentine (committee chairman), and Kevin Van Tassell. Absent from the vote were Senators Daniel Liljenquist and Curtis Bramble. No one voted against the favorable recommendation.

Responding to criticism of the original bill’s provisions voiced by Utah attorney Brent Manning in a February 10, 2011, Etopia News article, the amended version of the proposed law now excludes state courts, the legislature, and political sub-divisions of the state from its electronic signature rule-making requirements.

Manning, who argued the case for Farley Anderson in the Anderson v. Bell case that this law is intended to overturn, is still opposed to the bill in its present form. As now written, he says, “It will not overturn Anderson v. Bell,” but it will still do a lot of collateral damage. Its supporters, he claims, “are aiming at a target that they’ll miss,” but will nevertheless place “extra burdens on electronic commerce” in Utah, a state that, he points out, once led the way in the adoption and use of electronic signatures.

Accordingly, he still opposes the legislation, because, he says, it interferes with long-standing principles governing the use of signatures that are “so well-established in Anglo-American law,” and because he opposes any effort to “limit the ability of citizens to petition” their government. He calls S.B. 55 “unwise legislation,” and says he hopes “that sounder minds will prevail” before it is passed by the Legislature.

S.B. 55 author won’t comment on his own bill

2011-02-14T16:42:00.000-08:00

Utah State Senator Steve Urquhart, author of S.B. 55, which would reverse the Utah Supreme Court’s decision allowing independent gubernatorial candidates to get on the ballot by collecting petition signatures electronically, today declined to comment on his plans for his bill.

The legislation had been scheduled for a hearing in the Utah State Senate Business and Labor Committee on February 3, 2011, but, according to minutes of that meeting, “Chair Valentine called the meeting to order at 2:44 p.m. and announced that at the requests of the sponsors, S.B. 109 and S.B. 55, would not be considered at today's meeting.”

The sponsor of S.B. 55, Senator Urquhart, finally responded to repeated requests for comments on his plans for this legislation by saying today, through a spokesperson, that he would have no comment.

The bill has been re-scheduled for a hearing tomorrow, in the Business and Labor Committee, according to a published agenda of that committee. The hearing is scheduled for 4:00 pm MST in at 215 Senate Building, Utah State Capitol Complex.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Utah is opposed to this bill.

It is also opposed by Utah attorney Brent Manning, who argued the original case giving independent gubernatorial candidates the right to collect electronic signatures on their ballot access petitions. Manning said that the bill was "improperly motivated" and that it would “absolutely compromise commerce and the government in Utah.”

A spectre is haunting more than Europe--the spectre of Smart Initiatives

2011-02-11T00:22:00.000-08:00

Smart Initiatives is an electoral process in which citizens can use the Internet, not just to tweet about demonstrations, or to build Facebook pages for a cause, but to actually use the Internet to electronically sign petitions to put proposals for new laws before voters, or before the European Parliament, to demand the right to vote on already-passed legislation, to recall elected officials they’ve lost faith in, or to qualify a candidate for a place on the ballot.

The European Union (EU), with a population of 500 million people, has already adopted Smart Initiatives, in the form of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), which will go into effect early in 2012. The ECI will let EU citizens propose laws for consideration by the European Parliament by collecting one million signatures, distributed across the several countries of the EU, including by electronic means.

The latest issue regarding this process involves whether or not European citizens who wish to sign these ECI’s electronically will need to submit their national ID numbers in order to do so. This issue is addressed in a recent article entitled “A Serious (but Removable) Obstacle: ID Card Numbers and the ECI.”

In the United States, adoption of Smart Initiatives has not proceeded this far, but there are signs that it is becoming more and more prominent as an item on the political agenda.

Utah’s Supreme Court decided in September, 2010, that “Electronic signatures are as valid as handwritten signatures in qualifying independent candidates who seek to get their names on the general election ballot,” according to an article by Cathy McKitrick in The Salt Lake Tribune.

Showing how important this small step was, efforts are already underway by opponents of this court decision to reverse it by passing new legislation (S.B. 55) regarding the acceptability of electronic signatures in Utah. According to Paul Neuenschwander, Chief of Staff to Utah’s Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell, who was the defendant who lost in the original case, “the Lieutenant Governor’s office would not be accepting electronic signatures for ballot access if the bill passed.”.

Slightly further east in the U.S., Nebraska State Senator Paul Schumacher has introduced Legislative Bill 566 (LB 566), which would bring Smart Initiatives to the Cornhusker State by allowing citizens there to use “state-qualified data” to identify and authenticate themselves while electronically signing initiative, referendum, and recall petitions. Senator Schumacher thinks his bill is “essential,” but doesn’t think it will pass. The Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry has taken no position on the bill, but is “monitoring” its status.

And, just north of Utah, members of the Independent American Party of Idaho are hoping to gain access to that state’s ballot as a recognized party by collecting some of the required signatures electronically.

Much ink and electrons have been spilled in recent days debating the impact of the Internet as a tool for social and political change, especially in terms of its ability to motivate and coordinate protesters in Iran, Tunisia, and Egypt. Lost in the discussion is the fact that, at least in Europe, the Internet can also, and already, be used to directly facilitate the making of public policy, through the process of the European Citizens’ Initiative and the right it affords to sign official initiative petitions electronically online.

Adoption of the Smart Initiative process is not yet so far advanced in the United States. But as attention is riveted on the bloggers and others in Tahrir Square, one can note the Internet is not just useful for organizing mass movements, but, once those movements have brought democracy to a country, that it can be used for mobilizing the intelligence and will of that country’s people in the actual formulation and implementation of public policy, through the use of some form of Smart Initiatives.

Perhaps both of these roles will be realized someday with the adoption and routine use of Smart Initiatives in Egypt and other Middle Eastern and North African democracies.

Utah attorney calls SB 55 “improperly motivated” and says it will “absolutely compromise commerce and the government in Utah.”

2011-02-10T14:05:00.001-08:00

In September, 2010, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that “Electronic signatures are as valid as handwritten signatures in qualifying independent candidates who seek to get their names on the general election ballot,” according to an article in The Salt Lake Tribute.

Now a Utah State Senator, Stephen Urquhart, is seeking to overturn this decision through the introduction in the legislature of S.B. 55 , which “requires a governmental agency to adopt a policy concerning electronic signatures before the governmental agency may accept an electronic signature.”

According to Brent Manning, a Utah attorney with Manning Curtis Bradshaw & Bednar LLC who successfully litigated Anderson v. Bell, the aforementioned case which the state Supreme Court decided in favor of his client, Farley Anderson, this proposed “statute is improperly motivated to stop citizens getting on the ballot and would absolutely compromise commerce and the government in Utah.”

He argues that passage of this legislation would overturn “thousands of years” of accepted legal practice in what constitutes a “signature,” any mark made by a person with the intent to express their consent to an agreement, including “X”’s made by the unlettered, clicks on “I agree” buttons on web sites, and electronic codes used to transfer vast sums of money between financial institutions.

Manning argued, in a phone interview with Etopia News, that, under the terms of S.B. 55, in order for a Utah court to enforce a contract sealed with an electronic signature, it would need to engage in a “rule-making process” which, as a court, it is not able to do, since its function is to decide cases, not make rules. Thus, no electronic signature, or online purchase, or other electronically-agreed-to contract could be enforced in Utah courts.

S.B. 55 “would completely invalidate all electronic transactions in Utah,” concludes Manning. “Every government department would have to engage in rule-making that would paralyze the process,” he said.

Senator Urquhart, author of S.B. 55, did not return a call made last week asking for his comment on his bill.

But Paul Neuenschwander, Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell’s Chief of Staff, did talk to Etopia News about the bill this afternoon. He said that S.B. 55 would return regulation of electronic signatures “back to the way it was” before the Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson v. Bell.

Asked if Lieutenant Governor Bell had a role in originating the bill, his chief of staff said that “he may have talked to Senator Urquhart. I don’t know.”

He said that passage of S.B. 55 would create “an opt-in, not an opt-out” system for electronic signatures for state agencies. The main issue with electronic signatures, he said, was “how to control their validity and accuracy.”

Developing a system by which electronic signatures could be accepted, he argued, would take time and money, and he made the point that, given budget constraints, money would not be easy to find for this purpose. The state would proceed in this matter, he said, “carefully, slowly, and in a measured way.”

“Will Utah be leading the way in electronic signatures?” he asked rhetorically, answering that question by saying, “I don’t think so.”

He indicated that the Lieutenant Governor’s office would not be accepting electronic signatures for ballot access if the bill passed.

He said that it wasn’t the intention of S.B. 55 to shut down electronic commerce in Utah, as predicted by Mr. Manning. He said that Mr. Manning could present his views to the committee hearing the bill and “if he can show the committee” that that was a likely result, they would take his views into account.

“We don’t want to shut down electronic commerce in Utah,” he insisted.

Terry Cooke updates the China-U.S. renewable energy story

2011-02-09T12:27:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Terry Cooke, 2010 Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, talks about the recent visit to the U.S. of Chinese President Hu Jintao and the current status of U.S.-China cooperation in renewable energy, recorded from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on February 7, 2011

Travis Bradford on "Solar Revolution"

2011-02-09T10:18:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Travis Bradford, Founder, President, and Director of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development, talks about the ideas in his 2006 book "Solar Revolution," recorded from Chicago, Illinois, on February 8, 2011

Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry is “monitoring” state’s Smart Initiatives bill

2011-02-04T17:13:00.000-08:00

Asked this afternoon about the lobbying group’s views on Nebraska Legislative Bill 566 (LB 566), Jamie Karl, Vice President of Public Affairs and Policy at the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry told Etopia News “We don’t have a position on it; we’re just monitoring it at this point.”

He didn’t recognize the bill by its number, but seemed to respond with alacrity when informed that it was the pending Smart Initiatives bill , which would allow Nebraskans to sign initiative, referendum, and recall petitions electronically online.

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry was among the largest contributors to the 2008 election campaign of two members of the state’s unicameral legislature’s Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, which will hold a hearing on LB 566 in late February or early March.

According to information on the Ballotpedia website, the Chamber contributed $3,400 to the campaign of Nebraska State Senator Charlie Janssen and $1,500 to the campaign of Nebraska State Senator Rich Pahls.

Given that no member of the committee that’s going to hear it, except for the bill’s author , nor Governor Dave Heineman , has yet taken a public position on the Smart Initiatives measure, one has to wonder how much “monitoring” the Chamber needs to do to stay on top of the bill’s progress.

Governor of Nebraska has not taken a position on LB 566, Nebraska’s “Smart Initiative” bill

2011-02-03T11:55:00.000-08:00

In an exclusive comment to Etopia News, since no one else has cared enough to ask, Governor Dave Heineman, said today through a spokesperson that he “has not taken a public position on this bill [Legislative Bill 566] and will do so if or when it makes it to his desk.”

Legislative Bill 566 , authored by Nebraska State Senator Paul Schumacher, would allow Nebraskans to use “state-qualified data” to authenticate themselves online while signing initiative, referendum, and recall petitions electronically.

Polled recently by Etopia News, most members of the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee have said they will wait for the hearing on the bill before making up their minds on the legislation. A hearing on the bill has not yet been scheduled, but is expected to take place late in February or early March.

Senator Schumacher has said he thinks passage of this legislation is essential in order to counter recent court decisions and legislative changes that have made it almost impossible to qualify initiatives in the state. He’s said he does not think the bill will pass during the current session of the legislature.

Nebraska's "Smart Initiatives" bill is essential, but won't pass, says its author

2011-02-02T16:10:00.000-08:00

Nebraska State Senator Paul Schumacher, author and sponsor of Legislative Bill 566 (LB566), which would create a “Smart Initiatives” system allowing Nebraska voters to electronically sign initiative and related petitions online, thinks that passing it is essential if the “people of Nebraska” are to remain “the second house” in the only state with a unicameral legislature. He doesn’t think, however, that the time is propitious for its passage in this session of that unicameral legislature, which he says will be “swamped in misery” dealing with Nebraska’s budget woes.

In an exclusive phone interview this afternoon with Etopia News, Senator Schumacher, who represents District 22 in the Nebraska legislature, explained how the state’s initiative rules were “reasonably healthy until the 1990s,” when a combination of court decisions and actions by the legislature made it increasingly difficult to collect the signatures required to qualify a proposed measure for the ballot.

These decisions included the substitution of the term “registered voters” for “electors” (people who actually voted) in the state constitution, which effectively doubled the number of signatures required. Also adding to the difficulties was a requirement that the signatures needed to be gathered in a large proportion of counties across the state. The addition of a vague “single subject” rule has meant that some proposed initiatives needed to be divided in several parts, each of which needed to get the required number of signatures.

All of these impediments made qualifying initiatives in Nebraska difficult but not impossible, he said. But the passage in 2008 of Legislative Bill 39, which imposed residency requirements on signature gatherers and prohibited paying them according to the number of signatures they collected effectively blocked, according to Senator Schumacher, any possible efforts to qualify ballot initiatives in the state.

So, in order to circumvent these restrictions, he’s introduced Legislative Bill 566 , which would set up a system for collecting electronic signatures online in support of ballot initiatives.

“Nebraska is in a unique position” with its unicameral legislature, he said, and for this reason “reserved the right of the people” to legislate through the initiative process, which he now thinks needs to include online signature gathering in order to remain viable.

“We know that all kinds of things can be done over the internet, including massive cash transfers,” he said, so why not be able to collect initiative signatures the same way? Collecting signature online, he added, allows this to be done without the need to “bother people on the street,” where they are susceptible to being harassed by “hawkers” and “anti-hawkers” sent out by opponents of a ballot measure.

Identification and authentication of the electronic signatures can be accomplished by relying on a variety of existing bits of digitally-stored data, including those associated with driver’s licenses, state taxes, or even from newly-created electronic records created when citizens make an online contribution to a special state maintenance fund set up to pay for the online signature gathering process itself.

Using this method to validate signatures, says Schumacher, is just as secure as “hiring people to be handwriting experts” to check manual signatures by hand. Allowing signatures to be gathered online, he argues, would address the problem created by the need to separate provisions of a measure into multiple petitions to satisfy the “single-subject” rule; would reduce the cost of circulating initiative petitions; and would generally increase the convenience of the process.

And, in order to provide another check on misuse of an electronic system, postcards would be mailed to everyone who electronically signed, notifying them that someone had signed in their name, and providing a means by which falsely submitted signatures could be weeded out.

Despite the advantages of cost and convenience, and the security with which signatures could be verified, Senator Schumacher does not think his bill will pass the legislature, at least not this year.

He says that this is primarily because the legislators will be “obsessed with the budget crisis” facing the state. “It’s not going to wind its way through the process,” he told Etopia News.

Nevertheless, he said it was “integral” to democracy in Nebraska that the right of initiative be preserved as a “viable tradition” in the state. “We have to figure out a way to do it, in order to bring ourselves into the 21st century and to retain the status of the people as the second house of Nebraska.”

(In violation of this article's own "single-subject" rule, it might be noted that the European Union, a political jurisdiction containing roughly 500 million people [approximately 250 times that of Nebraska], has already adopted Smart Initiatives in the form of the European Citizens' Initiative [ECI], which is discussed in detail by the Institute for Initiative and Referendum-Europe's President, Bruno Kaufmann, in a remotely-recorded video interview from Etopia News here.)

“Smart Initiatives” might fit the bill in the Middle East, too.

2011-02-01T19:21:00.000-08:00

As Nebraskans start discussing “Smart Initiatives” and Europeans move steadily forward towards implementing them throughout the EU , the time may have arrived to consider this approach to direct democracy, which allows citizens to propose legislation using online electronic signature gathering, as part of the evolving transition to democracy in North Africa and the Middle East.

Much discussion has already taken place about possible paths towards democracy for previously-authoritarian states. One approach (“invasion and nation-building”) was that applied by the Bush Administration to transition Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship to an American-compliant form of “democracy.” A similar effort is still underway in Afghanistan, and, obviously, still faces a lot of problems.

American democracy grew out of centuries of previous evolution towards the rule of law and representative government in England and in the colonies. It’s not surprising that countries and cultures with radically-different histories don’t easily slip into their own versions of the Jeffersonian democratic ideal.

Tunisia, and now Egypt, represent a different path from dictatorship to democracy. Two fundamental aspects of these two revolutions are their decentralized, leaderless form and their mediation by electronic social media, including Facebook, Twitter, and related technologies.

The “law of uneven development” argues that societies can often transition directly from a less-developed form to a more-developed one without having to go through the transitional states characteristic of societies that have evolved further, but more slowly, to a certain state.

Phone technology is a prime example of this law. Cellular telephony is now more ubiquitous in Africa than landlines, which never really penetrated deeply into the society. Farmers and others in Africa, in some cases skipping ahead even of their counterparts in more developed countries, can now use their cell phones to manage their businesses in real time. Money can be transferred directly using cell phone networks from village to village and from village to city. The law of uneven development has allowed Africans to go from “no phones” to “advanced digital cellular networks” in much less time than it took the West to deploy its landline networks, without going through that part of the development process themselves.

Similarly, the largely-leaderless and Internet-mediated revolts in Tunisia and Egypt point to the possibility that governance there could also skip transitional democratic structures and go directly to an Internet-centric, directly-democratic form, employing, at a minimum, some form of Smart Initiatives, as are now being implemented in the European Union under terms of the Lisbon Treaty.

These rebellions have been powered by Internet-savvy social networkers much of whose organizing has been done online. They are looking for new ways of governing themselves that allow for collaboration and cooperation. They have already demonstrated to themselves and the world that they can use these digital tools to achieve great things through collaboration and cooperation.

Maybe it’s time for them and us to think about the possibility of continuing their explorations into new forms of democracy by letting them use the Internet to formulate policy and aggregate popular demands for specific legislation through a form of Smart Initiatives similar to the one now being implemented in Europe and starting to be considered in Nebraska.

Of course, universal broadband Internet access for everyone in these society is necessary for Smart Initiatives to be implemented fairly and for reasons of justice and equity. That’s another goal worth vigorously pursuing, not least for its ability to enable Smart Initiatives (and someday, Internet voting), but also for its economic, social, cultural, and ecological benefits.

Finally, implementing Smart Initiatives in the new democracies of North Africa and the Middle East could serve as an inspiration for our own adoption of this method as a way of strengthening and broadening democracy back here in the United States. Then we can benefit from the law of uneven development ourselves.

Bruno Kaufmann updates the ECI story

2011-02-01T16:13:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Bruno Kaufmann, President of the Institute for Initiative and Referendum-Europe, talks about his recent trip to Germany, Brussels, and Vienna, during which he collected new information about the deployment of the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI), recorded from Falun, Sweden, on February 1, 2011

Two more Nebraska State Senators will wait for hearing on “Smart Initiatives” bill to make up their minds about it

2011-02-01T16:12:00.000-08:00

There’s a proposal pending in the Nebraska Legislature, Legislative Bill 566 (LB 566), authored by State Senator Paul Schumacher, that would implement “Smart Initiatives,” in the Cornhusker State, allowing Nebraskans to sign initiative, referendum, and recall petitions online using electronic signatures.

Etopia News has been reporting on this bill, including comments from most of the members of the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, where this bill will be heard and discussed sometime around the end of February or start of March.

Two more members of this committee replied to Etopia News inquiries about their positions on LB 566 today.

Through a spokesperson, Senator Charlie Jansson, a businessman in Fremont, Nebraska, and the representative of the state’s 15th District, said that since there had not yet been a hearing on the bill, he “could not say he was for it or against it.”

Russ Karpisek, owner and operator of Karpisek’s Meat Market and the state senator representing the 32nd District, said via his spokesperson that he also wanted to wait for the hearing to make up his mind on the bill, and added that “if there were a safe and verifiable way of collecting signatures [online] he’d consider it.”

These comments from Senators Jansson and Karpisek leave Senator Kate Sullivan, a banker and business executive from Cedar Rapids, Nebraska, who represents the state’s 41st District, as the only member of the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee who hasn’t yet expressed a view on the Smart Initiatives measure, LB 566.

Results of preliminary poll of committee members who’ll consider LB 566

2011-01-31T15:56:00.000-08:00

Etopia News today conducted a preliminary poll of the members of the Nebraska State Legislature’s Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee to gauge the climate surrounding Legislative Bill 566 (LB 566), a proposed law by Nebraska State Senator Paul Schumacher that would let Nebraska’s registered voters sign initiative and other official petitions electronically, online.

Senator Schumacher is on this committee, and, since it’s his bill, he will, of course, be working to get it approved by the committee.

Senator Scott Price, a small business owner and the Senator from District 3, said that “conceptually, I’m agreeable,” with the idea of letting citizens sign initiative petitions online, but that he had concerns regarding the cost of implementing the online signature-gathering system. He said he’d wait until the hearing on the bill to make up his mind.

Senator Rich Pahls, a retired educator who represents District 31, told Etopia News that he had “not made a decision [on the bill].” “I haven’t delved into it; it’s not on my list of priorities,” he said, adding that he would “see what happens in committee” at the hearing on the bill. He said he’d have more to say after the hearing.

A spokesperson for Senator Lydia Brasch, who represents District 16, said that her boss would “sit through the hearing” before making up her mind on the bill.

Staffers in the offices of Senator Charlie Janssen, a former Rescue Swimmer in the U.S. Navy who represents the 15th District, and Senator Russ Karpisek, owner and operator of Karpisek’s Meat Market and the representative of District 32, said they would check with their bosses about their views on LB 566 and call back with that information.

As mentioned in a previous Etopia News article about the bill’s prospects in the committee, Senator Bill Avery, who represents District 28 and chairs the committee, “is generally in favor of using technology to advance electoral processes,” and previously introduced a similar bill, according to committee Legal Counsel Christy Abraham.

Since it was after 5 pm Central Standard Time when the call to her was made, no one picked up in the office of Senator Kate Sullivan, who represents the 41st District.

Mixed prospects ahead for LB 566 in committee

2011-01-31T13:42:00.001-08:00

Nebraska’s Legislative Bill 566 (LB 566), which would create a system for online initiative petition-signing in the Cornhusker state, faces mixed prospects of success in the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee.

On the one hand, according to Christy Abraham, legal counsel for the committee, the committee chair, Senator Bill Avery, is “generally in favor of using technology to advance electoral processes.” In fact, Senator Avery introduced a bill in the last session that would have set up such a system for online, electronic signing of initiative petitions.

On the other hand, that bill failed to get out of committee. Also, according to Ms. Abraham, given the financial situation in Nebraska and throughout the country, “anything that’s going to cost any money will have trouble getting out of committee.”

Just how much LB 566 would cost the state will be the subject of research and calculation by the unicameral legislature’s Legislative Fiscal Office, which will release a report on the bill’s fiscal impact the day before the bill’s public hearing.

That public hearing, according to Ms. Abraham, will take place “sometime in February or perhaps early March.”

The Nebraska legislature is in session until “mid-June.” In order to be approved by the body, bills need to be approved by their respective committees by March 17th.

Ms. Abraham told Etopia News that it would be hard to gauge committee support for the bill at this point because the committee has a lot of new members.

Paul Jacob, President of Citizens in Charge, discusses the initiative process

2011-01-30T14:42:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Paul Jacob, President of Citizens in Charge, talks about the importance of the initiative process and discusses efforts in Nebraska to pass "Smart Initiatives" legislation, recorded from Woodbridge, Virginia, on January 30, 2011

Paul Jacob, President of Citizens in Charge, strongly supports LB 566

2011-01-28T16:00:00.000-08:00

Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge, “a 501(c)(4) citizen-powered advocacy organization that serves as a partner to Citizens in Charge Foundation in protecting and expanding the initiative and referendum process. The organization works with activists, legislators, media, opinion leaders and voters to protect the initiative and referendum process where it exists in 24 states and to expand the process to the 26 states where voters currently lack that right.”

Following up its initial coverage of Legislative Bill 566, a proposed law now pending in the unicameral Nebraska Legislature that would allow Nebraska voters to sign initiative, recall, and referendum petitions electronically online, Etopia News contacted Mr. Jacob to get his views on this measure. Here’s what he had to say:

“Millions of Americans electronically sign important financial documents every day at their bank and virtually every place they shop. It’s high time that state governments allow this technology to be used by citizens wanting to sign petitions for ballot measures. Citizens in Charge supports LB 566 and applauds Nebraska Senator Schumacher for introducing his e-signature legislation to bring the petition process into the 21st century and allow more people to participate in their government. While the fees the bill would impose on the sponsors of initiative and referendum petitions in order to allow their use of electronic signatures are higher than we believe necessary, use of the online electronic signature-gathering system would be completely voluntary and would no doubt create a far less expensive method of petitioning. Nebraska can take the national lead in putting technology to work to improve the democratic process by passing this legislation.

“Senator Schumacher’s bill is especially important because Nebraska is the most difficult state in the country for citizens to petition to place an initiative on the ballot. Not only is the state’s signature requirement the highest in the nation, but in 2008 the legislature passed severe restrictions on who can circulate petitions and how they can be paid. There are currently two lawsuits in federal court, one filed by Citizens in Charge, challenging the state’s unconstitutional and draconian petition rules. LB 566 is a pond of cool water in a scorching desert.”

Hearings on the bill are expected “late in February,” according to an informed source in the Nebraska state capital, Lincoln.

Nebraska's LB 566 would implement Smart Initiatives in the Cornhusker State

2011-01-27T18:20:00.000-08:00

At the turn of the 21st Century, after a failed effort to implement Internet voting in California, this reporter made an effort to find “common ground” with some of its detractors by proposing in its place the idea of “Smart Initiatives,” which would allow registered voters to electronically sign initiative, recall, and referendum petitions online. You can read a short explanation of the concept here. You can read a lot more about it, including text of testimony presented to the Speaker's Commission on the California Initiative Process on January 22, 2001, here. You can listen to that testimony by downloading an audio file here.

Ten years later, a courageous and visionary state senator in Nebraska, Paul Schumacher, has introduced a bill into that state’s unicameral legislature to implement Smart Initiatives in the heart of the heartland. The introduction of this proposed law, Legislative Bill 566 (LB 566) is briefly reported on on the BallotNews.com web site here.

Etopia News has not yet been able to speak to either Senator Schumacher or to the clever legislative staffer or staffers who drafted it, but it’s already clear that the bill carefully and comprehensively addresses many of the crucial and problematic elements needed for a successful Smart Initiatives implementation.

One particularly elegant solution embedded in this proposal addresses the need to identify and authenticate electronic, online signers of ballot initiatives, referendums, and recalls (hereinafter, “initiatives”). Rather than requiring every state voter to acquire a digital certificate, as envisioned by the original Smart Initiatives system, the proposed Nebraska system would allow voters to identify and authenticate themselves using “state qualified data,” which would include a variety of sources:

“a valid voter identification number issued or assigned by the Secretary of State, an audit trail of which is maintained by the Secretary of State; a qualifying self-assigned personal identification number preregistered by an eligible signer with the Secretary of State or an election commissioner or county clerk; a personal identification number on a state tax return filed with the Department of Revenue; a unique access code or other unique electronic identifier assigned or approved by a state agency for use in identifying a party in communications with the state agency and which the Secretary of State has integrated into the electronic signature process; or other data which is maintained for purposes of identification by a state agency or county agency independently of the voter registration register and which is accessible by the Secretary of State.”

Voters can also establish their online credentials by making a contribution to the State’s Petition Operations Fund with a debit or credit card and then using that transaction as their “state qualified data” enabling them to sign the petition online.

Opponents of Smart Initiatives previously raised the specter of fraudulently-submitted signatures gumming up the process. This objection was countered long ago by proposing the simple expedient of sending notifications to all alleged signers, allowing them to easily complain that their names had been falsely added to the signatures list and to get them removed.

The proposed Nebraska Smart Initiatives law implements this common sense solution, specifying that:

“Upon receipt of an electronic signature, the Secretary of State shall mail a post card by United States mail to the signer at the address on his or her voter registration record notifying the signer that his or her signature has been received, identifying the petition to which the signature is attached, and notifying the signer that he or she has ten days to contact the office of the Secretary of State to indicate that he or she did not submit the signature.”

As with the original Smart Initiatives proposal, the Nebraska version specifies that opponents and proponents of every initiative will be able to link their online arguments to the central web site that will contain the complete text of the initiative and provide the opportunity for voters to sign it.

One provision not included in the original Smart Initiatives plan is a plan to charge proponents of statutory initiatives $5,000 to cover expenses of the process, and to charge proponents of constitutional amendments $10,000 for that purpose. Reading the fine print of the proposed law, however, reveals that “A petition sponsor who cannot afford the filing fee may file a qualifying affidavit in lieu of the filing fee.” The proposed law is subtle, too, making provision to prevent false claims of poverty:

“If the petition sponsor reports to the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission fifty thousand dollars or more in aggregate contributions in support of the petition or ten thousand dollars or more in aggregate contributions from a petition sponsor, the qualifying affidavit ceases to have effect and the petition sponsor shall pay the appropriate filing fee before further use of electronic signatures for such petition is permitted.”

The bill also includes a provision that will be of great help to circulators: “The Secretary of State shall make public on a county-by-county basis, at least once each week, the number of electronic signatures collected for each petition.”

LB 566 has been referred to the unicameral legislature’s Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, which is chaired by Senator Bill Avery. If passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, it will go into effect on January 1, 2012.

Stanford criminal law professor provides guidelines for considering allegedly “misleading” statement from climate change-denier Pat Michaels

2011-01-25T10:31:00.000-08:00

Etopia News ran an article yesterday about an allegedly “misleading” statement about where he gets his money from the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels before Rep. Henry Waxman’s House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2009.

On February 12, 2009, Dr. Michaels told the committee that he got “three percent” of his income from polluting energy firms. Later, on August 15, 2010, he told the public on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN program GPS that the true figure was “forty percent.”. Rep. Waxman, now the Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee due to the Republicans’ recent take-over of the House of Representatives, has asked the new Chairman, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, to ask Michaels to meet with committee staff to clarify this discrepancy.

Meanwhile, Stanford Law School Professor Robert Weisberg has provided Etopia News and its readers with some background material regarding the law that governs such issues. Here’s what he had to say:

“There are essentially two ways to win a conviction in a case like this. One would be to prove he flat-out lied about a provable factual proposition. This would be perjury if the witness was under oath or for false statements if he wasn't. The standard here is difficult for the government if the question or answer was at all vague or ambiguous. You have to catch an outright intentional lie on a clean factual question. So the reference to 40 percent may be too vague or speculative to be intentionally "false." The other route is to charge contempt where the witness was formally required under subpoena to provide Congress certain information and he failed to do so, knowing that it was covered by the subpoena.

“The contradiction in the two Michaels statements would be some evidence toward a false statements charge but probably not a contempt charge. In the latter case it would have to be shown that he was trying to cut off a line of inquiry to prevent Congress from learning something it was entitled to know. In any event, the devil will all be in the details.”

Having this background provided by Professor Weisberg can provide some basis for understanding the liability that Dr. Michaels may have regarding his testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2009.

Representative Waxman wants climate change-denier to clarify where he gets his money

2011-01-24T16:30:00.000-08:00

U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), formerly chairman and now the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has asked the current chairman, Fred Upton (R-MI), to recall prominent climate change-denier Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute in order to determine if Dr. Michaels “misled” the committee when he told it in 2009 that he got only 3% of his funding from industries with an interest in debunking claims of climate change.

Dr. Michaels reluctantly admitted on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS program on CNN that the real proportion of his income from fossil-fuel-based energy sources is “40%.”

In a letter requesting that Chairman Upton ask Dr. Michaels to meet with committee staffers to clarify his disparate statements, Rep. Waxman cites a mention of Dr. Michaels admission on the Politico website, an item which in turn is based upon the climate expert’s statement on Zakaria’s show, made on August 15, 2010.

The Cato Institute itself would not comment on this issue, and Dr. Michaels has not returned a call asking for his reaction to Ranking Member Waxman’s request.

A request to Rep. Upton’s office for a comment on the letter elicited this e-mail response from a GOP committee aide:

“Republicans first put truth-in-testimony requirements in place in 1995 and strengthened those requirements earlier this month (over the objections, it could be noted, of House Democrats). Chairman Upton has been clear about his commitment to transparency in the legislative process, and under his leadership the committee will adhere to both the letter and the spirit of truth-in-testimony requirements and other committee rules and practices.”

There’s been no reply yet to a specific inquiry regarding Rep. Upton’s plans to re-call, or not to re-call, Dr. Michaels to clarify his statements.

Stanford Law Professor Robert Weisberg provided Etopia News with a reference to the pertinent federal legal standards and penalties () regarding false testimony (18 USC Section 1001):

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

An inquiry to the U.S. Department of Justice asking if it was pursuing an investigation into this matter had not elicited a response as of the time this article was posted.

Peter Esposito talks about the Southwest Energy Alliance

2011-01-21T13:43:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Peter Esposito, President of the newly-created Southwest Energy Alliance, talks about the group's membership, mission, and activities, recorded from Tucson, Arizona, on January 21, 2011

84,000 Oregonians have used online system to register to vote, but no one there is interested in using an online system to sign initiative petitions

2011-01-18T20:46:00.000-08:00

Since March 1, 2010, citizens of Oregon have been able to register to vote using an online system based on verifying their identity by using their Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) registration data. Any Oregon resident who is a citizen of the United States and at least 17 years old can use this system, at: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/vr/register.do?lang=eng, to register to vote in Oregon elections.

According to Andrea Cantu-Schomus, spokesperson for the Office of the Oregon Secretary of State, 84,000 people have availed themselves of this opportunity since the system was activated.

Despite the ability of Internet technology to use a similarly-based system to validate citizen signatures on online petitions, also using their driver’s license data, there has been, according to Ms. Cantu-Schomus, “no record of interest in using this online system to sign initiative petitions.”

The European Union (EU) is in the process of developing a system to collect at least one million signatures in support of proposed pan-EU initiatives, including building an online signature-gathering capability for use in qualifying these initiatives. To hear an Etopia News interview with Bruno Kaufmann, President of the Institute for Initiative and Referendum-Europe, at: http://www.blip.tv/file/4583744.

Residents of Washington State can also use an online system to register to vote, available at: https://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/secure/Pages/OnlineVoterRegistration.aspx. Residents of Indiana can register online to vote at: https://indianavoters.in.gov/PublicSite/OVR/EligibilityAndIdentification.aspx.

There have been reports that the State of California is also considering a similar system, allowing resident citizen Californians to register online to vote using their DMV data, but a call to the Secretary of State’s Office in Sacramento seeking information about this had not been returned as this article was being posted.

The State Supreme Court of Utah ruled in September, 2010, that “electronic signatures are as valid as handwritten signatures in qualifying independent candidates who seek to get their names on the general election ballot,” according to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune.

.

John Farrell on creating jobs with renewable energy

2011-01-15T14:58:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

John Farrell, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Local Self Reliance, talks about its new report, "Maximizing Jobs from Clean Energy: Ontario's 'Buy Local' Policy," recorded from Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 13, 2011

Chuck DeVore says he won't run agains Sen. Feinstein

2011-01-05T15:44:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Chuck DeVore, former California Assemblymember, expresses his views on a multitude of political subjects, and says he won't run against incumbent U.S. Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, recorded on January 5, 2011

Tween Years of the 21st Century will be a wild and crazy waiting period

2011-01-02T12:02:00.000-08:00

As the 21st century enters its tween years, it might be useful to consider the time between now and, say, 2014, when we observe the centennial of the start of World War I, as a single unit. This will be a transitional era, demarcated at its end by the stated NATO deadline for the complete Afghanization of the war there. Its mid-point will be the 2012 presidential election in the U.S., between incumbent Democrat Barack Obama and, most likely, Republican challenger Sarah Palin.

This will be a period during which the economy will continue to improve by some measures but the number of jobless will remain more or less constant, and higher than at any time since the Great Depression. Social communication and information dissemination via the Internet, increasingly through smart phones, will continue to intensify and proliferate, creating an infrastructure capable of transmitting and amplifying cultural and political memes at astounding speed and with staggering effect.

With employment stagnant and the Internet surging, waves of change will continue to wash over American society, creating constantly-changing subcultures, divided by class, region, and age, some local, some regional, and others national and even global. Entertainment programming and its ancillary celebrity machine will be super-charged by the rise of more and more powerful platforms for its promulgation.

The celebrity-entertainment-consumption machine has emerged from the economic downturn strengthened and more critical to the economy than ever. Corporations can now spend all they want to elect candidates of their choice and defeat ones inimical to their interests. Under Citizens United, We can expect even more application of advertising and market research to the political process, blurring the distinction between political campaigns and consumer product development, launches, and marketing campaigns.

Meanwhile, the Chinese will continue to widen their lead in the development and deployment of renewable energy, while opportunities for the U.S. to become a leader in this area continue to be lost. Despite increasing numbers and severity of climate perturbations in the U.S. and around the world, belief in climate change and the need to change consumption behavior will remain principally a life-style affectation, with little impact on public policy or the course of global warming.

With Tea Party Republicans in the driver’s seat in the House of Representatives, we can expect wild and crazy debates about a new range of issues. With Democrats still barely in control of the Senate and, of course, the White House, Republicans in the House will be free to indulge themselves in whatever beliefs and pronouncements they care to, without effect, except as advertising for the 2012 campaign and as fodder for news programs.

Downward mobility and growing income disparities mean that overall demand will not be sufficient to re-employ the reserve army of the former middle class. A new television series, based on the travails of an unemployed, foreclosed, and marginally-homeless family may or may not appear on our screens, but they will be, nevertheless, the specter haunting tween America, as we wait for our teen years and even more trouble.

Bruno Kaufmann talks about the European Citizens' Initiative

2011-01-02T11:57:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Bruno Kaufmann, President of the Institute for Initiative and Referendum-Europe, explains the operation of the newly-approved European Citizens' Initiative, which will allow 1 million Europeans to propose laws for the European Union through the initiative process, recorded from Falun, Sweden, on January 2, 2011

Terry Cooke comments on Etopia News' coverage

2010-12-27T15:57:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Terry Cooke, Principal at www.terrycooke.com China Seminars and a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, talks about Etopia News and its efforts to inform the public about crucial renewable energy news, recorded from Philadelphia, PA, on December 27, 201

Terry Cooke on renewable energy in the U.S. and China, part 2

2010-12-27T15:36:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Terry Cooke, Principal at www.terrycooke.com China Seminars and a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, talks about renewable energy policy and practice in China and the U.S., recorded from Philadelphia, PA, on December 27, 2010

Terry Cooke on renewable energy in the U.S. and China, part 1

2010-12-27T15:05:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

America’s Health Insurance Plans spokesperson comments on pre-existing conditions and the “individual mandate”

2010-12-21T14:56:00.000-08:00

The recent decision by a Federal judge in Virginia declaring the “individual mandate” provision of the new health reform act unconstitutional makes it more likely that the question of that law’s constitutionality will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

While waiting for this development to unfold, Etopia News contacted the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and asked them about the insurability of persons with pre-existing conditions if the individual mandate were finally declared unconstitutional.

Robert Zirkelbach, their press secretary, promptly replied, providing a link to, and summary of, some background information on the subject, along with a statement, to be attributed to him, from the AHIP on this subject.

The background report, from Milliman, Inc., can be accessed here. Here’s the report’s summary:

“Guarantee issue requires insurers to sell an individual health insurance policy without regard to a person’s health. Community rating requires that all consumers pay the same or similar premiums without regard to age, gender or health status. According to the report, these initiatives have the potential to cause individuals to wait until they have health problems to buy insurance. This could cause premiums to increase for all policyholders, increasing the likelihood that lower-risk individuals leave the market, which could lead to further rate increases. If this continues, the pool or market could essentially collapse or shrink to include only the high-risk population.”

Here’s what Mr. Zirkelbach said, on behalf of AHIP:

“Throughout the health care reform debate there was broad agreement that enacting guarantee issue and community rating would cause significant disruption and skyrocketing costs unless all Americans have coverage. States that have implemented these laws without covering everyone have seen a rise in insurance premiums, a reduction of individual insurance enrollment and no significant decrease in the number of uninsured.”

We’ll need to wait for a while for a final resolution of the constitutionality of the individual mandate, but it appears clear already that if it is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, there will be some serious problems for the overall viability of the health care reform law and its implementation.

Karl Gerth on "As China Goes, So Goes the World," part 2

2010-12-21T13:46:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Karl Gerth, author of "As China Goes, So Goes the World," talks about the emergence and implications of a consumer-based economy and society in China, recorded from South Carolina on December 19, 2010

Karl Gerth talks about "As China Goes, So Goes the World," part 2

2010-12-20T23:09:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Karl Gerth, author of "As China Goes, So Goes the World," talks about the emergence and significance of a consumer-based economy and society in China, recorded from South Carolina, December 19, 2010

Chuck DeVore on California's cap-and-trade regulations

2010-12-19T10:34:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

former California Assemblymember and U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore explains his views on the recently-announced AB 32 cap-and-trade regulations, recorded on December 17, 2010

Karl Gerth on "As China Goes, So Goes the World," part 1

2010-12-19T09:36:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Karl Gerth, author of "As China Goes, So Goes the World," answers a few questions about his book before the Internet connection crashes. More soon. Recorded from South Carolina on December 18, 2010.

Sandia Labs “will fully cooperate” with GAO recommendations on classified nuclear supercomputing upgrade

2010-12-17T15:53:00.000-08:00

On December 9, 2010, U.S. Representatives Henry A. Waxman, Edward J. Markey, and Bart Stupak released a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identifying serious weaknesses in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) plans for recovering and reconstituting the classified supercomputing system in the event of a disaster or other service disruptions.

According to their joint press release:

“NNSA’s classified supercomputing systems are critical to our nation’s modern nuclear weapon development and testing program,” said Rep. Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. “It is a matter of national security that NNSA be prepared to maintain the continuous operations of these supercomputers in the event of a disruption. I urge the agency to address the GAO’s recommendations and to implement effective and comprehensive contingency and disaster recovery plans at all three of its nuclear laboratories.”

Etopia News contacted the three national laboratories involved in nuclear research (Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and Los Alamos) for comment on the report’s recommendation. On December 17th, Sandia National Laboratories provided this statement:

“Sandia National Laboratories will fully cooperate with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) on the recommendations in the Government Accountability Office report on information security. Because the report is addressed to the NNSA, we are referring further questions to them for their consideration.”

A Change in the Congressional Climate on Health Care, No Comment on Cancun

2010-12-17T13:22:00.000-08:00

Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman, who has a few days left to enjoy that position, issued the following statement in response to the December 13, 2010, ruling on the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” provision of the Affordable Care Act by federal district judge Henry Hudson:

“There have been almost 20 cases filed challenging health reform. All the others that have come to judgment have been dismissed. We always knew that there was a chance that one or two judges would buck the clear legal consensus that the law is constitutional, just as some judges once ruled that Social Security was illegal.

“But one way or another, this question is clearly headed to the Supreme Court. When it gets there, I am confident that cooler heads will prevail and that the health reform law will be upheld in full.”

He also had something to say about the results in Cancun:

“The nations of the world have reached a balanced agreement to work to fight global climate change and promote clean energy. This is a good step forward, building on the Copenhagen Accord and setting the stage for further progress as nations take actions consistent with this agreement.”

Republican Representative Fred Upton, of the Sixth District in Michigan, will be replacing Representative Waxman in January as Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Under the headline: “Top priority in the new Congress will be full repeal of the job-killing health care law,” here’s what he had to say about the decision declaring the “individual mandate” to be unconstitutional:

“Today, a U.S. District Court ratified what many Americans have known for the past year: the health care law is not only bad policy, it is unconstitutional as well. This decision strikes a blow for freedom and the enduring constitutional principles of our forefathers.

“When the health care law was being debated, Energy and Commerce Republicans warned that Obamacare represented an unprecedented intrusion by government into the lives of American citizens. At the time, we argued that the individual mandate violated Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause – because it purported to regulate an individual’s ‘inactivity.’ If the government could compel individuals to engage in activities they wished to avoid – such as the purchase of health insurance – what restrictions could there possibly be on government’s power?

“That is why today’s decision striking down the individual mandate is so welcome. While the legal fights over the health care law are just beginning, our Committee will vigorously weigh in and assert our oversight authority to ensure that the federal government is returned to its properly limited role. Our top priority in the new Congress will be repealing the job-killing health care law.

“In the months ahead, we will be holding hearings on the unconstitutional aspects of the health care law and other critical health care challenges facing our nation. In the meantime, we urge the administration to cease and desist its efforts to implement the law and work with Congress on reforms that actually reduce costs for consumers in a free-market, constitutionally permissible manner.”

As this article was published on Friday, December 17th, Representative Upton’s press secretary had not been able to get back to Etopia News with a comment from his boss about the climate conference in Cancun.

CRC Commissioner Stan Forbes talks about its work

2010-12-15T16:13:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Stan Forbes, a "decline-to-state" member of California's Citizens Redistricting Commission, talks about that group's mission, activities, and plans, in an interview recorded from Sacramento, California, on December 15, 2010

CRC Commissioner Barabba talks about its work

2010-12-15T15:30:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Vincent Barabba, a Republican member of California's Citizens Redistricting Commission, talks about that group's mission, activities, and plans, in an interview recorded from Sacramento, California, on December 15, 2010

CRC Commissioner Dai talks about its work

2010-12-15T14:48:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Cynthia Dai, a Democratic member of California's Citizens Redistricting Commission, talks about that group's mission, activities, and plans, in an interview recorded from Sacramento, California, on December 15, 2010

A Call for Comments on Proposed CRC Slate

2010-12-13T16:58:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Margarita Fernandez, spokesperson for the California State Auditor's Office, calls on Californians to comment on the proposed slate of six additional members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, recorded from Sacramento, California, on December 13, 2010

Margarita Fernandez updates the Citizens Redistricting Commission story

2010-11-22T15:55:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Margarita Fernandez, spokesperson for the California State Auditor's Office, updates the status and process of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which will now also set Congressional district boundaries, recorded from Sacramento on November 22, 2010

Michael Brady Makes the Case Against In-state Tuition for “Illegal Aliens”

2010-11-19T15:49:00.000-08:00

Michael Brady, plaintiff’s attorney in the landmark case of Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, which seeks to overturn the provision in California state law granting in-state tuition rates to what he consistently called “illegal aliens,” spoke this afternoon with Etopia News, He explained his side of the case and said that he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the recent unfavorable judgment against his clients from the California Supreme Court.

Under the law, the plaintiffs in this case have 90 days from the November 15, 2010, date of the California Supreme Court’s ruling to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. Brady said that he will probably file that appeal “early in February.” He said “there’s a pretty good chance they’ll take it,” in part because it focuses on the currently hot topic of “federal pre-emption.”

Originally filed in December of 2005, in Yolo County, home of the University of California’s Davis campus, Martinez v. Regents of UC represents the objections of 42 plaintiffs from 19 different states to the fact that they must pay out-of-state tuition rates of more than $35,000 per year, while what Brady calls “illegal aliens” are only charged the much-lower in-state tuition of around $8,000. According to Brady, allowing illegal aliens this benefit costs the State of California $300 million annually.

Brady said that nobody he’s spoken to about this case can understand “how an American citizen can end up paying four times more than an illegal alien” to attend UC. The two major purposes of U.S. immigration law, he said, are to 1) discourage illegal aliens from coming to the U.S. and 2) discourage them from staying here. Granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, he says, clearly “rewards and encourages them to stay here” and thus undermines the basic intent of U.S. immigration law.

According to Brady, the U.S. Congress has said that California is free to offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens, but if it does so, it must also offer it to all U.S. citizens, including those resident outside of California. He said that the decision of the California Supreme Court, which relied for its judgment on a provision of California law saying that illegal aliens were eligible for in-state tuition on the basis of their attendance at California high schools, and not on the basis of their residence in the state, clearly flaunts the “will of Congress.”

He cited as precedent the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that universities are free to bar military recruiters from campus, but at the cost of losing all federal funding, saying that UC was similarly entitled to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens, but at the cost of having to extend that policy to all U.S. citizens, regardless of their residency. “You can go ahead,” he said, “but you’ll pay a price.”

The Regents of the University of California don’t want to pay that price, and the California Supreme Court has said they don’t have to. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to consider this case, Mr. Brady will have another chance to argue why they should have to. This case, he said, “has national ramifications. Ten other states have similar laws.”

Jeffrey Miron on a sounder argument for marijuana legalization

2010-11-18T08:25:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

Jeffrey Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University, and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, discusses why California's marijuana legalization initiative, Proposition 19, failed, and proposes a more straightforward argument in support of the drug's legalization

Bruce Lieberman on climate change and national security

2010-11-12T16:47:00.001-08:00

Click to Play

freelance journalist Bruce Lieberman discusses what the U.S. military is doing to plan for a future full of major disruptions caused by climate change, recorded from San Diego, California, on November 12, 2010

David Plouffe says that technological progess is "a little bit easier when you're not a democracy."

2010-11-11T15:17:00.000-08:00

David Plouffe, campaign manager for President Obama in 2008 and, presumably, in 2012, addressed an audience brought together by the Center for Political Communications at the University of Delaware at 4:30 pm PST on November 10, 2010, as part of their National Agenda Series of talks on politics.

Talking about recent innovation in computer technology in China, where the world’s fastest supercomputer was recently unveiled, he said of such progress: “It’s a little bit easier when you’re not a democracy.”

Unsurprisingly, he sounded a lot like President Obama in tone and substance, speaking repeatedly of the need to find “common ground” between Republicans and Democrats. He admitted that the Republicans had a “good night” during the recent elections but said that they could have had a better one. He said it was hard to predict the political future.

Among other things, he said that voters were expressing their unhappiness and anxiety, but not voting for the Republican Party per se. He said the election was a cry for our leaders to get along and try solving problems. He pointed out that Republicans lost about two-thirds of the Latino vote and said that Republicans are divided into three different centers: the House, where they’re in control; the Senate, where they’re not; and, soon, presidential candidates.

President Obama, he said, “will reach out to try to find common ground where he will.” He cited as issues of importance the economy, debt and deficit, immigration reform, energy, and education. He urged leaders to work together, like adults. He said that working together would be good for the country.

Plouffe said he thought that the Republicans would nominate a right-wing extremist for president in 2012, because that’s where the energy and thinking in that party is now. He said that the electorate in 2012 would be 50 to 60 million voters larger than in 2010, and that it would include more young people and more moderate independents and would be more diverse.

The most important dynamic in that election, he said, will be if people think we’re heading in the right direction.

He predicted increased electoral/political volatility even though people are hungry for more intra-party cooperation. If the leaders match the commitment of the voters, we’ll make a lot of progress, he said, predicting that then we’ll have “that wonderful future that our youngsters deserve and need.” We can’t just worry about the next election, he said, although he also said that in elections substance is rarely discussed.

He said he’d like to see 100 candidates like (Delaware Republican Senate nominee) Christine McDonnell, adding that there is not a wide audience for that kind of candidate outside of the Republican Party. There are Republicans in Congress who want to find common ground, he said, but the energy in the Republican Party is with Glenn Beck. For the good of the country we will try to find common ground, he said, but it looks like we’ll get more of Palin, O’Donnell and Rand Paul. Asked by an audience member how he’d modify the President’s 2012 campaign if the Republicans nominated a moderate, he replied that he didn’t think they would.

A spokesperson for the University said on Thursday morning that a video of this talk would soon be online here.

Congressional supporters of backroom redistricting have nothing to say about their plan's defeat

2010-11-09T15:58:00.000-08:00

While most of the U.S. was turning itself over to the tender mercies of the newly-resurgent Republican Party last Tuesday, Californians returned arch-liberal Senator Barbara Boxer to office and re-elected “insider’s knowledge, outsider’s mind” Jerry Brown governor. Also, while pundits were noting the advantage that Republican-controlled state legislatures will now have in terms of being able to gerrymander Congressional districts in states where they are in power, California voters voted, by passing Proposition 20, to expand the writ of the Citizens Redistricting Commission they set up in 2008 to set State Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization districts to include the very Congressional districts that will, in other states, be apportioned on the basis of partisan self-interest.

They also rejected Proposition 27, a blatant power-grab, funded predominantly by Democratic incumbent Congressmembers, to disband the Citizens Redistricting Commission entirely, and give authority to draw legislative districts, both state and federal, back to the hacks (State Assemblymen and Senators) who have done an almost-perfect job (with the help of highly-paid Democratic consultant Michael Berman) of ensuring that no incumbent Democrat or Republican elected will be defeated before his or her time, or that any general election race for these offices in California will be truly competitive.

This state of affairs contributes mightily to the now-endemic cynicism and hostility to politics and politicians that are doing so much to keep the state (and country) from seriously addressing the myriad problems it faces. Surprisingly, Californians voted for Proposition 20 and against Proposition 27 by margins of around 60-40, a decisive statement about how strongly they feel about having politicians pick their voters instead of letting the voters pick their electeds.

A table here shows that several incumbent Democratic California Congressmembers made contributions of $10,000 or more to the campaign to pass Proposition 27 and defeat Proposition 20. These include Congressmembers Lois Capps, Anna Eshoo, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Judy Chu.

Etopia News tried to contact each of these Representatives, as well as California State Senator Alex Padilla, who contributed several times to the Yes on 27/No on 20 campaign, to get their views on why their side lost and what the implications were of California voters decision to expand the power of, rather than disband, the Citizens Redistricting Commission established by Proposition 11 in 2008.

“Ashley,” in the press office of Rep. Lois Capps said she’d get a statement for this article, but hasn’t yet. Ben Bradford, in Rep. Eshoo’s office sent an e-mail saying:

“Thanks for the e-mail. I won’t be able to get anything from Rep. Eshoo until tomorrow at the earliest, and even then, I’m not sure she’ll be able to participate, but I’ll see what I can do and get back to you tomorrow.”

No word from him yet, nor from the offices of Pelosi, Schiff, Chu, or Padilla.

Professor Daniel Lowenstein, who was the official proponent of Proposition 27, didn’t return an e-mail asking for comment.

Nor, as of now, have statements been forthcoming from the Office of Representatives Eshoo or Capps.

Dale Jones makes the case for Proposition 19

2010-10-28T18:01:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Dales Jones, spokesperson for "Yes on Proposition 19," explains, defends, and advocates for the passage of this initiative to legalize the possession and tax the sale of marijuana in California, recorded from Oakland, California, on October 28, 2010

Etopia News hosts a debate on Props. 20 & 27

2010-10-27T15:10:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Derek Cressman of Common Cause supports Prop. 20 and opposes Prop. 27 while Michael Wagaman of the California Democratic Party opposes Prop. 20 and supports Prop. 27 in a remotely-recorded video debate hosted by Etopia News, recorded on October 27, 2010

Senator Sanders seeks to clarify the law on FITs

2010-10-04T13:44:00.000-07:00

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has introduced S. 3923, the “Let the States Innovate on Sustainable Energy Act of 2010,’’ in order to clarify certain provisions in existing law that might stand in the way of individual states implementing feed-in tariffs in their jurisdictions.

According to Senator Sanders, “At a time when we are working to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and create green jobs, we should be encouraging states and local governments to pursue innovative sustainable energy policies, not stifling their progress."

The bill borrows language from an already-passed provision, Section 102, of HR 2454, the big climate change bill approved by the House of Representatives but not considered by the Senate.

Senator Sanders, an independent senator who caucuses with the Democratic majority in the Senate, is supporting this clarifying language for two reasons, according to an aide. First, from a Vermont-centric perspective, because his state is implementing a 50MW feed-in tariff and he wants it clear that it is entitled to do so. Second, from a national perspective, the senator is a big supporter of renewable energy and he wants to help individual states move ahead in that area.

The bill exists now on a stand-alone basis, but the Senator mostly hopes to get it enacted as an amendment to other energy legislation that may be acted upon during the upcoming lame duck session of Congress, in November and December, 2010. Failing that, he is likely to re-introduce it early in the new year in the new Congress, starting in the Energy Committee, of which he is currently a member.

His office has had preliminary discussions with Senator Bingaman’s office about including this provision in the pending RES (Renewable Electricity Standard) legislation sponsored by the New Mexico senator. It’s not likely, though, that that will happen since that bill’s sponsors seem determined to stick exactly to language already approved by the Senate Energy Committee and hence will not allow amendments to their proposed law.

Introduced by Senator Sanders on September 29th, the “Let the States Innovate on Sustainable Energy Act of 2010’’ already has a number of co-sponsors, including Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, his fellow Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

According to his aide, no organized opposition to the bill has yet appeared. Strong support for this legislation, he said, is coming from the FIT Coalition, the Clean Energy Group (based in Montpelier, Vermont), and VPIRG, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

PHEVs and the Smart Grid discussed at UCLA conference

2010-09-29T14:15:00.000-07:00

With the imminent launch of two new plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt, just around the corner, sixty or so engineers and officials active in energy and transportation research, policy development, and commercialization gathered yesterday (September 28, 2010) in Boelter Hall at UCLA to talk about these innovative new cars, the “smart grid,” and the relationship between the two.

The “smart grid” is the next generation version of the energy-delivery network, which allows for two-way transfer of power and includes the means for granular communication and control of the energy flow process.

Organized under the auspices of the Wireless Internet for the Mobile Enterprise Consortium (WINMEC) by its Director, UCLA Professor Rajit Gadh, the event featured a keynote address by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Commissioner Timothy Simon.

The main point made by the speakers was that there is a strong synergy between the deployment of PHEVs and the creation of a “smart grid” able to manage two-way energy and information flows over the power distribution network.

Many of the speakers highlighted the need for more customer education, in order to bring the public up-to-speed on the technological and economic aspects of the transition to a more widespread deployment of electric vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support them.

In his keynote presentation to the group, Commissioner Simon pointed out that 40% of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from transportation and that the increased use of PHEVs could significantly reduce US importation and consumption of foreign oil, while delivering the equivalent of $0.75/gallon gasoline.

After his talk, Commissioner Simon also expressed his belief that Proposition 23, which would effectively shut down AB 32, the climate change law, would not be approved by California voters in this fall’s election. He also said that threats to privacy through the enhanced ability of the smart grid to monitor customers’ use patterns was no greater than that already enabled by everyday use of credit and debit cards to make gasoline purchases.

Peter Suterko, Fleet Manager at Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), talked about the actual experience his agency has already had with using electric vehicles and pointed out that the annoying stop-and-go traffic so much in evidence in Los Angeles has a hidden benefit in that it’s ideally-suited to the regenerative braking technology found in hybrids.

Phil Gow of Coda Automotive of Santa Monica, California, talked about his company’s soon-to-be launched PHEV and the innovative marketing plans it has for their product, involving selling them from retail storefronts at malls.

Mike Gravely, Manager of the Energy Systems Research Office of the California Energy Commission, delivered the Lunch Keynote, entitled “How Providing Grid Services Can Improve the Cost Profile of Electric Vehicles.” He asserted that 25% of the electric vehicles (EVs) in the U.S. would be found in California in the coming years, meaning that California would adopt this technology at roughly twice the rate of the rest of the country.

He also mentioned a pilot program, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)of 2009 and involving UCLA, USC, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) at the California Institute of Technology, that would investigate what it would take to build out a smart grid in Los Angeles. He talked about California becoming recognized at the Smart Grid State, and discussed the synchrophasor technology that uses GPS and other advanced methods to monitor and control energy flow in the grid.

Mr. Gravely also referenced the provision of “grid ancillary services” through the “second use” of PHEV battery packs in home and commercial devices that could provide smart grids with the ability to use these systems to store green energy from wind turbines at night and then call upon their stored energy during times of peak demand, thereby eliminating the need to build additional facilities.

Conference organizer Rajit Gadh announced the creation of a UCLA SoCal Electric Vehicle-Smart Grid Consortium that will work with commercial partners to take advantage of the research and thought leadership being generated at the school through its ongoing programs and special conferences such as this one.

UCLA provided its usual range of tasty and nutritious food to sustain conference participants throughout the day and at the patio reception at the close of the event.

No "clarifying language" on federal pre-emption of feed-in tariff policies in RES

2010-09-23T12:34:00.000-07:00

Supporters of feed-in tariffs had hoped that “clarifying language” taken from Section 102 of H.R. 2454 (Waxman-Markey) would be included in the stand-alone Renewable Electricity Standards (RES) bill introduced on Monday, September 20th, and supported by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and others. Such language, they believed, was required in order to resolve the question of federal pre-emption of states’ rights to implement feed-in tariffs specific to their own state, as provided for under PURPA (the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, passed in 1978 as part of the National Energy Act).

According to Bill Wicker, Communications Director for the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, these hopes have been dashed. Asked if such language was included in the new RES bill, Wicker wrote to Etopia News on September 21st that:

"Answer is 'no.'

"This 'clarifying language' was not part of the RES section of the omnibus energy bill, S. 1462. Since we made no substantive changes to that committee-reported legislation, 'clarifying language' is not part of the stand-alone RES bill introduced today, either."

Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) thinks such language is essential for sound renewable energy policy going forward. On September 22nd, he told Etopia News:

“States should have the ability to develop incentive programs that will help get electricity generated from renewable technologies onto the grid; due to the current regulatory framework this is not possible. Language to address this has already passed the House, as Section 102 of H.R. 2454. We hope that the Senate will see the wisdom in this approach and agree to our language.”

Inquiries to the offices of RES co-sponsors Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Susan Collins (R-ME) about the possible inclusion, through the amendment process, of such “clarifying language” in the RES had not yet been answered as of today, Thursday, September 23rd.

Slick spots vs. social networks

2010-09-22T15:49:00.000-07:00

The basic premise of democratic theory is that collective decisions will be arrived at through a rational process of give-and-take, of discussion based on commonly-accepted facts and differing opinions generated by diverse interests and personal preferences. The antithesis of this democratic model is one of secret manipulation of public opinion by means of a flood of emotionally-based appeals, developed using the tools of marketing and advertisement and delivered ubiquitously with funding by powerful and anonymous sponsors.

It should be obvious to even the casual observer which model, in a post-Citizens United world, is ascendant. With virtually-unlimited budgets and bland front names (Citizens for Prosperity, American for the Future, Citizens United) corporations and billionaires can now work to elect their candidates and qualify and pass their initiatives with a free hand.

Simultaneous with the rise of this model of anonymous manipulation on a grand scale has been the emergence of social media as its antithesis. Just as Iranian dissidents confronted their country’s corrupt clerical oligarchy through street protests organized using Facebook and Twitter, Americans with non-corporate political agendas find themselves relying more and more on these same technologies in order to coordinate their own political efforts.

What has emerged, then, is a contest between slick and omnipresent 30-second television spots designed to appeal to visceral and emotive aspects of the human psyche and an electronically-mediated movement or set of movements calling for the pooling of individual action through social networks. Of course, both sides (to the extent that there are only two sides) are using both approaches, when they can afford to or as it suits their purposes.

What we have then, is a vast system of money, polling/focus groups, attitudes, linguistic and audio/video formulations, membership lists, and professional practitioners vying for access to, and the ability to modify the thoughts, feelings and actions of, all the individuals who together make up the body politic, using increasingly powerful and persuasive electronic media, both uni-directional and interactive.

One can only hope that the billionaires who control Facebook will remain willing to be traitors to the economic class to which they now belong, lest the playing field tip even more thoroughly in the direction of the 30-second tv spot.

Bruce Lieberman explains the pros and cons of Proposition 23

2010-09-17T12:04:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Bruce Lieberman, science and the environment journalist, explains the campaigns to pass, and to defeat, California Proposition 23, which would suspend the state's landmark climate change law, AB 32, recorded from San Diego, California, on September 17, 2010

Margarita Fernandez on California's Citizens Redistricting Commission

2010-09-09T10:03:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Margarita Fernandez, Chief of Public Affairs at the California State Auditor's Office, talks about the process that is creating a Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw the lines for State Senate, Assembly, Board of Equalization, and, possibly, Congressional, districts after the 2010 Census. Recorded from Sacramento, California, on September 8, 2010.

What “Yes on 20/No on 27” has to say about Congresswoman Chu’s statement of support for Proposition 27

2010-09-03T14:16:00.000-07:00

Responding to Congresswoman Judy Chu’s recently-published statement in support of California Proposition 27, a spokesperson for the “Yes on 20/No on 27” campaign provided the following statement to Etopia News:

"If politicians like Congresswoman Chu have it their way, all the progress California has made to create fair election districts will be lost. Indeed, the politicians who drafted Prop. 27 not only want to eliminate the voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commission, but they also strike provisions in the current law that would prohibit them from drawing districts that protect themselves, their friends and their political parties. With Prop. 27 Congressman Chu and her friends will protect incumbents, avoid accountability, and prevent challengers from running against them.

“The fact is, Proposition 27 is nothing but a vehicle for politicians to overturn voter will, take power away from voters, return to the days of backroom deals and avoid being held accountable for addressing the serious issues the state faces."

Why Congresswoman Judy Chu is supporting Proposition 27

2010-09-03T12:59:00.000-07:00

According to a September 2, 2010, press release from the “Yes on 20/No on 27” campaign, “Congresswoman Judy Chu has contributed more than $600,000 in support of Prop 27.”

Here is a statement sent to Etopia News today from Congresswoman Chu’s office stating her reasons for supporting Proposition 27:

“I’m a strong supporter of Proposition 27, Financial Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR), because it ensures a fairer redistricting process. Unlike Prop 20, which sets up a totally new redistricting commission, California’s voters can hold the people who determine our state’s redistricting accountable for their decisions. These decisions are simply too important to leave solely in the hands of three randomly selected, unelected accountants which would determine the membership of this commission. Commissions take power away from the people and their elected representatives, and gives it to faceless, non-accountable bureaucrats.

“Not only that, Prop 27 will also save CA taxpayers millions of dollars by cutting wasteful spending on unnecessary new bureaucracies, at a time when our state is facing an unprecedented economic crisis and cannot even pass a budget. Finally, Prop 27 puts in new rules to prevent cities and counties from being split and requires precise population equality for all districts. Unlike current law where there can be population variations by as much as 1,000,000 people, Proposition 27 mandates precise population equality for all districts. ‘One person, One vote’ should be the law in California!”

California’s Tea Party Patriots likely to support Proposition 20 and oppose Proposition 27

2010-09-02T14:47:00.000-07:00

Dawn Wildman, California State Co-Coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, told Etopia News today that her fellow movement activists “like the idea of the Citizens Redistricting Commission(CRC).”

The CRC was created in 2008 by the passage of Proposition 11. It takes redistricting authority over State Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization districts away from the State Legislature and gives it to a panel of 14 individuals, to be selected by the California State Auditor's office, representative of the state's population.

She said that they were “annoyed” to be having to vote on Proposition 20, which expands the authority of the CRC to include Congressional redistricting, since they’ve just recently voted on essentially the same thing. Nevertheless, she says that opinion in her group is tending toward a “Yes” vote on Proposition 20 and a “No” vote on Proposition 27, which would abolish the CRC and return all redistricting authority to the State Legislature.

The Tea Party Patriots are currently engaged in a period of study and discussion of the various ballot initiatives, and are looking to determine what the group’s consensus positions on these measures ought to be. One hundred and eighty-six local Tea Party Patriot (TPP) groups are involved in this process, which will close on Tuesday, September 7th. Ms. Wildman said that the TPP would announce the results of this consultative process the next day, on Wednesday, September 8th.

She also said that the proposition of most interest to her group was Proposition 23, which would repeal AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. “We helped to get it on the ballot,” she said, and added that the TPP would be using “rallies, bumper stickers, and information distribution” to get it passed, including a rally in Sacramento on September 12th.

Also important to the TPP is Proposition 24, on which she said the building trend in the party was for a “No” vote, since that measure “repeals corporate tax breaks.”

One ballot initiative that doesn’t seem to have a strong TPP consensus either way is Proposition 19, which would allow the recreational use of marijuana while authorizing local jurisdictions to tax its sale.

While there is opposition to the measure among some TPP members, others, Ms. Wildman said, especially those who came of age in the 60s, “don’t consider pot a gateway drug,” and want it legally-available and heavily-taxed, perhaps as a way of reducing the need for other taxes. Still, she said, many in the party are worried that the passage of Proposition 19 would lead to the creation of another bureaucracy and more regulation, which is anathema to the Tea Party Patriots.

Despite their likely support for Proposition 20 and likely opposition to Proposition 27, she said, the TPP will “probably not” devote much energy to these measures, but will concentrate instead on securing the passage of Proposition 23, the anti-AB 32 measure.

How diverse is the current applicant pool for the Citizens Redistricting Commission?

2010-09-01T13:00:00.000-07:00

In an Etopia News article published yesterday (“Haim Saban's loan to Proposition 27 has been paid back”), Mr. Saban was quoted as saying that he had decided to switch his previous position of support for Proposition 11 to support for FAIR/Proposition 27 “because the state’s diverse population has not been adequately represented in the process of selecting members of an independent commission.”

Proposition 11, passed by California voters in 2008, transferred responsibility for redrawing the legislative and Board of Equalization district lines from the California State Legislature to the people in the form of a new Citizens Redistricting Commission. Proposition 27 on the November 2, 2010, ballot, would transfer that responsibility back to the State Legislature.

In an August 21, 2010 press release, the California State Auditor’s Applicant Review Panel, the body tasked with identifying 60 of the most qualified applicants for California’s first Citizens Redistricting Commission, announced that it “is holding public meetings to interview the 120 applicants remaining in the pool.”

According to this press release, “The Panel began the public meetings to interview the remaining applicants on Friday, August 6th. Interviews continue through Friday, September 10th….

“The 120 applicants consist of 40 registered Democrats, 40 registered Republicans, and 40 who are registered as decline-to-state or with another party. Of that applicant sub pool, 47 percent are women, 12 percent are African-American, 27 percent are Latino, 14 percent are Asian-American or Pacific Islander, 5 percent are American Indian and 37 percent are Caucasian.”

For additional information about the applicant pool members' race/ethnicity, gender, party affiliation, geographic location, and income, see the spreadsheet here.

Haim Saban's loan to Proposition 27 has been paid back

2010-08-31T22:53:00.000-07:00

Haim Saban is a remarkable entrepreneur and businessman with unprecedented influence in political affairs. According to a Saban spokesperson:

“While Mr. Saban supported the passage of Proposition 11 in 2008 as a good idea, it hasn’t worked out as intended because the state’s diverse population has not been adequately represented in the process of selecting members of an independent commission. Accordingly, Mr. Saban does not support expanding the commission concept to Congressional redistricting and has agreed to make a loan to support the qualification of the FAIR ballot initiative.”

The “FAIR ballot initiative” (explained here in an Etopia News video interview with its Chief Proponent, UCLA Law School Professor Daniel Lowenstein) is now Proposition 27 on the November, 2010, California ballot.

As mentioned in the quote above and as reported in the Sacramento Bee on April 13, 2010, Mr. Saban loaned FAIR/Proposition 27 $2,000,000. In an August 31, 2010, e-mail to Etopia News, his spokesperson wrote, “To confirm, Mr. Saban provided a loan, which has now been fully paid back.”

Etopia News is waiting to hear back from the "Yes on 27" campaign in response to its question of the source of the money that paid back Mr. Saban’s loan.

Ted Ko at FIT Coalition updates the battle for a feed-in tariff

2010-08-31T16:04:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Ted Ko, Associate Director of the FIT Coalition, talks about PURPA, FERC, CPUC, and REESA, and about his group's efforts to implement a feed-in tariff policy in California and the US, recored August 31, 2010

Derek Cressman at Common Cause on Props. 11, 20, and 27

2010-08-24T14:45:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Derek Cressman, Western State Regional Director of Common Cause, explains three ballot propositions, the already-passed Prop. 11 and the pending Propositions 20 and 27, which would impact the way California's legislative districts are determined, recorded from Sacramento, California, on August 24, 2010

Joe Mathews and Mark Paul discuss "California Crackup"

2010-08-20T15:24:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

co-authors Joe Mathews and Mark Paul talk about California's governmental gridlock and ways to solve it in this discussion of their "California Crackup: ; How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It," recorded remotely on August 20, 2010

David Irvine at UEG on the successful completion of the initiative circulation process

2010-08-13T09:20:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

David Irvine, co-counsel of Utahns for Ethical Government, talks about the successful submission of sufficient voter signatures on an initiative petition for the enactment of a strong ethics-in-government law for the State of Utah, recorded on August 12, 2010

David Irvine updates the Utahns for Ethical Government initiative story

2010-08-09T15:18:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

David Irvine, co-counsel for Utahns for Ethical Government, talks about the rationale behind his group's ballot initiative and its efforts to qualify it for the 2012 election, recorded from Utah on August 9, 2010

Joe Mathews on the San Francisco Declaration on Direct Democracy

2010-08-06T14:55:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Joe Mathews, co-president of the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, just concluded, sums up the event and discusses the consensus-derived "San Francisco Declaration on Direct Democracy," embodying agreed-upon best practices for modern direct democracy, recorded August 6, 2010

Fourth-generation psychic Linda Lauren talks about her presence in Second Life

2010-08-04T13:26:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

a remote video interview with fourth-generation psychic Linda Lauren, talking about how she provides psychic services to people through their avatars in the virtual world of Second Life, recorded from West Orange, NJ, on August 4, 2010

Technology and Direct Democracy: Obstacles and Opportunities

2010-08-02T17:44:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

a video presentation made by Marc Strassman as part of "Panel 1: Do You Dream of Electronic Signatures?," during the August 2, 2010, EVENING PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM sponsored by Activate Direct ON The RISE OF DIGITAL DIRECT DEMOCRACY at the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy

Etopia News goes to the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, Day 3

2010-08-02T16:53:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Bruno Kaufmann, co--present of the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, reviews the third day of the conference, including presentations by Joe Mathews, Bruno Kaufmann, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Grover Norquist, Andreas Gross, Jim Brulte and others, recorded from San Francisco, on August 2, 2010

Etopia News goes to the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, Day 2

2010-08-01T16:42:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Bruno Kaufmann, co-president of the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, talks about the latest news from the conference, recorded from San Francisco, California, on August 1, 2010

Etopia News goes to the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, Day 1

2010-07-31T16:55:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

Joe Mathews, co-president of the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, talks about what's happening on Day 1 at the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy conference, recorded from San Francisco, California, on July 31, 2010

"Smart Initiatives" come to Europe as European Union allows online signatures for its Citizens’ Initiatives

2010-07-30T17:54:00.000-07:00

Online signing of official initiative petitions is not yet recognized as valid anywhere in the U.S., but the European Union, with its 500 million citizens, is about to provide for this as an integral part of its plan for European Citizens’ Initiatives, which will allow a minimum of one million signers distributed across “a significant” group of nations to propose legislation for their own self-governance. It hopes to have this system in place by the end of 2010.

Saying that this “new provision is a significant step forward in the democratic life of the Union,” the European Commission, writes, in its proposal to the European Council and the European Parliament for the establishment of regulations to govern the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI):

“Respondents have almost unanimously called citizens to be allowed to support initiatives online….Moreover, in light of the responses to the consultation, the proposal also provides for statements of support to be collected online. However, in order to ensure that statements of support collected online are as genuine as those collected in paper format and that the Member States can check them in similar fashion, the proposal requires that online collection systems should have adequate security features in place and that the Member States should certify the conformity of such systems with those security requirements, without prejudice to the responsibility of the organizers for the protection of personal data. Given the need to draw up detailed technical specifications in order to implement this provision, it is proposed that the Commission should lay down these specifications by means of implementing measures. Online collection should nevertheless be allowed from the outset.”

These ECI’s will need to be officially registered:

"Required information for registering a proposed citizens’ initiative
The following information shall be provided in order to register a proposed citizens’ initiative on the Commission's register:
1. The title of proposed citizens’ initiative in no more than 100 characters;
2. The subject-matter, in no more than 200 characters;
3. The description of the objectives of the proposal on which the Commission is invited
to act, in no more than 500 characters;
4. The legal base of the Treaties which would allow the Commission to act;
5. The full name, postal address and e-mail address of the organizer or, in the case of a
legal entity or organization, its legal representative;
7. All sources of funding and support for the proposed initiative at the time of
registration.
Organizers may provide more detailed information on the subject, objectives and background to the proposed citizens' initiative in an annex. They may also, if they wish, submit a draft legislative text."

The European Council has considered the regulations proposed by the European Commission, suggested some changes be made about decisions on the admissibility of proposed initiatives and forwarded its recommendations to the European Parliament. The European Parliament will meet on September 30th with representatives of the member states’ parliaments to discuss the various provisions of the regulations.

The Commission wants admissibility to be determined after 300,000 signatures have been collected; the Council after 100,000; and, a working paper of the Parliament suggests reducing that number to only 5,000. Furthermore, the Parliament’s working paper proposes giving authority over the admissibility question to an “Ad Hoc Wise Persons’ Panel” instead of the Commission itself, with appeals from this body’s decision then going to the Commission, and, above that, to the European Court of Justice.

Presumably, these are issues that will be resolved through the ordinary legislative process of the EU. Hopes are high that a final decision and acceptance of the regulations will occur before the end of 2010, so that the process of qualifying these initiatives can start at the beginning of 2011. It’s likely that provisions allowing online signature-gathering will be part of any final determination by the various EU bodies. Thus, by 2011, Europe will have adopted the proposal made ten years earlier by this reporter in his advocacy of "Smart Initiatives."

David Irvine talks about online signing of Utahns for Ethical Government initiative petition

2010-07-28T16:27:00.001-07:00

Click to Play

David Irvine, co-counsel for Utahns for Ethical Government, talks about Utah politics, his group's campaign to institute ethics reform for the legislature through the initiative process, and efforts to use the online gathering of eSignatures to qualify their initiative, recorded from Salt Lake City, Utah, on July 28, 2010

The Solar Real Estate Incentive--A Guest Column by Jeffrey H. Michel

2010-07-27T11:40:00.000-07:00

Innovative energy technologies are essential for limiting import dependency. This fact is especially well understood by countries with dwindling fuel resources. Germany already derives 17% of its electricity from renewable energy generation. World leadership has been achieved by providing reliable financial returns to operators. The 3,800 megawatts of new photovoltaic generation realized in 2009 alone represents nearly twice the entire solar capacity (2,108 MW) installed in the United States.

Germany's success rests on a grid power feed-in law, called the Renewable Energy Sources Act, that recently entered its second decade of deployment. Utility companies are required to buy CO2-free electricity at premium rates from solar, wind, hydro, and biomass generation, successively lowering the use of fossil fuels and the greenhouse gases they emit.

U.S. Congressman Jay Inslee now wants to multiply Germany's achievement in this country. He is not only concerned about global warming and the security risks of foreign oil and gas. From his Congressional district on Washington's Puget Sound, he also ranks carbon dioxide emissions as “an absolute time bomb” irreversibly acidifying the world's oceans.

On July 26, Inslee introduced a “renewable energy jobs and security bill” into Congress modeled after German legislation. It would require electrical utilities to provide long-term incentive payments at uniform nationwide rates for renewable grid power. The contract time would be fixed at 20 years, just like in Germany. The rates can be lowered for future installations as technology costs decline. The investment payback for each type of renewable generation is graduated to provide a reasonable return, while preventing excess owner profits. The cost of feed-in payments is redistributed to all utility customers and readjusted in a biannual review process. All renewable generating installations up to 20 megawatts would qualify for the incentive program.

The bill's provisions are intended to place the United States “at the forefront of the global renewable energy revolution”. It nevertheless remains uncertain how many lawmakers may support Inslee's plan, unless near-term benefits emerge throughout the country.

A real estate agent in Glendale, Arizona, thinks she may have found one pathway to that objective. Jennifer Del Castillo is reorienting her business toward solar home sales. Renewable technologies don't only inject green jobs into the economy. They also enhance the value of existing real estate by capitalizing on the financial benefits of non-fossil energy.

Ms. Del Castillo recently sold a solar-retrofit home in only 35 days, while conventional offerings languish on Arizona’s depressed real estate market. The buyer paid the full asking price in cash to preclude adversary bidding. The 6.15 kilowatt rooftop photovoltaic system had cut electricity costs for the previous owner by more than half. Assuming future utility rate increases of 5% annually, more than 66,000 dollars may be saved on power bills over the next 30 years. That's over a quarter of the total sales price of this three-bedroom home.

On two trips to Germany, Ms. Del Castillo has seen solar panels in every town. Over 21 thousand gigantic wind machines are implanted in the countryside. With twice as much annual sunshine as Northern Europe, however, Arizona would seem predestined to become the solar capital of the world. Yet without enduring payback guarantees, rooftop generation has remained too expensive for most homeowners.

That situation is now rapidly changing. The prices for solar equipment have fallen dramatically due to the exponential growth of manufacturing. Future carbon emissions taxes would tip the economic balance even more in favor of renewable generation and shorten equipment payback times.

In the view of Jennifer Del Castillo, anyone considering selling his home in the next few years should be installing solar panels now. Only then can actual electricity savings be documented to increase point-of-purchase value. A solar retrofit can easily raise a home’s asking price by 10 to 20 thousand dollars, while the sale may be closed in weeks instead of months.

The deepening relationship between solar energy and real estate is enhanced in the United States by frequent property turnover. Paul Gipe, who maintains a website on feed-in policies at www.wind-works.org, notes that the equity of a solar home is relatively unaffected by housing market conditions. The ongoing value instead rises in step with utility rate hikes and cumulative power bill savings.

The passage of Congressman Jay Inslee's renewable energy bill could create a resilient safety net for the real estate market. Solar rooftops, regional wind farms, and rural biomass plants would revive local economies and enhance their collective contribution to national energy security.

Jeffrey Michel can be reached at: jeffrey.michel@gmx.net

Indiana allows online voter registration but not online signature-gathering

2010-07-26T15:57:00.000-07:00

Add Indiana to the list of states that allow people to use the Internet to register to vote, but don’t let them use it to sign official petitions.

Dale Simmons, co-general counsel in the Indiana Elections Division, today told Etopia News that the answer to the question of whether that state allows its citizens to affix signatures to petitions online through the use of DMV-based repositories of signatures or in any other way is “No.”

Indiana doesn’t have an initiative process in any case. Mr. Simmons did add that he had been asked about the online collection of signatures by someone in Indiana seeking to qualify for the ballot as a third-party candidate, a process that DOES require signatures, but said that he’d “never heard of it before.”

He also said that such a process of online signature collection was “not even considered” by the state legislature.

An Update on the State-by-State Status of DOIPSS (DMV-assisted, online initiative petition signing systems)

2010-07-24T15:54:00.000-07:00

As previously reported by Etopia News, eight U.S. states now allow their resident citizens to register to vote, or to change their official party affiliation, online. They do this using DMV databases that contain digital versions of handwritten signatures that can serve as valid, officially-recognized substitutes for a new handwritten signature on a voter registration card.

Some Washington State residents have contacted that state’s Secretary of State’s office, asking if they might be able to use a similar system to sign official initiative petitions online.

On July 22nd, Don Hamilton, Director of Communications in the Oregon Secretary of State’s office, called using a similar, DMV-assisted, online initiative petition signing system (DOIPSS) “an interesting idea, worthy of study.” Geoff Sugerman, media spokesperson in the Oregon Speaker’s office, said that the legislature there would soon be considering an overhaul of initiative rules, and that such an idea might be discussed there in the context of providing “a safe and secure system” for the collection of signatures on official petitions. In addition to accepting online voter registrations, Oregon now has a vote-by-mail only election system.

But three other states with DMV-assisted voter registration systems have told Etopia News that they have not extended, and will not be extending, these systems to allow for the online signing of official petitions.

Abbie Hodgson, Media Contact in the office of Kansas’ Secretary of State’s office, asked if the state allows registered voters to sign initiative petitions online using a system similar to the one they now use to allow online voter registration, said, “No, we do not. Petitions need to be signed in person.”

Arizona’s Matt Benson, Communications Director, in their Secretary of State’s office said, “You can’t sign initiative petitions online.”

Jacques Berry, Press Secretary for Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne explained that his state does not have an initiative process, but required handwritten signatures on recall petitions and for “in lieu” signatures used by candidates in place of filing fees. Asked if his office was considering expanding their online voter registration system to allow the use of a similar system for signing such documents, he said “We’re not planning to ask the legislature to do that.”

A spokesman for the Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buescher, Richard Coolidge, was less definitive in his comments about that state’s lack of a DOIPSS (DMV-assisted, online initiative petition signing system), saying, “I haven’t heard that discussed yet….I haven’t given much thought to it.” He did say that, after three months in place, Colorado’s system for online voter registration had been used by over 10,000 people.

Calls to the remaining states that provide for online voter registration (Indiana and Utah) had not been returned by close-of-business Friday, July 23rd.

DOIPSS may not be sweeping the country, but several more press spokespersons in states with online voter registration, but not online petition signing, now know that such a concept exists, because someone asked them about it.