Opinion: Online petitions are Boulder’s next step in direct democracy


In last November’s election, Boulder voters passed a number of charter amendments related to Boulder’s elections. They mostly addressed the provisions related to direct democracy, which occurs through initiatives, referenda and recalls. Direct democracy ensures that when citizens are not satisfied with the actions of their elected representatives, they have independent paths on which to proceed. (So it’s clear, charter amendments can also be done through initiatives, but the rules are in state law and cannot be changed locally.)
The initiative process, referenda and recalls have long been paper processes: Citizens first write up what they want to do. City staff members then review the draft and provide technical feedback. Then the final version is printed, typically over a hundred copies, and circulated by regular citizens or paid circulators for months to get the requisite number of signatures.
Gathering signatures has gotten harder, as many private property owners seem less willing to allow signature gathering on their property. Fewer people seem to have the time to volunteer, but shifting to paid circulators is financially taxing and fundamentally anti-democratic. And as our population expands, the required numbers just go up, although recent charter changes reduced those somewhat. For initiatives, it is now 10% of the average number of voters in the last two city elections — still over 3,000 signatures
This process could fundamentally change due to an amendment to Charter Section 38 that states, “Electronic petitions and on-line electronic signing or endorsement of petitions may be allowed as permitted by the Boulder Revised Code.” To investigate the options, the City Council first evaluated Denver’s system of using tablet computers that were wirelessly integrated with the city’s voter database, so that voters’ registration could be instantly checked when someone signs. But this turned out to be quite expensive and had potential security issues.
So the City Council is now exploring online electronic endorsement as a simpler, easier, faster and more accessible way for most people to read, consider and possibly endorse citizen petitions. One idea is that you would sign onto a secure website using your name, address, zip code and birthday. Then, to verify your identity, you would use the last four digits of your social security number or your driver’s license number.
To see how this works, go the Colorado secretary of state’s website, sos.state.co.us, click on Elections and Voting, then Voters, then Manage my Registration – Change Party Affiliation. (Don’t worry, you can hit Cancel and not actually change anything.) To sign a petition, once your identity is verified, you would instead click on a new category called Petitions, which would take you to all the state, county and city petitions you could sign based on your address. You could review the full language and possibly a summary and pro/con statements, and then decide whether to click on a box to endorse a particular petition. This is a way better way to make an informed decision than being given a spiel by a paid signature gatherer in a parking lot when your arms are full of groceries or whatever. (Note that this system does not require you to actually sign anything. So the city clerk does not have to physically compare signatures to those in the county database, another efficiency.)

One concern I’ve heard expressed is that this will make it too easy to do initiatives, and so there will be too many on the ballot. But there are ways to deal with this: For example, the council could start by requiring, say, 25% of the signatures to be on paper petitions, and then correct up or down. Or they could test the concept with advisory initiatives, which would not have the power of law. Or they could raise the required number of signatures if too many are filed.
Another issue is security, but that is a relative matter. This system certainly appears more secure than one where circulators can scribble some signature and hope the forgery isn’t noticed during the review. Remember, this is not voting — it’s just getting something on the ballot. I have gathered lots of signatures for multiple initiatives, and this online approach seems far better.
The only real question I see is whether the secretary of state will host this right away, or whether it starts off being hosted locally and only for local initiatives. That depends on exactly how the city or county can access the secretary of state’s voter database for this purpose. So, I hope Boulder moves forward expeditiously, and provides the citizens this tool for direct democracy.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more