The State of Oregon produces a 'voters' pamplet' which provides dates for registration and voting. instructions on how to vote, voter rights, common questions, how to file a complaint, ballot drop boxes etc. 1. It provides for a 'political party statement' for general elections. We have Constitutional, Independent, Libertarian, Democratic, Republican, Pacific-Green Party this year. 2. lists the candidates for every office ( actually its a slightly different voters pamplet depending on what city/county you live in) on your ballot from President to the local city water bureau or library board. The candidates are listed in random order consistent with the ballot itself, with party affiliation for partisan elections, and no party affiliation for non-partisan. Each candidate is provided a half page to self advertise and promote itself. The candidate must pay for the space. Some information much like a job application, is required to be included by law and is certified for accuracy, including current occupation, occupational background, education, and prior government experience. The rest of the space can include a 2 inch x 2 inch photo( no larger) and whatever propaganda the candidate chooses to fill it with which is NOT fact checked. 3. Lists of measures state, county or city ordinance your ballot includes. Each measure has: a) a ballot title and number drafted by the AG's office b) an estimate of financial impact prepared by committee including Secretary of State, Treasurer, director of administrative services, Dept of Revenue, legislative revenue office, with public comment etc to estimate the impact on state economy and govt finances and report. The process used is subject to appelate court review but not the actual content of the statement. c) complete text of the measure, d) explanatory statement impartially drawn by committee of five: 2 proponents of the measure, 2 opponents of the measure and 1 appointed by the other four. this statement is subject to appelate review if members disagree. e) and a series of measure arguments ( Propaganda statements pro first, then con) submitted by literally anyone or any group that can pay the $1200 fee or submit 500 names. They can say virtually anything . What does your voters pamplet include? How is it structured? How is it paid for? How would you change it?
I do not think that the state of Texas has a Voter's Pamphlet, But I still have my copy of the Citizens Rule Book That Jimmie Vaughan gave to me back in 2002.
IDK if we have an official state one or not but the local paper usually does features on what will be on the ballot the sunday before and then on election day (not that a lot of people take the paper these days). We have a few Constitutional amendments, the federal offices, and then a special local election. I may just vote on the amendments and the local stuff. May not even vote for any of the federal office candidates. So disillusioned with it all.
guys you would know if you saw it. Its produced by your state govt, usually by the secretary of state's office to correspond to the election ballot. it is designed to be a reader friendly aide to the candidates, measures, and the voting process itself. It gets mailed or posted online, and its called the voters, guide, the voters pamplet, or something like that a valuable link. https://ballotpedia.org/Official_voter_guides_to_2020_statewide_ballot_measures. The state of Washington requires a list of the tax measures (called advisory votes because the state is obliged to put them up as non binding advisory referendum. each state legislator voted for and against in the prior session included. I like it. Alaska provides a map of each state House and Senate district and each candidate gets a full page they can fill. There is a photo sample of how each measure looks visually on the actual ballot for voters to compare. The estimate of governmental costs is broken down very specifically by each agency affected. But they appear to have only one pro and one con argument for each measure. Wow look at this addition to solve the problem of voters having no idea how to decide on whether to retain specific judges in Arizona. " In 1974, Arizona voters decided that for Arizona’s Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and Superior Courts in counties with populations over 250,000, or by vote determined by qualified electors of counties with a population of less than 250,000, judges would be appointed by the Governor from a list of qualified candidates. The Arizona Constitution directs commissions to nominate candidates based primarily on their merit, with consideration given to the diversity of Arizona’s population. Arizona voters then periodically vote whether to retain these judges as their terms expire. This system is known as Merit Selection and Retention. Currently judges in Coconino, Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties are part of the Merit Selection and Retention system. JPR Commission Evaluations & Report Created by a constitutional amendment, the 34-member JPR Commission conducts standards-based performance evaluations of judges. Most of the JPR Commissioners are public members, not lawyers or judges. JPR reports its results to the public. This report provides JPR Commission findings, survey results, and states whether each judge in a retention election “meets” or “does not meet” judicial performance standards. Judicial Performance Standards The JPR Commission evaluates each judge up for retention election to assess the judge’s: • Legal Ability: Decides cases based on applicable law, demonstrating competent legal analysis. • Integrity: Free from personal bias. Administers justice fairly, ethically, and uniformly. • Communication Skills: Issues prompt and understandable rulings and directions. • Judicial Temperament: Dignified, courteous, and patient. • Administrative Performance: Manages courtroom and office effectively. Issues rulings promptly and efficiently " Here's what shows up on each judge. THUMMA, SAMUEL A. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2012 JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS 33 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners did not vote* Judicial Performance Surveys Attorney Responses Superior Court Judge Responses Legal Ability Integrity Communication Skills Judicial Temperament Administrative Performance 96% 99% 97% 98% 96% 97% 100% N/A N/A 97%.
We get sample ballots, cost impacts are on the ballot. But our ballot includes multiple races that am not eligible to vote in, which is bad because in the process of skipping the useless parts, you end up skipping over one that you shouldn't, then you are unprepared when you go there. Our amendments have been rarely discussed on the local news, including a big one on minimum wage. I'd say ballot/info wise we do a 7 out of 10 so there could be improvements.
There is no effort by your state to mail you something to explain what all that legalese in your amendments means?
the legalese is pretty clear on the ballot. for example, here's the min wage amendment. I thought it was a big deal but the news didn't/doesn't seem to care much about it at all.
No that is not the legalese. Its the summary or explanation, Its not the wording of amendment itself.
There was more provided, I just pasted the description from the sample ballot. I personally didn't find it to be difficult to follow.
