FLASHREPORT

STILL A “PRECIOUS RIGHT”

Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

[Publisher's Note: As part of an ongoing effort to bring original, thoughtful commentary to you here at the FlashReport, I am pleased to present this column from Jon Coupal. Coupal is the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association - Flash]

If you are new to the FlashReport, please check out the main site and the acclaimed FlashReport Weblog on California politics.

The right of initiative has been properly characterized as a “precious right” by the California Supreme Court.  Yet criticisms of direct democracy, mostly from the left, have grown in recent years.  These include criticisms from the usual media detractors but, more dangerous to direct democracy, have also been expressed by members of California’s highest court.

Direct democracy rights, which include initiative, referendum and recall, came about in California in the early 1900’s as the only way to break the grip that the railroads had on the abjectly corrupt legislature.  Today, given the continued inability of the Legislature to do its job, in addition to its record low approval rating by voters (only 16%), one would think that any discussion of weakening the power of initiative referendum wouldn’t even be on the table.  Indeed, the entire purpose of direct democracy is to provide to ordinary citizens a “legislative battering ram” to bypass a corrupt or indolent Legislature.

One recent complaint is that the initiative power has become a tool that can only be used by wealthy interests.   No one disputes that qualifying an initiative – especially a constitutional amendment – is difficult.  It was intended to be.  But a measure which truly has grassroots support and an extensive volunteer network reduces the reliance on paid signature gatherers.  The best example of this, of course, is Proposition 13 itself which relied exclusively on volunteers.  Only $28,500 was spent in qualifying Proposition 13 which covered the cost of printing and mailing the petitions.  Jarvis was then quoted as saying:  "The people qualified this initiative . . . That's why this time it will succeed."

Proposition 13 represents direct democracy in its purest form the way the initiative power was intended when adopted by the people in 1911.  It certainly shouldn't be lumped together with special interest initiatives that have qualified thanks to financial support from wealthy interests.  Recent "reform" efforts like those dealing with a proposed constitutional convention and the California Forward proposals have failed because the level of grassroots support was simply not there like it was with Proposition 13.

Another complaint by the left is that it is too easy to amend the state constitution using the initiative power.  It is true that there have been more than 500 amendments to the California Constitution of 1879.  However, our analysis reveals that more than 90% of those amendments originated from the Legislature and not the people exercising the initiative power.  Ironically, many of those who complain about the ease of amending the constitution also support eroding the two-thirds vote requirement to pass the state budget or to raise state taxes.  Yet, the process of amending the constitution also requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Columnist Peter Schrag, who actually wrote a book blaming Proposition 13 for all of California’s ills, recently advocated for more judicial activism to rein in direct democracy.  He seems to think that the purpose of the judiciary is to invalidate initiative constitutional amendments passed by the voters that liberals don't like.  Examples include Proposition 13, the term limits initiative and Proposition 8.  The mechanism for accomplishing this would be by declaring these "bad" constitutional amendments impermissible constitutional revisions.  These tax-and-spend liberals say they believe in majority rule, particularly when it comes to eroding the two-thirds vote requirements that protect taxpayers, but by arguing that such initiatives are impermissible revisions, they are seeking to overturn the will of the majority that adopted them.  If any of the foregoing "bad" constitutional amendments were invalidated as revisions, then they could not be adopted via the initiative power even if they were supported by 100% of the voters.

The reality is that most of the significant initiative constitutional amendments that have passed starting in 1978 with the passage of Prop. 13 have involved measures generally representing a more conservative philosophy.  The reality is that there aren't many sweeping initiative constitutional amendments representing a liberal philosophy that have passed.  The most notable one being Proposition 98 in 1988 (which should also be invalidated it one were to adopt Shag's argument of what constitutes an impermissible constitutional revision).  Hence, these attacks on the initiative process are really attacks on the conservative philosophy.  If the initiative power were significantly curtailed, it would result in the courts and the Legislature becoming more powerful while giving ordinary citizens little practical recourse when the tax-and-spend elitists make their pronouncements as to what is best for us little people.
_______________________________________________

The mission statement of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association reads:

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers' rights including the right to limited taxation, the right to vote on tax increases and the right of economical, equitable and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Accomplished taxpayer advocate and prominent attorney Jon Coupal, as President of the HJTA, heads up an organization that plays a critical role here in the Golden State . Beginning with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the HJTA has consistently been the lead organization looking out for the rights of California taxpayers. In literally EVERY major battle that occurs in Sacramento, where the forces of irresponsible government growth are trying to figure out another scheme to raise taxes or fees to redistribute taxpayer funds to the latest 'must fund' program, Jon and the HJTA are there to ask the tough questions, and to wave a big stick. You see, the HJTA doesn't just talk the talk. Whether leading efforts to get their many, many grassroots members to lobby their elected officials, going to court to fight illegal tax increases, or marshaling resources to take tax-protection measures to the electorate, HJTA has been there. But not just on a statewide level, but also at the local level -- fighting against local bond measures and fee-increase schemes that seek to unduly and unfairly burden taxpayers.

_________________________________________________________

You can write to Jon Coupal (via the FR) here.