At your request: This week's California Commentary by Jon Coupal.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed on the HJTA website, or you provided your address in response to direct mail. Please see the bottom of this message to unsubscribe. Click here to view in browser.

Contribute >

California Commentary

Supermajority votes are vital to a functioning republic

By Jon Coupal

There is no dispute that Proposition 5, if enacted, will result in higher property taxes for California homeowners. Want proof?

Here's the official analysis from the Legislative Analyst: "Recent local election results suggest that an additional 20 percent to 50 percent of local bond measures would have passed under Proposition 5's lower voter approval requirement. Those measures would have raised a couple billion dollars over many years. A lower voter approval requirement also could mean local governments propose more measures."

To recap, Prop. 5 would lower the vote threshold for local bonds from two-thirds to 55%. The two-thirds vote requirement for local general obligation bonds was adopted in 1879 as a protection against excessive debt at the local level repaid by property owners.

Confronted with the truth about what Prop. 5 really does, the proponents resurrect another tired argument: That is, that the two-thirds vote supermajority is somehow "inherently undemocratic." Although this contention has been repeatedly discredited, it is helpful to understand why supermajority votes are critical to any functioning government.

First, supermajority vote requirements have a long history. In 1179, Pope Alexander III used a supermajority rule for papal elections at the Third Lateran Council. But far more pertinent to America's constitutional framework are all the instances in the U.S. Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote.

* Impeachment: In cases of impeachment of federal officials, the House of Representatives may present articles of impeachment with a simple majority vote. But any conviction in the subsequent trial in the Senate requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the members present in the Senate. (Article 1, Section 3)
* Expelling a Member of Congress: Expelling a member of Congress requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in either the House or Senate. (Article 1, Section 5)
* Overriding a Veto: Overriding a presidential veto of a bill requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in both the House and Senate. (Article 1, Section 7)
* Amending the Constitution: Congressional approval of a Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of those members present and voting in both the House and Senate. (Article 5)
* Calling a Constitutional Convention: As a second method of amending the Constitution, the legislatures of 2/3 of the states (34 states) can vote to request that the U.S. Congress convenes a constitutional convention. (Article 5)
* Ratifying an Amendment: Ratification of an amendment to the Constitution requires the approval of 3/4 (38) of the state legislatures. (Article 5)
* Ratifying a Treaty: Ratifying treaties requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the Senate. (Article 2, Section 2)
* Postponing a Treaty: The Senate may pass a motion to indefinitely postpone its consideration of a treaty by a 2/3 supermajority vote. (Senate rules)

As should be evident from the above, supermajorities are required in those cases justifying a greater degree of consensus than just a simple majority. They also impede whipsaw policy changes by being less likely to flip from one side of an issue to the other depending on just a handful of votes. In this manner, supermajorities encourage deliberation, compromise and stability.

The ultimate supermajority threshold is, of course, a requirement for unanimity. Although rare in the legislative context, unanimity of jurors is required in criminal trials where the accused, if convicted, could lose their life or liberty. For that reason, all 12 jurors must agree to impose punishment.

At both the state and federal levels, our constitutional framework is replete with checks and balances which, in theory, constrain the ability of government to deprive us of life, liberty and property. And there is no more draconian power of government than the power to tax. As this nation's first Chief Justice, John Marshall, noted in 1819, "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Proposition 5 seeks to expand the ability of government to increase taxes in California, which has the highest per capita tax burden in the nation. We need to heed the words of President Reagan who reminded us that, "As government expands, liberties contract."

Vote No on Prop. 5.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

For our ballot recommendations, click here.

The HJTA Show LIVE on 790 KABC & 560 KSFO!

Join HJTA President Jon Coupal and Vice President of Communications Susan Shelley for the Howard Jarvis Radio Show every Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. LIVE on both 790 KABC in Southern California and 560 KSFO in Northern California.

More Podcasts >

Jon Coupal is the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. He is a recognized expert in California fiscal affairs and has argued numerous tax cases before the courts.

HJTA always appreciates the support of its members, if it doesn't pose a hardship. Your donations help us fight to Protect Proposition 13 and all California taxpayers.

Donate Today >

Don't forget to follow us:

Copyright (c) 2024 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this message because you subscribed on the HJTA website, or you provided your e-mail address in response to direct mail. Please add us to your address book for future correspondence.

Our mailing address is:

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

621 South Westmoreland Avenue, Suite 200

Los Angeles, CA 90005

If you'd like to stop receiving email communications from HJTA, please UNSUBSCRIBE HERE.

** This is email id #422499 sent by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. To unsubscribe from this list, please reply to this email. **