calgov2002:
 calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Posted on 01/24/2003 5:42:09 PM PST by John Jorsett
I just listened to an interview with California State Senator Tom McClintock on the John and Ken Show on Los Angeles radio station KFI (AM640). McClintock said that the Republicans in the California legislature on Monday will inform their Democrat colleagues that, in the event of passage of a law tripling the automobile car tax, a referendum on the law will be filed "within minutes," and that the Democrats should plan on never seeing a dime of the money from the tax.
California law permits a vote of the people on any law passed by the legislature. After a law is passed, opponents can file for a referendum on it. Once filed, opponents have 90 days in which to gather signatures (373,000 in this case) to get the referendum on the ballot. During the signature gathering time, and (if enough signatures are gathered) up until the election (probably in March of 2003, according to McClintock), the law is suspended. This means there will be NO increase in the vehicle tax until the people have spoken. McClintock predicted a 4-1 loss at the ballot box. Regardless of the margin of rejection, a vote by the people against the law means no car tax ever.
McClintock went on to say that the contention that without the car tax local public safety agencies would see $4 billion of their funding cut is a flat-out lie. When the car tax was cut a few years ago, the state legislature made up the shortfall to the local agencies. The legislature would have to cut those funds and in fact had the opportunity this week to do so, but didn't and won't. Not one legislator is on the record as favoring cutting these funds, according to McClintock. He says that the chiefs of police and other public safety officials don't know what's going on, are being purposely kept in the dark about what the real situation is in Sacramento, and are being used to scare people into accepting a huge tax increase. He debated a police chief earlier today (didn't say where) and demolished the chief's argument.
calgov2002:
|
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
I've heard a few rumors of that, but the measure before the Assembly so far hasn't singled out particular classes of vehicle. I'm not sure that they'd get as much money as they want if they limited the scope that much. Plus the SUV drivers are the archetypal Soccer Moms. I was talking to one the other day, and she was livid about how much the state is taxing her family.
What happens if a bills sponsor adds in 10,000 pages of meaningless drivel which have no substantive effect on the legislation in an effort to "referendum" proof it?
Good question. It probably would end up in court, and this is such a high-profile case that the courts (which still have a strong Republican majority at all levels) would likely side with the Republicans and say it was a too-obvious case of trying to circumvent the State Constitution.
However, that is by no means certain. There have been cases on the local level where ordinances have been passed with huge environmental impact reports and other documents "incorporated" in the measure as a way of making referenda totally impractical.
While the Democrat primary may entice them to come to the polls, a lot of Democrats actually like GWB. Also, and more important, ballot issues DO bring out conservatives to the polls, Republican AND Democrat. Look at Prop. 22 (Protection of Marriage). We were winning that in huge Democrat districts. Black and Hispanic precincts were voting 75% and 80% for Prop. 22. Do you think these people want to be paying more for their car? No ... and it's a GREAT outreach for the Republicans.
Regardless, there are going to be lots of juicy ballot initiatives in March to bring out the conservatives.
I think this referendum threat, because it is valid, holds water. Davis won't sign the bill. That's my prediction.
I doubt very much that the Democrats would try to pick on SUVs. The Car Tax is based on a fixed percentage of the value of the vehicle, so more expensive vehicles already pay a higher fee. The Democrats want to take advantage of the fact that the 1998 bill to reduce that percentage rate also allowed it to be restored up to the original rate if the State ran short of money.
The Dems believe they can restore the rate with a majority vote instead of a 2/3 supermajority vote (which is what tax increases normally require), and legally they may be right. At least they have a plausible case to argue in court. But if they start mucking around with the underlying law (i.e., singling out SUVs) instead of just restoring the rate, their case will fall apart. Then they'd need a 2/3 vote, and there are enough Republicans to block that.
Bottom line: SUV will not be targeted, and everyone will feel the pain.
What if the statute contains a 10,000 page table listing the tax payable on every possible purchase price, to the nearest penny? Written out in "longhand" format [e.g. "If the vehicle price is between twenty thousand five hundred eighty-three dollars and thirty-five cents, and twenty thousand five hundred eighty-three dollars and forty-four cents, the tax payable shall be two thousand, fifty-eight dollars and thirty-four cents. If the vehicle price is between twenty thousand five hundred eighty-three dollars and forty-five cents, and twenty thousand five hundred eighty-three dollars and fifty-four cents, the tax payable shall be two thousand, fifty-eight dollars and thirty-five cents.] for all values of vehicle from $0.06 to $250,000. Such language would be a genuine part of the statute, though I'd hate to be responsible for reading through it to ensure there weren't any "surprise" taxes or tax breaks for certain prices of vehicles. How could one argue that such language wasn't legitimately part of the bill? Is there anything in the laws or constitution of the state of California that require legislators to be concise?
No, you are confusing a referendum with an initiative. An initiative is a voter-sponsored measure, and it indeed must deal with a single issue. A referendum measure is a vote by the people on a bill passed by the State Legislation and signed by the Governor (or passed over his veto); it deals with whatever happened to be in that bill, regardless of whether it involves more than one issue.
After all, only the "rich" buy new cars...
I suspect not. The 2/3 requirement on raising taxes was part of Proposition 13, and legislative measures can't trump voter initiatives. If this passes, they're going to try to call it a 'fee' to get around that requirement. That designation is certainly one thing that would end up in court. During the interview, McClintock said that a court challenge is the last thing that should be tried. He pointed out that the $300 that the state colleted on out-of-state vehicles that were brought here was clearly illegal (both under the state constitution and the U.S. constitution, as was pointed out to the legislature when it was enacted), yet it took ten years of fighting through the courts to get it removed. I'd prefer not to wait ten years for this to be resolved.
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.