This week, two California initiatives entered circulation that would potentially affect how elections and legislative government would work in California’s future. One provides that the voters themselves, by initiative petition, could call a state Constitutional Convention. The other provides for a part-time legislature. Each needs 694,354 valid signatures, since they each are themselves proposed constitutional amendments.
Thanks Richard,
There are a couple rockin’ lines pg 2 of the Wash Post by Dana Milbank…would like to share..
“Not quite three weeks ago President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. On Wednesday afternoon, he put his signature on the largest military spending plan in the history of the world….$680 Billion taxdollars”
later..
” A Wall Stree Journal-NBC News poll found …half of all Americans favor creating a new political party..”
We’re here America!
Come join us at the Green Party..
The constitutional amendment that would permit constitutional conventions to be called by the voters is accompanied by an initiative statute that I think is of particular relevance to ballot access and the fortunes of small parties (as well as many other subjects). It would call a constitutional convention to be held during 2011 and 2012. The scope specifically includes how the legislative and executive branches are elected, putting many issues of interest to readers of this blog squarely on the table. Further, while the delegate selection process is seriously flawed in one respect (just over half the delegates would be appointed by currently serving elected officials), it also provides an opportunity for a few small party supporters to be chosen as delegates through a modified jury-selection process for just under half the delegates.
Where are the petitions for P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. ???
i.e. — NO need for constitutional conventions and part time legislative body stunt petitions.
Bob only gets half of it. The initiatives put the entire CA Constitution on the table, including the state Bill of Rights, for revision. The Repair California folks lie otherwise, but if you actually read the initiatives, as I have, it’s in there. And that’s scary.
The other problem is that the delegate selection process takes into no account political literacy or any understanding of even basic junior-high-level civics, and that means a lot of the delegates, should this scam pass, will be uneducated dolts, manipulated by the political hack appointees and the results will be a nightmare.
If you’re in CA and see these petitions, DON’T sign them! And tell your friends and family to not sign them either.
On whether there should be literacy requirements for participation in public life — whether as an official or as a voter — Michael Seebeck and I will simply have to disagree. I’m worried about the delegate selection process, but for reasons quite different from his.
On putting everything on the table, Michael only gets half of it. While it is true that there can’t be any absolute guarantee, it is completely false to say that Repair California is lying to anybody, or that putting everything on the table is in the initiatives if you actually read them. Here’s was the constitutional amendment says:
the question of whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution (1) may prescribe judicially enforceable limits on the areas of the Constitution to be considered for revision …
The initiative calling a convention (see here) has a lot to say about it’s scope. See Section 83130 beginning on page 10. Note especially:
… the revision, any amendment, or any related statutory provision proposed by the convention may not include new language, or alter existing language, directly affecting marriage or abortion rights, gambling or casinos of any type, affirmative action, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, immigration rights, or the death penalty.
(c) Any revision or amendment proposed by the convention shall meet the limits set forth in this Section, which limits may be judicially enforced through extraordinary writ. If any of the provisions proposed for enactment is found to be invalid, such finding shall not affect the validity of any other provision proposed for enactment. …
It seems to me they did as much as possible to prevent a runaway convention.