.
.
.
I’ll tell you this much, Governor Brown had to think long and hard, and weigh several heavy pro’s and con’s, before finally giving in and signing Loni Hancock’s SB 202, which specifies that our unique and crazy-making California tradition of government by initiative will only be operational during November general elections – no longer during June “primaries” or special elections.
You’ll say, if you’re a right-winger, that Governor Brown signed this bill because he is a slave to the unions, and you’ll probably believe what you’re saying, which is sort of a shame because it’s always sad when people are both wrong and sure of themselves. It is true that the passing and signing of this bill is a lifesaver for unions, because without it there would have been a couple of measures very harmful to Labor on the June 2012 ballot when mainly anti-labor Republicans will be flocking to the polls to choose either Romney or anti-Romney. And it is true that this is why Sacramento’s Democrats passed this bill really quickly at the last minute in the dead of night with their heads tucked down a little between their shoulders and a sort of shit-eating grin.
But the fact is, if there ever was a Governor who’s no slave to the unions, it IS Jerry Brown 2.0 – who has repeatedly broken Labor hearts with his cruel vetos of bills allowing farmworkers and home health workers to unionize.
There was also a somewhat flimsy Constitutional argument to be made on behalf of SB 202, too convoluted for me to fully recap here, but CalBuzz made a go at it in August. That argument, however, presented awkwardness to Jerry, as – get this, Newbie will tell you anyhow – none other than a Secretary of State named Jerry Brown made the original ruling forty-some years ago that initiatives could indeed be properly placed on a primary or special-election ballot, so he risks looking like an inconsistent, hypocritical flipflopper. (Although I am not a purist for always dinging politicians, from either Party, for flipflops, when the fact of life is, circumstances they do sometimes change.)
There is also an argument, probably the best argument, for signing SB 202, which is that these measures which affect our state so greatly should be voted on by the largest possible number of California voters. (To which the high-propensity-voting rightwingers would respond, Hey, too bad if you lazy potsmoking fornicating liberals can’t get your folks to the polls when there’s no bright shiny Presidential election. And I would say, “I hear you,” except I’m celebrating right now by listening to loud music so I actually can’t hear you.)
But the major argument pushing Governor Brown to sign this very ambiguous bill was this: It will save the state millions of dollars each year, to not have to add all that extra nonsense to our mid-year ballots. That really is all this Governor is focusing on, laser-like – California’s budget. In case you hadn’t noticed.
Upshot for you and me, all those stupid measures that are being hawked outside the grocery stores right now – the zombie Mercury Insurance scam, the Let’s Re-do Redistricting Again and Again Till It’s Good For Republicans measure, whatever else comes up – you will have 13 months to find out why they’re stupid. Maybe some good initiatives will come up too – I’ll try to let you know! And we won’t be deciding on unilaterally defanging unions of their political clout (in this Citizens-United era of unlimited corporate donations) until November 2012 when even the most slothful Democratic voter knows there’s an election afoot.
All for the best, sez I! 🙂
Trader Nelson.
Now that the CA Supreme Court (in the Prop 8 case) has decided that the people acting through the initiative process have such enormous power — as, in effect, the fourth branch of government — that even protection of basic civil rights must bow to it, it makes sense that the other branches have to offer checks and balances to its power.
Ensuring that initiatives are voted on only by the largest possible portion of the electorate is a reasonable response to the stakes of the initiative process being raised. It’s not dirty pool; it’s checks and balances in action.
Yeah, well, I approve of the bill for the various reasons we’ve outlined; but I say “dirty pool” in a somewhat jocular way, seeing it from the point of view of the right – because it really WAS the planned Paycheck Deception measure for June 2012 that lit the fire underneath this.
(Not necessarily for Brown, but for Hancock and the other Dem legislators.)
I’m sorry, but growing up in HB the phrase “dirty pool” gives me unhappy flashbacks of being ordered to clean ours when I was a surly teenager.
If the right’s unhappy about this, I’m all the happier.
Good move! We should stop taxpayer funding of primaries anyway – political parties should pay their way.
Hm… interesting idea Larry, but wouldn’t it have made more sense back before Prop 14? (It’s Maldonado’s world we just live in it) Now the June “primaries” are open, non-partisan ones.
First Brown wanted to hear from the voter’s when he wanted tax increases, and now he doesn’t want to hear from the voters except once every 4 years.
Interest item on prop 14, since the party can not be listed, how are the demo’s going to know who to vote for?
Maybe people will learn to do their damn research. How will reeps know?
cook — Party affiliation can be listed, but it’s optional.
People are trying to figure out the implications of that decision — is it smarter always to declare because otherwise people will think you’re hiding something, or is not declaring the way to show one’s independence? — as we speak.
One interesting thing I haven’t seen discussed: will Daly’s ballot line for AD-69 show him as a D? He could reasonably decide otherwise, running as a “post-partisan moderate.”
Vern,
I appreciate the hat tip, and for you at least revealing Brown’s hypocrisy. I’m all for people being able to change their minds, but when it’s simply to reward cronies(whether Republican or Democrat – which is why I’ll never support Romney), I don’t accept that.
And while I agree that the initiatives should allow the most people to vote, you conveniently ignore the fact that the primaries are open to all voters as well – there’s no bar to voting, other than the simple indifference of the voter himself or herself. And that high minded opinion smacks pretty hollow when the decision is only made when there is an initiative that will finally end the unions’ stranglehold and purchase of Demcrat politicians. Now suddenly, it’s for the greater good.
I will commend you again Vern for recognizing what bs this bill was passed for. Sadly, you actually condone it. I wonder if it were to benefit Republicans would you feel the same?
there is an initiative that will finally end the unions’ stranglehold and purchase of Demcrat politicians
I dunno about that “finally” – hasn’t Paycheck Deception been attempted before, and smacked down by the voters, at least once or twice?
It’s more a matter of labor not wanting to have to fight over and over all year long, being able to marshall its resources for whatever you scrooges want to throw at it in November.
Yeah, the many tens of millions of dollars of extorted unions dues had nothing to do with prior measures losing. It has everything to do with corrupt union bosses trying to keep their plumb positions, paychecks, and benefits.
Brown always comes through when the real money is at risk for his union cronies.
The initiative process has been hijacked by monied special interests, and unions — the favorite boogeyman for the right wing–are pikers compared to corporations. Mercury is now spending many millions again for — what? The betterment of the population? Sure.
And if you remember, we just shot down this Mercury wet dream last June – it was Prop 16 or 17, I forget now (they were both scams that thankfully were defeated.) And that was already like the third or fourth time they’d tried it, people were already comparing them to Captain Ahab.
First, the numbers don’t support your claim – unions are always at the top of the list when it comes to campaign contributions. Second, you ignore the whole purpose of paycheck protection – to stop forcing union members from having their dues go to support Democrat candidates and measures that they don’t support. Nothing in paycheck protection will prevent union members from donating their own money, it will simply stop the union bosses from using other people’s money to buy politicians. Now, they’ll have to do it on their own dime (good luck with that).
All the unions I know about, members have the option to give their dues money to charity instead.
Somebody objective know which unions that rule does and does not apply to? I know it’s at least true for the teachers I know, and I’ve heard it’s true for others. If it’s true for all or even most unions, that blows a hole right thru this Paycheck Deception story.
As I understand it, most unions automatically use your dues for whatever purposes they want – mainly to buy Democrat politicans. However, you can opt out of having them used for political purposes. I have talked to at least three teachers who opted out and said they got harassed by union bosses and in one situation, they did not get union help for a workplace issue.
Prior attempts to make it automatically an opt-out, where you have to opt-in (the reverse of what it is now) were defeated by tens of millions of union dollars. The corrupt unions are why Paycheck Protection is needed. The unions will spend whatever it takes to defeat it, but I can only hope that the people of this state have finally awakened to the fact that union bosses only exist to make themselves richer.
*This is way is used to be. How the process got changed, perverted and energized by professional signature gatherers and collectors has always shocked us. Time to go back to old time politics. Let’s dig up Jesse Uhruh and Willie Brown….they both knew
how to work the system. They also should limit the number of Initiatives per cycle to 10..
Might be a great way to be selective about what comes out.