NTF Issue Paper: ntfpetition1.  1-03.
NEBRASKA TAXPAYERS FOR FREEDOM ISSUE PAPER:
PETITION NEBRASKA: A CAMPAIGN TO RESTORE PETITION RIGHTS.

 BACKGROUND.  American history has shown that citizens often avail themselves of the right to petition to redress  what we consider erroneous decisions by our elected representatives or to repeal oppressive laws.  Both our national and state constitutions offer us this wielding of political authority.

FEDERAL ALLOWANCE. The U.S. Constitution in Article I gives citizens the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  Our Founding Fathers believed that, if the legislative branch failed to reflect in laws the wishes of the electorate, the petition process provided a constitutional alternative available to people.   

STATE ALLOWANCE.  At the 1919-1920 NE Constitutional Convention, there was widespread support for a proposal declaring that the first power reserved by the people is the initiative.  Article I, Section 19 of the Nebraska Constitution guarantees the right of the people to petition the government.  Article III, Section 2 of the state constitution reserves to citizens the right to use the initiative petition process to enact laws and constitutional amendments without going through the Unicameral.  To enact or change a law, 7% of registered voters statewide must sign the petition.  To amend the state constitution, 10% of registered voters statewide must sign the petition.*  In both instances, distribution of signing voters must include 5% of registered voters of each of 2/5ths of counties (38) in Nebraska.  Essentially identical content cannot become submitted to the voters by initiative petition more frequently than once every 3 years.  If conflicting petition contents submitted to voters at the same election both win approval, the one receiving the highest number of “yes” votes becomes law.  The constitutional limitations regarding scope and subject matter of statutes enacted by the Unicameral apply to those enacted by initiative petition.  Initiative petitions may contain only 1 subject.  If a proposal receives 50% plus 1 “yes” votes, the measure becomes law or a part of the constitution.  Article III, Section 3 of the state constitution reserves to citizens the right to use the referendum petition process against an act or part of an act enacted by the Unicameral (such as passage of a tax hike bill) except laws making appropriations for state government expenses.  To repeal a law, referendum petitions must gain signatures of not less than 5% of registered voters, distributed like initiative petitions.  Petitioners then file petitions with the Secretary of State within 90 days after the legislative session during which senators passed an act has adjourned.  Each petition must show the title of the act to which the referendum objects.  If only a portion of an act is the subject for referendum, the number of the section or sections or portion of sections of the act must appear on the petition.  Only 1 act or portion of 1 act of the Unicameral can become subject to a referendum petition.  The Secretary of State submits each proposed measure to voters at the first general election held not less than 30 days after filing of the petition.1  If a proposal receives 50% plus 1 “yes” votes, it nullifies the law passed by the Unicameral.   

LEGAL ALLOWANCE.  In 1966, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the people of Nebraska as the virtual second house of the legislature, authorized to petition. 

HISTORY OF PETITION RIGHTS.  At the end of the 19^th Century and early in the 20^th Century, progressive citizens championed an expansion of the representative process through the initiative and popular referendum.  Such petitions became a novel means to challenge entrenched political machines.  President Teddy Roosevelt said, “I believe in the initiative and referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative.”  Petition rights adopted by 24 states between 1898 and 1918 dismantled crooked political machines and their bosses that stifled American politics.  The objective meant to keep elected officials accountable to the electorate.  It is a safety valve for concerned citizens.  In 1898, Nebraska became the first state to allow statewide initiative and referendum.2  In 1912, voters approved both initiative and referendum.  Both major political parties endorsed the measures.  A 1920 state constitutional convention revised petition sections of the state constitution, requiring 7% of total voters for initiative, 10% for an initiative amending the constitution, and 6% for referendum.  From 1898 to 1998, 1,710 initiatives nationally appeared on ballots, 41% adopted by voters.3  Nebraskans have voted on 56 petition measures since 1914, approving 19.  The petition process has become a great tool for citizens to use to obtain reforms we want, reforms the Legislature has refused to consider.   

* ratified by NE voters when adopting the initiative and referendum in 1898.

PETITION LAWS.  1913 saw the first petition law, allowing for arguments for and against.  The Sec. of State maintained a central voter file to accommodate mailings by pro and con forces.  The penalty for signing the name of another, knowingly signing your name more than once, or falsely certifying signatures was 2 yrs. in jail and/or $500 fine.  A 1919 law added one requirement for notarization for petition circulators, one for explanation of petition legal effect, one for circulator to reside in county where he circulates, and another for circulator to be 18 years old.  A 1925 law allowed the Sec. of State to use the NE Press Association to publish petition texts publicly.  In 1931, legislators required separate ballots for initiatives and referenda.  The 1935 legislature clarified that constitutional amendments appear on separate ballots.  In a major recodification in 1951, lawmakers raised the circulator age to 21 and established “yes” and “no” language on ballots.  In 1959, senators replaced “yes” and “no” with “for” and “against.”  A major 1969 recodification required petition supporters to prevent fraud, deception, and misrepresentation.  A list of supporters comes due 60 days after signatures submitted.  The law required examination of signatures and their delivery to county clerks and election commissioners.  Printed warning to circulators in bold type.  No ditto marks allowed on petitions.  1973 language replaced “legal” voter with “registered” voter.  A 1977 criminal code defined penalties for petition fraud.  The next year, legislators required county clerks and commissioners to provide a place to sign petitions in their offices.  Legislators in 1981 modified the petition form and required a printed name in case of illegible signatures.  In 1986, senators permitted petition notices in general circulation newspapers if no county paper.  A 1988 law established “willfully” and “knowingly” as standards for most petition crimes.  It removed cross county circulator bond requirements and instead required registration with Sec. of State.  In 1989, legislators reversed prohibition of paid circulators.  They required additional filings with the state Accountability & Disclosure Commission and initiative petition filing 4 mo. prior to an election, referenda filing within 90 days following end of legislative session.  The 1991 legislature replaced “for or against” language with “retain or repeal” for referenda.  Legislators in 1992 required notice of paid petition circulators.  Senators in 1994 removed a requirement for providing petitions to county clerks and commissioners and instead required that petition sponsors inform clerk or commissioner of contact person. 

RESTRICTION OF PETITION RIGHTS.  In 1969, the legislative Executive Board attempted in vain to join the att.-gen. in writing summary and explanation for petition ballot issues, a move that would have muddled the issue to voters.  In 1971, conservatives fought but failed to gain constitutional amendments by petition that would have permitted revisions in addition to amendments to the state constitution.  Senators that session quashed an attempt to prohibit initiative and referendum petitions.  1982 saw several senators attempt but fortunately fail to prohibit circulators from circulating outside their home counties.  Senators tried but failed in 1988 to allow for voter registration up to petition filing deadline, thereby securing more legal signatures on petitions.  Opponents also beat back requirement of notice of Sec. of State determination of petition qualification to petition sponsors.  Several senators in 1989 tried but fortunately failed to allow themselves to endorse petition language prior to its placement on a ballot. Petition opponents also luckily failed in 1990 to double the signature requirement, if sponsors used paid circulators.  The same crowd tried in 1991 to allow legislative alternatives to initiative petition measures, with choice between both at the election.  These senators in 1992 tried to force petitioners to act under minimum wage, worker comp, and unemployment laws, which would have created a funding and legal nightmare for petitioners.4  A 1988 constitutional amendment required signatures of 10% of registered voters to place a proposed amendment on the ballot, in contrast to the previous wording that the number of signatures required must equal 10% of the number of votes cast in the last general election for governor.5  Its parent was LB 248, sponsored by Sens. Tim Hall and Ernie Chambers.  This bill changed the wording “electors” to “registered voters” for percentages needed on initiative and referendum petitions.  An elector is a resident of legal voting age. In 1994, our State Supreme Court concurred that citizens had used the wrong formula for determining initiative petition signature requirements and almost doubled the number of signatures required to 110,000.  This decision stood, despite previous law clearly stating that the whole number of votes cast for governor at the regular election last preceding the filing of an initiative or referendum petition is the basis on which to calculate the number of legal voters required to sign such petition.  Several legislators favored outlawing the use of paid petition circulators, fearing that this financial incentive would confer success on future petition drives.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Colorado case Meyer v. Grant ruled that states cannot outlaw the use of paid circulators.  In 1997, then Speaker of the Legislature Doug Kristensen pushed a resolution (LR 7CA) for an amendment that would have required petition signatures submitted 8 months, instead of 4 months, before an election, forcing petition circulators to brave Nebraska winter weather to obtain signatures.  Kristensen also wanted to establish only authorized locations at which voters could sign petitions, making it excruciatingly difficult to gain sufficient signatures.  People might not be able to find the authorized locations.  Said Ernie Chambers of this resolution, “Not only would I like to make this (petition) process as difficult as possible, I would like to abolish it.”  He continued that the petition process allows uninformed people to “contaminate, defile, and pollute the constitution.”6  Chambers then proposed an amendment to increase the percentage of registered voter signatures needed for petitions enacting laws by initiative to 14% and for holding a referendum on existing law to 20%.  The late Sen. Jerry Warner promoted LR 12 in 1998 to force voters to approve proposed constitutional amendments by petition twice before enactment into law.  In 1999, Sen. DiAnna Schimek rammed through LR 32CA, which required a petition for enactment of a law to win signatures of 7% of state registered voters and a petition to amend the state constitution to win signatures of 10% of registered voters.  Henceforth, a proposed amendment could not go to voters by initiative petition more often than once in 3 years.  She restricted petitions to a single subject.  The Legislature passed this travesty by a 42-0 vote.  Senators pass bills each session that contain numerous provisions, sometimes unrelated, yet have denied the right of taxpaying citizens to band together to place more than 1 subject on a petition for redress of grievances.  In fact, LR 32CA became 2 separate questions on the ballot, because it contained 2 subjects!  Thus, if the legislature passes a law that contains 3 provisions that angry taxpayers want to repeal, petitioners must collect signatures on 3 sets of petitions.  This 1-subject rule offers an easy excuse to delay a petition campaign in court by alleging that different elements were separate subjects.  If citizens circulate a petition they believe contains only 1 subject, but following submission of signatures a judge or court decides is more than 1 subject, tough.  Witness the 2002 slot machine petition.  LR 32CA never defined single subject, so courts can conjure whatever definition they wish, different each time.  Aggrieved people have no further recourse.  State senators offered and voters approved in the general election of 1912 that constitutional limitations regarding scope and subject matter of laws enacted by legislators also would apply to those enacted by initiative petition.7  Moreover, the state att.-gen. already has the constitutional authority to split issues into separate questions on the ballot.  Att.-Gen. Don Stenberg opposed the Schimek ruse for removing rights from the people and placing more authority in the NE Supreme Court.  The main reason that citizens place more than 1 subject in a petition is because the topics interlock and because it is so difficult and expensive to obtain the 110,000+ verifiable signatures to place an issue on the ballot, thanks to our Unicameral and State Supreme Court.  LR 38CA, another Kristensen resolution, would have required citizens to sign initiative and referendum petitions in the presence of public officials.  LB 378, by Sen. Bud Robinson, would have forced initiative petition circulators to register with the secretary of state within 5 days, placing such volunteers at risk of harassment by petition opponents. Newspapers could publish the names of all circulators.   LB 460, another Robinson bill, attempted to force petitioners to submit petitions to each county clerk and election commissioner, which would have created a logistical nightmare.8  Restrictions have destroyed key checks and balances on laws passed by our legislature.  Some believe that the restrictions empower the courts to act as hatchet men for the legislature and stop reforms.  Not only legislators are villains.  Former Sec. of State Scott Moore struck over 20,000 signatures gathered by a petition drive to reform property taxes in 1996 by forcing circulators to prove that signatures gathered exactly matched letter for letter and number for number names and addresses, instead of requiring election officials to prove signatures invalid.  His chicanery kept this issue off the ballot.  The 8^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled invalid in 1996 the NE requirement for all petition circulators to be registered voters.  In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that NE cannot force petition campaigns to file monthly reports identifying paid circulators and expenses paid to circulators, which had made circulators vulnerable to harassment.  In 1999, senators attempted to pass LB 729, which would have required the Sec. of State to not accept for filing an initiative or referendum petition that interferes with the right of the legislature to raise taxes.  It would have required the Sec. of State or District Court of Lancaster County to affirm the constitutionality of a petition issue before allowing it on the ballot.  Citizens erroneously may have believed that contents passing court muster meant court endorsement, though the Court only had determined that the content did not conflict with our state constitution.  The bill also stated that the Court would issue an advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of a proposed law, however, the Court cannot issue advisory opinions, only rule on real cases.  In 2000, the resolution that became Amendment 3 on the ballot, sponsored by former legislative speaker Doug Kristensen, would have forced voters to vote in 2 successive statewide elections to pass a petition-initiated proposed constitutional amendment.9  Petitions submitted for verification would have to reach the office of secretary of state a full 9 months before an election, instead of 4 months, greatly shortening the signature collection time and forcing circulators to work in frigid weather.  Sec. of State Scott Moore testified that voting twice on 1996 amendments on the ballot would have cost taxpayers $700,000!  In 2003, Sen. Schimek introduced LB 154, which would make it more difficult for petitioners to submit petitions to the sec. of state and would allow petition opponents to file suit against petition sponsors, challenging legality of a filed petition.  Instead of the state defending its acceptance of the filing, the enormous legal cost would fall on petition sponsors. Our legislators realize that the petition is a restraint on their power, which is why several senators want to destroy our petition rights.  Senators fear and distrust their voting constituents.  State legislators regularly have abridged our right to petition while growing more unresponsive and arrogant, witness the passing of LB 1085 in 2002, which raised our taxes 4 ways.  It is piling up and starting to smell!  Special interest groups that bankroll state senators have a vested interest in manipulating puppet strings to make senators restrict our petition rights.   

PETITION JUSTIFICATION.  It is difficult to convince legislators, many of them professional politicians beholden to special interests, to reform or repeal a tax or spending law.  For real change, better to approach voters directly through an initiative petition.  According to the National Taxpayers Union, the tax revolt that began in the 1970s never would have begun without the initiative process.  Tax limit measures passed by this process made a stark difference, while state legislatures have avoided tax reform. The initiative process is very essential to our continued freedom and prosperity.  Citizens use petition processes to enact reforms that state senators deny us and repeal the acts of these politicians that counter the needs and wants of the taxpaying public.  Progressive George Norris during debate on establishing a Unicameral legislature stated that the second house was the right of the people to petition.  Through most of the 20^th Century, if a bill anathema to a majority of folks worked its way through the legislative process, organized groups would threaten a petition drive, either cowing the legislators or petitioning onto the ballot at election time.  The referendum law gave people the opportunity to repeal legislation favoring special interests like corporations or unions.10  Our petition process is a funnel through which to vent political steam.  If legislators continue to restrict this funnel, they will only encourage citizens to find more cynical means to express their political displeasure. State senators should encourage citizens to become involved in petition drives as a means to become active partners in the political process instead of dissuading them, as if they fear the citizenry.  A simple petition process brings our government close to the electorate and practicality.  Many state senators do not and will not represent the will of their constituents, who, unfortunately, too often seem oblivious to the voting records of their state senators.  Indeed, Unicameral legislating thwarts the will of the people on taxation, etc.  Thus, we need an initiative and referendum petition process to give people an opportunity to amend laws and state constitution

 RESTORE/EXPAND PETITION RIGHTS.  We must restore and reconstitute our petition laws and rules as they existed prior to restrictions imposed beginning in the 1980s.  Revoke the single subject rule.  Push expansion of our petition rights to guarantee this privilege.  Allow a longer period for gaining petition signatures, because groups that lack large treasuries cannot afford to hire paid circulators.  The initiative title and summary language that appears on the ballot should appear identical to the title and summary wording on the petition, thwarting the tendency of government bureaucrats to confuse the voter. Alterations to an initiative approved by voters must require approval by the voters.  Referendum petitions seeking to repeal only 1 part of a law should include only a short paraphrasing of that portion, or title and descriptive summary, as the entire portion of the law might not physically fit on a petition form.  The media, legislature, and political commentators will thoroughly discuss a referendum issue. Allow petition signatories to use ditto marks, as several signers will sign on the same date or from the same address. 

RATIONALE FOR PETITION RESTORATION PETITION.  State senators continually restrict our petition rights under the guise of making the process more honest and genuine.  In reality, they fear the wrath of citizens using the petition process to restrain their profligate tax and spending habits.  Currently, it is almost impossible to promote and fund petitions and overcome hurdles to both gain sufficient petition signatures and win the battle at the polls.  If we do not stop and reverse this erosion of our petition rights, “we the people” will cease to serve as the virtual 2^nd house of the legislature and permanently cede this position to special interest group lobbyists who represent those who gorge at the taxpayer trough. We must initiate a petition to restore and reconstitute our petition rights!

MEANS TO RESTORE PETITION PROCESS.  Constitutional legal experts continually quarrel over small points of the petition process.  One tiff concerns the referendum petition supposed requirement to include the entire statute wanted repealed.  Petition opponents argue that the entire statute must appear physically on the petition form, though in many instances the text would not fit.  A statute passed in 1913 required the governor and sec. of state to attach petition forms with signatures to one or more printed copies of the act wanted repealed.  However, a provision (Sec. 32-1403) in LB 76, which took effect January, 1995, states that a full copy of the title and text of the law or amendment to the state constitution proposed by initiative petition or measure sought for referral to voters by a referendum petition must appear on each petition that contains signatures.  Legislators must re-affirm the 1913 process. The legislature also must clarify that permissible initiative and referendum petitions include those that alter taxing and spending.  An ambiguous legal clause now forbids the Sec. of State from accepting for filing initiative or referendum petitions that interfere with legislative prerogative to raise taxes for revenue.11 

RATIONALE FOR TAX & SPENDING LIMIT PETITION.  For several months, NTF held town hall meetings in various parts of the state and sent surveys to our members and the public everywhere in NE, specifically asking what tax formula or combination they preferred for comprehensive tax reform, e.g., no property tax, expanded sales tax, lower income tax, etc.  There was no consensus on a tax formula because of personal preference and the differing impact of various taxes on urban and rural sectors of our state economy.  Everyone agreed that state taxing and spending was out of control and merited restriction.  Therefore, it seems apparent that the solution to our fiscal nightmare is to place brakes on our legislature by working with our governor and fiscally conservative state senators to implement by increments tax and spending limitations and, as an insurance policy, field a tax and spending limit initiative petition modeled after the TABOR Amendment in Colorado.  This legislation restricts the amount of revenue that state government can retain and spend.  It imposes a lid on state revenue growth equal to inflation and population growth.  The cap applies to general funds and cash funds.  Only voter approval can raise or levy new taxes or allow state government to retain excess revenue over the cap (see NTF Tabor Amendment issue paper).

 RULES & REGULATIONS.  Only registered Nebraska voters can sign a petition.  Signers must become registered voters before a petition goes to the office of secretary of state for validation of signatures.  The same measure must not go onto the ballot more often than once every 3 years.  An initiative petition must contain only 1 subject.  Initiative petition signatures must go to the secretary of state no later than 4 months prior to the general election.  An initiative petition process can begin as early as mid-July of 2002, and the signatures must become submitted by the first week in July 2 years later.  If petition sponsors change the language of the petition, sponsors must stop collecting signatures on their petition and begin the process anew with revised language petitions.  In a referendum petition, sponsors must include a copy of the recently passed law meant for repeal, together with their statement of the object of the petition. 

 CLOCK STARTS TICKING.  After sponsors receive camera-ready copies of the petition form from the Sec. of State, they may print or copy the form and begin collecting signatures.  Better to have a petition committee thoroughly organized and managed throughout the state, with prospective funding and circulators, before beginning signature collection. 

 DUTIES OF SPONSORS.  Before obtaining signatures, sponsors must submit a copy of the petition form used with the Sec. of State, together with a sworn statement containing the names and street addresses of each person, corporation, or association sponsoring the petition.  Sponsors must file initiative petitions with the Sec. of State at least 4 months before the general election at which the proposal will appear before voters.12  Conscientious petition drives hold instructional seminars for circulators and local coordinators. 

 DUTIES OF CIRCULATORS.  A circulator must be a registered voter in NE and personally must witness every signature on a petition.  One must have permission from a private property owner to circulate petitions on private property.  State law forbids gathering signatures within 200’ of a polling place.  A circulator may not entice with anything of value to convince a person to sign a petition.  Penalty is up to 1 yr. in jail and/or $1,000 fine.  A circulator is paid or volunteer. A paid circulator must use a form that discloses paid status to signers.  If the circulator is a volunteer, the form must contain the volunteer disclosure.  Disclosures must appear in 16 pt. type and in red ink.   One can cross out an incorrect signature line without disqualifying other signatures on a petition.  All signers on any one petition must reside in the same county. After collecting signatures on a petition(s), a circulator must sign the oath in the presence of a notary public.  The oath states that he/she has read the object statement of the petition to each prospective signer.  Most financial institutions offer their customers free notary service.  Fill out completely the circulator lines on a petition.  Circulators should return every petition quickly to the sponsors. 

DUTIES OF SIGNERS.  Every signatory must be a registered voter by the deadline for submission of a petition.  A signer must sign only his or her own name as registered to vote, cannot sign a petition more than once, and may not accept anything of value for signing.  One cannot use ditto marks for date or address.  A wife cannot use the first name of her husband in signing.  Anyone who is not a registered voter and signs the name of another to a petition commits a Class I misdemeanor.  Anyone who falsely swears to a circulator of a petition, who accepts anything of value for signing a petition, or who offers anything of value in exchange for a signature on a petition commits a Class IV felony.13 

 CAMPAIGN MATERIALS.  Printed materials referring to the petition or ballot issue must contain the name and street address of the person or committee paying for the materials.  TV and radio ads also must include the name of the person or committee, but the street address not need appear, if the station running an ad retains the personal or committee name and street address on file and available to the public for 6 months following running of the ad. 

 VERIFICATION PROCESS.  Sponsors must submit petitions to the Sec. of State no less than 4 months prior to the general election.  Verify the exact date.  His office verifies that there are at least the minimum number of signatures required prior to sending petitions to local officials for county verification and numbers the petitions. Local officials must return verified petitions within 40 days after receipt from the Sec. of State.  The verification process ensures that there are sufficient signatures to meet constitutional requirements and prevents potential fraud.  Each signature compares with voter registration records.  The Sec. of State then certifies the petition as valid for the general election ballot. The Att.-Gen. writes the ballot title for the measure in 100 words or less, summarizing the purpose of the measure.  He also provides material that explains the effect of a YES or NO vote on the issue; this content also appears on the ballot. 

 PRIOR TO GENERAL ELECTION.  The Sec. of State publishes a pamphlet that contains the ballot title and arguments for and against the measure.  Proponents and opponents of the issue may submit material for inclusion in the pamphlet.  You can obtain a pamphlet from your local election office at least 6 weeks before an election.  The Sec. of State holds 1 public hearing on the measure in each congressional district. He encourages proponents and opponents to attend to offer their views on the issue.  The entire text of an issue appears in all legal newspapers once each week for 3 weeks prior to the election. 

ELECTION DAY.  The vote on initiatives and referenda occurs at the November general election in even numbered years.  The language on the ballot instructs a voter to vote FOR or AGAINST an initiative measure and vote for REPEAL or RETAIN on a referendum.  To pass, more people must vote FOR a measure than AGAINST, and at least 35% of voters casting ballots must vote FOR a measure. 

 A & D COMMISSION.  Sponsors of a statewide initiative or referendum petition process must abide by rules of the Accountability & Disclosure Commission.  Supporters must keep records of contributions received and expenditures made for the petition effort and for supporting passage of the ballot question.  A committee raising, receiving, or exceeding $5,000 in a calendar year must register as a ballot question committee.  Within 10 days after passing the $5,000 mark, sponsors must file a statement with the commission.  Statements must disclose receipts and expenditures on a specific schedule.  Proper forms and rules are available from the A & D Commission office at the State Capitol. 

 WHAT TO DO.  We need you to help restore fiscal sanity to the State of Nebraska.  First, familiarize yourself with petition history and the petition process.  Then, make a commitment to help one or both of our petition campaigns: 1) the Restoration of Petition Rights petition, and 2) the TABOR-NE petition to limit state taxation and spending.  Fill out a volunteer card today!  Mail it to NTF, P.O. Box 6452, Omaha, NE. 68106.  For more information, call (402) 551-0921 or email us.  Visit our web site at www.netaxpayers.org for current information.   

REFERENCE SOURCES.

1. National Taxpayers Union.  www.ntu.org.
2. Initiative & Referendum Institute.  M. Dane Waters.  1825 I Street, NW.  #400, Washington, D.C. 20006.
3. Ballot Initiative Strategy Center.  www.ballot.org.

 Research, documentation, and analysis for this issue paper done by Doug Kagan and Randy Pfeiffer.  This material copyrighted by Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom, with express prior permission granted for its use by Taxwatchers Inc., Dawes County Taxpayers, the NE Libertarian Party, and other groups in the Tax Freedom Network.   1-03   Copyrighted.