LIBERAL STATE SENATORS TRAMPLE PETITION RIGHTS

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.
Now, two bills and one resolution introduced into our 2007 legislature are poised to trample our petition rights. LB 39 would prevent petition campaigns from paying petition circulators per signature collected and require them to be Nebraska registered voters. Such law would make it more difficult to recruit circulators and cost campaigns additional regulatory expense and paperwork. LB 40 would force petition circulators to wear numbered badges, though a Colorado court invalidated such a law because of privacy and harassment concerns. Failure to wear a badge would constitute a misdemeanor. Wearing such badges would cost campaigns an added expense and expose circulators to increased harassment. During the Stop Overspending campaign, which our taxpayer group supported, goons harassed and intimidated circulators to stop them from collecting signatures and intimidated those wanting to sign. LR 8CA would require 15%, instead of 10%, of state registered voters to sign initiative petitions for proposed constitutional amendments, making it almost impossible to place grass-roots issues on the ballot. These proposals constitute mere revenge by those who fear fiscal issues like Stop Overspending placed on the ballot by petition and want to guarantee their future failure. Instead of punishing out of state entities that assist Nebraska petition campaigns, critics will only punish Nebraskans by gutting another freedom.
The single subject clause already inhibits placing an initiative on the ballot, because the enacting amendment never defined single subject, so courts can conjure whatever definition they wish. 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. In 1994, a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling almost doubled the number of signatures required for fulfilling initiative petition requirements. Finding it more difficult to muster sufficient volunteers to gain the newly-required number, plus other restrictions, petition campaigns increasingly resorted to hiring paid circulators and out of state companies to assist. Then came a requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment could not go before voters by initiative petition more often than once in 3 years. Accumulating hurdles have made it impossible in many instances to rely on a pool of volunteer circulators, much needed in this labor-intensive activity. So difficult is waging a successful venture that obstacles dissuade some from donating or circulating. Campaigns must raise huge war chests to pay circulators or forego petitioning. Ironic that petition critics condemn paid circulators and out of state logistical assistance, both resulting from their previous victories in curtailing petition rights. As restrictions have increased, more petitions have failed ballot access, e.g., two taxpayer initiative petitions in 1996 and 4 taxpayer petitions in 2004. 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. Eradicating this freedom will only encourage them to snuff another.
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 grievances, etc. via petition, we will have lost a lawful means of political expression. Restoring the process to make it easier for Nebraska citizens to circulate petitions as volunteers, instead of extinguishing the petition process, would offer them incentive to become politically involved and keep elected officeholders accountable to the electorate.
Make an effort today to lobby your state senator to vote NO on the above 3 travesties. Freedom does not come free!

TERM LIMITS SHOULD STAY

State Sens. Ernie Chambers, Dennis Byars, and Marian Price have joined to file a lawsuit in District Court in Lincoln, NE. to overturn the term limits clause placed in our state constitution by a majority of Nebraskans, who have voted 3 times to restrict state senators to 2 terms. These 3 senators show the typical liberal attitude of thinking that they know better than us rabble who go to the polls. They seem insulted that we refuse to acknowledge them as our bosses. These term limits toxins are only wasting taxpayer dollars by requiring our Att.-Gen. to defend term limits in court. Now is the time for angry taxpayers to show their entitled contempt for these tax & spend senators. Write a letter to your local newspaper, call in to a local radio talk show, or simply write or email your opinion to these 3. See our web site at www.netaxpayers.org for more details about how you can contact and defend term limits from the arrogant elitists.

No Pay Raises for State Senators

Once again, liberals want to raise the salaries for state senators, from $12,000 to $21,000 annually, a 75% pay increase. How many of us have received 75% pay hikes lately?? Proponents now make the same argument they made for their case during the last pay hike campaign, that an increased salary would bring us better qualified and more dedicated candidates. Yet, taxes and spending both have exploded since that time. We must fight this pay grab until state senators rein in spiraling taxes and spending. From 2004 to 2005, Nebraska rose from 14th to 8th highest taxed state in the nation. Nebraska in 2004 ranked next to highest among all adjacent states in appropriations per $1,000 of personal income and per capita. Career politicians have not served taxpayers well. Senators purposely placed the pay raise proposal on the 2006 primary ballot, knowing that fewer citizens vote in primary elections.
Citizen legislators should offer public service, even at a financial sacrifice, for only a few years and then return to live under the same laws they themselves have passed for others.

Bully on the Block

Not content with suing the taxpayers of Nebraska in order to find a friendly judge to order the State to ladle out more state aid for its wanton spending, the Omaha Public $chool board now threatens to sue local government in an attempt to bite off large chunks of neighboring school district territory. The OP$ public relations machine, as usual, wraps its aggression in warm phrases like, its "for the kids," to allow all the children within the city limits of Omaha to share in a wonderful environment of multiculturalism, non-sexism, and a sorry curriculum that produces the lowest standardized test scores in the metro area. Board members are seemingly oblivious that thousands of Omaha parents have voted with their feet to reside in other-than OP$ school districts. Transparent is that OP$ motivation stems from 2 objectives, 1) to gorge itself on property valuation-rich territory to fuel more tax revenues, and 2) to raise its overall test scores, so that it does not lose federal funding under the No Child Left Behind requirement that financially penalizes persistent low scores. Contact your state senator today to pass legislation prohibiting annexation of other school district territory without a vote of the people.

TAXPAYERS BETRAYED

During many years in politics, I have survived both verbal and physical attacks, but, just like the Energizer Bunny, I keep on hopping along. What really hurts me most in politics is when a candidate or politician is disingenuous with me or lies about his intentions regarding taxes and spending. A recent prime example is Omaha City Councilman Franklin Thompson, who in 2001 solemnly pledged himself a fiscal conservative, someone who would be a “change agent” for budgetary responsibility.
Safely elected, he proceeded to suggest a library tax, garbage tax, and public safety tax. He engineered an infamous budget compromise that offered inflationary city employee raises conveniently delayed until after the next election. All burdens on property taxpayers.
Obviously not a fiscal conservative, Thompson showed his true character colors in his shameful memo to fellow Councilman Frank Brown, in which he tried to cut a sleazy mutual deal for council leadership positions: boasting about his support and votes for liberal causes, a deal to deflect criticism from his white, West Omaha Republican constituents. That he would have to “use” his future votes to regain credibility. That he may switch to the Democrat Party. Hardly an agent for change, Thompson has proved himself a deceitful, untrustworthy politician. Not someone worthy of re-election.
Email ncf@phonet.com for directions to see the entire memo.