In a hallway press conference after the budget deal passed the Senate, President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said, “We need to take the two-thirds supermajority to the ballot.”
Steinberg is not the only one declaring the two-thirds vote must be lowered in the shadow the difficult budget debate. Former Senator John Burton said if he is elected to head the state Democratic Party his first priority will be to end the two-thirds vote to pass the budget.
But, those opposed to the two-thirds vote requirement will not just go after the two-thirds vote on the budget. They will also go after the two-thirds vote law to raise taxes.
Consider the budget that was just passed. Those seeking tax increases would still need a two-thirds vote to raise taxes even if there were a majority vote budget rule in place. The majority would not have tried to solve the budget problem without taxes. So the goal is clear. Ultimately, the plan will be to knock down the two-thirds vote to pass taxes.
Before he attempts to do that, Steinberg should listen to the sage advice of one … Darrell Steinberg. Last June, I reported that in a conversation with the Courage Campaign, Steinberg advised those who want to change Proposition 13 to first put $20 million in the bank if they had any desire of taking on the iconic tax reform measure. The two-thirds vote to raise taxes is part of Proposition 13.
Opponents of the two-thirds vote on the budget continue to bring up the tired argument that only three states have a two-thirds vote requirement for a budget, suggesting that California should follow the rules adopted by a majority of her sister states. If we follow that logic, California would have to change other policies as well. For instance, no state has what is equivalent to AB 32, the landmark environmental law. Based on the argument made against the two-thirds vote the Democratic leaders should also argue we should get rid of AB 32 because no other state has it. (At a minimum, AB 32 should be modified, but that is a story for another time.)
California is known as a leader, not a follower. Californians set their own rules. The voters have been supportive of a two-thirds vote for a long time in this state going back to the 1879 constitution and the provision for a two-thirds vote to pass local bonds which increase property taxes.
The concept of the two-thirds vote has always been part of our democratic republic. The requirement appears more than ten times in the United States Constitution. It was designed to give certainty and assure consensus in important decisions … for example, to secure an impeachment … to approve a treaty … to override a presidential veto.
There is no more important power of government than the power to levy taxes. The two-thirds vote is a protection against a tyranny of a majority to take property … that is: taxes from the people. It is right and proper that we make it difficult to do this.
We live in a country that created laws to protect us in our life, liberty, and property. Our laws protect the taking of life and liberty with a super majority vote. In courts, to take a life or to take liberty, the law requires a unanimous vote of a jury. Why then shouldn’t a two-thirds vote protect us against taking of property?
This debate will continue. As I reported yesterday in my commentary two initiatives just came out of the attorney general’s office dealing with the two-thirds vote. One would lower the two-thirds vote to pass a budget. The second would lower the two-thirds vote to pass both the budget and tax increases, except property taxes.
If these measures qualify for the ballot we shall see if the voters rally in support of the two-thirds vote as they have so many times in the past.