John Cox’s California initiative to vastly expand the number of state legislators has failed to qualify for the ballot. Cox submitted 794,643 signatures and needed 585,407 valid ones. Election officials checked all the signatures and determined that only 559,906 were valid.
Are you interested in Article the First, Bill of Rights, 1789, which would limit Congressional population districts to 50K voters?
Abolish the EVIL minority rule gerrymander USA Senate and divide all larger States.
@Joogle, That is not what the first of the 12 proposed amendments sas. Also, the first two are not considered part of the Bill of Rights. See James Madison’s remarks when introducing the proposed amendments.
Can this be reviewed?
Does the USA have THE highest ratio of Voters / Seats(Members) in legislative bodies in *democratic* regimes ???
WORK HOURS AND $$$ COST TO CHECK ***ALL*** THE SIGNATURES ???
@Demo Rep,
We don’t have a right to petition our government?
Again —
see the book —
Sources of Our Liberties ed by Richard L. Perry (Am Bar Assn 1959)
the 1st Amdt has ZERO to do with ballot *mechanics* —
voters, registration, stuff on ballots, vote counting, etc.
One more SCOTUS LAWLESS *politically correct* perversion in the 1960s.
@Demo Rep,
What do the words: “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
mean?
LOOK at the SOL book — and learn something new and different.
We petition that the regime do [or NOT do] such and such.
EG – SEE Resolves in 1765 STAMP ACT CONGRESS AND 1774 FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS.
See DOI about petition attempts with Brits.
Very early on in 1789 USA regime — multiple *petitions* about ending slavery — on and off chaos (esp in 1840s) about such anti-slavery petitions in the Congress until 1864-1865 – 13th Amdt proposed.
— difference from election related press and speech and assemble.
If elected, I/we will enact such and such law(s).
The Prez AAA regime is EVIL moronic regarding the ZZZ subject.
—
IE the 1761-1783 Brit monarch – George III / oligarchs attempted to tyrannize the 1761-1783 Americans just like the tyrant regimes did in the 1900s — eg SEE INFAMOUS mass killing in China — TINAMIN SQUARE.
UK — still a 1066 DARK AGE tyrant regime with NO written Const.
— LOTS of stuff in the 1776-1789 State Consts and later 1787 Const is a response to the tyrant stuff in the Brit regime in 1066-1783 — like NO bills of attainer, NO ex post facto laws, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition
NOT sure how many of the OBP signers got killed by the Brits in 1775-1783.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_07-08-75.asp
full text of the OBP and related items.
Who were the horse express folks who carried the LIGHTNING BOLT FLASH/EMERGENCY news of the battles of Lexington and Concord on 19 April 1775 to the 2nd Continental Congress meeting in Philly in May 1775 ???
The 2CC went into CRISIS W-A-R mode — DOI 4 July 1776 — continued until Mar 1, 1781 when the 1777 Art. Confed took effect.
Joint USA-France VICTORY at Yorktown, VA 19 Oct 1781 >>> 1783 USA-Brit Peace Treaty.
Thus — Ignored OBP petition had effects.
Jim Riley, Article the First was for 50K voter population districts, but lacked one state’s signature due to mistake. So it was the First, but was set back because of one state CT. I will try to post a link here.
Looking in to Madison’s remarks, can you please post a link?
http://www.articlethefirst.net/2013/01/article-first.html?m=1
Trying to get it ratified now.
J.O.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment
Good luck in claiming it got ratified.
@Joogle, James Madison would have amended the constitution by making in-line changes, just as most state constitutions and statutes are amended. The first proposed amendment would have amended Article I, Section II, and was therefore first. What is now referred to as the 27th Amendment was next as an amendment to Article I, Section 6. Article I, section 6 provides for compensation of Congress. The 27th Amendment restricts when compensation may be changed.
The “Bill of Rights” would have been made in Article I, Section 9. This contains provision for habeas corpus, and could be considered a putative Bill of Rights.
See Madison’s speech of June 8, 1789.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html See Annals of Congress, for the 1st Congress, beginning at page 440 (451 for the first layout).
During the legislative process the amendments were structured more in the form that we know it. The version passed by the House of Representatives on August 24 had 17 Articles. The first article would have required at least one representative for every 50,000 persons (a minimum of 6600 congress-critters).
The Senate version passed on September 9, had 12 articles, and directly correspond to the 12 actually proposed to the States. Article one would have required one representative per 60,000 persons, or 5500 congress-critters. This was no longer a minimum, but an absolute number.
The final version proposed to the states would set a minimum of 200, and no more than one per 50,000 persons. That is, it would set a cap of around 6,600 for the current population. This is similar to the current cap of around 11,000.
The only reason to pass the 1st Article of Amendment would be ensure that Congress continues to apportion at least 200 representatives, nor more than 6,600.
The proposed initiative in California would have provided one assembly district for every 5000 persons (around 8000 assembly members), and one senate district for every 10,000 persons (around 4000) senators.
These legislators would be minimally compensated. They would choose 80 assembly members and 40 senators to form a working committee in Sacramento. So roughly 100 assembly members would choose a member of the working committee. They could replace that person at any time (recall effectively), and could choose someone else to fill a vacancy.
All assembly members and senators would be required to vote on final passage, which they could do electronically.
The cost of the legislature would be cut by 1/3. Part of the rationale for expanding the size of the legislature is that legislators now have to have huge staffs because of the large districts. If your assembly district had 5000 persons, you could walk over to your neighbor’s house and knock on his door.
This same model could also be used for local governments. It is not too dissimilar to the representative town meetings used in some parts of New England.
@DR, Which pages in Sources of our Liberty do you suggest that I look at. I’m not going to read all 400 pages in attempt to understand what you are saying, which may in fact be a misinterpretations.
The SOL book has a good index.
The SOL book should be read/owned by ALL constitutional law folks — esp the SCOTUS gang of 9 — and their mini-armies of clerks — about origins of const. restrictions — legis, exec, judic.
USA Amdts 1-8 are copies/variants of of stuff in the 1776-1789 State Consts and laws
— many due to Brit machinations in 1761-1775 to subvert/destroy such *rights* in the Brit colonies.
See 1776 DOI — for many of the Brit machinations.
Petition, Right of
p 229-230. in Pennsylvania constitution.
p 266, in Declaration of Rights of Stamp Act Congress
p 271, 13th Article Declaration of Rights, Stamp Act Congress
How do you see any of this as contrary to what I wrote above?
Jim Riley on February 10, 2018 at 6:48 am said:
What do the words: “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
mean?
See Demo Rep on February 10, 2018 at 7:34 am
See Demo Rep on February 10, 2018 at 9:57 pm
—
MORE-
Sources of Our Liberties [SOL] edited by Richard L. Perry (1959)
P. 271 Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress 1765
13th. That it is the right of the British subjects in these colonies, to petition the king or either house of parliament.
P. 288 Resolves of the First Continental Congress 1774
Resolved, N.C.D. 8. That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal. ***
All and each of which the aforesaid deputies, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on, as their indubitable rights and liberties; which cannot be legally taken from them, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without their own consent, by their representatives in their several provincial legislatures. [emphasis added]
—
P. 321 USA 1776 Declaration of Independence – small part
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
—
P. 331 PA 1776
Sec. 16. That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance.
P. 339 DE 1776
Sec. 9. That every man hath a right to petition the Legislature for the redress of grievances in a peaceable and orderly manner.
—
P. 347 MD 1776
Sec. 11. That every man hath a right to petition the Legislature for the redress of grievances, in a peaceable and orderly manner.
P. 350 MD 1776
—
P. 356 NC 1776
Sec. 18. That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their Representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.
—
P. 366 VT 1777
Sec. 18. That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good – to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance. [1786 VT Sec. 21]
—
P. 377 MA 1780
Sec. 19. The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.
—
P. 385 1784 NH
Sec. 32. The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.
—-
VT (Republic 1777-1791) — State 14 in 1791.
—
NOT shown- the demands for USA Const Amdts by the Art VII State Ratifying Conventions and State legislatures.
IE USA Amdts 1-8 did NOT come out of thin air.
—
Election mechanics is a different subject.
TOTAL failure by SCOTUS to request/demand FULL legislative history of every word/phrase in constitutional law cases — in the FIRST case — esp by USA Justice Dept genius amici.
RESULT – JUNK in such SCOTUS FIRST cases infects ALL later cases.
@DR,
California Constitution Article II, Section 1
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”
California Constitution Article II, Section 8 (a)
“(a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.”
California Constitution Article II, Section 8 (b)
“(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution …”
How are these not expressions of the freedom to petition the government? I assume you are not saying that because California does not have a monarch, that the right of petition is no longer valid.
How many *recent* assemblies for a redress of grievances have become revolutions ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution
1989
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_crisis
2013-2014
—
older
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre
1770
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative
bottom —
The modern system of initiative and referendum originated in the state of South Dakota, which adopted initiative and referendum in 1898 by a popular vote of 23,816 to 16,483. Oregon was the second state to adopt and did so in 1902, when the Oregon Legislative Assembly adopted it by an overwhelming majority. The “Oregon System,” as it was at first known, subsequently spread to many other states, and became one of the signature reforms of the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s).
—
Sorry 1898-1902 came after 1776-1789-1791.
Does CA NOW have a DE FACTO Monarch Guv ??? — with his/her/its puppet/stooge gerrymander oligarchs in the CA legislature —
thus producing the now LOTS of CA const amdt / law petitions.
What percent of the CA GDP is involved in the CA petition biz ???
PR and AppV
ALL STATES HAVE THE SAME GERRYMANDER MINORITY RULE ROT —
THE LOW PA (ESP UNDER 50.0) ARE DUE IN PART TO LOTS OF FOREIGN INVADERS BEING COUNTED IN THE 2010 CENSUS.
THE 25.8 PCT MINORITY RULE IS MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE DUE TO THE CA TOP 2 PRIMARY MATH
– IE MANY SPECIAL INTEREST GANG EXTREMISTS BEING NOMINATED.
*******
CA ASSEMBLY 2017-2018
2016 ELECTION – 2 YEAR TERM
80 PACK/CRACK GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS
= 80 CONCENTRATION CAMPS
RK- RANK, DT-DISTRICT, PA-PERCENT OF AVERAGE
AVERAGE = 14,610,509 TOTAL VOTES / 80 = 182,631
1 OF 80 WIN GOT ABOVE THE AVERAGE
* = 41 LOW D WIN
I = INCUMBENT
RK DT VOTES PA
1 53 50,958 27.9 D*D Santiago-I
2 32 53,056 29.1 D*R Salas-I
3 31 62,404 34.2 D*R Arambula-I
4 47 62,432 34.2 D*D Reyes
5 52 64,836 35.5 D*D Rodriguez-I
6 69 69,640 38.1 D*R Daly-I
7 27 71,696 39.3 D*D Kalra
8 39 74,834 41.0 D*D Bocanegra
9 26 76,289 41.8 RD Mathis-I
10 40 76,537 41.9 RD Steinorth-I
11 59 77,324 42.3 D*U Jones-Sawyer-I
12 60 77,404 42.4 D*R Cervantes
13 46 77,587 42.5 D*D Nazarian-I
14 36 77,801 42.6 RD Lackey-I
15 65 79,654 43.6 D*R Quirk-Silva
16 30 79,885 43.7 D*D Caballero
17 12 81,680 44.7 RR Flora
18 49 82,964 45.4 D*R Chau-I
19 33 84,000 46.0 RD Obernolte-I
20 21 85,990 47.1 D*R Gray-I
21 13 86,315 47.3 D*R Eggman-I
22 64 86,419 47.3 D*R Gipson-I
23 48 87,321 47.8 D*R Rubio
24 63 89,134 48.8 D*R Rendon-I
25 61 90,663 49.6 D*R Medina-I
26 24 92,419 50.6 D*D Berman
27 56 93,090 51.0 D*U Garcia-I
28 57 93,339 51.1 D*R Calderon-I
29 76 95,477 52.3 RR Chavez-I
30 42 97,864 53.6 RD Mayes-I
31 72 98,335 53.8 RD Allen-I
32 55 98,960 54.2 RD Chen
33 38 102,977 56.4 RD Acosta
34 8 104,552 57.2 D*R Cooley-I
35 58 105,170 57.6 D*R Garcia-I
36 35 105,247 57.6 RD Cunningham
37 66 105,336 57.7 D*R Muratsuchi
38 43 106,186 58.1 D*D Friedman
39 44 107,084 58.6 D*R Irwin-I
40 70 107,389 58.8 D*R O’Donnell-I
41 14 107,653 58.9 D*D Grayson
42 67 107,654 58.9 RD Melendez-I
43 25 107,821 59.0 D*R Chu-I
44 71 108,049 59.2 RR Voepel
45 80 108,655 59.5 D*R Gonzalez-I
46 3 108,910 59.6 RD Gallagher-I
47 9 109,979 60.2 D*R Cooper-I
48 51 110,036 60.3 D*O Gomez-I
49 7 111,112 60.8 D*R McCarty-I
50 45 111,148 60.9 D*R Dababneh-I
51 11 111,592 61.1 D*R Frazier-I
52 75 111,598 61.1 RD Waldron-I
53 20 114,001 62.4 D*R Quirk-I
54 79 114,080 62.5 D*R Weber-I
55 68 114,210 62.5 RD Choi
56 74 114,477 62.7 RD Harper-I
57 4 118,772 65.0 D*R Aguiar-Curry
58 41 120,633 66.1 D*R Holden-I
59 77 121,140 66.3 RD Maienschein-I
60 5 121,644 66.6 RD Bigelow-I
61 62 123,699 67.7 DRO Burke-I
62 34 123,959 67.9 RD Fong
63 23 125,153 68.5 RR Patterson-I
64 37 128,344 70.3 DO Lim—n
65 16 129,585 71.0 RD Baker-I
66 28 136,547 74.8 DR Low-I
67 2 138,020 75.6 DO Wood-I
68 10 140,207 76.8 DD Levine-I
69 73 144,653 79.2 RD Brough-I
70 78 145,850 79.9 DR Gloria
71 54 146,723 80.3 DR Ridley-Thomas-I
72 22 148,289 81.2 DR Mullin-I
73 1 148,657 81.4 RO Dahle-I
74 6 149,415 81.8 RD Kiley
75 19 150,052 82.2 DR Ting-I
76 18 156,163 85.5 DR Bonta-I
77 29 156,703 85.8 DR Stone-I
78 50 158,967 87.0 DR Bloom-I
79 17 172,153 94.3 DR Chiu-I
80 15 189,530 103.8 DR Thurmond-I
***************************
SUMMARY
— — 3,770,563 *25.8 41 LOW D* WIN
— — 2,091,247 14.3 + 14 HIGH D WIN
— — 5,861,810 *40.1 = 55 D WIN
— — 2,724,271 18.6 + 25 R WIN
— — 8,586,081 58.8 = 80 WIN
— — 4,396,310 30.1 + ALL 79 LOSERS
— — 12,982,391 88.9 = 159 SUBTOTAL
— — 1,628,118 11.1 + NONVOTES
— — 14,610,509 100.0 = TOTAL VOTERS
* ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE PERCENTAGES
DEMOCRACY REMEDY — PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
@DR,
You may not understand my question, so I’ll ask it again.
How is the initiative in California different from a petition of government?
Reversing a bit —
a petition of/to govt = *please* do such and such — by possible majority but generally mostly by a smallish minority – could be to legis, exec and/or judic officers.
initiative = the L-A-W SHALL BE changed (add, amend, repeal) about such and such — IF a majority of the voters vote to do so — generally ignores legis hacks.
NOTE again the above Feb 11 9:27 AM initiative link.
—
In tyrant regimes — just requesting a change in regime actions could be fatal —
eg requesting Hitler to stop killing Jews, Gays, etc. in 1942 in the middle of WW II.
Brits had *seditious Libel* stuff in 1761-1783 to purge folks complaining about Brit regime actions/ inactions.
UK — 1792 Fox Libel Act — AFTER USA 1st Amdt 1789-1791
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/courses/lawdemo/DOCS/FOXEACT.htm
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-James-Fox#ref196487
Some of the USA State Const. have Fox Libel Act type language sections.
@DR, California has not had a monarch since Emperor Norton died. The people are sovereign. In effect, a group of Californians are petitioning the populace as a whole.
In addition, in California the legislature is required by statute to hold hearings on certain initiatives, including this one.
I don’t understand what your concern was when you wrote “WORK HOURS AND $$$ COST TO CHECK ***ALL*** THE SIGNATURES ???” I assume locking the shift key indicates concern.
Most sane States use a random math sample for checking signature — BUT CA does NOT have a sane regime — party hack major gerrymander oligarchs/monarchs and power mad monarch Guv, etc.
@DR, California does have a random check. In this case it was inconclusive. As you probably are aware,samples are not particularly good at detecting duplicates. For a 3% sample, only 3%×3% will be detected. If there are 10,000 duplicates, then only 9 will be detected. The projection will be that there are 300 invalid.
The whole petition process must be redone —
I (repeat I) want candidate AB on the date ballot.
I (repeat I) want issue 2018-1 on the date ballot.
What do you mean by “whole petition process” and “must be redone”.
_Who_ must redo the _process_?
@DR, (continuing)
Back to my original question. The county election officials said that 70.46% of the signatures were valid. If 73.67% were valid, then there would be enough signatures. If 12% of the invalid signatures were valid, then the initiative would have enough signatures.
If you signed a petition, a clerk might be unable to read your name, or the address. If they are lazy or rushed, they will say “invalid – no such person”.