Back Home Up Next

Democratization Of The Legislative Process -- 03/06/00
Californian Republicans Showed a Common Sense in the Local, but not in the National Affairs -- 3/11/00


 

Democratization Of The Legislative Process

By Victor J. Serge

 


Californians have been experimenting with the direct democracy from the early 1970s. They are trying to take the legislative power over the hot issues into their own hands. Theoretically, referendums should speed the implementation of the values and interests of the majority. Californians initiate so-called Propositions, the most touching interests and values, and legalize them through the spring and autumn referendums.

The spring referendum coincide with the presidential primary election. California features 23 candidates for president from the seven qualified political parties. Ballots cast in the presidential primaries will determine each parties' nominee for the November 2000 ballot.

California has a blanket, or "open"primary system, adopted by voters in 1996, which allows voters to cast votes for any candidate of any party. However, the rules of the Republican Party require that only party members may nominate presidential candidates.

To resolve this dilemma, California's legislators passed a law that requires the officials responsible for the presidential elections to count ballots twice -- one count of votes cast by party members, and one count of votes cast by all voters. Both counts will be publicly announced, but only votes cast by party members will be counted by the parties when determining how many delegates a nominee receives at the party's nominating convention.

There are 20 propositions on the ballot that will be voted tomorrow, March 7, 2000, along with the presidential primaries that will continue the eliminative process of looking the best candidate for federal executive office.

Some propositions are initiatives that were placed on the ballot by petition of the voters, but the most of them has been placed on the ballot by the state legislature. The state- and group-sponsored proposition can be largely categorize as: 1) propositions that supposed to fill the public (communal and state) purse; and 2) propositions that supposed to protect the public purse with the public sword.

PURSE

The first type of the state-sponsored propositions is bonds or constitutional amendments that require voter approval. To promote this type of proposition, their proponents and opponents managed to gather about $15 million (as $10 million for the proposition 1A - Indian Gaming).

Prop 1A. Modifies state Constitution's prohibition against casinos and lotteries, to authorize the Governor to negotiate compacts, subject to legislative ratification, for the operation of slot machines, lottery games, and banking and percentage card games by federally recognized Indian Tribes on Indian lands in California, in accordance with federal law. Authorizes slot machines, lottery games, and banking and percentage card games to be conducted and operated on tribal lands subject to the compacts. Summary of the Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Uncertain fiscal effect on state and local tax revenues ranging from minor impact to significant annual increases. State license fees of tens of millions of dollars each year available for gaming-related costs and each other programs.

Prop 29. A "Yes"vote approves, a "No"vote rejects a law, previously passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, that would: formally approve 11 tribal-state compacts that were concluded in 1998; provide procedures for approving future compacts; declare the Governor responsible for negotiation of compacts; and authorize the Governor to waive state's immunity to suit by tribes. Fiscal impact: If Proposition 1A (on this ballot) is approved, Proposition 29 would have no fiscal impact on state and local governments. If Proposition 1A is not approved, Proposition 29 would result in unknown, but probably not significant, fiscal impacts on state and local governments.

The majority of Democrats supports these propositions, and the majority of Republicans oppose them as the means that will further corrupt the traditional morality.

Prop 25. Expands campaign contribution disclosure requirements, establishes contribution limits from single sources of $5,000 for statewide candidates, $3,000 for other candidates, $25,000 for political parties, and $50,000 total per election. Bans corporate contributions. Limits fundraising to period 12 months before primary election and ninety days after election. Provides public financing of campaign media advertisements and voter information packets for qualifying candidates and committees adopting spending limits ranging from $300,000 for assembly primary race to $10,000,000 for governor's race. Requires ballot pamphlet to list top contributors on ballot measures. Fiscal impact: state costs of more than $55 million annually, potentially offset to an unknown extent; local government costs of potentially several million dollars annually.

John McCain has made the campaign finance reform a centerpiece of his battle for minds and hearts of the Americans, and tomorrow, Californians will have a chance to say directly whether they want this kind of reforms. Their Proposition 25, sponsored by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Ron Unz, is a complex measure that would equalize the contenders for public office and would necessitate them to run on their merits rather than on their connections. It should also facilitate the candidates to argue more on issues than on characters.

The majority of Democrats and their leaders support the proposition.

Opponents of the Proposition 25 say the measure would force citizens to subsidize political ads, which they oppose. The conservative Republicans, including Bush, oppose this proposition because it would limit their 1stAmendment absolute right to assemble and to speak freely.

The moderate Republicans support this proposition because California is one of only six states with no limits on political contributions. Now the moderate Republicans perceive big donors as the corrupters of the state’s politicians. John McCain supports this proposition in general, because it is better than nothing. However, McCain opposes such provisions of Proposition 25 that necessitate the taxpayers to fund the campaigns. McCain considers such inclusions as temporary measures that will soon be unnecessary and will fade out like those, which Californians want to repeal now.

Prop 26. Authorizes school, community college districts, and county education offices that evaluate safety, class size, information technology needs to issue bonds for construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement of school facilities if approved by majority of applicable jurisdictions' voters. New accountability requirements include annual performance, financial audits. Prohibits use of bonds for salaries or other school operating expenses. Requires that facilities be available to public charter schools. Authorizes property taxes higher than existing 1% limit by majority vote, rather than two-thirds currently required, as necessary to pay bonds. Fiscal impact: Increased local school district debt costs -- potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars statewide each year within a decade. These costs would depend on voter action on future local school bond issues and would vary by individual district. Unknown impact on state costs. Potential longer-term state savings to the extent local school districts assume greater responsibility for funding school facilities.

Tomorrow, voters will decide the usefulness of other major initiatives that should fill the public purse up. This proposition directed to ease for school districts to raise money for construction by lowering the threshold for approval of bond issues from the two-thirds majority to a simple majority (50 percent plus one). The measure might have national implication because the senior voters are the majority of the active voters, and now they consider the effectiveness of the public and private education.

Democrats want that the federal government would give tax breaks to school districts to build the public schools. Republicans lean toward greater privatization of educational system and want that the federal government does not tax the citizens on this matter in the first place.

Prop 28. Repeals additional $.50 per pack tax on cigarettes and equivalent increase in state tax on tobacco products previously enacted by Proposition 10 at November 3, 1998, election. Provides for elimination of funding for Proposition 10 early childhood development and smoking prevention programs. Prohibits imposition of additional surtaxes on distribution of cigarettes or tobacco products unless enacted by state legislature. Provides for termination of California Children and Families First Trust Fund once all previously collected taxes under Proposition 10 are appropriated and expended. Fiscal impact: Reduction in annual state special fund revenues of approximately $670 million that would otherwise be allocated for early childhood development programs and activities. Relatively small increases in Proposition 99 revenues of a few million dollars. Annual decreases in state General Fund revenues of approximately $7 million and local government sales tax revenues of approximately $6 million. Loss of potential long-term state and local governmental savings that could otherwise result from Proposition 10.

The conservative Republicans sponsored this proposition. They directed it to repeal another ballot initiative that was passed only two years ago, which imposed a $.50 increase of tax per a pack of cigarettes and earmarked the revenue from that taxation for pre-school education programs.

The majority of Democrats and the moderate Republicans are oppose this proposition because the money should supposedly heal the social wound that the consumers of tobacco have been imposing on the younger generations by giving them a bad example.

SWORD

Prop 18. Amends provisions of Penal Code section 190 defining the special circumstances where first degree murder is punishable by either death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Provides that a special circumstance exists for killing committed "by means of lying in wait"rather than "while lying in wait."Provides that a special circumstance exists where murder is committed while the defendant was involved in acts of kidnapping or arson, even if it is proved that the defendant had a special intent to kill, and the kidnapping or arson was committed to facilitate murder. Fiscal Impact: Unknown, probably minor, additional state costs.

Prop 19. Existing law provides that the punishment for the murder in the second degree of specified peace officers is life without the possibility of parole if the crime occurs while the officer is on duty and aggravating factors are present. This measure specifies these enhanced sentence provisions would also apply when the victim is a peace officer employed by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District or the California State University System. Fiscal Impact: Unknown, probably minor, additional state costs.

Prop 21. Increases punishment for gang-related felonies; death penalty for gang-related murder; indeterminate life sentences for home-invasion robbery, car-jacking, witness intimidation and drive-by shootings; and creates crime of recruiting for gang activities; and authorizes wiretapping for gang activities. Requires adult trial for juveniles 14 or older charged with murder or specified sex offenses. Eliminates informal probation for juveniles committing felonies. Requires registration for gang-related offenses. Designates additional crimes as violent and serious felonies, thereby making offenders subject to longer sentences. Fiscal Impact: State costs: ongoing annual costs of more than $330 million. One-time costs of about $750 million. Local costs: potential ongoing annual costs of tens of millions of dollars to more than $100 million. Potential one-time costs in the range of $200 million to $300 million.

The propositions aim to crack down on the violent crime, and particularly on juvenile crime. Teens of 14 or older, charged with committing certain types of murder or violent sex offenses, would be tried as adults. The proposition would add new crimes to the list of presently covered by California’s law of "three strikes and you are out."It means that the violent criminals would be serving longer sentences.

The majority of Democrats and Republicans support these propositions.

The second type of propositions amends previously approved initiatives and therefore require voter approval. It includes three propositions, which seek to overturn laws enacted by the Legislature. Voting on these propositions can be confusing because a "yes"vote on a proposition means a voter supports the present law, while a "no"vote means a voter wants to repeal the present law. To promote this type of proposition, their proponents and opponents managed to gather about $50 million (each of the propositions 22 and 25 drew about $22 million).

Prop 22. Adds a provision to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: This measure would likely have no direct fiscal effect on state and local governments.

A Republican, William Knight sponsored the latter proposition, which aims to ban the marriages of homosexuals and not recognize such ones that were legalized in other States. More than 30 States have already enacted similar laws.

The marriages of homosexuals are not legal in California now. However, proponents of this proposition insist that this amendment to the Family Code is necessary. If other States legalize such kind of marriages and if homosexual couples move to California, the Californians would be compelled by the federal law to recognize them as legal.

Indeed, the Sections 1-2 of the Article IV of the Federal Constitution stated, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The literal interpretation of the federal law would seem to give a State no choice but to recognize the homosexual unions performed in other States, no matter if it is legal in the minority or the majority of States. A federal law (the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996) was supposed to protect the right of a State to ignore the homosexual marriages legalized in other States; however, that law has yet to be tested in the courts.

Meanwhile, the proponents of this amendment assert that each State has a right to define own marriage regulations. It is not anti-homosexual or hate mongering but reflects the preference Californians have for traditional marriage. If Hawaii and Vermont decide to legalize the homosexual marriages, good for them. However, they should not dictate their preferences to other States and localities under the cover of the Full Faith and Credit clause.

The opponents of this proposition say that in States, where such laws have passed, they have been used against the homosexual domestic partners to challenge their benefits and local anti-discrimination ordinances. In Idaho and Pennsylvania, they have been used to block adoption by a homosexual of his-her partner’s children.

Many constitutional scholars-literalists have already said that the literal interpretation of the Federal Constitution will require California to recognize the homosexual marriages. However, plenty of constitutional scholars-activists have said that meaningful interpretation of the Article IV and the 10thAmendment of the Federal Constitution leave a State some space for implementation its own preferences.

The majority of Democrats and their national leaders and presidential candidates oppose the Proposition 22.

The majority of Republicans, including John McCain, support it as a necessary mean to buttress traditional morality. However, a few Republicans, including the Republican Senate candidate, Tom Campbell from Silicon Valley, oppose it. George Bush has no a definite opinion on it.

03/06/00


 

Californian Republicans Showed a Common Sense in the Local, but not in the National Affairs

 


Tuesday’s exit polls across the nation showed the apparent ideological split among the Republicans. About half of Americans who voted Republican said they were conservatives, and 30% of them said they were Independents or Democrats; 20% of the voters were the moderate Republicans.

However, almost half of the Republican voters said they were moderates or liberals, and over 60% of them felt Bush was appropriately conservative and more likely to beat a Democrat in the fall. About one-third of them felt, McCain was not conservative enough. That odd ideological split showed that those hesitating moderate Republicans finally chose their way, in which it is better to go along with the ultra-conservatives and Bush than with the moderate Democrats, Independents, and McCain.

The conservative voters were more eager to find a leader who could embody the values and interests of the upper class. The moderate voters were more eager to find a leader who could embody the values and interests of the middle class. The even ideological split among New York Republicans reflected a close race in the State where only two months ago McCain was fighting to get on the ballot.

The close results indicated the ultra-complex system of this year’s primaries. New Yorkers closed their voting booths to all but party faithful, though two thirds of the Republican voters favored an open primary system in the State. Ohioans opened their booths to any voter. Californians opened their booths to all and counted each vote twice – for the referendum on local propositions and for assigning party delegates.

The division of California voters was as follow: 1) Democrats -- 40%, Republicans -- 36%, and Independents -- 24%; 2) Hispanics – 12%, and the majority of them voted for Al Gore; 3) almost 40% of Californians said they were moderates.

In three major problems, Californians showed their common sense and approved Propositions 1A and 22 and to disapprove Proposition 26.

Proposition 1A - Indian Gaming. 4,295,280 (64.6%) of Californians said YES to this proposition, which was needed to resolve a legal technicality that threatens to shut down Indian gaming on Californian tribal reservations.

For more than a decade, casinos on Indian reservations in California have provided jobs for Indians. Entertainment industry allowed to take thousands of Indians off welfare and to provide vital funds for the education, housing and health care of tribal members.

However, in recent years, Nevada entertainment industry, particularly the owners of Las-Vegas’ casinos, wanted to monopolize this industry throughout the West Coast and to kill competition from California. Consequently, they have created a political dispute in California that threatens to shut down casinos on the Indian reservations in California.

In 1998, Californians, by super-majority (66%), approved Proposition 5 that allowed California tribes to have gaming on their own land, even though the casino-owners of Nevada spent millions on the negative campaign (in this year alone they spent $26 million and the proponents of Proposition 1A spent only $1 million). In the aftermath, the casino-owners of Las-Vegas filed a lawsuit to block the Proposition 5 from taking effect. It was ruled unconstitutional and overturned on a legal technicality in 1999. Consequently, the Proposition 1A was designed to resolve this technicality.

For most of the past century, Indians on federally designated reservations in California lived in extreme poverty and welfare dependency. In 1988, federal law recognized the right of Indian tribes to have limited, regulated gaming on their tribal lands. Since 1988, casinos on Indian tribal lands in California and 27 other states have provided many Indians with jobs. High employment generates revenues to provide them with decent housing, clean water supplies, better education and health, and it takes them off welfare. Today, casinos on Indian tribal lands in California support nearly 50,000 jobs and generate $120 million annually in state and local taxes. On reservations with casinos, unemployment and welfare has dropped by 50% and 68%, correspondingly.

The Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) allows Indian gaming on reservation lands to create jobs and provide funds for education, housing, health care, economic development and other services for tribal members. Under this law, Indian tribes and State governments must negotiate gaming agreements (tribal-state compacts) that specify the details for Indian gaming on reservations. Last summer, Governor Davis and the majority of California tribes negotiated and signed such a compact. This historic contract between California executive office and Indian tribes was then sent to the California legislature, where it was approved by more than a 2/3 majority with strong bipartisan support from Democrat and Republican legislators. The final step in the approval process is the referendum; and four days ago, Californians by nearly 2/3 majority approved this tribal-state compact.

The basic terms of this contract are:

California Indian tribes will be allowed to continue limited gaming at casinos on federally designated Indian reservation lands. Permitted games include slot machines, house-banked card games, lottery games and pari-mutuel wagering.

Revenues from Indian gaming must be shared with non-gaming tribes to support education, health care, housing and economic development programs on reservations that do not have casinos.

For any significant new construction related to a casino on Indian land, a tribe must prepare an environmental report on any potential impacts to areas outside the reservation, allow the public to comment on the report and make good faith efforts to mitigate any impacts.

Gaming on Indian lands is strictly regulated. In addition to direct regulation by tribal and federal governments, it includes the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the IRS and the Department of the Interior. The compact provides also for new oversight by the State of California.

Although most California tribes are located in remote areas where a casino is not practical or where market conditions will only support a small gaming facility, the compact sets certain legal limits. Specifically, no reservation will be allowed to have more than two gaming facilities or more than two thousand slot machines.

Gaming tribes will pay a percentage of their revenues to state and local governments, using a sliding scale (ranging from 7% to 13%) based on the number of gaming machines they operate. These funds will be dedicated to support local programs and services in nearby communities, and to reimburse state and local agencies for their costs to regulate casinos on Indian lands.

Employees working in most non-management jobs at Indian casinos will be allowed to join labor unions if they choose to do so.

The minimum age for a patron at a casino on Indian land will be 21 in any area where alcohol is served. In areas where no alcohol is served, the minimum age will be 18, the same as for the state lottery.

The terms of the compact will be valid for 20 years with the option to extend. Changes may be re-negotiated after three years, but must be jointly agreed to by both the tribes and State, and approved by the federal government.

Proposition 1A has been approved by Governor Davis, the California Legislature and the vast majority of California Indian tribes. If gaming on Indian tribal lands in California would be shut down; it would devastate Indians and put additional burden on California’s taxpayers, and the real winners would be the rich Las Vegas casino owners. However, four days ago, near the super majority of Californians approved it too.

Californians rejected Proposition 26 by 3,332,361 votes or 51.2% to 3,178,036 votes or 48.8%. By this proposition, the super majority vote in the State legislature would be replaced by the simple majority vote in the matter of raising taxes for renovation schools, roads, and other infrastructure. Although the proponents of this proposition spent $26 million for a campaign of deception and the senior citizens spent only $2 million, the common sense of the latter prevailed. Current estimates are showing the California State budget surplus of from $7-9 billion. Therefore, the senior citizens believe that there is no need to make it easier to raise taxes when government coffers are overflowing.

It means that the super majority of Californians understand that their long-run interests lie in the sphere of free enterprise and civilized competition (that drives prices of services down), not in the sphere of monopoly (that drives prices of services up). If the trend will continue, then, in 20-30 years, Californians and all Americans may enjoy the low prices and better quality of services in the sex and drug industries.

Today, Californians are sure about their purse, but they are not so sure about their moral, which they attempted to clarify in Proposition 22.

Proposition 22 ads a provision to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. This proposition, which aims to ban the marriages of homosexuals and not recognize such ones that were legalized in other States. More than 30 States have already enacted similar laws.

The marriages of homosexuals are prohibited in California now. However, proponents of this proposition insist that this amendment to the Family Code is necessary if question arises about other State residents. In cases when other States legalize such kind of marriages and a homosexual couple moves to California, the Californians would be compelled by the federal law to recognize their marriage as legal.

Indeed, the Sections 1-2 of the Article IV of the Federal Constitution stated, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The literal interpretation of the federal law would seem to give a State no choice but to recognize the homosexual unions performed in other States, no matter if it is legal in the minority or the majority of States. A federal law (the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996) was supposed to protect the right of a State to ignore the homosexual marriages legalized in other States; however, that law has yet to be tested in the courts.

Meanwhile, the proponents of this amendment assert that each State has a right to define own marriage regulations. It is not hate mongering but reflects the preference Californians have for traditional marriage with mammy and daddy, whose difference in gender is, in general, in the best interest of a child. Marriage is a traditional institution that a society developed for the protection of child interests. If Hawaii and Vermont decide to legalize the homosexual marriages, good or bad for them. However, they should not dictate their preferences to other States and localities under the cover of the Full Faith and Credit clause.

The opponents of this proposition say that in States, where such laws have passed, they have been used against the homosexual domestic partners to challenge their benefits and local anti-discrimination ordinances. In Idaho and Pennsylvania, they have been used to block adoption by a homosexual of his-her partner’s children.

Many constitutional scholars-literalists have already said that the literal interpretation of the Federal Constitution will require California to recognize the homosexual marriages. However, plenty of constitutional scholars-activists have said that meaningful interpretation of the Article IV and the 10th Amendment of the Federal Constitution leave a State some space for implementation its own preferences.

The majority of the Democrats and their national leaders and presidential candidates opposed the Proposition 22. The Majority of the Republicans, including John McCain, supported it as a necessary mean to buttress traditional morality. However, George Bush has no a definite opinion on it. It is very symptomatic that Bush was the most popular among those who voted pro this proposition, although he had no a faintest idea how to resolve the moral dilemma that underlies this proposition.

Proposition 22 passed by a simple majority.

Overall, the common sense of Californian Republicans prevailed on the state problems; however, they were shortsighted and goofed on the federal problems.

In New England, almost 80% of independent voters chose McCain; 45% of GOP voters said Bush's attacks on McCain were unfair; therefore, nearly 90% of them chose McCain. Over half of voters were Catholics, who favored McCain. Protestants overwhelmingly favored Bush over McCain. Over 20% of Democrats would vote for McCain over Gore in November, if they were the candidates.

Members of the religious right were fervently supporting Bush. Nearly 80% of the Bible Belt Republicans chose Bush. The 40% of Ohioans and New Yorkers voted for Bush, feeling that McCain’s attacks on the religious right were unfair.

Taxes were a dominant issue among Rhode Islanders. A half of them said that taxes should be a priority for the next president, therefore, they overwhelmingly voted for Bush.

One-third of Georgian Republicans, who voted for McCain said they would rather prefer Gore than Bush, if the two men will stay in the race until November. Only about half of Ohioans and New Yorkers, who voted for McCain, said they would vote for Bush if he were the Republican candidate in November.

The moral issues prevailed over the economical ones among the super majority of all voters. The most important candidate qualities in a candidate, voters said, were someone who stands up for his beliefs and who embodies conservative values. Almost half of the Republican voters supported some legal form of abortion.

When you pick your winning horse not by its merits (looks, character, and performance) but solely on its pedigree, you will probably lose your bet.

3/11/00

[email protected]

Home Up bush clinton democracy keyes flag gore limbo mccain

Hit Counter


Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it on 04/13/03