Tag: legislature

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture

Antidemocracy in Maine

Maine, legislature, censorship, freedom of speech, representation,

Laurel Libby, a Republican state legislator in Maine, has been censured by Democrats in the Maine House of Representatives for a February 17 social media post in which she expressed disapproval of allowing “trans” girls (boys) to compete in high school sports for girls.

The alleged reason for the censure? Her post mentioned the winner of a girls’ track championship who is publicly known to be the winner and publicly known to be male.

Censuring Libby for stating her views would be bad enough. But the legislature went beyond putting its disapproval (or the Democratic majority’s disapproval) on record.

Representative Libby isn’t being allowed to speak as a representative during session. And she’s not being allowed to vote until she apologizes. 

For stating her views on a public question. 

Nor was she even allowed to defend herself when the House voted along party lines 75 – 70 to censure her.

This qualifies as tyranny, another mile down the slippery slope of eroding — or dynamiting — democratic norms and practices. The tyranny is not that of an autocrat but of the majority. In this case, the tyranny of a majority of partisans in a legislature.

It is also an attack on free speech. As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression observes, people elect representatives to “vote according to their conscience and express themselves freely on controversial topics.”

Rightly, Laurel Libby has refused to remove the Facebook post criticizing the policy of the Maine Principals’ Association. Wrongly, her constituents continue to be deprived of her voice and vote in the legislature.

She is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to redress this injustice. Let it act, and fast.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights

Register the Critics!

Florida, censorship, blogging, license

Joy Reid cited it as just another example of “right-​wing fantasy,” and Newt Gingrich had, if anything, worse things to say about it.

What is it?

A proposed Florida law advanced by State Senator Jason Brodeur (R‑Lake Mary).

Senate Bill 1316 “would require bloggers to register with the state within five days of any post mentioning a state official, according to Florida Politics,” a Newsweek article explains. “It would then require bloggers to file monthly reports listing posts that mention officials, as well as any compensation for those posts.”

The legislation, which has not advanced far — and probably won’t — has received mostly negative responses. Former Speaker of the House Gingrich’s is typical: “The idea that bloggers criticizing a politician should register with the government is insane. [I]t is an embarrassment that it is a Republican state legislator in Florida who introduced a bill to that effect. He should withdraw it immediately.”

Promoters of the law defended it mainly by saying that Ginrich’s criticism mischaracterized the law. Not all political bloggers would have to register, only those paid to write would be. Only!

“If a blogger posts to a blog about an elected state officer and receives, or will receive, compensation for that post, the blogger must register with the appropriate office.…”

Former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith challenged the notion itself: “Would you apply this to journalists? Citizen who write letters to their representatives? People who talk to their neighbors? Why not? No, you don’t have a right to know who is paying them. You have a right to ignore them if that matters to you.”

Since the world began, politicians have had a very difficult time ignoring their critics. Instead, like this Florida Senator, they want to shut them up. By force. By intimidation. By regulatory harassment.

The First Amendment says NO.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
meme too much government

Twain on Congress and Liberty

Mark Twain, legislature, government, property, rights, meme
Categories
Accountability general freedom incumbents insider corruption local leaders moral hazard political challengers Regulating Protest term limits

Missouri Shows Article V Action

Missouri, show me, Article V, term limits, legislature, congress,

There’s good news and there’s good news from the Show Me State.

First the good news. The Missouri House declined to follow the lead of the Missouri Senate during its recent legislative session in advancing a ballot measure to make a travesty, mockery and sham of state legislative term limits.

The proposed weakening of the limits would have doubled maximum legislative tenure from eight years to 16 years. Further, it would also have excluded terms already served from counting toward the new limit. 

Had the measure ultimately been enacted, some incumbents would have been able to sit in a single seat for up to 24 years. This assault on term limits is dead … at least until next year.

Now the good news. The lawmakers deserve high praise for issuing a formal call for an amendment convention to consider the single subject of congressional term limits, making Missouri the third state to do so (after Florida and Alabama). In mid-​May, the resolution for a Term Limits Convention easily passed in both chambers.

Thanks to a provision in Article V of the Constitution, if two thirds of the states (34 states) submit a similar application to convene a term limits amendment convention, the convention must be convened. The amendment that the convention produces would then be submitted to the states for ratification. Three fourths (38) are required to ratify. 

We’re only in the first-​steps stage here, but first steps are crucial. 

Thanks for showing us how to do it, Missouri.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

Missouri, show me, Article V, term limits, legislature, congress,

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Principle and Compromise

De-Escalate Washington, Tim Eyman, Initiative 940, initiative, democracy, shootings

Last Friday, Tim Eyman — the Evergreen State’s best-​known ballot initiative practitioner — won an important court case.

But he also scuttled an amazingly impressive compromise between state legislators, police, and the proponents of Initiative 940.

The measure was written and promoted by De-​Escalate Washington, a group that includes several relatives of deceased victims of recent controversial police shootings. I‑940 would implement violence de-​escalation and mental health training for police, and require law enforcement personnel to provide first-​aid to save lives. Most likely Washington voters tell pollsters they approve.

De-​Escalate Washington got the required signatures, sending this “indirect initiative” to Olympia. The Legislature was faced with three choices:

  • approve the initiative as written; 
  • not act, letting the measure go to the ballot; or 
  • approve an alternative and place both proposals on the ballot.

The Legislature tried to “create a fourth option”: it passed the measure with amendments.

And that’s what Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller found unconstitutional. She sent the measure, un-​amended, to the ballot for a vote of the people.

Interestingly, those amendments were the result of negotiations among the measure’s advocates, the police, and the Legislature. There had been many congratulations all around on the “historic” compromise. But, “historic” or no, legislatures must follow the law.

Tim Eyman is pleased that the court defended the constitutionally defined initiative process by definitively siding against the backroom compromise.

And voters will still get the chance to vote on the proposal.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders

Citizens Triumphant

Ohio, initiative, legislature, Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission,

Last week, the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission considered whether to recommend a constitutional change to create an obvious double standard: requiring citizen-​initiated constitutional amendments to obtain a 55 percent supermajority vote, while the very same amendments proposed by legislators would only need 50-​percent-​plus-​one for passage.

I traveled to the capitol in Columbus, joining a room full of Ohio citizens and organizations testifying in opposition. As I explained at Townhall yesterday, after hearing from the people, the Commission tabled the idea.*

For more than four years, the Constitutional Revision and Updating Committee deliberated over how to improve the constitution and came to a consensus in favor of the aforementioned double standard (sent to the full Commission). And yet, at a well-​attended public hearing, no one defended the proposal.

While bias favoring the legislature seemed obvious, commissioners bristled at the suggestion that — established and funded by the legislature — they lacked independence. “If there were one or two legislative members on our committee, that was it,” offered non-​legislator Janet Abaray. 

Actually, four of the nine members on Abaray’s committee are currently state legislators — not one or two. Plus, two more previously served in the legislature. That’s two-​thirds of the committee comprised of current or former legislators.

Moreover, the published minutes provide a peek into the thinking behind the proposed double standard. For instance, “what have emerged lately are initiated amendments to the constitution that are inconsistent with the purpose of the constitution.”

It is the people who will decide what belongs in the people’s constitution — not the legislature.

And not the legislature’s commission. 

That’s the truth that Ohioans spoke to power. 

And power listened. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The commission came to this conclusion with only one dissenting vote.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders nannyism political challengers Regulating Protest

Delivering a Double Standard

Ohio, initiative, voting, election, ballot, legislature, democracy, amendment, constitution

Former State Representative Matt Lynch got right to the point in his Cleveland Plain Dealer op-​ed: “The people’s right to amend the Ohio Constitution through the ballot initiative is under attack.”

Created by the Ohio Legislature to consider constitutional amendments, the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission (OCMC) has a hidden purpose: provide cover for that same legislative body. As Lynch aptly notes, the OCMC “is filled with politicians and lobbyists. Thus, commission recommendations must be scrutinized for fidelity to the public good versus the special interests of political insiders.”

This Thursday at the capitol in Columbus, OCMC will consider whether to recommend that state legislators propose an amendment to the state constitution to make future amendments more difficult. That’s an awfully bad idea in itself. But, bizarrely, the greater difficulty would depend entirely on who proposes the amendment.

The working OCMC recommendation makes no change to the legislature’s ability to propose and pass constitutional amendments. What it would do is make it tougher for citizen-initiated amendments. Most unhelpfully, the recommendation would require only citizen-​proposed amendments to garner a supermajority of 55 percent of the vote. 

Consequence? Suppose a measure proposed by citizens — term limits, ethics reform, government transparency — was massively outspent by powerful interests, and yet still won 54.9 percent of the vote. It would lose.

Yes, the 45.1 percent of voters would defeat the 54.9 percent of voters.

Call it “New Math.”

The very same issue proposed by legislators would win … and be added to the state constitution.

“The double standards are breathtaking,” writes Lynch,* adding, “and no other state has such unfair rules.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Sunday at Townhall, I also discussed this double standard. And the word may be getting out. Townhall always adorns my column with a photograph — this time featuring Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, also a Republican candidate for governor in 2018. DeWine’s campaign objected to being pictured, arguing they have no involvement with the OCMC. DeWine’s picture has been removed.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
general freedom ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders national politics & policies political challengers

Not a Joke

Washington, secession, division, exit, legislature, legislation, city, country, representation, initiative, ballot

Yesterday, the chief sponsor of a Washington State legislative bill withdrew it. He said it was “a joke.” His co-​sponsor wasn’t laughing, however … even proclaimed an intent to introduce the bill again next year.

The legislation’s purpose? Split the state into two. 

The eastern, drier half of the State is much less populated, and the wet, western half gets its way almost all the time. The bill’s sponsor mentioned his intent: to call attention to the persistent lack of effective representation.

It was not a funny* joke. What he meant, surely, was “a stunt.”

This is just one of many ongoing secessionist movements in the United States. Most represent the eternal struggle between more self-​reliant, community-​centered and less statist country folk and the more atomized, fearful statists of the cities. But also present is the problem of representation. There is not enough of it. Many people do not have a voice. Hence the desire for exit. 

“Voice” vs. “exit” are two crucial aspects of constitutional politics, particularly relating to different kinds of “freedom.”

Many states could use splitting, California, especially.

But exit is not the only option. Representation itself could increase in sheer numbers; California, anyway, has (astoundingly!) too few politicians, er, representatives … per residents.

Another key constitutional change would be to set the bar higher to passing new legislation, especially regarding adding tax burdens.

But not for the people. We are best represented by our own votes, which means initiative and referendum rights extended to all states. Citizens of Washington State (still intact) lack the ability to change their constitution by initiative — an important process for future state shape shifts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Originally, the new state’s name was to be Liberty, much better than the states of Tyranny, Servitude and Denial. Now I read that the proposed name is Lincoln, awkwardly tied to our union’s most determined anti-​secessionist. That is a bit funny.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption responsibility

Four Powers on the Chopping Block

Ohio, initiative, lawmakers, congress, pay,

A group of Ohio citizens isn’t leaving the maintenance of ethical standards in government to the politicians. Smart. Forming a political committee, “Ethics First — You Decide Ohio,” the group filed an initiative to amend the state constitution unsurprisingly called, “Ethics First.”

What does the ballot measure do?

“Ethics proposal would cut state lawmaker’s pay and power,” said the segment on Cleveland’s NBC affiliate, WKYC-​TV 3.

The initiative limits base pay for the state’s part-​time legislators to the median household income of full-​time Ohioans. Because Ohio is one of only six states in which legislators pay themselves more than median household income, the measure, if in effect today, would mandate cutting legislators’ base pay from $60,584 annually to $49,644.

“The purpose is not to cut their pay,” explained spokesman Jack Boyle. “The purpose is to make their pay related to what happens to all of us in Ohio. If we’re doing well, their pay will go up. If not, it will go down.”

What legislative “power” will be cut?

The amendment takes away four powers:

  1. The power of legislators to exempt themselves from laws and taxes other Ohioans must follow and pay,
  2. The currently unlimited power of legislators to raise their own pay,
  3. The power to be a paid lobbyist before the legislature within two years of leaving office as a state legislator, and
  4. The power of legislators to destroy legislative records, including electronic records, within four years.

All the other powers of the legislature remain completely intact.

How would you vote: Yes or No?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Ohio, initiative, lawmakers, congress, pay,

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
folly government transparency porkbarrel politics too much government

Lagniappes à la Legislators

Arkansas Fools

Finally, a legislator with the guts to strike directly at the root of the problem: the People.

Well, not all the people. Just the ones who speak out, who show a lack respect for their elected betters.

In recent years, the Arkansas Legislature has heroically tried to control the chaotic and dangerous excesses of freedom and democracy in the Natural State. Legislators have proposed laws clamping down on citizen petitions, requiring employees to friend their employers on Facebook, outlawing photography in public and … well, you get the picture.

Last November, legislators convinced voters to amend the state constitution to weaken term limits and establish an independent commission (appointed by legislators) to raise their pay 148 percent. How? By astutely telling voters that the amendment would “set term limits,” while saying nothing about the pay hike.

Legislators also cleverly curtailed the citizen initiative process, regulating paid petitioners in ways the state constitution prohibits. But they got a pass on that; the eminent state supreme court has ruled in their favor. Then, unwilling to rest on their laurels, legislators introduced a new bill requiring petition campaigns to conduct costly criminal background checks on their paid petitioners.

One opponent called this deeply thoughtful measure “mean-​spirited” and “unnecessary.”

Sen. Jon Woods argued the legislation doesn’t go far enough. He filed Senate Bill 0401, which mandates that any person speaking out in any way not in sync with the legislature must shut up.

“Enough pussy-​footing around. Let’s end all this free speech hogwash,” Woods said. “We’re the boss!”

For real?

Unfortunately, everything prior to the previous three paragraphs is 100 percent true. Yup, every day is April Fools’ Day at the Arkansas Legislature.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Arkansas Fools