http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On October 6, Survey USA released a poll for the New Hampshire U.S. Senate race. It shows: Shaheen (Dem.) 48%, Sununu (Rep.) 40%, Blevens (Libt.) 7%, undecided 5%.

If Ken Blevens polls as much as 4%, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party will once again be ballot-qualified. It was ballot qualified between November 1990 and November 1996, back when the vote test was 3%. In 1997 the New Hampshire legislature raised the vote test to 4%, but expanded the vote test so that U.S. Senate would count, instead of just Governor. In the entire history of popular elections for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, no independent or minor party candidate for U.S. Senate ever polled as much as 4%, except that Blevens himself polled 4.53% for U.S. Senate in 1996. However, the 1997 law change was written so that Blevens’ polling over 4% in 1996 did not count toward making the party ballot-qualified.

In the entire nation, the best Libertarian showing in a U.S. Senate race with both a Democrat and a Republican in the race was in 2000 in Massachusetts, when Carla Howell polled 11.9%.

The reason I post this story at all is due to what I emphasized above. Many many people think that political rules are uniform and that the reason third parties don’t do better is purely due to lack of interest by the public.

As one can see here, likely as a result of Blevens doing well enough to make a significant impact on an election, the rules were made more strict. The Ds and Rs do their best to keep third parties as insignificant as possible by making asymmetrical laws which are completely biased in favor of those already in the majority. Worse still is the biased enforcement of those laws. Should the Ds and Rs break them the courts rule in favor of them. Should a third party, more often than not, they are ruled against. Take for instance the issues in Texas where the Ds and Rs submitted candidates after the deadline. The Barr campaign took it to court and lost. In West Virgina where the LP was unable to get enough signatures in time for the deadline but did within a few days was disallowed from the ballot. Then you have places like Pennsylvania where the Rs are suing to keep Barr off the ballot and Louisiana were the Socialist party and Libertarian Party were just bumped off. The former not being able to get back on.

I received my copy of The Official Massachusetts Information for Voters booklet in the mail today. Of interest to blog of bile readers would be the first two of three binding statewide questions that will appear on the Massachusetts ballot.

Question One Summary:

This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

Question Two Summary:

This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state’s criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse.

The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender’s parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding.

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol (“THC”), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one’s body.

Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.

The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.

Massachusetts voters are encouraged to visit the state’s Elections Division website for complete information pertaining to the questions on the ballot. The complete text of each question, along with arguments in favor and against, are provided. Voter registration and absentee ballot information can be found on their website as well.

A message from Carla Howell, The Committee for Small Government chair, on opening up the state budget books:

With this in mind, a rally to end the Massachusetts state income tax is planned for October 4th at Faneuil Hall in Boston.

http://www.boston.com/…

A group of antitax activists launched a campaign over the weekend to abolish the state income tax, setting the stage for a contentious public battle if the measure is added to the ballot this fall.After pushing a similar initiative that almost passed six years ago, a group called the Committee for Small Government is back for another round, asking voters to end the income tax and save the average taxpayer $3,600 a year. The group, led by libertarian Carla Howell, is almost certain to gather the 11,000 signatures needed to put a question on the November ballot.

To say that state officials are worried about the prospect would be an understatement.

Community, political, and business officials are grasping for words such as “chaos,” “devastating,” and “catastrophe” to describe the scenario that would unfold if the measure passes.

Six years ago, Beacon Hill didn’t pay much attention to what seemed to be a pie-in-the-sky campaign. Confident that voters would reject the plan as folly, no one even organized a campaign to fight it.

But it almost passed, gaining the support of 45 percent of voters.

A fledgling coalition of city and town officials and union officials hired former Blue Cross Blue Shield executive and civic leader Peter Meade to head a battle against the income tax cut, and is interviewing high-powered public relations firms. Their Coalition for Our Communities plans a fund-raising and public educational campaign to combat the allure of the tax-cutting measure, which would cost the state roughly $12.7 billion – about 40 percent of the budget.

Some political observers are expecting a public tax battle the likes of which has not been seen since Governor Michael S. Dukakis was in office.

“I think back to what happened in ‘89 or ‘90. I think this would be even more contentious and chaotic than that period,” said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, recalling the voter effort to overturn new taxes imposed under Dukakis. “This, I think, would usher in a similar kind of period because the scale of this is so enormous.”

How would the state cut $12 billion?

That’s three times the sum the state sends cities and towns for public schools. Laying off every state employee would only save about $5 billion, said Cam Huff, a private policy consultant who studies the state budget.

An initiative petition is intended to be binding if it passes, but the Legislature has found ways to buck the will of the people in the past. In 2002, lawmakers halted a gradual income tax rollback approved by voters two years earlier, prompting howls that they were bucking an edict from the populace. And though voters passed a ballot question in 1998 that called for publicly funded campaigns, the Legislature famously refused to pay for them. Continued…

I love the gloom and doom talk. I don’t doubt that the government would absolutely drop the ball if this passes. They aren’t any good at cutting back when not under pressure why should they be any better when they are? I like that they come out and just admit the reason they want state level taxation is wealth redistribution. They bring up examples that are really ridiculous like failure to plow the roads. I grew up in a very rural area. Only very major roads were plowed by the county. Random people would plow the other roads as necessary. It’s far more cost effective to have Jim down the road with his F350 plow the local roads.

Their New Hampshire neighbors to the north don’t have an income tax and they seem to do just fine even with all the NY, NJ and MA immigrants bringing their big government beliefs. I’m sure MA would be fine after everyone adjusted back to paying for things more directly.

http://www.boston.com/…

A proposal to abolish the state income tax received a surprising amount of support in the 2002 elections. Now, activists are reviving it, hoping to place it on next year’s ballot.

“I think our surprising and extraordinary vote in 2002 demonstrated that anything is possible, and people are going to take this much more seriously this time around,” said Carla Howell, who is leading the campaign to abolish the tax.

The proposal received 45 percent of the vote in 2002, despite critics’ warnings that it would plunge state government into chaos.

Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed budget watchdog group, said the proposal is “absolutely unreasonable” and would dry up state funding for education and healthcare. “The voters would rue the day. . . .  Essentially, she’s trying to repeal the 20th century,” Widmer said. Income taxes account for $10 or $11 billion of the state’s budget of about $27 billion, he said.

Howell — a former Libertarian candidate for US Senate, governor, and state auditor — said the cut would be a “huge benefit” for average people.

Hmmm education and healthcare… two things I definitely don’t want government involved in. ‘[R]epeal the 20th century’? New Hampshire seems to be doing fine without income taxes and state healthcare.