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

Act, Section 4-F-4

The Electoral Trust shall establish the means, procedures and regulations to facilitate the communication of timely, comprehensive, balanced, and pertinent information on the subject matter of each initiative, which information shall be conveyed to the citizens of the relevant jurisdiction by various media, including radio, television, print, and the Internet and/or other electronic media. The Electoral Trust shall establish and maintain a web site for each qualified initiative that will contain, at a minimum, a summary of the Hearing Record, the report of the Deliberative Committee, the result of the Legislative Advisory Vote, statements prepared by the Sponsor, other proponents and opponents, and a balanced analysis prepared by the Electoral Trust of the pros and cons of the initiative, its societal, environmental, and economic implications, costs and benefits.

Comparison with State Initiative Law

On June 23rd, 2009 jpritikin says:

NI4D goes far beyond existing state initiative law in disseminating information about initiatives. "A majority of the initiative states distribute a voter pamphlet. Several states also inform the electorate about ballot measures through publication in major newspapers with some states using both methods. States that use the newspaper as their medium for voter information use a variety of styles and formats. Some states will publish the entire initiative text in the newspaper; most publish an impartial analysis along with an argument for and against" (Waters, 2003, p. 24).

Parrish Report

On September 16th, 2002 dparrish says:

Knowledge is the key prerequisite to good legislative deliberation and offers the best opportunity for a commonsense judgment by a lawmaker. The Democracy Act is designed to provide the voter with the most complete and objective information possible so that the voter will have sufficient knowledge about the initiative to render a competent judgment. This information is provided entirely at government expense, as is the case for representative legislative bodies. This information will be communicated to the voters in a timely manner using a variety of media and taking advantage of available technologies.

When an initiative is qualified for election, the Electoral Trust will create a web site for that initiative to which any member of the public may refer to determine the initiative's status and to review the information compiled to date on that initiative by the Electoral Trust. The Hearing Report, the report of the Deliberative Committee, the results of the Legislative Advisory Vote, and other information about the initiative will be posted to the web site as soon as they become available. Thirty days prior to the election of each initiative, the Electoral Trust will commence a public information campaign using television, radio, and/or print media; plus a pamphlet mailed to each household in the relevant jurisdiction, to summarize in a balanced and objective manner all the information assembled about the initiative.

Feedback from the 2002 Democracy Symposium

On August 13th, 2008 jpritikin says:

Jacob, 2002, p. 7 wrote:
While providing information to voters is positive, the apparent desire of the Electoral Trust to be the primary source of information is unrealistic. Numerous initiative states provide voters’ pamphlet and booklets as well as public hearings and other communications, but voters continue to take their cues from the “independent” media, proponents and opponents.

Admittedly, no states currently produce TV and radio ads, but the idea that the Electoral Trust would advertise enough to seriously compete with supporters and opponents is actually much more troubling. Such a system makes the Electoral Trust a political force unto itself, with no controls on the message conveyed. The Democracy Act says that “fair and balanced” information will be presented, but no two people are likely to agree that a certain message is truly “fair and balanced.” After the experiences initiative activists have had with government officials who claim to be fair and balanced, this provision could make the National Initiative for Democracy anathema to its otherwise most likely enthusiasts.

For a rebuttal, refer to communication in the context of deliberative polling (12m 29s) and Fishkin (2009).

Stern & Holman, 2002, pp. 8-9 wrote:
A ballot pamphlet containing useful information about the initiative is vital to making the program work. Who mails the pamphlet? Does it contain all the initiatives on the ballot for the election, or is it tailored by jurisdiction to the voter’s residence?

San Francisco permits supporters and opponents of ballot measures to include their own statements in the ballot pamphlet for a small fee. These are in addition to the statements by the proponents and opponents.

This suggestion was adopted by removing specific minutia from the Act and broadly empowering the Electoral Trust to establish appropriate procedures.

Jacob, 2002, p. 7 wrote:
Lastly, the provision that Electoral Trust materials would only be in English will under-serve an increasingly significant segment of the voting public. If materials are to be produced, they should not be limited to English, but be in any language necessary to communicate with every significant segment of the population.

Stern & Holman, 2002, p. 9 wrote:
Why is information regarding initiatives only made available in English? In many states, voters are more comfortable receiving information in other languages.

This suggestion was adopted by omitting mention of any language. The Electoral Trust is free to provide communication in whichever languages are preferred by the voters in a particular jurisdiction.