Posted on 01/24/2003 5:42:09 PM PST by John Jorsett
I just listened to an interview with California State Senator Tom McClintock on the John and Ken Show on Los Angeles radio station KFI (AM640). McClintock said that the Republicans in the California legislature on Monday will inform their Democrat colleagues that, in the event of passage of a law tripling the automobile car tax, a referendum on the law will be filed "within minutes," and that the Democrats should plan on never seeing a dime of the money from the tax.
California law permits a vote of the people on any law passed by the legislature. After a law is passed, opponents can file for a referendum on it. Once filed, opponents have 90 days in which to gather signatures (373,000 in this case) to get the referendum on the ballot. During the signature gathering time, and (if enough signatures are gathered) up until the election (probably in March of 2003, according to McClintock), the law is suspended. This means there will be NO increase in the vehicle tax until the people have spoken. McClintock predicted a 4-1 loss at the ballot box. Regardless of the margin of rejection, a vote by the people against the law means no car tax ever.
McClintock went on to say that the contention that without the car tax local public safety agencies would see $4 billion of their funding cut is a flat-out lie. When the car tax was cut a few years ago, the state legislature made up the shortfall to the local agencies. The legislature would have to cut those funds and in fact had the opportunity this week to do so, but didn't and won't. Not one legislator is on the record as favoring cutting these funds, according to McClintock. He says that the chiefs of police and other public safety officials don't know what's going on, are being purposely kept in the dark about what the real situation is in Sacramento, and are being used to scare people into accepting a huge tax increase. He debated a police chief earlier today (didn't say where) and demolished the chief's argument.
I do too. I'm proud to have him as my State Senator, and I always enjoy voting for him.
I'm a little annoyed with myself, though. I should have seen this coming; a referendum is so obvious in hindsight.
My thoughts exactly. Once McClintock reminded me, I slapped my forehead. He said in the interview that the voters defeated a new law at the ballot box a few years ago. I'm sorry to say I don't remember which one.
I think we will. There's a movement getting underway to put together a referendum to limit state spending increases to be proportionate to population growth + inflation growth. Personally, I'd make it a little less, since a 3% increase in population shouldn't require 3% more state employees (economies of scale ought to kick in), but I'll take what I can get. We had a referendum like this that passed a while back, but they snuck a repeal of it into another referendum that passed. If it had been in effect the last few years, we wouldn't be in this mess.
There were a couple of "Fair Insurance Responsibility" laws passed in 1999 which the trial attorneys supported and the insurance companies fought. The insurance companies were able to qualify two referenda (Propositions 30 & 31) and overturn the laws.
There was also a major threat of a referendum when the California legislature passed a bill in 1999 to effectively outlaw big-box stores like Wal-Mart and Costco. Costco inundated Gray Davis with hundreds of thousands of postcards that it collected from customers opposing the bill. Caught between the unions, who hate Costco and Wal-Mart, and the certain threat of a successful referendum (as evidenced by the postcards), Davis ended up vetoing the bill.
The barriers to a referendum are usually too great. There's very little time to circulate the petitions, it's very expensive, and the technical requirements are heavy (e.g., the entire text of the law must be printed with each individual petition, even if the law were to run to hundreds of pages). But it can be done. I have no doubt that it will be done, if necessary, should the Legislature proceed to hike the Car Tax.
I think the idea is to attempt to dissuade them from passing the law in the first place. In a war, it's better if you can sap the enemy's will to fight rather than actually engaging in battle. Gathering all those signatures and then electioneering would deplete resources that could be better employed elsewhere.
On the other hand, I could make an argument for wanting it on the March ballot. Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative will be on that one as well, and those two issues would bring out a lot of conservatives, who'd also vote for the Republicans in the various races.
So, if the Dems are thwarted and don't even pass the measure, that's fine, and if it ends up on the ballot, I guess that's fine too.
Ah. Now that you mention it, I remember that. Thanks.
Caught between the unions, who hate Costco and Wal-Mart, and the certain threat of a successful referendum (as evidenced by the postcards), Davis ended up vetoing the bill.
I could see that happening here as well. Davis has done his usual hide-under-the-desk maneuver on whether he'd veto an increased vehicle license tax. So maybe a bunch of postcards this time would bring him down on our side. I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice if that happened.
The barriers to a referendum are usually too great. There's very little time to circulate the petitions, it's very expensive, and the technical requirements are heavy (e.g., the entire text of the law must be printed with each individual petition, even if the law were to run to hundreds of pages). But it can be done. I have no doubt that it will be done, if necessary, should the Legislature proceed to hike the Car Tax.
McClintock said that he's been in touch with every group representing taxpayers, and they're all on board. They'll be prepared to hit the ground running the second this bill becomes law. I'll be gathering signatures myself if it gets that far.
McClintock has nicely trapped the Dems. The Car Tax increase was the one significant "revenue enhancement" that arguably did not require a 2/3 majority vote, and which the Democrats could therefore pass without the support of any Republicans. They wanted to use that to bargain with the Republicans for a compromise: Higher taxes elsewhere (e.g., on sales or income) and minimal spending cuts.
Now McClintock has effectively eviscerated the Democrats' bargaining position. He's told them that they can't raise the Car Tax. If they try, they still won't get any new revenues to cover this year's budget deficit, and they'll be horribly embarrassed when the voters swat them down at the next election. So their only option is to cut spending to balance the budget, and that is the thing they hate the most.
It wouldn't be the March 2004 primary ballot. Gray Davis would have to call a special election sometime this year. Well, technically he wouldn't have to call a special election. But politically it would be impossible to argue that the billions of dollars from a Car Tax hike were desperately needed to help solve this year's enormous budget deficit, but at the same time it wasn't worth spending a few million dollars on a special election so that those billions in tax revenues would actually be available this year.
That's another reason that the Democrats will be terrified by McClintock's threat of a referendum. If Davis calls a special election, the Racial Privacy Initiative will necessarily also be on the ballot. That means both the Car Tax hike would go down in flames and Connerly's initiative would pass handily. Whereas the Democrats are hoping that the Racial Privacy Initiative can be defeated in March 2004, given that large numbers of Democrats will be attracted to the polls by a heavily-contested Democratic Presidential Primary while Republicans won't care as much about their uncontested Primary race.
On the other hand, Connerly has been counting on a year to gather support and funds for the RPI, so an early ballot might be the Dems best chance to defeat it.
Quite the chess game, isn't it? At least life ain't dull.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.