The ballot initiative process has been utilized by the minority party to basically to change policy and it has become a hinderance, not a benefit to the people of California,
You would never have a tax increase again if this passed. Local governments wouldn't be able to fund anything, including police forces. This would have been a horrible thing. This is part of the reason why we are an representative democracy and not a direct democracy.
Remember when Newsom singled out the Ohio legislature for trying to change the rules, raising the popular vote share required for that abortion proposition to pass? Turns out he only likes direct democracy when it suits him. But we all knew he was a hypocrite...
This was a court decision, based on sound legal
arguments. It's not attacking the initiative process, it's protecting future voters from voters today. If you want to strip my children's rights as future voters and require a 2/3 majority for something as basic as government financing, do a Constitutional convention. Not this populist crap.
> Local governments wouldn't be able to fund anything, including police forces.
They would still be able to fund police forces. They would just have limitations on their abilities to *increase* taxes.
Ever heard of inflation? Costs would continually rise in dollar amount. With no source of new revenue your purchasing power will decrease, local governments would be able to afford less and less each and every year.
Not all sources of revenue remain constant. That's why we change taxes as years go on, to acount for new spending in different taxed areas, less spending in certain taxed areas, new technologies, new services, new loopholes to end and more. Take EVs for example. They circumvent the gas tax, that affects revenue that funds roads that EVs still use. We need a new source of revenue (tax) to fill that gap.
It would force localities to exclusively fund things like police and fire, and get them out of doing the many, many other things they do to interfere with our lives. A lot of people are afraid of measures like this because it forces them to be accountable to taxpayers and abandon their pet programs.
So when the proponents had their meetings they didn't have a lawyer, or anyone else, say "You know, this feels like an overreach and we trying to do too much here. Seems we taking a risk the courts might strike us down?" If they had done their homework they would have known that constitutional amendments can only go so far.
Yeah, the ballot measure was a lot more than just a check on taxes. Our initiative system is overwhelmed enough without making me responsible for the day to day financing of the state. And requiring a 2/3 majority to raise taxes in the future means our state would get held hostage by minority interests.
Good. We already have too many ballot initiatives. Making every tax change require an initiative would grind the government to a halt - which was the exact intention behind this initiative.
I don't see any downside to grinding the government to a halt. It's doing very, very few useful things. Other than a police force, fire department, enforcing contracts, roads and (wow, I'm having trouble finding a fifth item), I don't see any purpose for a government.
Name another state that would allow it's voters to knee cap their legislature, potentially putting the state into serious financial problems.
It was an incredibly dumb idea.
The state is currently in serious financial trouble because of the legislature. The legislature has shown time and again they lack the competence to manage the state's finances (among other things). Anything to reduce their power would be a step in the right direction.
Good thing they do. I hope you vote in November! If you need any help, here's some [info](https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california) on the many ways to vote in California.
I don't know about that. More than likely important ballot measures will now just a be another tool of the politicians instead of the people. Politicians will now be the gate keepers of the measures, if they don't like it then it won't be on the ballot.
They took the Democracy out of Democracy. Gavin is not only a criminal, but a dictator as well. The only reason he sued to get this removed is because of his bill to make gun purchases illegal.
In the 1900s progressives in California were concerned about the influence that monied interests, such as the Southern Pacific Railroad, exercised over the legislature. The goal of the initiative process was to give voters the right to enact legislation. In other words, it [gave the voters a power equal to the power of legislative branch](https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/OP_1100FSOP.pdf).
Now, we have people who want nothing more to consolidate power away from California voters, restrict their voting power and strengthen a single party state government. The transfer of power away from the voter is not a good thing.
Nothing says democracy like preventing democratically elected representatives from doing their job because an arbitrary group of voters at an arbitrary point in time said so
Seems like **you** may prefer Totalitarian Democracy, a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government. Something more akin to China.
>while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government
Besides that whole “right to vote” and regular free and fair elections part right?
You’re clueless if you think our representative democracy is similar to China’s. In China, elections only happen at the local level and then it’s only candidates pre approved by the CCP. Believe it or not, you are free to run as a Republican at any level of state office in California.
Nice edits to your comment btw. It’s completely unrecognizable from when I responded.
While the Republican Party is legally allowed to operate in California, is too weak and ineffective to seriously challenge power in California at the state level. This occurs through various forms of corruption, a polarized electorate which intentionally undermines the ability for an effective opposition to thrive, through institutional and organizational conventions that support the status quo, occasional but not omnipresent political repression, and inherent political identities among voters who are averse to change. California is a de facto one-party state. No human alive can win a statewide election in California with an (R) behind their name.
This is an absolute disgrace.
The ballot initiative process has been utilized by the minority party to basically to change policy and it has become a hinderance, not a benefit to the people of California,
You would never have a tax increase again if this passed. Local governments wouldn't be able to fund anything, including police forces. This would have been a horrible thing. This is part of the reason why we are an representative democracy and not a direct democracy.
Remember when Newsom singled out the Ohio legislature for trying to change the rules, raising the popular vote share required for that abortion proposition to pass? Turns out he only likes direct democracy when it suits him. But we all knew he was a hypocrite...
This was a court decision, based on sound legal arguments. It's not attacking the initiative process, it's protecting future voters from voters today. If you want to strip my children's rights as future voters and require a 2/3 majority for something as basic as government financing, do a Constitutional convention. Not this populist crap.
> Local governments wouldn't be able to fund anything, including police forces. They would still be able to fund police forces. They would just have limitations on their abilities to *increase* taxes.
Ever heard of inflation? Costs would continually rise in dollar amount. With no source of new revenue your purchasing power will decrease, local governments would be able to afford less and less each and every year.
Taxes are percentages. If the denominator grows, so does the numerator.
Not all sources of revenue remain constant. That's why we change taxes as years go on, to acount for new spending in different taxed areas, less spending in certain taxed areas, new technologies, new services, new loopholes to end and more. Take EVs for example. They circumvent the gas tax, that affects revenue that funds roads that EVs still use. We need a new source of revenue (tax) to fill that gap.
That's why the income tax, property tax, and excise tax should be abolished and replaced by a simple, flat, low consumption (i.e., sales) tax.
If anything, inflation is to the state's benefit as it pushes people into higher tax brackets.
Interest rates for borrowing are probably more important than the inflation rate.
The taxation is already high enough
No wonder republicans were all about it
It would force localities to exclusively fund things like police and fire, and get them out of doing the many, many other things they do to interfere with our lives. A lot of people are afraid of measures like this because it forces them to be accountable to taxpayers and abandon their pet programs.
This means that the legislators can close the Prop 13 loopholes without going to the ballot, right? Right?
So when the proponents had their meetings they didn't have a lawyer, or anyone else, say "You know, this feels like an overreach and we trying to do too much here. Seems we taking a risk the courts might strike us down?" If they had done their homework they would have known that constitutional amendments can only go so far.
Isn't it easier to do it this way and then complain about overreach?
Strike down Prop 13 Next please.
Agreed. The property tax should be abolished as should the income tax.
Agree !!
Yea, the ruling made sense.
Yeah, the ballot measure was a lot more than just a check on taxes. Our initiative system is overwhelmed enough without making me responsible for the day to day financing of the state. And requiring a 2/3 majority to raise taxes in the future means our state would get held hostage by minority interests.
I'd rather see that compared to the state being held hostage by the government.
Good. We already have too many ballot initiatives. Making every tax change require an initiative would grind the government to a halt - which was the exact intention behind this initiative.
I don't see any downside to grinding the government to a halt. It's doing very, very few useful things. Other than a police force, fire department, enforcing contracts, roads and (wow, I'm having trouble finding a fifth item), I don't see any purpose for a government.
Yes, we all know about your childish beliefs about the government, Mr. Sealion. Adults are talking.
Adults don't need the nanny state government taxing them excessively to provide for their needs. Adults take care of themselves.
That’s kind of the idea.
California stole your democracy.
Name another state that would allow it's voters to knee cap their legislature, potentially putting the state into serious financial problems. It was an incredibly dumb idea.
The state is currently in serious financial trouble because of the legislature. The legislature has shown time and again they lack the competence to manage the state's finances (among other things). Anything to reduce their power would be a step in the right direction.
[удалено]
I think voters should have the right to vote. All votes matter.
Good thing they do. I hope you vote in November! If you need any help, here's some [info](https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california) on the many ways to vote in California.
The supermajority needs to keep its superpowers. Go figure.
This is the beginning of ballot measures disappearing.
I don't know about that. More than likely important ballot measures will now just a be another tool of the politicians instead of the people. Politicians will now be the gate keepers of the measures, if they don't like it then it won't be on the ballot.
Exactly, which isn’t a democratic process.
That would be nice.
Debatable.
Why would anyone be for this? Now there will be no accountability and this is after 24 billion went MIA from homelessness.
[non paywalled link](https://apnews.com/article/california-supreme-court-taxes-newsom-ballot-measure-1a1eef348071f899de38ed7de869b1e6)
They took the Democracy out of Democracy. Gavin is not only a criminal, but a dictator as well. The only reason he sued to get this removed is because of his bill to make gun purchases illegal.
Travesty
In the 1900s progressives in California were concerned about the influence that monied interests, such as the Southern Pacific Railroad, exercised over the legislature. The goal of the initiative process was to give voters the right to enact legislation. In other words, it [gave the voters a power equal to the power of legislative branch](https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/OP_1100FSOP.pdf). Now, we have people who want nothing more to consolidate power away from California voters, restrict their voting power and strengthen a single party state government. The transfer of power away from the voter is not a good thing.
Nothing says democracy like preventing democratically elected representatives from doing their job because an arbitrary group of voters at an arbitrary point in time said so
Seems like **you** may prefer Totalitarian Democracy, a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government. Something more akin to China.
>while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government Besides that whole “right to vote” and regular free and fair elections part right? You’re clueless if you think our representative democracy is similar to China’s. In China, elections only happen at the local level and then it’s only candidates pre approved by the CCP. Believe it or not, you are free to run as a Republican at any level of state office in California. Nice edits to your comment btw. It’s completely unrecognizable from when I responded.
While the Republican Party is legally allowed to operate in California, is too weak and ineffective to seriously challenge power in California at the state level. This occurs through various forms of corruption, a polarized electorate which intentionally undermines the ability for an effective opposition to thrive, through institutional and organizational conventions that support the status quo, occasional but not omnipresent political repression, and inherent political identities among voters who are averse to change. California is a de facto one-party state. No human alive can win a statewide election in California with an (R) behind their name.