RESTORE OUR NEBRASKA PETITION RIGHTS

        The petition process reaches back into history to the Magna Carta in 1215 and stretches forward to prolific use by our colonial forefathers. Both our national and state constitutions confer upon us the right to use this political authority for redress of grievances. In 1898, Nebraska became the first state to allow statewide initiative and referendum petitions.  Nebraskans subsequently have used the petition process as a useful political means to gain reforms when the legislature has refused to consider them and to repeal unpopular legislation.  In recent years, legislators, judges, and surprisingly, voters, have restricted our petition rights.

The single subject predicament of the petition to approve slot machines vividly illustrates the degree of loss of these historic rights.  One judge derailed the wishes of over 178,000 registered voters who wanted the opportunity for themselves and others to vote on this issue.  The enacting amendment never defined petition single subject, so courts can conjure whatever definition they wish.  The state attorney-general already has  authority to split issues into separate ballot questions.  A main reason why citizens place more than 1 subject in a petition is because the topics are related and because it is so difficult and expensive to obtain the 110,000+ verifiable signatures to place an issue on the ballot.  Presently, if the legislature passes a law that contains 3 provisions that taxpayers want to repeal, petitioners must collect signatures on 3 sets of petitions!  In 1994, a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling almost doubled the number of signatures required for fulfilling petition requirements.  Finding it more difficult to muster sufficient volunteers to gain the newly-required number,  petition campaigns increasingly resorted to hiring paid circulators.  Several state senators favored outlawing the use of paid circulators, perhaps fearing that this financial incentive would guarantee success to future petition drives.  A former Unicameral speaker wanted to establish only authorized locations at which voters could sign petitions.  Another of his resolutions would have forced citizens to sign petitions in the presence of a public official.  A 1998 legislative resolution would have required voters to approve proposed constitutional amendments by petition twice before enactment into law.  Then came a requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment could not go before voters by initiative petition more often than once in 3 years.  In 1999, several senators attempted to pass a bill that 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. That same year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Nebraska cannot force petition campaigns to file monthly reports identifying paid circulators and expenses paid to circulators, which would make circulators vulnerable to harassment.  Accumulating hurdles have made it impossible in many instances to rely on a pool of volunteer circulators, much needed in this labor-intensive activity.  Campaigns must raise huge war chests to pay circulators or forego petitioning.  So difficult is waging a successful venture that obstacles dissuade some from donating or circulating.  As restrictions have increased, more petitions have failed ballot access, e.g., two taxpayer initiative petitions in 1996.  Those who restrict our petition rights declare a need to stop frivolous petitions, but this reasoning is disingenuous, as Nebraskans never complained about petition ballot issues consuming too much voting time.  Criticism of a surfeit of petitions is tantamount to declaring that there exists too much involvement by citizens in the political process.  I believe that state senators by increments have eroded our petition rights to suffocate the petition process that checks their power. 

            We must restore our petition rights to the setting envisioned decades ago by progressives, who granted us these rights to redress grievances on taxation and other issues, to act as the virtual second house of our legislature as promulgated by Unicameral advocate Sen. George Norris, as a safety valve for citizen discontent. 

            If unable to petition for redress of overtaxation, etc. via petition, we will have lost a lawful means of political expression.  Petition restrictors should read the history of our colonial era and refresh their memories about the actions of our colonial forebears when the British Crown denied them basic rights of political expression.  Elections see lower percentages of registered voters, perhaps because they feel disenfranchised and cynical.  Restoring the petition process would offer them incentive to become politically involved and keep elected officeholders accountable to the electorate. 

 Doug Kagan, state chairman NE Taxpayers for Freedom, whose organization is organizing a petition campaign to restore our petition rights.