That was a surprise last week, to see the California Business Roundtable attacking our Assemblyman Avelino Valencia for “Voting to Weaken Prop 13” – Avelino, whom we’d thought of as the most business-friendly Democrat.
Did the big guy really vote to Weaken Prop 13? Could this be (we wondered) the long-sought “Split Roll” reform, in which we FIX the big problem with Prop 13 – 1978’s Prop 13 which famously protects homeowners from skyrocketing property taxes, but sneakily included commercial properties so that companies like DISNEY are still paying the same property taxes as they were when I was in high school? The Split Roll reform, which was defeated at the ballot box a couple years ago, would fix that. But spoiler alert, what Avelino voted yes on was NOT that, and had nothing to do with Prop 13.
And at the same time, the CBR put out a similar ad PRAISING our Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva for “PROTECTING Prop 13.” She will like that as she runs for her final re-election in a new district she’s worried about! But what DID Sharon (along with ONE other Democrat and all Republicans) vote NO on, while Avelino along with almost all Democrats voted yes on, and has nothing to do with Prop 13? It was a little Constitutional Amendment called ACA-13.
The California Business Roundtable is an insatiable lying cabal of the state’s biggest, greediest, and most polluting businesses (think the state version of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce or the OC Business Council.) It’s no shame to have them as your enemy. And whenever they don’t like something, they cry out “PROP 13 is in danger!” knowing that is guaranteed to scare the bejeezus out of aged, high-propensity-voting homeowners. They are like Johnny One-Note that way. HEY! Now there’s a song we haven’t heard since before Prop 13 passed!
But yes, what the legislature passed, needs voter approval, and WILL BE ON YOUR BALLOT with a LOT of other things November 2024, is ACA-13.
ACA-13?
What *IS* that?
Ballotpedia explains it as clearly as I could:
ACA-13 would require initiatives that change vote thresholds to supermajority votes to pass by the same vote requirement as is being proposed. For example, if an initiative requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote for new taxes, the initiative would also have to pass by a two-thirds vote. It would also authorize local government to place advisory questions on local ballots.
ACA 13 was introduced on July 13, 2023. Both legislative chambers approved ACA 13 on Sept. 14. In the Assembly, the vote was 55-19. In the Senate, the vote was 28-9. Like ACA 1, legislative Democrats, minus two, supported ACA 13, while Republicans, along with two Democrats, opposed the constitutional amendment.
{Oregon has a vote threshold requirement similar to ACA 13. In 1998, voters approved an initiated constitutional amendment to require that any ballot measure proposing a supermajority must pass by that same supermajority.)
Does that make sense? Maybe I CAN do better.
Right now, A BARE MAJORITY OF VOTERS can dictate that something else WILL NEED 2/3 OF VOTERS TO PASS.
If we pass ACA-13, that’s no longer the case.
If we pass ACA-13, then it will take 2/3 of voters to say that SOMETHING ELSE WILL NEED 2/3 OF VOTERS TO PASS. That makes sense to me – what business does 50% of voters (plus one) have, telling 66% of voters what they can’t decide?
And why do we (arguably) NEED this reform? Well, now you need to know about ANOTHER constitutional amendment that’ll be on your ballot, the SAME Nov. 2024 BALLOT:
The “Taxpayer Protection Act“
THIS initiative, championed by the kleptos at the Business Roundtable and their allies, would make it MUCH harder for any new revenues to be raised, either by the voters themselves or the legislature. (And maybe you think that’s a good thing.) Basically, it amends the state constitution so that
- NO NEW TAXES CAN BE RAISED BY THE LEGISLATURE WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, AND
- THAT’S A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND A 2/3 VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.
So, basically, impossible. AND a bare majority of voters can make that the law.
Except, not if ACA-13 also passes at the same time. Because it specifies that a bare majority of voters can’t do that shit. And will it apply to this “Taxpayer Protection Act” which could very well pass at the same moment? Oh yes. They made sure to include the clause:
The measure would specify that this voter approval requirement would apply to statewide initiative measures that appear on the ballot on or after January 1, 2024.
as well as
The provisions of this measure are not intended to reverse or invalidate provisions of the Constitution in effect before January 1, 2024, including the provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978.
So there you have it. We’ll all be deciding on these things in a little over a year. Maybe you think Californians and Californian businesses pay too much taxes. Maybe you think the government doesn’t need any more revenue. Maybe you think it’s all just about right. Or maybe you think the wealthy and corporations could pay a little more, OR a situation may arise in which voters think the state or a county or municipality may need a temporary revenue boost for SOMETHING.
In any case, I hope you’re less confused about this than you were before you read this article, and less confused than I was yesterday.
ADDITIONAL READING
- “Taxpayer Protection FOR their “Taxpayer Protection Act”
- League of California Cities AGAINST TPA
- “YIMBY” Against TPA
- League of California Cities FOR ACA-13, here and here
- Jon Coupal against ACA-13 (warning – includes lies.)
The bill makes sense to me. Is Sharon expecting a tight race, and that’s why she was allowed to vote no?
She is always worried that some Republican will beat her, and every time I tell her not to worry. It looks like a hall pass. But I’m waiting to hear from her if she had an actual REASON to vote against it.
She WAS attacked by that nutjob Alexandra Coronado for being “against Prop 13” a few elections ago. But it didn’t work.
Definitely a “hall pass” for SQS in a somewhat tight race. Her vote on this is not needed for passage – AV doesn’t need such a pass.
Soo Yoo — who ran against Sharon last time and I’d think is likely to do so again — is a much better candidate than Coronado. I think that she made a reasonable call here
This Prop is very confusing – those types of Props usually fail. Good.
What so hard for you to understand? Did not understanding require a lot of effort?
– Takes a 2/3 majority of a public vote to require a 2/3 supermajority vote.
– Applies to initiatives in the same election (although I believe that this would have to give way if the other initiative got more votes.
– Does not apply retroactively, so all previous initiatives remain safe.
I think that you’re only pretending to be dense. You’re just chapped because a gigantic power grab by the “starve the beast” minority is going to receive fair treatment.
Silva endorsed Carpetbagger Weiss. I don’t truss her.
I’ll have to thank her for that – Weiss is much better than Min.
You don’t like any politicians do you?
Do you know what “truss” means as a transitive verb?
I’m glad that you don’t truss Sharon. That’s a disturbing mental image.
Have you trussed a lot of other women in your time? Or … men?
Late one night a few years ago, Dina Nguyen (when she was on the OCWD board and married to Joe Dovinh) texted me a bunch of her thoughts about the old Chinese custom of trussing young females. It was strange. I think she was drunk.
I love how you two bozos are triggered by your own ignorance. True progressivism. How many meanings can one word have. Geez. Only mine.
I trust that you meant to say “trust” instead of “truss.”
Truss has a different meaning as a noun than as a verb. I’m surprised that you haven’t had to encounter a truss before, given the weight of carrying around your ego.
I read years ago that the word that had the most distinct meanings (at that time) was “set”; the OED asserts that it is “run.”
Unlike you clowns, I don’t truss politicians a la sad that endorse politicians like Tammy “dinghy broad” Kim and Joanna “Carpetbagger” Weiss whom are unqualified for the office they seek.
How is Joanna unqualified? Because she lives a few miles outside the district? Newsflash bozo. That’s okay for Congress. Some voters may not like it, but plenty Congressmembers live outside their districts.
And it’s who not whom. And “a la sad?”. What’s going on with your writing? I’m starting not to truss you.
Really? Point me to the law you rely on for your proposition that it’s ok for US Congress elections for a candidate to live out of the district for the office they seek.
Newsflash – last I checked – if you can’t vote for the office, you can’t run for it. And, if it is ok to do so, then why is she fudging her address?
Apparently, you are of the ilk who makes unwarranted exceptions.
Sad was supposed to be sqs- autotype won again.
Also, explain to me again how she is qualified to go to DC? Oh, she is a political organizer. Wah wah wah!
I thought it was common knowledge that residency rule doesn’t apply to Congress. I’m surprised Chmielewski hasn’t already told you. I’m not gonna look it up, you look it up.
You should be less of a smartass when you’re so often wrong.
Vern, you have to admit you go both ways on the Carpetbagger issue. I’m an absolutist in this regard. You are not. You think some carpetbaggers are better than others. Are you even in the district for which Carpetbagger Weiss seeks office. And, tell me again Carpetbagger Weiss’s merits which qualify her for this office. And don’t start with “(DUI) Dave….”
This is where you get stuck in that progressive trap of taking a position based on a false premise like sexual orientation and gender fluidity are protected classes entitled to equal protection.
There is no basis for saying Carpetbagger Weiss is the most qualified candidate for Katie Porker’s seat.
Nope. I say it’s a drawback on Weiss’s part, but she’s still better than Min. Are you waiting for the Perfect person to run against Baugh, or are you a secret Republican?
Oh that’s right carpetbagging for federal legislative office is only a problem when the other party does it.
https://yellowhammernews.com/state-sen-arthur-orr-says-tommy-tubervilles-carpetbagging-should-be-a-problem-for-voters/
Vern, I notice you neglect to provide any basis for how or why Carpetbagger Weiss is qualified for the office she seeks. Hence, there must be none.
What concern is the race she is In to you? Do you live, work or own any property or businesses in the district for the office which she seeks?
I’m not inclined to continue an endless unproductive back and forth that’s not even on topic, so this’ll be the last on this.
1. I didn’t write that Tuberville piece.
2. I’m studiously free of partisan double standards.
3. I’ve already said, enough times, that “carpetbagging” is a minus. Less a minus than a recent and ungraceful DUI and Min’s pro-corporate record, or the rotten positions of Baugh and letting Republicans keep their destructive majority. (Plus you use the word wrong; carpetbagging is when you MOVE to run in a district.)
4. Joanna is as qualified as anyone else in the race. So what if she hasn’t worked as a legislator? She will have experienced staff and she is smart enough to get up to speed.
5. Fuck you for saying it’s not my concern cuz I don’t live in the district. (Leave aside that I lived most of my life in HB.) I run a County blog and the whole County is my concern. In fact, especially during this Congressional election, the whole nation is my concern. Throw in the earth while you’re at it, given Joanna’s environmental strengths.
Intrastate carpetbagging in Congressional races is legal either way. Whether it’s a “problem” is based on a number of factors, including how far away the candidate lives (is it so far that they can’t understand the problems of the district by direct experience?) Tuberville’s carpetbagging crosses state lines and thus violated the constitutional provision that a member of Congress must be a member of the STATE (even if not of the DISTRICT that they represent.) Read Article I, Section 2, Clause 2, which reads “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the Age of twenty five Years, and been sever Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
Those are the legal requirements, full stop. It’s not OK if Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else breaks them. I’m surprised that you don’t seem to know this.
It is a problem to the voters, though, if enough of them consider it a problem.
“A spokesman for Tuberville maintains the Senator’s primary residence is an Auburn house owned by his wife and son.” – AL.com
Of course Tubervilles’s spokesman maintains that.
No mention here that ACA 13 only applies to *citizen initiatives*. Legislative amendments would still pass with a simple majority. How is that supposed to be good for voters? This takes power away from citizens.