This is a story that you can skim (cuz it's kinda boring and inside baseball and full of dull details and pivotal to the elections to come.)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/16/ballot_initiative_limits_sought/Ballot initiative limits sought
Gay marriage foes seen as target
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | July 16, 2005
As conservative groups launch a drive for a referendum to ban same-sex marriage, Beacon Hill Democrats are moving swiftly to pass a bill that would make it more difficult for such a question or any other to reach the state election ballot.
The bill, which could be voted on in the Senate as early as next week, is provoking an outcry from government watchdogs, the administration of Governor Mitt Romney, and Secretary of State William F. Galvin, among others.
The measure would prohibit groups backing ballot questions from paying outside firms for each signature gathered, a common practice that critics see as encouraging fraud but that backers view as essential given the short time in which groups must gather signatures required under state law.
The legislation would impose new penalties for fraud or misrepresentation during signature-gathering and make it possible for groups opposing ballot questions to gain almost immediate access to the names and addresses of the people who signed the petitions, providing them an opportunity to persuade signatories to retract their support. In addition, it would disqualify signature sheets not signed by the individual who gathered them, which Galvin contends would punish voters for the inattentiveness of those collecting signatures.
TayTay, sez you, who frickin cares about a ballot unitive in Massachusetts? (You friggin provincial homer ya. There is a greater world than MA, ya know.)
Fair enough. Let's tease the strings out on this one. This is a 'slap yourself upside the head, why didn't I think of that' easy one, but it'll do.
This is about a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts in 2008. Massachusetts may have two Presidential candidates in 2008. (Virginia may as well.) Which candidate benefits if the ballot initiative gets on the ballot? Which candidate benefits if it never comes up and never sees the light of day? Romney or Kerry?
Massachusetts has an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. (87% of the Court is Dem.) They can overrule Romney on his veto to make ballot initiatives even harder to put on the ballot. So, who is pushing for this. I didn't see any names in the story that Non-MA residents would know. Do you think it might have crossed Sen. Kerry's mind to make a few calls, maybe inquire as to what was up and make his own wishes known on this?
Liberals hate, hate, hate this kind of stuff. There is an argument to be made that this is anti-democratic and is a way for the powerful interests in the State MA Dem Party to overwhelm the democratic process and substitute their wishes for the votes of the people. (I'm not sure that lefty actually like politics, but that is another thread.)
Everyone wants the Democratic Party to 'show some spine' and 'get tough' with Rethugs. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Getting a spine can also mean that difficult decisions as to who runs, who gets money, how the ballot is structured and who can get support from the local Dem Party gets made by a small group of people who have taken the reins of the process. They can control access and money and can field candidates based on viability and the ability to run a perceived good race. Great! In fact, wonderful! But what about those who get shut out? (And is this still liberal? Or should we say, screw liberalism, it doesn't matter anyway unless we start to win some races. Have the powerful screen some candidates and make those behind-the-scenes decisions. It's for the good of the Party, overall. Chicken or the egg?)
So, tell me some stuff from your state. This happens in everywhere. Thinking politically, what is going on for Democrats in the great USA? (Especially Ohio. Boy oh boy is Ohio getting interesting.)