Yesterday, Joe Mathews challenged me on this site to accept
a bargain that would eliminate the two-thirds vote on taxes and fees for a
guaranteed referendum by the people on all tax measures. He asked the question:
"Should a majority of voters in one election be able to overturn the votes of
2/3 of their elected representatives?"
My answer is: Yes, voters should have the power to make the
final decision on taxes if they choose.
As I made clear in the piece
that prompted this debate, just because voters choose legislators who lean
toward supporting taxes does not mean the voters themselves support such an
action. I offered numerous examples when this was so: Proposition 13’s property
tax reform (1978), Proposition 218’s right to vote on taxes (1996); and
Proposition 26’s two-thirds vote on fees (2010).
I would note that in all three measures the people supported
the idea of requiring a two-thirds legislative vote for raising taxes and/or
fees. Add Proposition 62 (1986) to that list and it is clear the voters’ have
been consistent on this issue over a three decade period.
A couple of days ago, columnist Dan Walters cited
an example why the two-thirds vote can be an important and positive tool in
legislative negotiations. True, he was not discussing taxes directly, however
let me add the justification for the two-thirds vote for taxes as I have
written in the past.
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 on
important decisions … for example, to secure an impeachment, to approve a
treaty, or to override a presidential veto.
Consider government’s power to levy taxes. The two-thirds vote is a protection
against a tyranny of a majority of legislators 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 in the form of taxation?
Joe Mathews’ statement that I want a constitutional
amendment to prohibit all new taxes is wrong. I support voters having the power
to decide what they want to pay in taxes, and I believe a supermajority vote is
an important taxpayer protection against the power of legislators. Despite
these provisions, many taxes have passed in California on both the state and
local level over the last 30 years.
Let me close, Joe, by offering a piece of advice: If you
want to reduce the two-thirds vote requirement to pass taxes in the
legislature, put it on the ballot. After all, it only takes a simple majority
vote of the people to make the change.