Home :: History of NI4D :: Act (annotated)

Act, Section 4-C

The members of the Interim Board, hereby appointed, are the highest elected official (e.g., Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State) responsible for the conduct of elections from each of the fifty states and Puerto Rico and the highest official responsible for the conduct of elections from the District of Columbia and the Territories of the United States. The responsibility and authority of this initial Board shall be confined to establishing policy and oversight for the registration of each citizen of the United States eligible to vote on an initiative, and establishing policy and oversight for the election of the members of the Board of Trustees.

Parrish Report

On September 16th, 2002 dparrish says:

As explained on page 2 herein, referring to Section 2 of the Democracy Amendment, an Interim Board of Directors will be appointed in accordance with this Act. This temporary Board will have strictly limited powers. Their policy and oversight responsibilities start and end with the conduct of the first national election to elect the members of the Board of Trustees. In such time as they may have available during that period, they will be expected to employ their expertise as election officials to establish policies and oversee the commencement of the lifetime registration of citizens of the United States qualified to vote under the Act.

Feedback from the 2002 Democracy Symposium

On August 13th, 2008 jpritikin says:

At the time of the Symposium in 2002, the interim board was to be selected as follows:

The trustees of the Electoral Trust for the first few years consist of representatives from 25 to 50 nationally recognized civic organizations, foundations, and nonprofit corporations. The list of such organizations has not yet been developed. The Board of Directors of each of the organizations will choose its representative. In order to participate, the organization must enact a resolution acknowledging their understanding of First Principles, their acceptance of the mission of the Electoral Trust, and a pledge to empower U.S. citizens.

Jacob, 2002, p. 7 wrote:
It is difficult to address the make up of the Board of Trustees without knowing what organizations will be allowed representations, but the general approach strikes me as too “insider” to pass muster with the public. A better approach would be to hold simultaneous elections along the same lines as the election process for the National Initiative for Democracy.

Stern & Holman, 2002, pp. 9-10 wrote:
What are the criteria that will be used to select the organizations that choose the original members of the Electoral Trust? What happens if a respected organization, such as the League of Women Voters, declines to participate? An alternative might be to have the Governor of each state pick the original members.

Allen, 2002, p. 15 wrote:
... plainly this list will generate a firestorm from the thousands of groups that are excluded, and raise the question why this particular set is being favored. If the point really is trust in the people’s judgment, why not call for national elections for service as Trustee?

The difficulties here were solved by adopting a solution from an older draft of the Act. Listen to the suggestion (1m 22s).