Category: term limits

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies term limits

Reform Follows Function

Waiting for this week’s Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, which most folks expect to strike down the mandate and perhaps the entire law, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley argues in the Washington Post that the court should be expanded from nine justices to 19.

FDR, no doubt sitting up in his grave listening for details, would find Turley’s suggestion of allowing each of the next five presidents to choose two new justices very politic, even sneaky.Jonathan Turley

One reason to add more justices, Turley hazards, is the damage caused to popular government when controversial issues are decided narrowly. Predicting a 5 – 4 vote on Obamacare, he unaccountably thinks it would be less controversial to then give the President two new justices so that this law (or other Obamanisms) would be upheld 6 – 5.

If I have my arithmetic correct, there can be legal cases decided by a single justice with any odd number of justices … nine, eleven, 13, 15, etc. That is why we choose odd numbers, if not odd justices.

Prof. Turley is correct, however, in addressing the awesome power of each Supreme Court justice, the fierce political battles each nomination now engenders and the ensuing politicization of the Court. He simply applies the wrong medicine.

A better reform would be to end lifetime tenure for justices on the High Court (but not for lower level federal judges). By requiring rotation no one could lock in a majority on the court for decades without sustained majority support of the people.

Turley informs us that 60 percent of the public already favors this approach. But the Washington elite? No such support.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Trick and Treats

After more than a year of big labor throwing industrial-​size kitchen sinks at Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s Republican governor became the first of the three governors in U.S. history to face recall and retain the office.

Walker more than survived; he prevailed, beating his Democratic rival by seven percentage points, 53 to 46. In a light blue state, it was a thorough thwacking of the public employee unions, the biggest, bluest special interest.

According to exit polls, Walker even won better than a third of union households.

The man had kept his word not to raise taxes. Further, ending collective bargaining for most government employee unions, along with other reforms, saved lots of money for state and local governments and school districts. This, it turns out, prevented public sector layoffs and helped secure future health and pension benefits.

Walker’s success will be repeated elsewhere.

Hey, already happened! On Tuesday, in San Diego and San Jose, California, voters overwhelmingly passed measures to get a handle on out-​of-​control public employee pension costs. These measures were, of course, fiercely opposed by government unions.

As cities are cutting programs to pay pension benefits for retirees, a post on the Calpensions blog explains, “Public pension amounts in California are based on what unions are able to obtain through collective bargaining, not what is needed for a reasonable retirement.”

Among Tuesday’s many treats, there was one really rotten trick. California’s Prop 28 passed, weakening the state’s legislative term limits. Most voters, misled by the official ballot summary, thought the measure would result in tougher term limits.

Can’t wait until the next election, which falls nearer Halloween. Hope for more treats than tricks.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits video

Video: California Term Limit Scam

CAUTION: A carefully concocted measure designed to fool the voters. Pass this on. It is important.

http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​r​u​T​n​1​k​k​v​v​6​Q​&​f​e​a​t​u​r​e​=​y​o​u​t​u​b​e​_​g​d​a​t​a​_player

Categories
links term limits

Townhall: California’s Cross-​dressing Ballot Initiative

California politicians are at it again, as you can see on Townhall this weekend. And come back for the links:

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption term limits

Professional Politicians & Crony Capitalists

Yesterday, I explained how the official title for California’s Proposition 28 tricks voters who favor tougher term limits into supporting a measure that will dramatically weaken those limits.

The title’s slipperiness is anything but accidental. It was designed to fool, hiding the fact that the measure doubles the time legislators can park themselves in the state assembly and ups senate tenure by 50 percent. Instead, voters read that Prop 28 “reduces” (ever so slightly) the time a politician can serve in both chambers, from 14 years to 12 years – something affecting less than one in ten office-holders.

“The proponents of the measure are longtime opponents of term limits who have long wanted to roll back California’s voter-​approved legislative term limits,” says Jon Fleishman of the Flash Report, who serves as volunteer co-​chairman of “No on 28.”

Still, the sham ballot title is only one part of the Prop 28 scam.

The biggest financial backer behind Prop 28 has been billionaire developer Edward Roski. While at the very same time legislators were awarding Roski’s company the special environmental exemptions he needed to build a sports stadium, Roski just happened to plunk down over a million bucks to the politician-​prized petition drive, helping the measure get on the June 5th ballot.

“That’s crony capitalism and that stinks,” argues Fleishman.

“In a state with a 12-​percent-​plus unemployment rate,” Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, points out about legislators, “the jobs they’re fighting the hardest to keep are their own.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Ballot Trickery

When California voters read Proposition 28’s ballot title, they overwhelmingly support the June 5th measure. That support radically dwindles when they learn more.

The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll showing 68 percent in favor and only 24 percent opposed. Surveyed Californians were responding to the official ballot title, which reads that Prop 28 “reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years and allows 12 years’ service in one house.”

Voters want to reduce the time legislators spend in Sacramento.

But a poll commissioned by Citizens in Charge Foundation addressed the same measure, except voters were told, “Proposition 28 increases the total amount of time a person may serve in the state assembly from 6 years to 12 years.  It allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.”

Hearing that, voter support dive-​bombed to a mere 28 percent, with 49 percent opposed.

Wording matters. Under Prop 28, the maximum time legislators can serve in both houses will be slightly reduced, from 14 to 12 years. But an analysis by U.S. Term Limits shows that only 8 percent of legislators would likely have their time in office reduced, since few legislators swap houses. Prop 28 doubles the amount of time politicians can stay in the Assembly and weakens the senate limit as well, allowing 82 percent of legislators to serve longer terms.

Jon Fleischman of Californians for Term Limits calls Prop 28 “a sham” because the ballot title was “written to fool the voters.”

“Scam” is a good word, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.