Reports of expenditures and contributions received are required quarterly in nonelection years and monthly, March through November, in election years. There is a principal circulator whose information is publicly available upon request.
Persons involved in a statewide initiative or referendum process are subject to the provisions of the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act. Records must be kept of contributions and expenditures. When formed as a ballot question committee, it must file campaign statements and other forms with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, all on a set timeline.
The committee must report on Jan. Same must also be reported quarterly on April 15, July 15, Oct. Political committees must file a statement of organization. Reports of contributions and expenditures are due by the 15th of every April and October.
In election years, instead of biannual reports, reports are due no later than the second Monday in April, May, September and October, and no later than the Thursday before an election. A post-election report is due by Jan. Sponsoring committee must file a statement of renumeration prior to circulating signatures if circulators will be paid.
The following contribution and expenditure statements must be electronically filed: drafting statement, filed at the time approval is requested to circulate petition; circulating statement, filed at the time petitions are submitted for signature verification; pre-election statement, filed between the 39th and 31st day prior to the election; and year-end statement, filed by Jan.
Prior to receiving a contribution or making an expenditure, a campaign must designate a treasurer by filing with the secretary of state. Reports of contributions and expenditures are due on the 12th day before an election, the 38th day after an election and the last business day of January and July of every year. Reports of contributions and expenditures are due on a quarterly basis.
Within three days of making an expenditure or receiving a contribution, a political committee must file a statement of organization and designate a treasurer. Electronic reports of contributions and expenditures must be filed according to a specified schedule. If such activity occurs within 30 days of an election, a statement must be filed within 48 hours. Contributions from nonresidents of the state, political committees organized outside the state or an entity that is not filed with the secretary of state for four years preceding the contribution are prohibited.
Ballot measure committees must file pre-primary, pre-general, year-end and, if applicable, supplemental reports in even-numbered years.
In odd-numbered years, year-end reports are required. Statements of contributions and expenditures must be filed on Jan. Must file a statement of organization as a political committee within two weeks of organizing or within two weeks of the date the first contribution or expenditure is expected.
Reports of contributions and expenditures are due on the 21st and seventh days immediately preceding an election and the 10th day of the first full month after an election. Out-of-state committees that make expenditures supporting or opposing ballot propositions in Washington are required to file reports. Must file a statement of formation as a political action committee within 10 days of formation.
Reports of contributions received and expenditures made must be filed at least seven days before any primary, special or general election.
States decide how the ballot title and summary are created and any requirements for the wording of the measure on the ballot. The official title of the bill that is subject to the referendum appears on the ballot. The descriptive title, which is printed below the official title on the ballot, is written by the secretary of state with the approval of the attorney general. The same ballot title and popular name that appeared on petitions drafted by sponsors is submitted by the secretary of state to the board of canvassers for certification.
Full text is printed on ballot if it is words or less; if it is more than words, the secretary of state drafts a title. The title may be different from the legislative title, but in all cases the legislative title shall be sufficient.
Director of elections, with approval of the state board of canvassers, drafts a statement of purpose of not more than words for the ballot. A statement of purpose and implication, not to exceed words, and yes-no statements are drafted by petitioners and reviewed and approved by the attorney general. These serve as the ballot title. The title of the statute or resolution that is the subject of the referendum is printed on the ballot. Proponents submit a suggested popular name, to be approved or disapproved by the secretary of state.
Unclear; it seems likely that the same statement drafted by the secretary of state and approved by the attorney general for the petition also appears on the ballot, but this is not specified. Proponents draft and submit a ballot title in their original filing. The secretary of state submits the title to the attorney general for approval when signed petitions are filed for verification. The attorney general may approve the title or revise as necessary to comply with the law.
Unclear; the statute describing the titling process by the attorney general specifically mentions initiative measures and constitutional initiatives but does not mention popular referenda. Lieutenant governor forwards petitions that are qualified for the ballot to the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, which drafts an impartial title of not more than words summarizing the contents of the proposal.
The ballot title may be distinct from the title of the law that is the subject of the petition. States vary in the way popular referendum questions are posed. Secretary of state drafts ballot language that fairly and accurately explains what a vote for and what a vote against the measure represent; approved by attorney general.
The wording on the ballot must read: The legislature passed. Bill No. This bill would concise description. Should this bill be: Approved. The requirements for an election with statewide ballot measures vary by state. States also decide which election a ballot measure will be voted on and any time restrictions before a measure is placed on a ballot. In some states, the legislature or governor may order a special election for a measure. In all states, a qualified popular referendum may be placed on the ballot in a statewide general election.
Six states California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio and Wyoming require a certain number of days, ranging from 30 to , to pass between the date the petition qualifies and the election.
The first statewide election held more than days after adjournment of the session during which the act was passed. Next general election at least 31 days after the measure qualifies or at a special statewide election held prior to that general election; the governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.
Next statewide or general election, whichever comes first that is not less than 60 days after the petition is submitted. At the next ensuing election held throughout the state for members of the U. House of Representatives. Next state election, if 60 days intervene between the date when such petition is filed and the date for holding such state election; if that is less than 60 days, then the law must be submitted to the people at the next state election, unless it is repealed before then.
Next succeeding election at which the question may be voted upon by the voters of the entire state. Next statewide election unless a special election is called by the legislature or the governor for the express purpose of considering a referendum.
All 23 popular referendum states require a simple majority to pass a popular referendum. Five states impose an additional threshold. These states require that in addition to receiving a majority of the votes cast on the measure , those votes must be equal to or more than a specified percentage of the total votes cast in the election. This ensures that measures are not passed by a small minority of voters, either because of a low turnout election or ballot-drop off where voters only vote partway through a ballot.
The details for those states are below:. The legislature shall not have the power to repeal a referendum measure passed by a majority of the voters. Amending or diverting funds from a referendum measure requires a three-fourths vote of the members of each house of the legislature, and the amendment must further the purposes of the measure. NV Secretary of State.
Select a topic from the column at left in the above graphic for more information. Select a state in the map above to see state-specific information. In the indirect initiative process, a proposed initiative is referred to the legislature after proponents have gathered the required number of signatures. The legislature has the option to enact, defeat or amend the measure.
Depending on the legislature's action, the proponents may continue to pursue placement on the ballot for a popular vote. In three states Massachusetts, Ohio and Utah , proponents must gather additional signatures to place the measure on the ballot; in the others, it automatically goes to the ballot. States may limit the subject matter of ballot measures. States sometimes limit how soon a measure can be re-attempted. Aside from single-subject rules, seven states have no additional subject restrictions on what can be in initiatives: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah and Washington.
Other states vary when it comes to restrictions, ranging from specific vote thresholds on certain topics to disallowing certain issues. Some states limit the number of sections of code or the constitution that may be altered. Seventeen states have subject matter limitations other than the single-subject rule:.
Dedicate revenue, repeal appropriations, create courts, define court rules or jurisdictions, or enact local or special legislation. If includes expenditures, must also include sufficient increased revenue sources that cannot come from general fund. Measure provisions cannot be dependent upon meeting certain vote percentage.
And no measure that names an individual to hold office or names private corporation to perform any function. Amendments that propose a tax or fee not in place in November require a two-thirds vote to pass. ILCS Const.
State Board of Elections If there are insufficient state funds and the measure does not provide a source, it is effective 45 days after next regular legislative session.
Must contain only subjects that are related or mutually dependent. Cannot relate to: religion, the judiciary, specific appropriations, local or special legislation, the 18th amendment of the constitution, anything inconsistent with the Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Cannot stop emergency laws passed by the legislature or appropriations to support state departments or institutions.
Cannot "pass a law authorizing any classification of property for the purpose of levying different rates of taxation thereon or of authorizing the levy of any single tax on land or land values or land sites at a higher rate or by a different rule than is or may be applied to improvements thereon or to personal property.
Cannot dedicate revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the jurisdiction of courts, prescribe court rules, enact local or special legislation, or enact legislation prohibited y the Wyoming constitution.
Of course, in some of the above states, timelines concerning filing, signature gathering and deadlines for signatures and the indirect initiative process may impose limits not otherwise spelled out in statute.
Seven states impose explicit limits for how much time must pass before a measure is re-attempted, ranging from 12 months to five years:. Five years on any measure that is "substantially the same as that defeated by" the previous measure.
Most states require proponents of a proposed law to follow guidelines. These guidelines may include an application process, registering a certain number of sponsors, submitting the full text and an explanation of the measure, affidavits, the office or offices to file with, registering a proponent or opposition organization, campaign finance issues and the process for withdrawing an initiative. Seven states require filing an initial number of signatures or registering of sponsors as part of an application to fully circulate an initiative:.
Two states require proponents to file application materials with the lieutenant governor:. Five states require proponents to file application materials with the attorney general:. All 24 citizen initiative states require political organizations supporting or opposing a ballot measure—almost always considered political action committees—to follow state campaign finance laws. The following is not a legal, comprehensive list of every campaign finance law governing the initiative process in each state, but rather provides a starting guide of where to find relevant statutes:.
Nine states have an explicit process for withdrawal of an initiative from circulation:. Proponents may any time before measure qualifies for the ballot, days before the general statewide election.
File a letter with secretary of state, signed by designated representatives, no later than 60 days prior to the election.
In every state, petitions must follow guidelines, which vary by state. Petition sheets also always include space for signatures. Other requirements may include a legal warning, a statement that the petition circulator is paid, a summary of the proposed measure, the full text of the measure, the county or district where the signature was collected and more.
Details on who or which offices write the title and summary are listed below:. Title board, comprised of secretary of state, attorney general and director of the office of legislative legal services. Prepared by sponsor, approved by secretary of state. Attorney general writes title and summary if original is challenged in court. Attorney general certifies submitted title and measure and summary by secretary of state, with attorney general oversight. Statutes for petition contents for each state:.
Every state includes requirements for circulators operating in the state. Cannot have had a civil or criminal penalty for a violation of election code in the last five years; been convicted of treason or a felony and not restored civil rights; been convicted of any criminal offense involving fraud, forgery or identity theft.
Cannot in last five years have been convicted of a crime involving fraud, forgery, or identification theft or subject to a civil penalty due to an election offense. Gessler , the court upheld the requirement that a circulator present to the notary a specific type of identification. Clark Twenty-two states require circulators or proponents to sign affidavits or other sworn statements as to the accuracy or authenticity of the petitions:.
Several of these states require such information to be included on the signature petition sheets. Several states have or had statutory bans on paying circulators either per signature or in general. Most of these bans have been overturned by the courts. Furthermore, statutes allowing or requiring paying per signature have been overturned by the courts.
There has been one exception: The case Initiative and Referendum Institute v. Jaeger in North Dakota upheld the ban on paying per signature. All citizen initiatives require the collection of a certain number of signatures, although states vary in the number of signatures and the baseline used to determine that number.
Some states also include signatures to be gathered from across the state, although some of these requirements have been found to be unconstitutional. Every state also includes requirements as to how the authenticity of signatures are verified, and constitutional amendments often require more signatures than statutory changes. Some states have what's called an indirect initiative process. In these states, sponsors gather a smaller number of signatures to reach the first stage of qualification and, once enough valid signatures are gathered to meet this threshold, the initiative goes before the state legislature.
If the legislature enacts the proposal, no further petition takes place and the proposal becomes law. If the legislature fails to enact the proposal as written, sponsors then go through a second stage of signature gathering. Massachusetts, Ohio and Utah use this sort of process. Missouri and Nebraska have unique signature requirements.
In Missouri, signature requirements are based entirely on congressional districts. That means the total number of signatures required for ballot access will vary depending upon which congressional districts sponsors put together to reach the total of six. In Nebraska, the total number of signatures is based upon the total number of registered voters in the state.
Since the total number of registered voters is constantly changing, with new voters being added and ineligible voters being removed, that presents a dilemma for the state. The state must essentially pick a point in time at which to capture a snapshot of the total number of registered voters.
If the legislature does not enact the statute, another round of signatures is required equaling 0. To make it more difficult to place initiatives on the ballot and to ensure initiatives do not represent just the interests of heavily populated areas, some states have created a requirement that signatures be gathered from across the state. The criteria for these requirements vary wildly. States with geographic requirements using entities that are unequal in population, such as counties or even state legislative districts, are more likely to have the requirement challenged in court for example, see Montana.
Geographic entities based on U. House districts, which are required to be highly equal in population, have been ruled to be constitutional for example, see Nevada. Ten states do not have a geographic requirement; 14 states do. The maximum number of signatures counted from any individual congressional district is one-fifth of the total number required.
In each of two-thirds of the congressional districts, and each petition page must only contain signatures from a singular county. Original geographical requirement found unconstitutional. Revised statutes now require that signatures be equally collected among all the petition districts congressional districts.
This was held to be constitutional. For indirect statutory initiatives, signatures must be collected from at least 44 of 88 counties, equaling 1. States vary a great deal in how they verify collected signatures.
Most state statutes include some type of sampling, such as in the cases of Arizona A. Nine states do not include a process in statute for an individual to withdraw his or her signature. Most states only allow an individual to withdraw a signature before the official filing of the petitions. There are exceptions, such as in Mississippi, where someone can withdraw a signature if it was signed as a result of fraud, coercion, or being intentional mislead as to the substance or effect of the petition Miss.
Formal processes vary greatly, such as the requirement of a formal sworn statement in Missouri V. Indirect initiatives can require two rounds of signature gathering, so timelines and deadlines for these are more complex. In three states Massachusetts, Ohio and Utah , proponents must gather additional signatures to place the measure on the ballot after the first round. In the others, the measure goes directly to the ballot after it is submitted to the legislature.
Each state has a unique way of handling the timeline and deadline for signature gathering. Not more than 24 months for collection with a deadline of four months before the election, and by 5 p.
Unlimited, but if number of filed signatures is deemed insufficient, sponsors have 30 days to collect more. And must be filed four months before election. From official summary date by attorney general, days to collect and must be filed at least days prior to the next general election the measure is to be voted on. Six months to turn in signatures once petitions have been titled and certified for circulation, and filed no later than three months and three weeks before the election and made by 3 p.
Signatures are valid for two years, but a petition can circulate indefinitely, and filed at least 30 days before Feb. Eighteen months or until April 30 of the year of the next general election, whichever is earlier, for collection, and a deadline of May 1 in the year of the election that the initiative will appear on, or 18 months from the date the petitioner receives the official ballot title from the secretary of state, whichever is earlier.
Must also file with the secretary of state not less than four months before the election at which initiatives are to be voted on. Eighteen months, but cannot start collecting more than two years before the election, and a deadline of six months before the general election. One year for collection and must address written petition to the legislature. Signatures must be filed with the secretary of state by the 50th day of the first regular session or by the 25th day of the second regular session.
Signatures must be submitted no later than 18 months after the petition form was furnished by the secretary of state, and each signature is only valid for one year.
Must also be submitted to the appropriate officials of cities, towns or plantations, or state election officials as authorized by law, 10 days before it's due with the secretary of state. Constitution 48, Pt. Deadline of days before election for amendments; days before election and not less than 10 days before legislative session for statutes; and days to collect.
And no signature "collected prior to a November general election at which a governor is elected shall not be filed after the date of that November general election. Petitions are valid for one year, and deadline of 90 days before the first day of the legislative session. Eighteen months for collection, and then sponsors must submit signatures no later than six months before the election and can only start collecting the day after the previous general election.
One year, but proponents must submit to the county officials no sooner than nine months and no later than four weeks prior to the final deadline. For statute initiatives, no later than three months prior to the election the measure is to be voted upon, and must submit to the county officials no sooner than nine months and no later than four weeks prior to the final deadline. For direct constitutional amendments, it is nine months and three weeks.
For indirect statutory initiatives, it is roughly 11 months and two weeks. For direct constitutional amendments, a timeline beginning on Sept.
For indirect statutory initiatives, the timeline begins on Jan. One year after the petition is approved by the secretary of state for collection, and deadline of days before the election it is to be voted upon. No collection timeline except when collecting the second 3 percent of signatures of votes in last election for governor, the deadline is 90 days, and deadline of days before the election generally. For indirect statutory initiatives, after turning in original 3 percent of signatures, proponents must return next batch of signatures another 3 percent within 90 days of the legislature not enacting or amending a measure.
If the petition is insufficient, the sponsors have 10 extra days to collect more signatures. Ninety days from the date marking the beginning circulation for collection, as set by the secretary of state after public posting and chance for protest, and a deadline of 90 days from the official set date from the secretary of state. For collection, if the petitions were filed at least days before the election and the signatures are deemed insufficient, they may collect more, and deadline of four months prior to the general election.
Twelve months for collection, and no signatures may be obtained prior to 24 months before the general elections that it is to be voted upon. Signatures must be filed one year prior to the election. Collectors have days after the day on which the application is filed or the Feb. For direct initiatives, six months to collect submit proposed measure within 10 months with deadline to submit four months out from the general election.
For indirect initiatives, about nine months proposed measure submitted within 10 months of the session it is to be submitted at with a deadline of 10 days before the session. Some states offer no assistance or advice to initiative proponents on the draft of their proposed law. And, in some states, the review is purely technical; the proposal is reviewed to ensure it meets the legal requirements for format and style and adheres to drafting conventions. Just compare the strength of the process this time round with the state of things at the last referendum, which was a decade ago in , during that great year of celebrating years of the arrival of the First Fleet.
Last time round, a federal government put four referendum questions to the people and all four went down, generating historically low popular support. I suspect that most of you are like me and can't really remember what the four proposals were or indeed how you voted. Remember that the Hawke Labor government had been re-elected in for an unprecedented third term, and that was a very special year of national celebration of white settlement.
Well, more than two-thirds of us did say No, a record rebuff for any government at any referendum. Let me itemise ten grounds of hope that the referendum will break away from the traditional restraints on deliberative democracy. Consider this contrast with the experience. Last time round, the trigger for the referendum was the Final Report of the Constitutional Commission, an expert advisory body convened by Bob Hawke in and chaired by Sir Maurice Byers.
What they did not pick out were some of the recommendations about referendums: including the recommendation that state parliaments should be allowed to initiate constitutional referendums paragraph The timing of this referendum is also encouraging. It does not coincide with a general election where the fates of governments rest in the balance: nine of eighteen referendum outings have been at elections.
Referendums have a greater tendency to generate Yes votes when held separately from general elections; but at such referendums there is also a tendency for voters to stray from their traditional party loyalties.
Also reassuring is the free vote guaranteed by the Prime Minister to his coalition members: free from party direction, that is, but not free from intra-party bickering, as we have repeatedly seen. This deviation away from traditional forms of partisanship has reduced the usual form of referendum partisanship from a government versus Opposition struggle to a form that might make the process of change more palatable to the people. Also unusual and encouraging has been the March release of draft versions of the proposed changes to the Constitution.
Also unusual and reassuring was the establishment of the parliamentary inquiry into the referendum proposals. This committee, chaired with distinction by Liberal backbencher, Mr Charles, took evidence around Australia and its records and Report are a welcome sign that Parliament wants to deal itself back in as a proactive contributor to the whole process. Like many who gave evidence, I was impressed with the good will of the select committee and its chair to do their part to help reduce the deliberative deficit.
Another good thing about the referendum is that Parliament has amended the referendum law to overcome the severe limitations on public expenditure. The Commonwealth law has restrained the federal government but has never limited non-government expenditure by private individuals or groups or even by state governments.
At this referendum, in a once-only experiment, the law has been amended to permit the government to spend substantially more than any earlier referendum, and so generate a higher level of reliable information for the public. The High Court has affirmed that these type of anti-deception measures in Australian electoral and referendum law are quite narrow in their scope: the provisions prohibit only deception bearing on the placement of a formal vote in the ballot box, and are not designed to regulate political speech or attempts, however misleading, to form the judgment of electors.
This shows just how important it is that there be some public authority which can inject some balance into the public debate, to protect the community, and truth, against misleading and deceptive contributions from referendum partisans. There is yet another significant difference this time round. One of the greatest resources available at this referendum is not the ample amounts of money being fed into the national and government-appointed Yes and No committees, or the valuable work of the Australian Election Commission in making available to the public so much useful material on the proposed changes.
And it is not the remarkably busy websites of the two main camps: the Australian Republican Movement and Australians for a Constitutional Monarch. No, I am referring to the Constitutional Centenary Foundation CCF established in as a publicly-funded think tank to educate and inform Australians about the many issues surrounding the centenary of Federation, including but by no means confined to the issue of a change to an Australian republic.
Many of you will remember that special supplement of the Weekend Australian of 9—10 October dealing with the referendum. This was a good example of the excellent public information made available, in part because it made such prominent use of the CCF as an impartial source when evaluating the credibility of the Yes and No case.
Australian Federation grew out of widespread civic engagement. Few if any of the forty-two referendum proposals thus far have engaged the people in the same way. In part this sense of disengagement reflects the pessimism of Australian politicians who have not held voters in high regard. The referendum has given voters the opportunity to return the compliment. Referendums are about popular control, so it is no surprise that large sections of the mobilised public are gathering around the option of a directly-elected or popularly controlled President.
Speaking personally, I think that the direct election option has yet to face the test of sustained public investigation. This defect in detail is not as surprising as the very existence of the sustained support for direct election. Maybe the two are related and support for direct election will begin to fade as people see the potential power of big money and big centres of population, and the potential vulnerability of minority groups and the smaller states.
The big lesson of this referendum is that is has done more than any other single event to turn around our deliberative deficit. More still needs to be done. This experiment in deliberative democracy will help to throw light on what is missing in our referendum routines, where political debate gets weighed down with the posturing of personalities, equally adept at name-calling and the imputation of hidden motives. But Australia Deliberates can act as a circuit breaker.
So I conclude with the recommendation that we pay attention to the detailed workings of Australia Deliberates because its promoters believe the results will represent what the average Australian would think about an Australian Republic if they had the opportunity to deliberate thoroughly.
Would that all citizens had the same opportunity. Question — We have this rosy view that we're going through a more deliberative process, but the fact is that we're being forced to vote on a proposal that came out of a half-appointed lobby not fully elected, like the s ; a lobby that was managed and was factionalised and seemed to take on all those unfortunate characteristics that used to go on in that gloomy Old Parliament House.
Isn't that a failure of deliberation right at the start of this whole process? John Uhr — Yes. What I was suggesting was that the turning of the tide comes from us recognising—obviously, finally—the inadequacy of the system we now have, including the inadequacies to which you have drawn attention. But one has to nudge the system in one way or another.
Some people say that to vote No is the most positive inducement you can have to warn the system that you will no longer tolerate the sort of shallow-minded reformism that it's engaged in. I take another view, which is to vote Yes.
Give the system a chance to recognise that there's support for the symbolic changes attached to finally defining the head of state as an Australian citizen, to coincide with the centenary of Federation.
Admit that substantially that's not going to change unemployment, it's not going to change the bus timetable in the ACT, it's not even necessarily going to improve the state of our governmental system more broadly, but it certainly pushes the ConCon-type agenda, which itself has some momentum going. Vote No, and the risk is that you're just throwing sand in the gears of that momentum and there could be a loss of momentum, maybe even a dead stop.
Question — You didn't mention the question of polling and its influence on people. I know that's a convoluted and difficult matter, but I believe a lot of people are affected by published polls. In that connection, do you know if this deliberative affair in Old Parliament House will have its deliberations published, and whether that might or might not be a good thing?
I'm not questioning the deliberation as such, but if a result comes out, you can imagine the feeding frenzy of the media on that matter.
John Uhr — I think that's a very important question. There is a risk of over-reach in taking a sample; inviting people to Old Parliament House, polling their views before they enter—before they step on those steps—then polling their views and demonstrating the change.
It is a danger of over-reach that could go either way, dramatically indicating that, after two days of intensive exposure to the referendum activities plus lots of neutral material, there's a kind of chill of confusion setting in.
And the Australian community is then invited to ponder the lessons—that of us have entered that building and come out feeling even more confused. On the other hand it could go the other way—that the come out and there's a demonstration that, once confronted with an opportunity, not so much to hear, but to talk through with other ordinary citizens, they actually dramatically increase their interest.
The symbolism might take on the kind of vital quality that we didn't realise—that the Constitution as it now stands has no definition of who is the head of state. That we didn't realise there is actually uncertainty as to whether it was the Queen or the Governor-General, and that that's been made clear, and that now they're gung-ho. Yes, if that's all it's about—that it really is minimalism—let's go for it. So, at issue is a kind of danger of an exaggeration either way.
And then of course there's the other issue to which you rightly allude—should the rest of us then be herded by that result? Oh, this cumbersome compulsory voting that went in at the beginning to try to force voters to recognise they had obligations of citizenship, we should just bypass that. We should work out some way of sampling the community, invite them to come together, rub them up against the experts and give them a chance to actually work it through for themselves and the rest of us can say that they represent us.
In a way we do that with a lot of normal law and legislation. We allow Parliament to determine for us. But the crucial difference of course with this sort of sampling group is that somehow you trust the social science, that it somehow chose people in whom we can place our confidence.
I have a few doubts and reservations about the selection side of it all. Question — Is the selection process made public? John Uhr — I'd have to get the people from Australia Deliberates to address the integrity of their own processes.
I'm not sure how big the list was, but the list of respondents is now over three hundred, and it's a fascinating experiment. But one wouldn't want to invest too heavily in it as a replacement for everything that's good in our democracy. It just highlights the deficiencies.
Question — Would you like to explain the situation of the territories? John Uhr — One of the few changes to the referendum provision in the Constitution was one that the rest of Australia made for the people of the territories. We didn't have a chance to make the change in , to give us also the right to participate in referendums. Not as the constituent body of any particular state—because, by definition, those of us in the ACT and the Northern Territory don't belong to a state—so our vote counts as part of the national majority.
But from , at the time of the first referendum, to , we watched—well, we weren't there in —but we watched and took a keen observer's interest in the outcome. Then Australia kindly said that we could participate from , and since then we have had our own obligations to take care of. Question — We realise that the monarch doesn't have to be an Australian head of state, and neither does the Governor-General. If the No vote got up, and in order to have a Governor-General that was required to be an Australian citizen—would that have to go to referendum, or could that be legislated?
John Uhr — It could go either way. If you wanted it formally forever entrenched in the Constitution, it would have to go to a referendum, but it wouldn't be beyond the possibility of Parliament passing a law or resolution affirming the importance of always choosing an Australian.
At the moment, you can't find any reference to a head of state in the text of the Constitution, because it's not there. You certainly find recognition of the Queen and the Governor-General. The Queen's certainly not required to be an Australian citizen, and neither is the Governor-General. That's part of the moral energy that seems to be behind the Yes side of the case.
One of the saddest features of the referendum provision as it now stands is a recognition that women don't have to count—or, in fact, that they can count half as much as the rest of us. There's a compromise in the provision in the Constitution that says that at the time of Federation, South Australia and Western Australia were the only two states that had universal adult franchise guaranteeing women the right to vote.
The referendum will ask voters a question. There is often strong public debate on a referendum question. The results of a citizens initiated referendum are indicative only — they are not binding. A government initiated referendum can be held with a general election, at a stand-alone poll or by postal vote. The government must pass legislation to enable the referendum to be held, unless the referendum is conducted by postal vote.
The wording of the referendum question is decided as part of this legislative process. The legislation will also contain rules for advertising that supports or opposes the possible outcomes of the referendum, including caps on spending. When do I vote?
When are polls open? Who Represents Me? Congress special elections Governors State executives State legislatures Ballot measures State judges Municipal officials School boards. How do I update a page? Election results. Privacy policy About Ballotpedia Disclaimers Login.
Citizen initiatives Indirect initiative Legislative referrals Convention referrals. Citizen initiatives Indirect initiative Legislative referrals. Veto referendums; Part 1. View other episodes here.
0コメント