Top Judge Calls Calif. Government ‘Dysfunctional’

[bemildred]

Source: NYT

LOS ANGELES — In a rare public rebuke of state government and policies delivered by a sitting judge, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court scathingly criticized the state’s reliance on the referendum process, arguing that it has “rendered our state government dysfunctional.”

In remarks prepared for a speech Saturday before the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Cambridge, Mass., the chief justice, Ronald M. George, denounced the widespread use of the referendum process to change state laws and constitutions. And he derided California as out of control, with voters deciding on everything from how parts of the state budget are spent to how farm animals are managed.

The state is unusual, he said, because it prohibits its Legislature from amending or repealing many types of laws without voter approval, essentially hamstringing that body — and the executive branch.

Justice George’s remarks come at a time of severe budget crisis in California stemming from a variety of factors, including mandates from ballot initiatives. Several groups on the left and the right are clamoring for changes to the state’s Constitution, including reining in of the direct democracy that has defined much of how the state operates. This week, hundreds of people will convene in Sacramento for a conference on constitutional reform. A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to comment on the justice’s speech.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/11calif.html

[imdjh]

1. I think Florida has California beat with referendum abuse.

By Diana Lynne
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com



Despite a consumer group's warning to voters not to fall prey to the "big money" politics of national animal-rights groups whom it claims are using the state as a guinea pig in their war against the $38 billion-a-year pork industry, Floridians have resoundingly approved a ballot initiative to extend constitutional protection to pregnant pigs.

[bemildred]

2. Tough choice. nt

[alp227]

21. There've been a lot of silly propositions brought up to the voting booth over the years

For example, 2003's Prop 54 that tried to eliminate use of racial classifications for any purpose. Plus, there were the special elections of 2005, 2006, and 2009 where every one of the governator's proposed initiatives failed (in the case of 2009, Prop 1F passed that limited legislator salary during budget deficit years).

Then there were those propositions that tried to get the majority of voters to eliminate majority rights, such as 2008's failed Prop 4 that proposed parental notification before minor gets an abortion, and that year's Prop 8 that basically resurrected Prop 22, amending the state constitution to recognize only heterosexual marriage.

[Stargleamer]

23. WorldNetDaily?

Please, at least quote AP or CNN so we know what you're writing is reliable (not that AP or CNN or all that reliable, but with WorldNetDaily you may as well be quoting from the Moonie Times.)

[imdjh]

31. It was the first to come up and I quoted them deliberately.

To totally discount any news source affiliated with a certain segment of society or political philosophy is a mistake. Right here in our midst are some very doctrinal people, and they exist in the media as well. These are followers with largely adolescent emotional development levels, who are extremely concerned about the acceptance of their audience and their peers.

The quoted portion of the article is accurate, that's all I required of it.

[TommyO]

33. Anything from WND is worthless because of their extreme biases

They have been known to report lies about gay people, Muslims, and other groups, tainting everything they do.

They're not known as WorldNutDaily for no reason.

[Stargleamer]

34. Given their past record. . .

how on earth can we rely that what they're stating is true? It's like if you were to quote from Fox News. It might very well be true, but given their record it's hard to put any trust in it. Please use Reuters or BBC or UPI or someone more reliable.

[No Elephants]

26. WorldNet Daily is worse than Fixed News.

[MichiganVote]

3. Shit rolls downhill. The entire US "Who Me?" government is dysfunctional

[Xipe Totec]

4. The Tragedy of the Common Folk n/t

[Garbo 2004]

5. George's comments on state's referendum process are spot on.

The article also quoted George on Prop 8: "Beyond budget matters, Justice George, a Republican appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1991, was critical of a 2008 voter initiative that ended same-sex marriage in California. In May 2008 the Supreme Court struck down the state’s statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, with an opinion written by Justice George citing a 1948 decision that reversed the state’s interracial marriages ban.

But in the November elections that year, a ballot measure known as Proposition 8 amended the constitution to override the court.

Citing a successful ballot initiative that same Election Day that regulated the confinement of fowl in coops, Justice George said, “Chickens gained valuable rights in California on the same day that gay men and lesbians lost them.”

[Libertas1776]

6. We want a high speed rail network...

What? We don't have any money for it? Fuck it, we're votin' for it!

What? The state is desperate for property tax revenue? Fuck them, get your dough somewhere else!

What? Gays are getting married? Fuck civil rights, the majority rules!


Yep, the referendum system has really been a gem:sarcasm:

[Thickasabrick]

18. LOL...that is really a very nice summation. nt.

[Flaneur]

19. It's not all bad; it brought us the pot stores.

And it may bring us legal marijuana for adults next year.

[Posteritatis]

7. More non than dys by now, no? (nt)

[bemildred]

8. Yep. We are engaged on an experiment in what no state government looks like. nt

[Posteritatis]

9. Well, there's no government quite like no government. (nt)

[Piewhacket]

10. The (bleeeeep) CA COURTS are dysfunctional, Georgie. Mend your own house!

[tonysam]

11. Nevada is the absolute worst

It's become a national laughingstock with the likes of Gibbons and Ensign.

[tomm2thumbs]

12. those legislators are chomping at the bit to raise property taxes - they want prop 13 gone

from wiki:

Proposition 13, officially titled the "People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation," was a ballot initiative to amend the constitution of the state of California. The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which capped real estate taxes:
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property...

In addition to lowering property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates.

Passage of the initiative presaged a "taxpayer revolt" throughout the country that is sometimes thought to have contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980. A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes. The proposition has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics and it is not politically popular for Sacramento lawmakers to attempt to change it.

[Crzyrussell]

13. We all know

that once they change it it will be a free for all. Funny thing is the State of NY learned that their massive tax increases amounted to a drastic drop in revenue.

The taxpayers aren't an ATM machine.

It is time that Sacramento learned that.:nopity: :nopity:

[cojoel]

16. problem with prop 13

One of the biggest problems with Proposition 13 is that it applied equally to non-primary residential property. That resulted in a tax shift from corporations that can hold property essentially forever, to younger people who pay taxes based on values now rather than in 1975.

[Piewhacket]

20. yea, but hard to craft out an exception. try it, start with owner occupied.

[slackmaster]

32. That is exactly right

It's refreshing to see someone on DU who gets it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. Maybe someone in favor of dropping Prop 13 should do the following math

Compare the current tax receipts to the receipts we'd get without Prop 13 after all the poor and old folk are forced
to sell.

Values take an even greater hit, you see, and you end up taxing a higher percentage of a much smaller base.

Plus you put people out of their homes.

Maybe someone sneering at Prop 13 should give that a try.

[No Elephants]

27. Good luck to running anything from a home or a government without income.

Californians: "We are shocked, shocked to learn that goods and services actually cost money in America."

[cabluedem]

30. We could save $$$ by lowering the number of Tazer armed cops. nt

[Critters2]

14. Those calling for a Constitutional Convention in IL last year were hoping to add a referendum

process to the state Constitution. Seeing the chaos this has caused in California, I voted against a Con Con. We have enough problems.

[Hekate]

15. Did he mention the damn term limits as well? That ensures the only folks who know what's going on...

... are the LOBBYISTS?

My fellow Californians can sometimes be idiots -- especially in the voting booth.

Hekate

[Piewhacket]

22. hey, i resemble that.

[Mz Pip]

24. Well, duh. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

25. The reason California adopted the Referendum process

originally was to counter inaction and/or wrong-headed action on the part of the state leg. I'm not defending one or the other, just offering up a little history. However, if I can play devil's advocate here for just a moment, we had/have a state leg., as we have in Congress, "representatives" who do no represent us. Maybe direct democracy wasn't the answer but representatives bought and paid for by corporate interests isn't the answer either.

[No Elephants]

28. Human rights need protection, even from the majority. And sane people need to do a better job

of making citizens face reality. Trouble is, propagandizing (for want of a better word) costs money and no one funds sane people, only those who speak for the benefit of special interests.

Who should fund those who speak for the benefit of the citizenry? Government. Does it? No. What does the citizenry do about that? Nothing effective. We keep thinking all will be well if we just elect more pre-bought Democrats or if we just elect more pre-bought Republicans or if we just elect more pre-bought anythings.

America needs a real paradigm shift.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. Then it will have to come from a grass-roots

level and from a coalition of those, from the left, center and right, who have lost their jobs, their homes, health insurance, etc. It's what we have in common. And one more thing. If the major political parties are not going to offer up candidates that will vote in OUR interests, then we must offer up our own candidates outside of the major political parties. All of that comes from community activism and that takes more time and commitment than money.