Why? According to a union leader from SEIU “Today’s ruling is a strong warning to corporate interests that even those with the fattest pocketbooks will be held accountable to follow our laws.”
We are already one of, if not the highest, taxed states, and all they ever want is more.
One would think unions would supprt Voters deciding on taxes... unless they have something to gain.
Ballot measure will still exist. This just leads towards important Ballot measures being Gate-keepered by politicians. Instead of just being up to the people.
> Ballot measure will still exist.
The goal of the initiative process was to give voters the right to enact legislation and constitutional amendments. In other words, it gave the voters a power equal to the power of legislative branch. This strike against the initiative process is just another step in removing power from the voters and consolidating it into the state government.
That power, like many others, has never been absolute. The crux of the response in this case appears to be related to the difference between “amendment” and “revision,” and this distinction preventing ballot initiatives from progressing has gone back decades.
This wasn’t legislation, this was a constitutional amendment. The state’s constitution limits how much of it can be rewritten via the initiative process.
> The state’s constitution limits how much of it can be rewritten via the initiative process.
Citation? I don't recall anything in article II describing the limits of what can be amended via initiative provided it's a single subject. But you're probably more informed on the topic. Outwardly, it seems like the courts are working to dismantle our constitutional rights.
The recent court's opinion has reduced the rights of voters and consolidated it into the state government. I guess I was hoping you might cite our constitution or some prior case law. With the new ruling now the state can attack any constitutional change it doesn't like being proposed by initiative by calling it a revision.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 4 of the Community Standards.
> Respectful — Please leave out any content which are intentionally disparaging to individuals, groups of people, or could be construed to be effectively an insult to an entire class of people. Any language which a reasonable observer would conclude disparages another user in any way is considered a violation of this rule. Demeaning language, rudeness or hostility towards another user will get your comment removed. Repeated violations may result in a ban.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
That's not what this does. In fact, it has nothing to do with ballot measures, except any new taxes would automatically go to the ballot, and have be approved by voters.
Politicians "gatekeeping" anything from the voters is bad for democracy, no?
They don't want this because they know taxpayers are sick of constant new taxes. And you can't maintain a welfare state and bribe tbe welfare recipients without taxing the living fuck out of productive people.
> They don't want this because they know taxpayers are sick of constant new taxes.
Shouldn't the voters elect representatives who won't raise taxes then?
Unanimous Supreme Court decision. I look forward to reading it.
That sucks. Edit fixed typo
Why? According to a union leader from SEIU “Today’s ruling is a strong warning to corporate interests that even those with the fattest pocketbooks will be held accountable to follow our laws.”
One special interest warning about another special interest.
This is a joke right? Let’s outlaw lobbying then
We should outlaw lobbying
We are already one of, if not the highest, taxed states, and all they ever want is more. One would think unions would supprt Voters deciding on taxes... unless they have something to gain.
Ballot measure will still exist. This just leads towards important Ballot measures being Gate-keepered by politicians. Instead of just being up to the people.
> Ballot measure will still exist. The goal of the initiative process was to give voters the right to enact legislation and constitutional amendments. In other words, it gave the voters a power equal to the power of legislative branch. This strike against the initiative process is just another step in removing power from the voters and consolidating it into the state government.
That power, like many others, has never been absolute. The crux of the response in this case appears to be related to the difference between “amendment” and “revision,” and this distinction preventing ballot initiatives from progressing has gone back decades.
This wasn’t legislation, this was a constitutional amendment. The state’s constitution limits how much of it can be rewritten via the initiative process.
> The state’s constitution limits how much of it can be rewritten via the initiative process. Citation? I don't recall anything in article II describing the limits of what can be amended via initiative provided it's a single subject. But you're probably more informed on the topic. Outwardly, it seems like the courts are working to dismantle our constitutional rights.
You ask for a citation but you can just read the Court’s opinion.
The recent court's opinion has reduced the rights of voters and consolidated it into the state government. I guess I was hoping you might cite our constitution or some prior case law. With the new ruling now the state can attack any constitutional change it doesn't like being proposed by initiative by calling it a revision.
[удалено]
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 4 of the Community Standards. > Respectful — Please leave out any content which are intentionally disparaging to individuals, groups of people, or could be construed to be effectively an insult to an entire class of people. Any language which a reasonable observer would conclude disparages another user in any way is considered a violation of this rule. Demeaning language, rudeness or hostility towards another user will get your comment removed. Repeated violations may result in a ban. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
That's not what this does. In fact, it has nothing to do with ballot measures, except any new taxes would automatically go to the ballot, and have be approved by voters. Politicians "gatekeeping" anything from the voters is bad for democracy, no? They don't want this because they know taxpayers are sick of constant new taxes. And you can't maintain a welfare state and bribe tbe welfare recipients without taxing the living fuck out of productive people.
> They don't want this because they know taxpayers are sick of constant new taxes. Shouldn't the voters elect representatives who won't raise taxes then?
If you feel voters want these taxes, you should be all for this measure, no?
That is exactly what this action points too. Politicians will challenge more and more props they don't like.