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
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
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]
Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it
on 04/10/03