My Intention is to Bust a Move
Jim Davis is gaining in the polls.
Skip Campbell has a new television ad.
I can't believe anyone would vote for Crist based on his asinine scheme to lower property taxes. Ain't gonna happen, folks!
Trust the voters and vote no on Amendment 3!
Phyllis Busansky has been endorsed by the St. Pete Times and the Tampa Tribune.
From Pasco County Dems:
As we get closer to early voting (beginning October 23 - click here for locations and hours), OUR CANDIDATES NEED YOUR HELP! Please call to volunteer at one of the Pasco Democratic Candidate Campaign Headquarters - This is the year we make a difference!
1. Pasco DEC Campaign HQ: (727) 844-3367 - 4927 SR54, New Port Richey - (This location is used for all State House candidate outreach as well - Carl Zimmermann, Glenn Claytor and Chris Hrabovsky)
2. Jim Davis Pasco HQ, (813) 849-3365, K&B Travel, Zephyrhills - email: Elizabeth Lucas
3. Phyllis Busansky Campaign (located at Pasco DEC Campaign HQ), 813 458-7082 - email: Kevin Cate
4. John Russell Pasco HQ, (352) 567-1618, East Pasco - Blanton Area - email: John Russell
5. Stephen Gorham Campaign HQ, (813) 205- 6991, Wells Road, New Port Richey - email: Cory Caswell
posted by kate @ 2:51 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
I have a problem with our amendment process all the way around. On the other hand, I don't trust our politicians one iota. And on the third hand, too many voters just click "YES" on the amendments.
I think that by making us voters approve a measure by 60% we might actually pass things that have a "real" majority of support in the state.
I'm still not sure which way I'll go on this one yet. But I do think that the entire amendment process is out of whack. From top to bottom.
Just because certain amendments are passed that we don't agree with - doesn't mean the process needs to be fixed. We especially don't need big corporations getting involved, trying to thwart the will of the people. (Big Sugar is my personal favorite.)
"Just because certain amendments are passed that we don't agree with - doesn't mean the process needs to be fixed."
Never said anything to that effect. I think that too many things that should either be left to municipal authority or through the legislature as a statute are instead run through the amendment process. The pig thing from a couple elections back is a prime example. Not to get to far off topic; the goals were noble, but there was no reason we had to AMEND the constitution to achive those goals.
How about the one that authorized (or not) Miami-Dade to vote on slot machines? WTF? That should have been a Miami-Dade issue, not a statewide issue. And sure as hell not something to be added to the frakking constitution.
I said this before. I think the process is broken because our legislators don't listen to us. They are beholden to their special interests more than anything else. So citizens feel the only way they can make change is to use this route. And in turn, since citizens have this avenue, they don't put the pressure on the legislature that maybe they should. Like I said, I'm still undecided on this one. But it's also one of my "issues".
"thwart the will of the people"
That's the other thing. I don't know that it's the will of the people on these things. What I infer from anecdotal evidence is that many people simply click, punch, whatever the YES vote on amendments. And there are probably some that click NO to everything too, but I'm guessing they are far fewer.
What I don't know is what percentage of people fall into that ("Yes") category. But I fear that it's high enough that these things don't accurately reflect the will of the people. Even if it's just 5% of the electorate, the supporting side only has to sway 45% + 1 of the informed voters. That's still a formidible task. But then, what if I'm under estimating by a lot? Do you see what I'm getting at?
And that goes back to how I closed the comment above. We as citizens need to take back our legislature. And if we have an easy way to get around them, what is our motivation to make those changes? And if you're worried about corporations I would think that easy access to the constitution would be a bad thing. They can, if they want, sponsor amendments much more effectively than you or I could.
HOWEVER,
Given that this is being put forth by the state legislature calls the motives into doubt. So, like the pig amendment, I *may* vote NO even though I think the *idea* has merit. More research is required.
Wow, I touched a nerve. ;-) If this is the only way for grassroots efforts to affect change - I say we need to keep it for now. And your arguments about uneducated voters are valid. And could go for just about every issue - most vote party lines, vote for the first entry, etc. Still, if someone actually gets off their tuchis to vote - who are we to question their motivation? I'm just glad they made it in.
You are absolutely right - we do need to take back our legislature. However, in the meantime, let's not restrict a citizen's access to making change. Not yet anyway.
If I read the amendment correctly, it only changes the requirement to pass the initiative. Not the requirments to get it on the ballot.
Article XI, Section 5
Current sub-section (e)
If the proposed amendment or revision is approved by
vote of the electors, it shall be effective as an
amendment to or revision of the constitution of the
state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday
in January following the election, or on such other
date as may be specified in the amendment or revision.
Proposed sub-section (e) [* denotes new verbiage]
*Unless otherwise specifically provided for elsewhere in this constitution*, if
the proposed amendment or revision is approved by vote of *at least sixty percent
of* the electors *voting on the measure*, it shall be effective as an amendment to or
revision of the constitution of the state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday
in January following the election, or on such other date as may be specified in
the amendment or revision.
The remainder of the section remains unchanged. I don't see where anyone is going to "restrict a citizen's access to making change". Nothing about getting the initiative on the ballot has changed. Just the number required to pass any initiative. Again, with the Leg. behind this I'm still not sure. But after reading the full text I'm leaning toward Yes.
I'd rather side with elected officials on this one than big business.
And what other initatives or candidates or bills must pass 60% in order to win?
Big business already has an avenue here. They are both in bed with the politicians and they can sponsor amendments. I don't see how this affects that aspect either way. Please explain.
I'd think that raising the threshold for approval would actually work against big business. As I talked about above, right now a supporter doesn't really need to convince a majority of voters to "win".
Budgetary and/or tax issues require 3/4's according to the current laws.
In my opinion, the state constitution should be hard to change. It is the basis for all of our laws. The last sticking point I have (which I just thought of) is the precedent that this might set. Especially once it is ensconsed in the constitution. Arghhhh!!!
Look at me, flip-flopping like I'm John Kerry or something....
[Ducks... I'm kidding, breathe :-) ]
"I'd rather side with elected officials on this one than big business."
Ha ha! I win the flame war! (Kidding)
The state legislature is the group behind getting this on the ballot.
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initiativelistLEG.asp
So if you want to side with them, then vote Yes.
Honestly Kate-olicious, I'm now thoroughly confused on this one. I'll get back to you. BTW, anything on that email I sent you earlier? I know you probably don't have Jim's cell number or anything. Just thought I'd ask you about it.
Intersting discourse, sorry to be joing the frey so late.
There are a host of actions that take a supermajority by the Legislature, the Governor and Cabinet and the voter.
To correct Jeff, It currently takes a 2/3rds, not 3/4ths, majority by the voters to pass a constitutional amendment which raises a tax.
A house of the Legislature needs 2/3rd's votes to waive any rule. It takes 2/3rd's of both houses to pass a bill that limits access to public records, to override a veto by the Governor, to impeach the Governor and even to convene in Session.
Further, it takes 2/3rds to pass a tax in the Legislature.
Most notably, it takes 60% of both houses to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. If that weren't the case, this past session, the resolution on vouchers might have managed to pass and the resolution on repeal of the class-size amendment definitely would have passed and made it to the ballot.
These are just the more significant ones off the top of my head. There are other's regarding judgeships, etc.
The initiative process is a double-edged sword. While it is a way to override a recalcitrant Legislature, it has become a cottage industry for consultants on both sides, that is, either to collect monies from campaigns that either oppose or promote an initiative.
Along with that, the big money is finding its way to that exercise. It costs less and is more efficient to pass an egregious constitutional amendment than support enough candidates who might be inclined to vote to pass the same "dog" into law.
Once it is in the Constitution, it can take as much energy, if not more, to have it repealed. Even if the requirement were to go up to 60%, most all proposed amendments that have been introduced by citizen's initiative would have passed, as most have superceded that threshold.
Regardless of what happens, the most powerful thing that the initiative process offers still remains. That is, the threat that a campaign to pass an amendment might be mounted. It takes little effort to commence with the process by filing with the Division of Elections. That threat can get the opposition to at least sit down and talk, and perhaps compromise.
A Constitution is suppose to be a blueprint for a democratic form of government and not a harbinger for minutiae. The U.S. Constitution is difficult to amend and it seems to have held up.
As an alternative, I am in favor an option for a statutory initiative where individuals can have voted into state law, rather than into the constitution, legislation with a safeguard from repeal from the Legislature for an expressed period of time, perhaps 5 to 7 years.
However, I do find merit in the current initiative process because it does keep issues that may otherwise be ignored in play. The current dysfunction in the process that Jeff points to has at least served the purpose of getting people to take notice that an initiative process exists and one "bad" proposed amendment gets them to at least look at all the rest.
I'm not overly-married to the idea, but I would be luke-warmly willing to give initiatives for which I am in favor a higher threshold in order that proposals that I don't care for might face at least a modest amount of scrutiny.
Will it make a big difference? As I stated, most initiatives are going to pass regardless with over 60% and the ones that don't pass in the future could probably blame their failure on an electorate that is more aware of the existence of ballot amendments rather than the higher threshold, should it pass.
Irrespective of what happens, I think that all proposed amendments should be held to the same threshold and not be different for citizen's initiatives and those proposed by the Legislature.
Jeff - I didn't read all of your post until I was finished typing. As far as the Florida Legislature being the "Sponsor" of the ballot issue: It was placed on the ballot by House Resolution 1723 from the 2005.
It indicates the Florida Legislature as the sponsor in contrast to if it were placed on the ballot by a citizen's group, Constititutional Revision Commission or the Florida Tax and Budget Reform Commission.
Not sure if that helps your angst, it is just the reason they are listed as the sponsor.
"As an alternative, I am in favor an option for a statutory initiative where individuals can have voted into state law, rather than into the constitution, legislation with a safeguard from repeal from the Legislature for an expressed period of time, perhaps 5 to 7 years."
Works for me. I think that kind of solution maintains the integrity of the constitution while still allowing citizens a voice when the Leg is unwilling or unable to do so.
I went back and looked a few from 2002 (which is when I first noticed what was actually going on with these things) and found that my "favorite", the Pig amendment only passed by 55%. Then I noticed that of the three big education initiatives that year, only one crested 60% (Management of the state University system).
"Regardless of what happens, the most powerful thing that the initiative process offers still remains. That is, the threat that a campaign to pass an amendment might be mounted. It takes little effort to commence with the process by filing with the Division of Elections. That threat can get the opposition to at least sit down and talk, and perhaps compromise."
That's so hot.
Mounted
Commence
Oh yeah baby...
Post a Comment
<< Home