|
| |
ADVERTISEMENT
|
| |
 |
| Related Stories |
• I crown thee, Sir Loin of Beef 3/29/09
|
| |
| CONTACT THE HERALD |
Robert Frank, City Editor
frank@heraldnet.com |
| |
Published: Sunday, March 29, 2009
500 words not enough to explain
By Jerry Cornfield, Herald Columnist
In the next couple of days, Democratic lawmakers will detail how they plan to erase a projected $9 billion state budget deficit.
There'll be federal aid and a pay freeze, layoffs and less access to state services imposed to cover at least half the amount.
And expect to find education, health care and safety net programs wounded or wiped out in a crush of nicks and cuts in spending to make up the rest.
For the state, painful change will result, at least for a short time.
For our democracy, it may be permanent.
Secretary of State Same Reed is looking to save $77,000 by trimming the page count of state- issued voter pamphlets. To do that he wants to limit the length of analyses provided of initiatives and referendum. (Pro and con statements won't change.)
Today, fiscal statements by the Office of Financial Management and explanatory ones by the Attorney General accompany each measure and run as short or long as needed.
Proposed legislation would impose a 500-word cap on each of these statements so they can run on a single page.
Such a move could leave voters less informed on complex, convoluted and constitutional measures put before them.
Really, are 500 words enough to explain a Tim Eyman initiative?
It wasn't last year with Initiative 985 on fighting congestion and the use of red light cameras.
Two charts and 1,356 words were needed to sketch its economic effects. The AG's office took 1,190 words to lay out what existing laws would get revised.
It required lots of words to describe the other measures on the 2008 ballot as well.
For Initiative 1000, the Death with Dignity Act, it took 195 words to spell out the economic impacts and 1,220 to explain how assisted suicide would become legal.
With the health care training measure, Initiative 1029, the fiscal report ran 680 words and the legal explanation another 1,281.
The Office of Financial Management is concerned it can't always cram clarity into 500 words. It seeks a higher limit of 750 words.
Either way, this revision carries political ramifications worthy of Democrats' attention if they use the ballot to ease the pain of budget cuts.
Voters count on the pamphlet for fair and balanced analyses to counter the cacophony of claims that they must endure throughout a campaign.
That won't differ with a word limit as voters won't know what, if anything is left out because of some newly required conciseness.
Democrats may find themselves frustrated by a cap if it means putting a tax measure on the ballot then finding out there's too little space to explain how the money will be spent.
Wary voters will be a hard sell anyway. Democrats would count on clear and complete ballot explanations to help educate them out of their wariness. Too few words could breed confusion, and worse, suspicion.
That's why ignoring this little cut might make solving the budget balancing equation more difficult.
(Note: This column is exactly 500 words.)
Political reporter Jerry Cornfield's blog, The Petri Dish, is at www.heraldnet.com. He can be heard at 8:15 a.m. Mondays on "The Morning Show on KSER (90.7 FM). Contact him at 360-352-8623 or jcornfield@heraldnet.com.
|