[Amerigomag]

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.

[goldstategop]

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.")