[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

The Other, Other 2/3 Rule

by: Brian Leubitz

Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 15:34:12 PM PDT


While we are all concerned about the 2/3 rule for the budget, and, of course, the 2/3 rule for revenues. But what about that other, other 2/3 rule? The one for the ballot, that requires a 2/3 vote of the people for increases in revenue.

It's a real pain too. In fact, that rule caused the defeat of two measures that were supported by over 60% of the electorate.  These were two parcel taxes that would have allowed the school districts to ave the jobs of teachers. Take Measure E in Redwood City for example:

In the midst of a deep economic recession, voters rejected Tuesday a parcel tax measure that would have helped the Redwood City School District weather cuts in state funding.

With all precincts reporting, Measure E had 62.1 percent of voters in favor of the tax compared to 37.9 percent opposed, short of the two-thirds approval it needed to pass, according to returns from Tuesday's election. (SJ Merc 6/2/09)

You're talking about 62.1% of the population wanting to do something, but some out-dated, ridiculous law blocks them from taxing themselves. The same thing happened in Pleasanton, where over 61% approved the parcel tax. At some point, the voters of California need to at least give themselves enough credit to decide something with a simple majority.  

How are we to govern under these rules? It simply isn't possible for the people of California to constantly be fighting battles at these ridiculous thresholds. Would any sort of business operate like this? These are local taxes for crying out loud, yet the state constitution is once again blocking the will of the people. Not for some greater purpose, not for civil rights (looking at you, Prop 8), but simply because some organization thought they could screw up the state a little further.

Not only is the initiative system broken beyond repair, the entire constitution has got to go. It's time to Repair California.

Brian Leubitz :: The Other, Other 2/3 Rule
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

How is it even constitutional (0.00 / 0)
for a simple majority to impose a rule requiring a 2/3 majority?  Won't someone challenge this as a violation of due process, or equal protection, or of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government?  

2/3 Vote (0.00 / 0)
When I lived in El Cerrito in the 1990's there was a year when four measures were on the ballot.  All got more than 65% of the vote, and all lost.  This is undemocratic and tyranny of a small minority.  

And where but CA do we only vote by parcel, excluding those who do not own real estate, while giving others (who own multiple lots--think corporations) many, many votes.  I know, I know, it's to protect property owners from having taxes raised by a vote of people who would not be affected by it.  So how far does that logic go?  Only people who own cars should be able to vote on a gas tax change?  How did voters who do not smoke get to vote on Prop 98?  


A simple majority would only be fair if a majority of the voters were landowners (0.00 / 0)
It is simply unfair to impose highly progressive taxes on the land owning majority through the simple will of the majority (who themselves won't be affected by the tax).  It's a simple representation issue.

The 2/3 rule protects the middle class from the tyranny of the non-taxpaying majority.


mistake (0.00 / 0)
land owning minority, not majority.. sorry guys

[ Parent ]
Seriously? (4.00 / 1)
So, should the vote threshold for the millionaire's tax be lik 80% to protect the millionaires? That's BS, the majority should have the power to tax. Period. End of sentence.

As for "middle class" protection, it's clearly not. Because if it was the middle class that was concerned about the taxes, then they would defeat these measures. Perhaps it's upper middle class, but if the middle class was concerned, then it wouldn't get 50%.

The better question is why people in the Central Valley get to determine what the thresholds for taxes are in San Francisco.  Thus, we get to the old argument for breaking up the state...

I think?


[ Parent ]
I don't know (0.00 / 0)
this seems like a pretty clear argument for a minimum wealth threshold for the right to vote.  It can be measured in land, cash or slaves, I expect.  Mr. Haverstock has been making this argument for a few days now.

[ Parent ]
i don't get the constant slams ofnthe CV (8.00 / 1)
most of your antitax voters, by sheer number, are going to be in socal. inland norcal is about the same size as the bay area, 6.5 million compared with the bay area's 7.2 million. socal is 24 million.

prop 13 passed all over. prop 8 passed all over (and tied in LA county). politically, the valley splits between R and D (and if you don't include the foothills, is probably majority D). it's a swing region, not alabama.

the solution isn't breaking the state, it's restoring majority rule democracy.


[ Parent ]
My bad (0.00 / 0)
I was using it for the generic "not San Francisco". I suppose I could have used the more general term "anti-tax California". My sincere apologies to the Central Valley.

On a side note, Prop 8 failed in all of the Bay Area counties, save Solano which narrowly voted yes. It failed in Yolo too. So, go Yolo!

In the end, I really don't think the answer is to seperate the state. My comment was rather off-hand. I completely agree that California is a workable governing unit, it simply needs a better structure.

I think?


[ Parent ]
no prob (0.00 / 0)
i was mostly giving you shit.  

[ Parent ]
If we're going to look at that (0.00 / 0)
why are we using parcel taxes at all? Parcel taxes - as opposed to ad valorem taxes - are intrinsically regressive.

Why parcel taxes: Prop 13 (4.00 / 1)
It's really that simple, Prop 13 and some followup measures took most of the taxing power away from local government. But, they still can do parcel taxes. Raising them based on property assessments (ad valorem) would violate Prop 13's rules on how much you can raise property taxes.

I think?

[ Parent ]
I would encourage everyone who voted (0.00 / 0)
for the parcel tax measures to support the schools to send in their $99 anyway. It's tax deductible, would be a huge morale boost for the teachers, and would be enormously helpful. We scratch and claw to provide a supply budget to each teacher of $500 or so - so even a handful of $99 donations makes a big positive difference.

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

That's a great idea! n/t (0.00 / 0)


I think?

[ Parent ]
Of course, this plays straight into (0.00 / 0)
the far-right anti-government rhetoric of "if you think it's so important, why don't you just send in your money?"  

The whole point is that there are a lot of services that government provides to make a decent society, both at a moral level and at a positive externality level.  The vast majority of those services will not be provided unless they are paid for as part of the non-optional social contract that citizens have with each other.

The whole point of the anti-government movement is to destroy that part of the social contract.


[ Parent ]
Yes but (0.00 / 0)
on the other hand, what better way to show your support for the schools and for the taxes?

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox