CA: Elections chief initiates propositions reform

SACRAMENTO — California's top elections official Thursday said he has a remedy for voters who say they are sick of being propositioned endlessly by everyone from governors to masked interests, using everything from twisted ads to flurries of fliers.

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and lawmakers, backed by the League of Women Voters, pitched a bipartisan package of initiative-revamp bills that would let the Legislature adopt a proposition, avoiding a nasty, costly campaign.

McPherson said at a Capitol news conference that the legislation would "provide greater access for all Californians, strengthen the integrity of the initiative process and result in less reliance on special-interest money."

There was immediate reaction on the emotionally charged and politically sensitive topic of altering the legacy of Hiram Johnson — the governor credited with breaking Southern Pacific's grip on California a century ago with direct-democracy initiatives.

Responding to McPherson, state Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, issued a statement calling his legislation "significantly weaker" than her own.

The myriad issues surrounding California's freewheeling initiative process have been studied for decades by everyone from think tanks to pollsters. It has yielded many calls for major overhauls that have resulted in a few tweaks.

But lawmakers said Thursday that in the wake of the gubernatorial recall of 2003 and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's subsequent special elections, thismight be the year for change.

McPherson's package of bills was authored by Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael; Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa; and Sen. Bob Margett, R-Arcadia.

One measure would require the Legislature to review and analyze qualified initiatives.

In the process, proponents could let lawmakers amend their measure. And if supporters accepted legislators' recommended changes, the initiative would become law without going on the ballot.

But proponents would always retain the right to place a qualified initiative on the ballot.

Nation said his bill would "ensure that the laws governing our state are properly vetted."

-Extend the signature-collection period for initiative proponents from 150 to 365 days, allowing grassroots groups more time.

-Direct the Secretary of State's Office to correct drafting errors in initiative petitions, which are circulated for signatures, to avoid recurrences of problems such as that with last year's Proposition 77, a redistricting initiative.

The bills by Bowen, chair of the Senate elections committee, would require people circulating initiative petitions to disclose the measure's five largest contributors and ban anyone from paying initiative signature gatherers on a per-signature basis.

"If you want to reform the initiative process, you've got to start telling voters who is paying for these initiatives up front and you've got to eliminate the per-signature payments that promote bounty hunting and are an invitation to fraud," Bowen said.

Its a solution in search of a problem. The initiative ain't broken. If voters like what they see, it becomes law. If not, its consigned to the scrap heap. As far as I can see, the only people who don't like it are politicians who can't stand that we might not like their blocking overdue reforms.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

Based on what's presented, the proposed legislation sounds like a bad idea.

The Initiative and Referendum process only have one negative feature. They are simple majority decisions. This simple majority rule has lead to the abuses. Politicians and special interests have resorted to the initiative and referendum process to avoid the super-majority rule with regard to increasing taxation.

A recommended change would be to require super-majority approval when the issue involves an increase in taxation or requires significant government expense to implement without a indentified, dedicated revenue stream to offset the expense.

If a super-majority rule where imposed, the number of initiatives would be reduced dramatically.

The only problem with your rule is Prop. 13 would have never passed. On the other hand, Prop. 39 and a lot of other taxing and spending initiatives would have failed at the ballot. We certainly ought to enact a measure to require a two-thirds vote to adopt any tax increase, any spending measure and to accept new debt. Its a high enough hurdle that all but the most critical measures would fall short of approval. And that would protect the taxpayers from the rapacious socialists who try to con them into thinking it will cost very little if you vote for our scheme. Since taxpayers are usually outnumbered in an electorate that is happy to tax them to the hilt, such a protection isn't too overrated and we badly need it.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

The only problem with your rule is Prop. 13 would have never passed.

Prop 13 would have been exempt. It reduced taxes and capped tax increases.

when the issue involves an increase in taxation.

Under current, legislative procedures, Prop 13, if not worded as a constitutional amendment, would only require a simple majority for passage in the legislature because it does not increase taxes.

Good point. We could simplify things by requiring only a majority vote for measures that reduce spending and cap or abolish taxes. We'd get the benefit of majority rule and at the same time, mitigate the pressures in favor of increased spending and new taxes. This is practically the opposite of the way things work in Sacramento and it would breed a sense of responsibility in the politicians of both parties knowing its not to going to be easy to go on record as being in favor of bigger and more intrusive government. Now as it stands, they face no penalty for being irresponsible with public funds.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

I was wrong and here's why:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13 TAXATION

SEC. 1. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or the laws of the United States:
(a) All property is taxable and shall be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value. When a value standard other than fair market value is prescribed by this Constitution or by statute authorized by this Constitution, the same percentage shall be applied to determine the assessed value. The value to which the percentage is applied, whether it be the fair market value or not, shall be known for property tax purposes as the full value.
(b) All property so assessed shall be taxed in proportion to its full value.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13 TAXATION

SEC. 2. The Legislature may provide for property taxation of all forms of tangible personal property, shares of capital stock, evidences of indebtedness, and any legal or equitable interest therein not exempt under any other provision of this article. The Legislature, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may classify such personal property for differential taxation or for exemption. The tax on any interest in notes, debentures, shares of capital stock, bonds, solvent credits, deeds of trust, or mortgages shall not exceed four-tenths of one percent of full value, and the tax per dollar of full value shall not be higher on personal property than on real property in the same taxing jurisdiction.

The provisions of Prop 13 do fall under Artcle 13, Section 2 and therefore were constituional amendments requiring a super-majority.

Sorry.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.