Voters in Arizona agreed to increase their sales tax by one cent for three years. And it wasn’t close – 64 percent of voters approved the measure, running away in 14 of 15 counties.

Are we witnessing a tax-friendly trend by voters in western states, as some have observed? After all, just last January, voters in Oregon also approved tax
increases. But Oregon is, as Jean Ross paints it, "a blue-green state,"
while Arizona’s leanings are crimson-red. And Arizonans increased the
broad-based sales tax, which comes out of everybody’s pocket, while
Oregonians increased the burden on the reviled upper income and
corporate taxpayers.

So what do the Oregon and Arizona efforts have in common? Most obvious
is campaign financing: Oregon government unions outspent taxpayers
by about 1.5 to one; they poured into the Oregon campaign what in
California would have been the equivalent of a sixty million dollar
effort.

Zurich and Los Angeles share an intriguing political distinction: each is the largest city in one of the world’s two greatest centers of direct democracy.

California and Switzerland use initiatives and referenda more often than any place in the world, and have for more than a century, when Los Angeles followed Zurich’s model and instituted the first municipal system of direct democracy in the U.S. But direct democracy has been challenged in both places.

In Los Angeles tonight, I’m moderating a free, public Zocalo Public Square event that compares the democratic structures of LA and Zurich, and of California and Switzerland. My hope is that the comparison may give us some ideas about how to make democracy in California, and in LA, work better.

As the former Chair of the Green Party of Washington State, I wholeheartedly endorse Proposition 14 in California.

It is unfortunate, and misguided, that third parties should find
themselves aligned with the Republican and Democratic Parties in trying
to dissuade California voters from supporting the Prop 14, Open Primary
initiative.

As the Green Party chair, I have had experience working on campaigns in
the state of Washington prior to the adoption of the "Top Two Primary."

Promoters of Proposition 14 on the June ballot are calling it the "open"  primary.

Ah yes, "open" makes it sound so inclusive, so liberating, so
egalitarian — what could possibly be wrong with that?  If you pay
taxes  in California, the answer is: plenty!

Prop. 14 is the result of collusion between an ambitious politician,
newly appointed Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, and entrenched Sacramento
spending interests. A year ago, then-Senator Maldonado, a Republican,
sold his vote for the most massive tax increase in the history of all
50  states, in return for an agreement to place a measure on the ballot
that would make it easier for him to run for statewide office. That
measure is Proposition 14.

The Top-Two Primary measure, Proposition 14, shows signs of winning in June despite passionate opposition from all the political parties in California.

The Public Policy Institute poll showed Proposition 14 with a commanding 60% to 27% lead, with Independent voters, who swing many an election in California, solidly behind the measure, 67% to 19%.

The Top Two Primary system allows the two highest vote getters in a primary election, regardless of party, to face-off in the general election. Major political parties fear they will lose power and influence if the measure passes. Smaller parties are concerned they could disappear all together with their candidates failing to grab one of the top two spots in a primary and not appearing on the general election ballot.

How many times have you heard something like the following in response
to the state’s job decline and overall economic implosion?

"But California is the venture capital of the country."

"But we have so much cleantech investment, we’re going to lead the country."

As we focus on primaries in California, it appears across the country that voters – sick of politics as usual and career politicians – are staking their claim by voting for newcomers.  

California has always prided itself on its independence.  When you look at the drama that has unfolded in primaries and special elections across the country, it makes you wonder if California Republicans will stake their own independence by voting for new leaders – the likes of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina – or stick with tried and true career politicians – like Tom Campbell, Chuck DeVore and Steve Poizner.

While you were sleeping on the way to California’s June 8th primary, here’s what happened:

An annual occurrence in Sacramento is the California Chamber of Commerce issuing a list of "job killer " bills. Earlier this week, the Chamber released this year’s list. The Chamber found 37 bills that would cripple job creation and keep California mired in its economic recession.

As I have argued on this page many times before, the way for California to crawl out of its financial hole is create more jobs, which will increase the wealth of the people and enrich government coffers.

A few years ago, Larry Kosmont, who, in conjunction with the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College, produces the well-respected Cost-of-Doing-Business Survey estimated that creating 173,000 new jobs in the state would provide $35 billion in tax revenue over ten years.

This article originally appeared on CalWatchDog.com

Normally a trendsetter, California might be a laggard in following
the political revolutions back east. On Tuesday, the Establishment of
both parties took a beating from voters upset at the most dysfunctional
government most Americans have lived under.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul wiped out Trey Grayson, the GOP Establishment candidate, by 59 percent to 35 percent. Paul is the son of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who lost the Republican Party’s presidential bid but easily won the campaign’s war of ideas almost by default.

Ron Paul’s predictions of a financial meltdown, memorably in the
debates of 2007 and early 2008, proved prescient and have increased his
popularity, as have numerous YouTube snippets of his TV appearances and speeches.