UPDATED Oct. 29, noon:

Now there are two -- two legalize and tax cannabis initiatives in Calfiornia. Two weeks ago, a group of three Bay Area lawyers filed an initiative to legalize the possession of cannabis for recreational purposes and to license and tax the production and sale of same. Today, a lawyer working with Richard Lee of Oaksterdam University in Oakland filed a second measure. This is more detailed than the alternative but the overall thrust -- creating a structure similar to the regulatory regime for alcohol -- is similar. A link to a PDF of the measure is here.

In a related piece, my column in the Daily Beast this week is about the heavy attention that marijuana taxation is likely to receive -- and how that attention could become a problem for groups seeking broader political and budget reform in California.

Three new initiatives circulating in Colorado seek to reverse tax hikes enacted by the legislature and Gov. Bill Ritter. Organizers aren't saying who is sponsoring the measures, which could end up on a state ballot next year, but this story suggests one force behind the initiatives may be Colorado Springs anti-tax activist Doug Bruce.

A dispute over the meaning of California's complex education funding formula -- Prop 98, a union-backed ballot initiative that was approved by voters in 1988 -- is holding up budget talks at the moment. Prop 98 isn't as well known as Prop 13, the 1978 property tax limitation measure that also established the terrible two-thirds requirement for raising taxes in Calfiornia, but the two initiatives are cousins. Prop 98 has become Democratic holy writ, and Prop 13 is Republican holy writ. Neither measure has done what it's supposed to do (Prop 98 is supposed to protect education funding; Prop 13 is supposed to protect us from taxes and over-spending).  It's time to end both and start over. 

For a further explanation, check out these links.

-My recent column at Fox & Hounds Daily on why we should end Prop 98 and what we might replace it with.

-My piece from last year's LA Times on Prop 98, its complexity and its history.

-Eric Bailey's piece in today's LA Times on Prop 98's role in the current budget process.

Supporters of same-sex marriage seem to be moving to delay a ballot initiative campaign to overturn Prop 8 and legalize such marriages from 2010 until 2012. Their thinking is that they need more time to convert voters, and that the 2012 electorate will be larger -- and younger, and thus more inclined to back same-sex marriage.

But I wonder if they're right about that. The 2010 ballot in California could draw a number of young and new voters sympathetic to same sex marriage for one reason: an initiative legalizing marijuana. I have not seen polling on this (does anyone out there have surveys to share), but one would suspect that there's more than a little overlap between supporters of legalizing pot possession and legalizing same-sex marriage. (Your blogger, for the record, thinks the case for legalizing same-sex marriage is strong and the case for legalizing marijuana is weak). The marijuana initiative is likely to dominate the news and public discussion. That could help the cause of same-sex marriage.

Some gay rights groups say they need more time to convince voters to back legalization of same-sex marriage in California, the LA Times reports. Reaction: this may be too cautious, but there may be advantages to waiting. One developing problem with the 2010 ballot is that it appears likely to be crowded with high profile measures on taxation, budgeting, the constitutional convention and, of course, marijuana legalization.

One of the more interesting developments in abortion politics in recent years is the effort by some pro-life activists to qualify statewide ballot initiatives that define a fertilized embryo as a human being, with all legal protections. A measure reached the ballot in Colorado last year and lost. But activists in that state and in Montana are trying again, with an eye on the 2010 elections.

These measures are unlikely to win -- because the concept of personhood initiatives has not been embraced by much of the pro-life movement. In Montana, for example, several leading pro-life groups are declining to back the measure because they think the personhood approach has little strategic value. In particular, pro lifers are concerned that personhood initaitives accept the logic of Roe v. Wade -- that viability of the fetus is a bright line for legalized abortion -- and thus would strengthen that precedent. So these initiatives come from smaller, less established pro-life groups--they are grass roots. More details via Christian Post.

A judge's ruling has cleared the way for the Navajos, the nation's second largest Indian tribe after the Cherokees, to vote on their first two ballot initiatives. One measure would reduce the size of the tribal council. The other would give the tribe's president a line-item veto. The Associated Press has a very thorough story on the tribe's governing history here.

Writing at Fox & Hounds Daily, John Wildermuth offers an interesting criticism of California legislation that would require ballot initiatives that mandate spending to pay for themselves.

I've written favorably of the legislation, SCA-14 by Sen. Denise Ducheny, as a way to attack state voters' habit of approving spending without new revenues. But Wildermuth points out that almost every state ballot initiative produces some costs -- and in many cases, those costs are hard to quantify. So finding revenues for costs that can't be anticipated could be a difficult -- and complex -- task.

I'm not sure how to address Wildermuth's concern. Any ideas out there?

Nevada appears on its way to adopt a distribution requirement for petition circulators: to qualify an initiative, signatures would have to gather a minimum number of signatures in all four of the state's Congressional districts. (This represents a change from earlier versions of the bill, which would have required signatures from all 42 Assembly districts).

I'm torn on the question of distribution requirements. In principle, it's fair to require that signatures be gathered across the state -- a statewide measure should be truly statewide. In California, which doesn't have a signature requirement, the vast bulk of signatures come from the south. And the percentage of signatures collected in San Diego County, the hotbed of direct democracy in the state, far surpasses the percentage of state voters who live in that county.

But distribution requirements also add significantly to the cost of petition drives. And when signature gathering becomes more expensive, the initiative process can only be used by wealthy individuals and interest groups.