Fate of Ballot Measures Often Depends on the Wording

投票提案的命运往往取决于其措辞

【译者按：投票提案，也就是全民公投，是加州（和其他州）的公民参与立法的重要渠道。本文分析选票上对提案的用词，摘要的选择，经常影响一个公投是否成功。因此这也是公投的支持方和反对方对薄公堂的常见争论。】

Stateline.org examines the priorities of the people who write the language describing proposals on ballots. Sometimes, it’s more than simply making it clear.

Stateline网站对投票上的提案撰写人的优先事项进行了检测。有时候，这不仅仅把事情说清楚这么简单。

CAROLINE COURNOYER   |   2012年3月9日

Stateline特约撰稿人Josh Goodman

Just a couple of months ago, Dan Pellissier was leading an effort to ask California voters to overhaul the state’s public retirement system. The ballot initiative campaign looked like it had momentum, with polls showing a majority of Californians in support of pension changes. The stage appeared set for a November showdown between fiscal conservatives and public employee unions.

就在数月前， Dan Pellissier正忙于领导寻求加利福尼亚州选民改革该州公共退休制度的工作。此投票倡议活动看起来势头强劲，根据民意调查显示，大多数加利福尼亚民众支持养老金改革。该计划原定于11月在财政保守派和公共雇员工会之间决以较量分出胜负。

Then, says Pellissier, just as the campaign was gearing up to begin collecting signatures to gain a spot on the ballot, it came to a screeching halt in the office of California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

然而，Pellissier声称，正当民意活动开始收集签名以获得在选票上有一席之地时，却突然被加州总检察长Kamala Harris办公室的举动踩了急刹车。

Harris didn’t kick the initiative off the ballot or challenge it in court. Instead, her office played a seemingly technical role. In California, the attorney general is responsible for writing the summary that petitioners use when they gather signatures to place an initiative on the ballot. For initiatives that qualify, the attorney general comes up with the words voters see in the voting booth.

Harris并未将此倡议从选票中剔除，也没有通过司法提出质疑。相反，她的办公室似乎扮演了技术性角色。在加州，请愿人收集民众签名以获取在选票上提出倡议事项，而州检察长则负责编写此倡议摘要这一工作。对于符合条件的倡议，州检察长将撰写选民在投票纸上看到的文字。

Pellissier, who heads a group called California Pension Reform, thinks that Harris’s ballot summary for the initiative was false, misleading and prejudicial — all in under 100 words. The summary says the initiative “reduces pension benefits for current and future public employees.” Pellissier says it made workers contribute more of their own money, but the benefits would have been the same. The summary mentions that “teachers, nurses, and peace officers” will be affected, groups Pellissier argues present public workers in their most sympathetic light. The summary says the initiative “prohibits public retirement systems from providing death or disability benefits to future employees,” but, Pellissier notes, it doesn’t mention that the measure also would have authorized those benefits to be offered outside of retirement systems.

负责领导“加利福尼亚养老金改革”组织的Pellissier认为，Harris对该计划的选票摘要是虚假，带有误导和偏见性的——全部反映于不到100个字的遣词造句中。该摘要如是说，此计划“减少了当前和将来公职人员的养老金。” Pellissier则称，这使得雇员们自己出钱更多，但其收益最终却是一样的。摘要还指出，“老师，护士和和治安警员”人群将受到影响，而他们被Pellissier认为是目前公职人员中最值得同情的。摘要还指出，此倡议“禁止公共退休系统向将来的雇员提供死亡或伤残津贴”，但是，Pellissier反驳，摘要并没有说明该提案将授权退休系统之外的方式来提供这些福利。

The Attorney General’s office maintains that the summary is truthful and fair. Opinion writers across the state, though, castigated Harris, a Democrat who was backed by public employee unions in her narrow 2010 election victory. To Pellissier, it was game, set and match.

而州检察长办公室却认为，摘要是真实且公正的。不过，全州上下媒体舆论则集体谴责了Harris，她作为民主党人，在2010年大选中因公职人员工会的支持而以微弱优势获胜。对于Pellissier来说，他面对的则是“盘、局、比赛”（网球比赛术语，寓意环环相扣，步步为营，一步错，满盘皆输）。

California Pension Reform could have tried to challenge the summary in court, but that would have delayed the signature-gathering process and potentially made the challenge moot. Instead, with their fundraising weakened, supporters abandoned the initiative. “Writing a summary shouldn’t be that hard,” says Pellissier, “and be that controversial.”

“加州退休金改革”组织本可以尝试在法庭上对摘要进行质疑，但这将延迟签名收集过程，并有可能使该质疑无实际意义。相反，由于筹款活动减弱，支持者们放弃了该倡议。Pellissier回应：“写个摘要不应该那么难，也不该引发如此争议。”

Words Matter

措辞至关重要

Often, though, it is. This kind of quarrel is nothing new for California or for many other states. The official language of ballot measures is a frequent topic of debate — debate that increasingly ends up in court. Critics regularly contend that authorities twist the words on ballots or on petitions, to try to help measures pass or make them fail.

但是，投票提案的摘要就是这么难写。对于加利福尼亚或许多其他州来说，这种争议并不是什么新鲜事。选票提案的官方用词是经常被拿出来辩论的话题，而这类辩论也越来越多地升级成对簿公堂。评论家经常争论：当局会在选票或请愿书上“添油加醋”一些字眼，以操控是否能够提案通过。

In some instances, the critics appear to have a point. In other cases, the disagreements merely reflect the difficulty of condensing complicated legal changes into a few short sentences. But underlying these disputes is a sense that the words on the ballot matter: Often, they’re the only thing voters know about measures, even ones with sweeping public policy consequences.

某些情况下，评论家似乎有道理。而在其他情况下，这些分歧仅仅反映出将复杂的法规变化程序概况为几句话的困难之处。但是，在这些争议背后则藏着一种共识，即选票上的措辞至关重要：通常，即便是那些具有广泛公共政策后果的提案，寥寥数语就是选民对提案的仅有了解。

In most states that allow citizen ballot initiatives, the job of writing ballot language falls to either the secretary of state or the attorney general. But citizen initiatives aren’t the only measures that end up before voters. State legislatures also refer measures to the ballot, and in some states, legislators themselves decide what words will appear with them. When it comes to writing slanted ballot language, legislators have a reputation for being some of the worst offenders.

在大多数允许公民发起投票倡议的州，撰写投票票面文字的工作属于州务卿或州检察长。但是，公民倡议行动并不是最终呈现在选民面前可采取的唯一措施。州立法机关也可以将提案放到选票上，在某些州，立法者则自行决定在选票上采用何种措辞。在提及撰写带有倾向性的选票用语时，立法者以“最坏的违规者”而闻名。

In Florida in 2010, the state Supreme Court knocked three legislatively referred constitutional amendments off the ballot because of what it ruled were confusing or misleading summaries. One of them was the Republican-controlled legislature’s effort to challenge the Obama administration’s health care law. The summary sounded more like talking points than a neutral synopsis, stating the legislature’s amendments would “…ensure access to health care services without waiting lists, protect the doctor-patient relationship, guard against mandates that don‘t work…”

2010年，佛罗里达州最高法院将三项立法层面上涉及州宪法的修正案从选票中剔除，因为它认为相关摘要文字令人困惑或带有误导性。其中之一是由共和党控制的立法机构，努力挑战奥巴马政府的医疗保健法。其摘要听起来像是在谈论要点而不是中立的提纲，它指出立法机关的修正案将“……确保无需加入等待名单即可获得医疗服务，保护医患关系，防止无效的命令……”

Likewise, California lawmakers wrote the official title for a 2008 measure to authorize bonds to build high-speed rail: It was called the “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.” The summary continued in that spirit, describing the rail system as “convenient,” “affordable,” “clean,” and “efficient,” and saying it would reduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on foreign oil.

无独有偶，加州议员撰写了一项2008年提案的正式名称，关于发行债券建设高铁：它被称为“安全，可靠的高速旅客列车债券法案”。而摘要文风则一脉相承，将铁路系统描述为“便捷”，“价格合理”，“清洁”和“高效”，并表示它将减少交通拥堵，温室气体排放和对外国石油的依赖。

The title and summary to the rail measure prompted a lawsuit that succeeded—albeit more than two years after the voters had already approved the bonds. A court ruled in 2011 that in the future the attorney general will have to write the titles and summaries for legislative proposals, just as she does for citizen initiatives.

虽然该高铁工程提案的标题和摘要引发一场诉讼且胜诉，但距离选民批准发行该债券已经过去两年多了。法院在2011年裁定，今后州检察长将为立法提案撰写标题和摘要，就如同她/他为民间提案所做的那样。

Given the years of dispute over ballot summaries in California, that shift isn’t likely to end the controversy. Nor would it elsewhere. Attorneys general are charged with enforcing laws and running elections in a non-partisan way, but they’re also generally partisan elected officials. That sets them up for scrutiny.

鉴于在加州有关选票摘要的争议已存在多年，这种转变不太可能离开结束争议。其他地方也不会。各州检察长负责执行法律并以无党派的方式进行选举，但通常他们也是由党派选举产生的官员。这使他们受到严格审查。

One of the latest dustups is in Washington state over an initiative to block the state’s new gay marriage law. The title written by Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican gay marriage foe, says the law in question “would redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry.” Gay marriage advocates say they’re not trying to “redefine marriage,” only to open marriage to more couples — and that the phrase comes straight from the rhetoric of the anti-gay marriage movement.

最近一次纷争就发生在华盛顿州，即旨在阻止该州新同性恋婚姻法规的提案。共和党反同性恋婚姻的州检察长Rob McKenna撰写的标题，争议法案“将重新定义婚姻以允许同性伴侣结婚”。同性恋婚姻民运者则称，他们并不是在试图“重新定义婚姻”，而只是为了向更多伴侣开放婚姻。这种“重新定义”论调则是直接来自反同性恋婚姻运动的言论。

Scarcely anyone is disputing that language on the ballot helps determine whether measures pass or fail. “This is the harsh reality of what people who run campaigns know about the California ballot,” says Pellissier. “People show up at the ballot unprepared or lightly informed about the issues that confront them.”

几乎没有人怀疑选票上的语言有助于决定提案是否通过。“这是选举活动人士对加利福尼亚州选票所了解的严酷现实，” Pellissier说， “民众在投票到场时毫无准备，或者他们对所呈现的选票问题几乎一无所知。”

Under the Radar

悄无声息

Still, it’s easy to find examples where the language wasn’t decisive. In California, a budget deal in early 2009 referred tax increases to the ballot. The legislature’s summary that appeared on the ballot, though, deliberately said nothing about the tax increases or, in fact, taxes at all. Lawmakers had coupled the tax increases with new fiscal rules intended to avert future budget crises. The summary focused only on those rules. The separate fiscal impact statement, written by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, did say that the measure would increase tax revenue by $16 billion, but didn’t mention that it did so by extending higher income, sales and vehicle tax rates.

即便如此，仍然可以轻易找到措辞言语不具有决定性意义的例子。同在加州，2009年初的一项预算协议将增加税收纳入了选票。不过，在选票上出现的立法机关摘要故意没有提及增税，甚至根本没到纳税。立法者将增税与旨在避免未来预算危机的新财政规则结合在一起。摘要则仅关注那些规则。由立法分析办公室撰写的另一份财政影响报告则如实表示，该措施将使税收增加160亿美元，但并未提及其手段是通过加大更高的收入税，销售税和车辆税来实现。

Nonetheless, voters seemed to know perfectly well what they were voting on. California’s most conservative counties — the ones most likely to oppose tax increases — were the ones that most strongly opposed the measure. It was overwhelmingly defeated.

尽管如此，选民似乎很清楚自己在给什么投票。加州最保守的县（最有可能反对加税的县）是最反对这项提案的县。它完全被抵制了。

That California tax question was the most prominent item on a special election ballot. As a result, almost anyone who showed up at the polls likely had an opinion on it before they read the language. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have voted at all. The stronger case for the influence of wording is on initiatives that fly further under the radar.

加州的税收问题是特别选举投票中最突出的问题。结果，几乎所有参与民意测验中的人在阅读该词句文本之前都可能对此有自己的观点意见。否则，他们根本不会投票。措辞具有更强影响力则反映在那些悄无声息的倡议。

In November 2010 in Missouri, for example, at the same time voters were electing members of Congress and the state legislature, they were asked to weigh in on new rules for dog breeders. The ballot language the Secretary of State’s office wrote noted that the law would create a misdemeanor called “puppy mill cruelty.” The name for the crime came straight out of the initiative itself. The summary put “puppy mill cruelty” in quotation marks.

例如，2010年11月，密苏里州选民在选举国会议员和州议会的同时，被要求权衡关于养育种狗者的新规定。州务卿办公室书写的选票词句如是说，该法规将设立名为“幼犬作坊虐待” 的轻罪。犯罪名称直接来自倡议本身。该摘要将“幼犬作坊虐待”用引号括起来。

Still, opponents argued that mentioning puppy mills would prejudice voters. Their court challenges failed. In the end, the initiative passed with 51.6 percent of the vote. Opponents feel confident that without “puppy mill cruelty” they would have won. “Who’s for puppy mills?” says Chuck Hatfield, a lawyer who argued the case. “Who could be for mills that crush puppies into small parts? It’s a loaded term.”

反对者仍然认为，提及幼犬作坊会引发选民的偏见。他们将此诉诸法庭以失败告终。最后，该提案以51.6％的选票赞成率获得通过。如果没有“幼犬作坊虐待”，反对者则对他们一定会赢而充满信心。“谁会支持幼犬作坊？”此提案的起诉律师Chuck Hatfield声称。“谁会支持将幼犬碎成小块的作坊？这是一个欲加之罪的术语。”

These disagreements have become common in Missouri. State Representative Shane Schoeller, a Republican who’s running for secretary of state, thinks there’s a better way. He’s proposing the creation of a new board made up of appointees of both the majority and minority leaders in the legislature to have the final say over ballot language. Approving the language would take a bipartisan vote. “The goal of this legislation would be to take some of the politics out of it,” Schoeller says.

而这些分歧在密苏里州变得很普遍。竞选州务卿的共和党州代表Shane Schoeller认为，有更好的方法可以解决问题。他提议创建一个新委员会，成员由立法会议上多数和少数派领导人任命，该委员会对投票词句用语拥有最终决定权。批准用语则需要两党投票。Schoeller称：“这项立法的目标是消除一些政治因素。”

There’s also been talk of new changes in California. One idea is to shift the responsibility to the Legislative Auditor’s Office, which has a reputation for non-partisanship. Pellissier, though, would prefer having retired judges do the task, since the language often ends up in court anyway. “You might as well,” he says, “get to the judges right up front.”

也有人在探讨加州的新变化。一种想法是将责任转移到享有无党派声誉的立法审核员办公室。不过，Pellissier宁愿让退休的法官来完成任务，因为无论如何，选票用语纷争通常最终引发诉讼。他说：“你也可能会提前与法官打上照面。”

友情链接：
CFER官方网站：NoProp16.info
反Prop16草根官网：StopProp16.org