An open letter to the citizens of California
Author of the "Divorce Ban" speaks out on the initiative process
John Marcotte, Guest Contributor | Tue, 06/08/2010 - 10:04am | Login to bookmark or commentEditor's note: Marcotte's 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act got approval last November from the California Secretary of State to seek signatures in an attempt to place his "divorce ban" initiative on the this November's ballot. His frustration in the system mounted as his quest for the 700,000 signatures required failed - but he has not lost his resolve.
California's ballot-initiative process is broken beyond repair—at least that's what ABC 7 in Los Angeles and San Francisco concluded last year when they labeled me, “the poster child for abuse of the ballot-initiative system.” They didn't care for the initiative I filed, which would have banned divorce in the state of California.
Somehow, they got the impression that I was mocking Proposition 8; that I was using the political process to point out the hypocrisy of people who were eager to take rights away from gay people to protect “traditional marriage,” but were completely unwilling to give up their own rights to make marriage even more secure.
Even if that were true, the idea that I am abusing the system is absurd. I have no powerful or moneyed interests backing my cause. I gathered people to me on Facebook. I financed the effort with t-shirt sales. All of my signature gatherers were volunteers. I am an ordinary citizen. My cause is populism at its best.
The ballot initiative was designed to put power into the hands of the people and that is exactly how we used it. We were doing it right—which is ultimately why we failed. If you want to see real abuse of the system, just look at your ballot on June 8th.
Look at Proposition 16. The deceptively titled “Taxpayer's Right to Vote Act” is actually backed by more than $46 million from PG&E. Instead of empowering voters, Prop 16 would actually take their rights away—giving a minority the power to veto the creation or expansion of municipal power, and eliminating competition in the marketplace.
Study the Mercury Insurance-backed Proposition 17, which would enable insurance companies to levy outrageous surcharges to customers who have had a lapse in their coverage. Mercury claims the initiative will actually allow them to give increased discounts to drivers who maintain continuous coverage. Does anyone honestly believe that Mercury just
California's ballot-initiative process is broken beyond repair—at least that's what ABC 7 in Los Angeles and San Francisco concluded last year when they labeled me, “the poster child for abuse of the ballot-initiative system.” They didn't care for the initiative I filed, which would have banned divorce in the state of California.
Somehow, they got the impression that I was mocking Proposition 8; that I was using the political process to point out the hypocrisy of people who were eager to take rights away from gay people to protect “traditional marriage,” but were completely unwilling to give up their own rights to make marriage even more secure.
Even if that were true, the idea that I am abusing the system is absurd. I have no powerful or moneyed interests backing my cause. I gathered people to me on Facebook. I financed the effort with t-shirt sales. All of my signature gatherers were volunteers. I am an ordinary citizen. My cause is populism at its best.
The ballot initiative was designed to put power into the hands of the people and that is exactly how we used it. We were doing it right—which is ultimately why we failed. If you want to see real abuse of the system, just look at your ballot on June 8th.
Look at Proposition 16. The deceptively titled “Taxpayer's Right to Vote Act” is actually backed by more than $46 million from PG&E. Instead of empowering voters, Prop 16 would actually take their rights away—giving a minority the power to veto the creation or expansion of municipal power, and eliminating competition in the marketplace.
Study the Mercury Insurance-backed Proposition 17, which would enable insurance companies to levy outrageous surcharges to customers who have had a lapse in their coverage. Mercury claims the initiative will actually allow them to give increased discounts to drivers who maintain continuous coverage. Does anyone honestly believe that Mercury just
