> On Nov 4, 8:15 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > Jaybyrd wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 7:50 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > >> On Nov 4, 6:36 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Nov 4, 1:08 am, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33609492/ns/politics-more_politics/ > > >>>> Discrimination is alive and well! > > >>> The issue is not discrimination, it's governing by referendum, which > > >>> is not advisable. > > >> It has its strengths and weaknesses. This was an example of a > > >> 'strength'.
> > > You feel that way only because it supported your view. > > > You would be screaming and how stupid maine's voters were if it went the other > > > way.
> > Don't conflate two distinct issues: I screamed how stupid the USA's > > voters were last year when they voted to elect Obama President, but that > > doesn't mean i oppose the electoral process that resulted in his > > election. Quite the opposite.
> > > Look at how referendums crippled california's budget.
> > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > allowed revenues permit.
> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > referendums. GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT!!!! was the battle > cry. Now they have to live with it.
The referendums did not blow up the budget from $51B in 1991 to $144B today.
> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > allowed revenues permit.
> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > referendums.
That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Look at how referendums crippled california's budget.
> > > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > allowed revenues permit.
> > and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > referendums. GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT!!!! was the battle > > cry. Now they have to live with it. > The referendums did not blow up the budget from $51B in 1991 to $144B > today.
It's a bogus argument anyway. California voters have to approve tax increases, which they almost never do. The politicians, as a result, keep raising spending without any new "revenue" (which for us rubes is really called "taxes"). The number 1 reason that California is in the shitter, and why many towns across the country are bankrupt and more states will follow, is the cost of pensions for government workers. They get crazy bennies for minimal years of work. The unions control the states and the Democratic politicians both of whom spend time and money in California courts trying to reverse the will of the people and rape them for more cash.
-Tom Enright
The purpose of modern government is to take money from the folks who save and pay their bills and live within their means, and use that to hire government workers; and to keep their power by using the money to buy votes from those who do not save and pay their bills and live within their means. And of course the money comes from those who work and save and pay their bills and live within their means -- who else will have any money for the government to take?
> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 9:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Look at how referendums crippled california's budget.
> > > > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > > allowed revenues permit.
> > > and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > referendums. GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT!!!! was the battle > > > cry. Now they have to live with it. > > The referendums did not blow up the budget from $51B in 1991 to $144B > > today.
> It's a bogus argument anyway. California voters have to approve tax > increases, which they almost never do. The politicians, as a result, > keep raising spending without any new "revenue" (which for us rubes is > really called "taxes"). The number 1 reason that California is in the > shitter, and why many towns across the country are bankrupt and more > states will follow, is the cost of pensions for government workers. > They get crazy bennies for minimal years of work. The unions > control the states and the Democratic politicians both of whom spend > time and money in California courts trying to reverse the will of the > people and rape them for more cash.
> -Tom Enright
> The purpose of modern government is to take money from the folks who > save and pay their bills and live within their means, and use that to > hire government workers; and to keep their power by using the money to > buy votes from those who do not save and pay their bills and live > within their means. And of course the money comes from those who work > and save and pay their bills and live within their means -- who else > will have any money for the government to take?
A great example from the WSJ:
A Loan in the Dark The Los Angeles Times reports on California's latest effort to mismanage the state's finances:
Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners--holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear.Technically, it's not a tax increase, even though it may feel like one when your next paycheck arrives. As part of a bundle of budget patches adopted in the summer, the state is taking more money now in withholding, even though workers' annual tax bills won't change.Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan: You'll be repaid any extra withholding in April. Those who would receive a refund anyway will receive a larger one, and those who owe taxes will owe less.
Tax refunds are evil, because they fool people into thinking they're "getting" something from the government, when in fact all they're receiving is their own money, months late. If the private sector tried this--say, your insurance or power company "borrowed" money by tacking $20 on to your monthly bill and refunded it, without interest, the following year--it would be a pretty clear case of fraud.
----------------------------------------
Absolutely disgusting. Fucking crooks. String 'em all up.
lein wrote: > On Nov 4, 9:15 am, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 4:49 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Since gay marriage is 0 for 31every time its been on ballots across >>> the country, i guess the whole countries is "full of bigots", LOL. >>> Just about the whole world, for that matter. >>> PS - we're against incest marriages and polygamy too, so we're triply- >>> bigoted. >> False analogies aside, you're still an idiot.
> Nope, it is inconsistent to believe in same sex marriage in the name > of equality, only to oppose incest marriages between consenting adults.
Indeed. And it's funny watching tonawanda-types twist themselves in to pretzels (talking about "genetic defects" and the like) to try and make the distinction ...
-- What is liberalism, generally speaking, but an attack on the existing order of things?
On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > allowed revenues permit.
> > and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > referendums.
> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through referendums.
> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 9:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Look at how referendums crippled california's budget.
> > > > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > > allowed revenues permit.
> > > and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > referendums. GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT!!!! was the battle > > > cry. Now they have to live with it. > > The referendums did not blow up the budget from $51B in 1991 to $144B > > today.
> It's a bogus argument anyway. California voters have to approve tax > increases, which they almost never do. The politicians, as a result, > keep raising spending without any new "revenue" (which for us rubes is > really called "taxes"). The number 1 reason that California is in the > shitter, and why many towns across the country are bankrupt and more > states will follow, is the cost of pensions for government workers. > They get crazy bennies for minimal years of work. The unions > control the states and the Democratic politicians both of whom spend > time and money in California courts trying to reverse the will of the > people and rape them for more cash.
> -Tom Enright
Yes, the legislature is responsible, Ahnold is also responsible. But you should not govern by referendum. This approval process you talk of is there because of, yes that's right, a referendum by the voters. With the referendum process, California voters can demand lots of services and get the advantage of not paying a lot for them.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>> allowed revenues permit. >>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>> referendums. >> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > referendums.
Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation?
-- As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>> referendums. > >> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> > The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > referendums.
> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation?
The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in California isn't new. This past May, Kevin Drum wrote in Mother Jones that there are low tax/low service states, and high tax/high services states, "[b]ut over the past few decades we Californians have somehow concluded that we can be a medium tax/high service state." With the referendum process, California voters can demand lots of services and get the advantage of not paying a lot for them. This year, however, the bill has finally come due, and it's not pretty.
The tyranny of the majority has not only allowed California to take rights away from the minority, but it has let a mob of citizens spend California into oblivion under the mistaken assumption that the money needed to pay for services will come from somewhere else. I wholeheartedly believe that we do need those services, but we also need to pay for them, and that means raising taxes. As long as California voters control the purse-strings, this mess will continue. Who doesn't want something for nothing?
As Chief Justice George noted, when special interests can't get their way in the legislature, they turn to the people, placing ridiculous policy items (like a constitutional amendment requiring parental notification before a minor obtained an abortion) and mandates on ballots for people to approve, mostly because they can be manipulated by shiny things. "Hey, I want a bullet train!" That sounds great, but do voters really stop to think whether or not that's a good idea? Or even if it can be funded?
Democracy is great, but it risks allowing unqualified masses of people to make decisions that should more properly be made by people with the training and education to make them. Under the guise of providing fiscal responsibility, in 1978, California passed a constitutional amendment (by referendum, no less!) requiring a 2/3 majority of the legislature in order to pass a budget, or even to raise taxes. Even though California's legislature contains a majority of Democrats, those Democrats don't have a 2/3 majority. This process allows Republicans, as long as they make up more than 1/3 of the legislature, to hold up the budget process. And they do. California hasn't passed a budget on time in 12 years.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>> referendums. > >> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> > The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > referendums.
> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation?
May 1997 California Research Bureau 900 N Street, Suite 300 California State Library Sacramento, CA 95814 CRB-97-006 (916) 653-7843 CRB California Research Bureau, California State Library CALIFORNIA’S STATEWIDE INITIATIVE PROCESS By Charlene Wear Simmons, Ph.D. CRB California Research Bureau, California State Library CALIFORNIA’S STATEWIDE INITIATIVE PROCESS By Charlene Wear Simmons, Ph.D. California Research Bureau, California State Library CRB-97-006 CONTENTS DIGEST..................................................................... .................................................... 1 A BRIEF HISTORY ........................................................................... .......................... 2 Enactment.................................................................. ................................................ 2 California’s Experience with the Initiative............................................................... 3 THE QUALIFICATION PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA ............................................. 7 INITIATIVE CAMPAIGNS.................................................................. ..................... 11 IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT ............................................................ 15 CALIFORNIANS’ VIEW OF THE INITIATIVE PROCESS .................................. 15 REFORM PROPOSALS ........................................................................... ................. 17 Los Angeles Times...................................................................... .............................. 18 Sacramento Bee........................................................................ ................................ 18 California Constitution Revision Commission ......................................................... 18 Second Annual Symposium on Elections at the Center for the Study of Law and Politics................................................................... ....................................... 18 LEGISLATIVE REFORM PROPOSALS................................................................. 19 SCA 11 (Costa and Kopp) and SB 925 (Costa); 1995-1996 Session..................... 19 1997-1998 Session ........................................................................... ......................... 19 AB 44 (Murray) ........................................................................... ......................... 19 AB 63 (Cunneen).................................................................. ................................ 20 AB 73 (Bordonaro) ........................................................................... .................... 20 AB 677 (Aguiar) ........................................................................... ........................ 20 AB 679 (Caldera).................................................................. ................................ 20 AB 935 (Vincent).................................................................. ................................ 20 AB 1233 (Granlund)................................................................. ............................ 21 AB 1336 (Vincent) ........................................................................... ..................... 21 AB 1359 (Bowen).................................................................... .............................. 21 ACA 11 (Bowen).................................................................... ............................... 21 SB 7 (Kopp) ........................................................................... ............................... 22 SB 49 (Karnette) ........................................................................... ........................ 22 SB 109 (Kopp) ........................................................................... ........................... 22 SB 159 (Brulte)................................................................... .................................. 22 SB 561 (Burton) ........................................................................... ........................ 23 SCA 5 (Karnette, Lewis, Maddy, Polanco) ........................................................... 23 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................... ........................................ 24 APPENDIX--RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM........................................... 27 California Research Bureau, California State Library CRB-97-006 1 DIGEST This report discusses California’s statewide initiative process, its history, public attitudes toward the process and current reform proposals. The research was conducted at the request of Assemblymember Brett Granlund. In California, initiatives are state or local legislative measures placed on the ballot by a group of citizens, by means a petition signed by a specified percentage of voters, and enacted by a majority of the voters. The initiative process has been called California’s fourth branch of government,1 a frank recognition of the important role it plays in setting the state’s policy agenda. For example, in the last 20 years, California state initiatives have: · reduced property taxes and indexed income taxes; · adopted a state lottery; · enacted campaign finance reform; · guaranteed schools funds; · raised tobacco taxes; · regulated toxic materials; · rolled back auto insurance rates; · reformed the criminal justice system; · protected wildlife; · adopted term limits for state elected officials; 2 and · eliminated state affirmative action programs. California appears to be moving toward a new balance between representative and direct democracy. The number of initiatives qualifying for the California ballot has increased dramatically in the last 25 years. Initiatives enacted by the voters have significantly impacted state and local governance and policy. This trend may increase in the future. A recent Sacramento Bee3 column projects an election scenario in the year 2004 in which voters might confront 200 ballot choices, including 35 statewide initiatives and even more local initiatives and elected offices. (Local initiatives are not discussed in this paper; they merit a separate review). In the last decade, a number of researchers and several commissions have examined California’s initiative process, identified perceived weaknesses and recommended reforms. A summary of key recommendations is included in this report. 1 California Commission on Campaign Financing, Democracy By Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government, Center for Responsive Government, 1992. 2 Ibid., page 8. 3 Peter Schrag, “The Election of 2004,” Sacramento Bee, April 2, 1997, page B6. California Research Bureau, California State Library CRB-97-006 2 A BRIEF HISTORY Enactment In its modern form, the initiative was developed in Switzerland in the 1860s, drawing on an ancient rural tradition of town meetings in which men would vote on local policies. Direct democracy also has strong roots in the American tradition. Many colonial New England towns held annual town meetings to debate and adopt policies. Most state constitutions were approved by voters, beginning with Massachusetts in 1778. The “rapid changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution-- explosive urban growth, industrial expansion, the railroads, political corruption, labor strikes, and land evictions-- led to increasing demands for social and political reforms in the late 1800s.”4 The U.S. labor movement promoted the initiative and referendum as a peaceful way to achieve union objectives. Populists in the Midwest advocated the initiative and referendum to restore control of a corrupt government to the people. In 1897, Nebraska allowed cities to include the initiative and referendum in their charters. In 1898, South Dakota became the first state to enact a statewide initiative and referendum amendment, followed by Oregon in 1899. In 1904, Oregonians voted on and approved the first two initiatives to appear on a state ballot. Montana, Oklahoma, Maine and Michigan passed initiative and referendum amendments in the next 4 years, as did many local governments. In California, the initiative process was advocated by the Progressives, with the support of the labor movement, as a means to circumvent a state government in which the Southern Pacific Railroad and special interests were perceived as having too much power. By 1907, Los Angeles, Pasadena, San Diego, San Bernardino, Fresno, Sacramento and Vallejo had adopted city initiative and referendum ordinances. In 1911, voters followed the lead of Progressive Governor Hiram Johnson and California became the tenth state to enact the initiative, referendum and recall. Twenty four states and the District of Columbia have adopted the initiative (the majority are west of the Mississippi). Every state except Wyoming has some form of local voting on ballot propositions, including bond measures. California and
...
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>> referendums. > >> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> > The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > referendums.
> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation?
Full Text of Chief Justice George's Speech Joe Mathews - October 13, 2009 - 9:15pm By popular demand, California Supreme Court Justice Ronald M. George's speech this weekend on California's direct democracy:
It is an honor to speak as a representative of the new class of Academy members. I would like to share some thoughts with you on a matter that has been of recent and continued professional concern to me, but that I believe may be of general interest to members of the Academy, because it fundamentally implicates how we govern ourselves. This is the increasing use of the ballot Initiative process available in many states to effect constitutional and statutory changes in the law, especially in the structure and powers of government.
A not-too-subtle clue to my point of view is reflected in the caption I have chosen for these remarks - "The Perils of Direct Democracy: The California Experience." Although two dozen states in our nation permit government by voter Initiative, in no other state is the practice as extreme as in California.
By the terms of its Constitution, California permits a relatively small number of petition signers - equal to at least 8% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election - to place before the voters a proposal to amend any aspect of our Constitution. (The figure is only 5% for a proposed non-constitutional statutory enactment.) If approved by a simple majority of those voting at the next election, the Initiative measure goes into effect on the following day.
The legislature (by two-thirds vote of each house) shares with the voters the power to place proposed constitutional amendments before the electorate. California, however, is unique among all American jurisdictions in prohibiting its legislature, without express voter approval, from amending or repealing even a statutory measure enacted by the voters, unless the Initiative measure itself specifically confers such authority upon the legislature.
The process for amending California's Constitution thus is considerably easier than the amendment process embodied in the United States Constitution, under which an amendment may be proposed either by a vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress or by a convention called on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. It can be ratified only by the legislatures of (or by conventions held in) three-quarters of the states.
The relative ease with which the California Constitution can be amended is dramatically illustrated by the frequency with which this has occurred. Only 17 amendments to the United States Constitution (in addition to the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791) have been adopted since that document was ratified in 1788. In contrast, more than 500 amendments to the California Constitution have been adopted since ratification of California's current Constitution in 1879.
Former United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was known to pride himself on carrying in his pocket a slender pamphlet containing the federal Constitution in its entirety. I certainly could not emulate that practice with California's constitutional counterpart.
One Bar leader has observed: "California's current constitution rivals India's for being the longest and most convoluted in the world . . . . [W]ith the cumulative dross of past voter initiatives incorporated, [it] is a document that assures chaos."
Initiatives have enshrined a myriad of provisions into California's constitutional charter, including a prohibition on the use of gill nets and a measure regulating the confinement of barnyard fowl in coops. This last constitutional amendment was enacted on the same 2008 ballot that amended the state Constitution to override the California Supreme Court's decision recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. Chickens gained valuable rights in California on the same day that gay men and lesbians lost them.
Perhaps most consequential in their impact on the ability of California state and local government to function are constitutional and statutory mandates and prohibitions - often at cross-purposes - limiting how elected officials may raise and spend revenue. California's lawmakers, and the state itself, have been placed in a fiscal straitjacket by a steep two-thirds-vote requirement - imposed at the ballot box - for raising taxes. A similar supermajoritarian requirement governs passage of the state budget. This situation is compounded by voter Initiative measures that have imposed severe restrictions upon increases in the assessed value of real property that is subject to property tax, coupled with constitutional requirements of specified levels of financial support for public transportation and public schools.
These constraints upon elected officials - when combined with a lack of political will (on the part of some) to curb spending and (on the part of others) to raise taxes - often make a third alternative, borrowing, the most attractive option (at least until the bankers say "no").
Much of this constitutional and statutory structure has been brought about not by legislative fact-gathering and deliberation, but rather by the approval of voter Initiative measures, often funded by special interests. These interests are allowed under the law to pay a bounty to signature-gatherers for each signer. Frequent amendments - coupled with the implicit threat of more in the future - have rendered our state government dysfunctional, at least in times of severe economic decline.
Because of voter Initiatives restricting the taxing powers that the legislature may exercise, California's tax structure is particularly dependent upon fluctuating types of revenue, giving rise to a "boom or bust" economic cycle. The consequences this year have been devastating to programs that, for example, provide food to poor children and health care for the elderly disabled. This year's fiscal crisis also has caused the Judicial Council, which I chair, to take the reluctant and unprecedented step of closing all courts in our state one day a month. That decision will enable us to offset approximately one-fourth of the more than $400 million reduction imposed by the other two branches of government on the $4 billion budget of our court system.
The voter Initiative process places additional burdens upon the judicial branch. The court over which I preside frequently is called upon to resolve legal challenges to voter Initiatives. Needless to say, we incur the displeasure of the voting public when, in the course of performing our constitutional duties as judges, we are compelled to invalidate such a measure.
On occasion, we are confronted with a pre-election lawsuit that causes us to remove an Initiative proposal from the ballot because, by combining insufficiently related issues, it violates our state Constitution's single-subject limitation on such measures. At other times, a voter Initiative - perhaps poorly drafted and ambiguous, or faced with a competing or "dueling" measure that passed at the same election - requires years of successive litigation in the courts to ferret out its intended meaning, and ultimately may have to be invalidated in whole or in part.
One thing is fairly certain, however. If a proposal, whatever its nature, is sufficiently funded by its backers, it most likely will obtain the requisite number of signatures to qualify for the ballot, and - if it does qualify - there is a good chance the measure will pass. The converse certainly is true - poorly funded efforts, without sufficient backing to mount an expensive television campaign - are highly unlikely to succeed, whatever their merit.
This dysfunctional situation has led some to call for the convening of a convention to write a new Constitution for California to replace our current 1879 charter, which in turn supplanted the original 1849 document. Yet, although a recent poll reflects that 79% of Californians say the state is moving in the wrong direction, only 33% believe that the state's Constitution requires "major" changes and approximately 60% are of the view that decisions made by Californians through the Initiative process are better than those made by the legislature and the governor.
Add to this mix a split among scholars concerning whether a constitutional convention, if called, could be limited in the subject matter it is empowered to consider. Some argue that a convention would be open to every type of proposal from any source, including social activists and special interest groups. There also is controversy over the most appropriate procedure for selecting delegates for such a convention.
A student of government might reasonably ask: Does the voter Initiative, a product of the Populist Movement that reached its high point in the early 20th century in the mid-west and western states, remain a positive contribution in the form in which it now exists in 21st century California? Or, despite
> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > > allowed revenues permit.
> > > and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > referendums.
> > That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > referendums.
Why? Are referendums unconstitutional? I agree that they have weaknesses, but their greatest strength is that they are often a more accurate representation of the will of the citizens than the watered down, deal-brokering compromises often hammered out by Congress. When 31 out of 31 referendums get the same result, it seems that a clear message has been delivered. Do you consider the end-runs around the electorate to the courts to be a better form of governance?.
> lein wrote: > > On Nov 4, 9:15 am, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 4:49 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> Since gay marriage is 0 for 31every time its been on ballots across > >>> the country, i guess the whole countries is "full of bigots", LOL. > >>> Just about the whole world, for that matter. > >>> PS - we're against incest marriages and polygamy too, so we're triply- > >>> bigoted. > >> False analogies aside, you're still an idiot.
> > Nope, it is inconsistent to believe in same sex marriage in the name > > of equality, only to oppose incest marriages between consenting adults.
> Indeed. And it's funny watching tonawanda-types twist themselves in to > pretzels (talking about "genetic defects" and the like) to try and make > the distinction ...
yeah, it's like they believe people only have sex after getting some sort of government marriage sanction. Accepting same-sex marriage, by definition, means the ability to procreate with each other is off the table when it comes to government marriage.
shiite wrote: > On Nov 4, 5:04 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>> referendums. >>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >> referendums.
> Why? Are referendums unconstitutional? I agree that they have > weaknesses, but their greatest strength is that they are often a more > accurate representation of the will of the citizens than the watered > down, deal-brokering compromises often hammered out by Congress. When > 31 out of 31 referendums get the same result, it seems that a clear > message has been delivered. Do you consider the end-runs around the > electorate to the courts to be a better form of governance?.
The founding fathers were appropriately wary of populism. I think the problem is that it doesn't scale well.
> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > Jaybyrd wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > >>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > >>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > >>>> allowed revenues permit. > > >>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > >>> referendums. > > >> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > >> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > >> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > >> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> > > The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > > referendums.
> > Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > > you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation?
> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > California isn't new.
We all know that the people of california have used the referendum process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those constraints.
> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > >>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > >>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > >>>> allowed revenues permit. > > > >>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > >>> referendums. > > > >> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > > >> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > > >> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > > >> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> > > > The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > > > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > > > referendums.
> > > Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > > > you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation?
> > The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > > California isn't new.
> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > constraints.
> On Nov 4, 5:04 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > > > allowed revenues permit.
> > > > and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > > referendums.
> > > That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > > are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > > meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > > want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> > The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > referendums.
> Why? Are referendums unconstitutional? I agree that they have > weaknesses, but their greatest strength is that they are often a more > accurate representation of the will of the citizens than the watered > down, deal-brokering compromises often hammered out by Congress. When > 31 out of 31 referendums get the same result, it seems that a clear > message has been delivered. Do you consider the end-runs around the > electorate to the courts to be a better form of governance?.
They are of course constitutional but if you read the articles that I poasted they can be used as malipulative tools all by themselves while they cripple the republican form of governance. I think they can be used properly and effectively as good information but if allowed to become the primary source of legislation then the system breaks down.
> On Nov 4, 5:35 pm, shiite <uncdoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:04 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > > > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > > > > allowed revenues permit.
> > > > > and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > > > referendums.
> > > > That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > > > are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > > > meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > > > want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> > > The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > > referendums.
> > Why? Are referendums unconstitutional? I agree that they have > > weaknesses, but their greatest strength is that they are often a more > > accurate representation of the will of the citizens than the watered > > down, deal-brokering compromises often hammered out by Congress. When > > 31 out of 31 referendums get the same result, it seems that a clear > > message has been delivered. Do you consider the end-runs around the > > electorate to the courts to be a better form of governance?.
> They are of course constitutional but if you read the articles that I > poasted they can be used as malipulative tools all by themselves while > they cripple the republican form of governance. I think they can be > used properly and effectively as good information but if allowed to > become the primary source of legislation then the system breaks down.
Thank you for the posted articles. Informative and cautionary, exposing some glaring weaknesses. As to "crippling the republican form of governance," however, that case cannot be made with the gay marriage issue, which IMO, magnifies the strength of a referendum. Politicians averse (for good reason) to hot button, controversial issues get to step aside while the people speak. If the result is binding and passes constitutional muster, voters are empowered to actually directly participate in an outcome. Pretty satisfying after watching helplessly as important legislation becomes unrecognizable through anonymous back-room deals and compromises at the hands of some really manipulative tools.
> On Nov 4, 7:57 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:35 pm, shiite <uncdoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 5:04 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > > > > > crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > > > > > allowed revenues permit.
> > > > > > and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > > > > referendums.
> > > > > That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > > > > are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > > > > meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > > > > want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> > > > The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > > > govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > > > referendums.
> > > Why? Are referendums unconstitutional? I agree that they have > > > weaknesses, but their greatest strength is that they are often a more > > > accurate representation of the will of the citizens than the watered > > > down, deal-brokering compromises often hammered out by Congress. When > > > 31 out of 31 referendums get the same result, it seems that a clear > > > message has been delivered. Do you consider the end-runs around the > > > electorate to the courts to be a better form of governance?.
> > They are of course constitutional but if you read the articles that I > > poasted they can be used as malipulative tools all by themselves while > > they cripple the republican form of governance. I think they can be > > used properly and effectively as good information but if allowed to > > become the primary source of legislation then the system breaks down.
> Thank you for the posted articles. Informative and cautionary, > exposing some glaring weaknesses. As to "crippling the republican form > of governance," however, that case cannot be made with the gay > marriage issue,
I was talking about california. That issue was in Maine. I still think that referendums are not the way to go, for things I support or don't support.
which IMO, magnifies the strength of a referendum.
> Politicians averse (for good reason) to hot button, controversial > issues get to step aside while the people speak. If the result isSo > binding and passes constitutional muster, voters are empowered to > actually directly participate in an outcome. Pretty satisfying after > watching helplessly as important legislation becomes unrecognizable > through anonymous back-room deals and compromises at the hands of some > really manipulative tools.
sometimes yes, sometimes no. I don't know the process in Maine for getting one on the ballot. One's I've seen in my voting district can be confusing. If there are great restrictions on the use of them it may be worthwhile.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>> referendums. >>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>> California isn't new. >> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >> constraints.
>> If they don't, well, their fault eh?
> That has nothing to do with my point.
It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting machines and spend several hours a day casting votes.
No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses.
The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength.
-- "the purpose of the Russian campaign is to reduce the Slavic population by 30 million".
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>> referendums. > >>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>> California isn't new. > >> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >> constraints.
> >> If they don't, well, their fault eh?
> > That has nothing to do with my point.
> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > machines and spend several hours a day casting votes.
> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses.
> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength.
That's not what I said though. You're twisting it all around just to just move away from the facts.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>> California isn't new. >>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>> constraints. >>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>> That has nothing to do with my point. >> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes.
>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses.
>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength.
> That's not what I said though.
What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know ..
-- Not to believe in the Devil is a French idea, a frivolous idea.
lein wrote: > On Nov 4, 9:15 am, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 4:49 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Since gay marriage is 0 for 31every time its been on ballots across >>> the country, i guess the whole countries is "full of bigots", LOL. >>> Just about the whole world, for that matter. >>> PS - we're against incest marriages and polygamy too, so we're triply- >>> bigoted. >> False analogies aside, you're still an idiot.
> Nope, it is inconsistent to believe in same sex marriage in the name > of equality, only to oppose incest marriages between consenting adults.
|
