You are currently browsing the daily archive for February 9, 2024.
I’ve submitted this to other larger media, but I’ve been asked for my views on several issues/candidates on the ballot from individuals. Personally, I think Measure A is going down in flames anyway, but here are my thoughts.
Six years ago today I and dozens of others worked to present and get passed Measure K. We had drafted the measure and by now we were feverishly collecting signatures to put the issue on the ballot. In the end the voters exercised their California Constitution rights and passed the strongest Sanctuary ordinance in the country.
We were in kind of a time crunch. For a couple of years the sponsoring organization, Centro del Pueblo, had beseeched the Board of Supervisors to take action on the issue, and after being strung along with vague promises, the organization finally decided to move forward without the Board’s help.
That was the basic equation. The political leadership lacked the will, so the voters acted.
Article 4, section 1 of the California Constitution reads: “The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.” There are a number of other Constitutional provisions in Article 2 which reinforce and define the initiative process, and establish some details of the process.
About half of the states have some sort of referendum or initiative option. Most of the originated with the Progressive Movement (proto‑liberalism as liberalism is understood today) of the early 20th century. Some are more restricted than others. In a few states, measures can only be put on the ballot by the legislature. Other states explicitly restrict the subject matter of such initiatives. In most referendum states the initiative is seen as a mere matter of delegation arising from the power of the legislature. Other states, including California, take the view that the initiative is a power “reserved by the people” as stated above. This is consistent with the progressive view (and implied during the Enlightenment with such works as the Declaration of Independence) that rights and power are not granted by the government, but rather that government itself arises from the social contract of the people – that the rights and powers of the people are merely recognized by government, not granted. Anything that may be granted is a “privilege” rather than a right.
And as an “original” power, the initiative may vary from, overturn, repeal, or otherwise rewrite anything passed by the normal legislative process. The right and power of the people to this aspect of “direct democracy” means that any measure passed is “presumed valid” and entitled to the benefit of all doubts, and is to be “liberally construed.” There is ample case law which says that courts have a “duty to jealously guard” this reserved power.
Initiatives are a big deal. Once passed, the resulting laws cannot even be amended without a subsequent popular vote. They can’t be tweaked by any legislative body to be made more effective (or less harmful in terms of unintended consequences). Maybe a court will strike all or a portion of it if it’s unconstitutional, but under the law, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the initiative.
Voters have enormous power in the initiative. But to quote Aunt May, “great power comes with great responsibility.” We have to get it right.
This brings me to Measure A, which would establish a very convoluted regulatory structure to the local cannabis industry. However, I’m not going to go into the details of the problems with the measure itself. The formal opposition has done an excellent job of deconstructing the measure and all the problems that would probably ensue. I agree with most of their arguments. I disagree with a couple. But I want to focus on why the very idea of such a measure constitutes a problematic misuse of the initiative system.
The initiative system is not intended as a substitute to the process of legislative bodies. In a democratic republic, the process is supposed to involve proposals made by legislators at the request of their constituents from which a bill is written (we’ve all seen the 1970s Saturday morning cartoon). From there it goes into a committee or body which is supposed to solicit all of the parties in interest and expertise on the subject matter. The committee or body then deliberates and produces a new draft considering all the gathered information. The members of the committee or body debate, and in the case of a legislature it’s passed in committee and sent to “the floor” for final debate and vote. In theory, all of the different perspectives, interests, issues, and principles are considered for that vote. And if it fails, it goes back to committee for a rewrite or is abandoned. And if it passes and the law is ineffective, inadequate, or harmful, it can be amended or even repealed by the same process.
The process is rarely clean and tidy, but it does present the best possibility at arriving at a law which will at least partially address everybody’s concerns.
This is especially essential when a regulatory scheme for an industry is proposed. When an initiative is introduced without broad community input, at best the outcome is that only the concerns of one perspective or set of interests is represented. Worse, an initiative can lock in a completely unworkable framework which fails to accomplish the intended goals and essentially destroys or severely damages the industry.
Like the proponents of Measure A, I have concerns about overuse of rural water; light and sound pollution; impact on roads; environmental impacts and much of what is listed in the measures “findings.” But the measure is 32 pages long, not including the exhibit. And if passed, everything about it will be locked in absent a subsequent measure to amend it. We then have to wait for an election and in the meantime the ordinance may wreak havoc on the community.
A ballot measure should not be so long and intricate. Ideally, the material provisions, excluding the findings, preamble, definitions, and boilerplate provisions, should be contained in one or two pages. If the measure requires specificity in implementation, maybe four or five pages are appropriate. It should be easy to understand. It should be clear as to how it is going to work. Nobody is going to read the thing and there are so many components it will be impossible for most voters to comprehensively understand it. I am not even certain of a few of the potential effects, and I’m an attorney who reads and interprets ballot measures in their entirety on a regular basis.
I intend to vote “no” on Measure A because it is too complex and convoluted for a voter initiative. I urge you to do the same.
And what she is saying should disqualify her from any office.
Special election in New York to replace Santos – the Republican candidate says “it’s a personal choice,” but cannot call herself “pro-choice.” She got testy when her Democratic opponent pressed her on it in a debate.
Sohum Parlance II 
Recent Comments