It was Billie Wilkie, wife of presidential hopeful Wendall Wilkie, who first said "politics makes strange bedfellows". As strange as the bedfellows may be, the products of their couplings are stranger still.
Propositions 11/22/09
Several of the initiatives pertain to individual freedom. The first is obvious: there are five marijuana petitions on the ballot, seeing the freedom to use or not use cannabis.
If our Constitution meant anything, this wouldn’t even have to be on the ballot. The individual should have the right to pursue the course of their life, even if it is self-destructive. In other words, the state should have to make a compelling and individual case to prevent people from pursuing happiness as they see it.
Instead, we have nanny government. It is the natural tendency of bureaucrats to spread their authority, and the federal government has stretched the law beyond faith to intrude in our lives. Californians have been trying to shrug off this prohibition for years. It is far more about discriminating against people we believe are not like ourselves than it is an appropriate intrusion by the government into the lives of free people.The newest initiative to end marijuana prohibition says, 1393. (09-0044)
Repeals state laws that make it a crime to possess, cultivate, transport, distribute, or use marijuana or hemp. Provides persons convicted or serving time for non-violent marijuana offenses be immediately released from prison, jail, parole, or probation, and have their convictions erased. Authorizes Legislature to adopt laws to license and tax commercial marijuana sales. Allows doctors to prescribe or recommend marijuana to patients, regardless of age. Prohibits testing for marijuana for employment or insurance purposes. Bars state from aiding enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings in the several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax and fee revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products. (09-0044.)
The other issue is marriage objectivity, or "marriage equality". One would imagine that in an ideal nation individuals would all enjoy the same benefits regardless of personal demographics. Hard core traditionalists insist on the narrowest possible definition of marriage but fail to logically explain why. The most bedrock reason is that gay or lesbian couples can’t have children, but that reasoning is truly barren. Gay and lesbian people often come to a relationship with children from a previous relationship. They are generally allowed to adopt children. Should we then declare childless heterosexual marriages null if they haven’t produced a child in so many months or years? No, there is no rational reason to specify in the law the sexuality of people in a relationship, it’s simply people voting their biases, instead of respecting what our nation should be. Each person’s religion is their own business, but that only works if it works both ways. Your religion is your business; my marriage is mine. It’s unfortunate those Christians in particular who vote against objectivity in marriage don’t follow more closely the important lessons of their founder, whose truest lessons is that we should love and forgive our neighbor, and that judgement belongs solely to God. Would Jesus have turned his back on Mary Magdalene if she occasionally took female clients? Likewise people who insist that non-traditional couples can have "all the benefits of marriage but not the name" are not so much describing a justification as much as a mean spirited compromise: you can have the money but not the legitimacy. Legitimacy is the distinction between a wife and a courtesan. The entire purpose of marriage is to make a public declaration of love and commitment. What humane society denies its members something so simple and basic? We recall that in California it was illegal for Asians, Blacks and Filipinos to marry whites until 1948. If everyone in California of mixed Asian, Black or Filipino heritage could frame marriage discrimination against sexes in the same way they understand marriage discrimination against their parents and grandparents, marriage objectivity would be assured. A person either accepts that the Constitution of the United States protects rights as being "endowed by the creator" or they don’t, they believe that all rights come from the government. If you accept that our rights are resident within us and the government has to make a compelling case to steal them from us, you’ll have to vote to legalize cannabis and take the sexual bias out of marriage. Otherwise, I guess you’ll have to vote your prejudice. The newest marriage objectivity initiative:
1390. (09-0042)
Repeals the current provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Clarifies that the initiative shall not be interpreted to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person to perform a marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (09-0042.)
1392. (09-0033, Amdt. #1S)
But what about hate speech based on the Bible?
An initiative seeks to take the Bible out of the realm of normal speech and make it protected. Here’s the wording:
Exempts speech based on biblical authority from existing constitutional and statutory restrictions applicable to all other speech, including restrictions against discrimination and hate crimes. Repeals constitutional provision denying protection to acts of religious expression inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.
One would think this initiative is needless, being protected by the First Amendment rights to free speech and religion.
But, the freedom of religion also prohibits us from creating a special category for religious speech; the initiative would have to exempt the teachings of all religions, and of agnostics and atheists.
I’d be in favor, instead, of an amendment that would remove all restrictions on speech, especially those "inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State." This is the United States, protection of the state is not our concern; in our country, if the rights of the individual are preserved the state can fall and reconstitute itself with no harm to the nation. This is what Jefferson and others intended, that the government serve the people, and not the other way around. "State" here means the megalomaniacs who fashion power for themselves at our expense. Unfettered speech is the life blood of a free nation; hence all the constraints on speech in the U.S..
Does this mean I want to listen to some freak contorting the message of the Bible to rail against people exercising their right to pursue happiness? No, I don’t want to listen to it, so I don’t, but that doesn’t mean they can’t spout it.
Any effort to reduce the death grip of the state on our personal freedoms is an effort I’ll support, even if freaks propose it.
We continue to support this initiative:
1367. (09-0014) We especially want to see Sierra County Supervisors tested, since Sierra County has a "sniff your pee" test for employment. Proposition update: Limit the time the legislature meets. There are two in circulation (gathering signatures). 1366. (09-0013)
Part-Time Legislature. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Reduces Legislative Session and Pay by at Least 50%. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. The initiatives are the same, but the second also cuts salary. The idea of reducing the period of time the legislature meets is beguiling. Clearly, the California legislature passes far too many laws. We are the most regulated people on earth. Surely cutting the time they spend in Sacramento would cut the number of laws they create. The proponent claims the measure would create "a true citizen Legislature instead of a group of lobbyists and politicians who are operating in a revolving door." But, a closer look reveals the problem: already it is bureaucrats who rule California. Thanks to term limits, legislators are already junior partners, and entrenched bureaucrats treat them with disrespect, since the legislators are there for only a few years, but bureaucrats are there until retirement. Legislators are already lining up to oppose this measure, and a Policy Institute Poll indicates only one Californian in four favors the measure. Taking more power from the legislators would mean our elected rulers would be in Sacramento even less, and the unelected rulers would have more power. Sorry, but no such simple idea will fix California’s problems.
Requires all legislators elected subsequent to passage of this initiative to be tested for the illegal use of drugs and the "habitual use of alcohol." Prevents a legislator who tests positive from performing his or her official duties or from getting paid until that legislator completes a substance abuse program at his or her own expense. Requires a legislator to permanently forfeit his or her office upon a second positive test. Provides exception for use of medicinal marijuana under a doctor’s care. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Probably no significant change in state costs in most years. (09-0014.)
11/01/09
Summary Date: 07/10/09 Circulation Deadline: 12/07/09 Signatures Required: 694,354 Proponent: Gabriella Holt (916) 648-1222 Reduces the total amount of time the Legislature is in session each year to no more than ninety-five days.
1382. (09-0031)
Summary Date: 10/28/09 Circulation Deadline: 03/29/10 Signatures Required: 694,354 Proponent: Gabriella Holt c/o Elizabeth Hansell (916) 648-1222 Reduces the Legislature's regular session by more than 50% to no more than ninety-five days.
Both these initiatives are put forth by Gabriella Holt, Republican, who ran unsuccessfully for the assembly last year. She runs "Citizens for Reform", see here.
10/28/09
Birds and Bees of Initiative Process
11/01/09
Someone gets the idea for an amendment to the California Constitution and sends a letter to the Attorney General of the state, HERE.
At that point, the possible amendment is reviewed by the AG, given a number and when properly written, sent to the Secretary of State who gives them a different number and certifies them for circulation. The SOS also states how many qualified signatures are needed, and by when.
If sufficient signatures are gathered, the measure will go to the ballot. A lot of little propositions die at this point. Some die because the proposer doesn’t have enough volunteers to collect signatures and doesn’t have enough money to hire signature gatherers.
The need to hire signature gatherers is one of the failings of the current system. Without intending to accuse all signature gatherers, there are some who mislead voters to get them to sign, and use a host of other tricks to boost the number of signatures and sometimes the rate of pay.
Still, without them very few measures could make it to the ballot.
Some measures die because they’re just plain nuts, and those are some of our favorites, we hate to see them die.
The Prospect has decided to look at some of the propositions/initiatives/amendments. Each week we’ll look at a couple.
This week, we’ll look at one which will appear on the ballot, (there are three), two which are in circulation (there are 24) and three at the Attorney General’s office.
On the June, 2010 Ballot:
SCA 4. (Resolution Chapter 2, 2009). Maldonado.
This bill, which requires voter approval, would do away with party primaries, and essentially primaries completely. It would make a run off between two democrats or two republicans possible, and would strip party politics. Read the bill HERE.
The Prospect Doesn’t Approve of this measure. We want more parties, not fewer.
The 2 candidates receiving the 2 highest vote totals for each office at a
primary election, regardless of party preference, would then compete
for the office at the ensuing general election.
In Circulation
1361. (09-0007, Amdt. #1S)
Limits on Voting. Initiative Statute. This measure will discourage voting by the poor. The Prospect doesn’t support it.
Prohibits citizens from voting at the polls unless they present a government-issued photo-identification card. Establishes provisional voting for citizens at the polls who fail to present government-issued photo-identification. Requires that provisional ballots and mail-in ballots be deemed invalid unless the accompanying envelope is marked with the last four digits of a citizen’s California driver’s license, state identification card or social security number.
1364. (09-0011)
Reinstates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 06/22/09 Circulation Deadline: 11/19/09 Signatures Required: 694,354
Repeals the current provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to modify or change the curriculum in any school. Clarifies that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to mandate or require clergy of any church or religious institution to perform a service or duty inconsistent with his or her faith.
This proposition or one like it will very likely appear on the ballot. Naturally, the Prospect does not believe in any prejudice against any person on the basis of their squigglies, and would support this proposition.
At the AG:
090037
The California Democracy Act (will be renamed).
Would reduce the majority of voters and legislators needed to raise taxes from 2/3 to a majority.
The Prospect has no position on this at this time.
Equity of Marriage
There are a number of "Equality in Marriage" bills at the AG which would strike the genital requirement of marriage.
Calling a Fetus a Person Act:
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Human Rights
Amendment."
SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7 (c) is added to the California Constitution, to read:
(c) For the purpose of this section: The term "person" applies to all living human organisms from the beginning of their biological development -- regardless of the means by which they were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability. The sole purpose of this provision is to prevent abortion. It adds no rights to born persons at all. The Prospect does not support this amendment.
Finally, one the Prospect can wholeheartedly endorse (in circulation):
1367. (09-0014)
Mandatory Drug and Alcohol Testing for Members of the Legislature. Initiative Statute.
Summary Date: 07/13/09 Circulation Deadline: 12/10/09 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponents: Dorothy Cummings and Gary Ellis
Requires all legislators elected subsequent to passage of this initiative to be tested for the illegal use of drugs and the "habitual use of alcohol." Prevents a legislator who tests positive from performing his or her official duties or from getting paid until that legislator completes a substance abuse program at his or her own expense. Requires a legislator to permanently forfeit his or her office upon a second positive test. Provides exception for use of medicinal marijuana under a doctor’s care. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Probably no significant change in state costs in most years. (09-0014.)
That’s right, we love this one, we want the legislators to have to pee before every session. If they test positive, send them to rehab! Better yet, send them to jail, where they can visit their constituents who practiced more drug freedom than they are allowed.
Get the full text of this one HERE.
