by Jack
On June 7th, voters will have a chance to vote on one of the oddest propositions I’ve seen in a long time, Propositon 50. This is a constitutional ammendment for the State of California. Prop 50 could give the Senate the authority to suspend a legislator charged with gross misconduct or a crime and cause him or her to forfeit the salary and forego all benefits of his or her office.
However, the proposition is vaguely worded and it has the potential to be appealled on constitutional grounds of denying due process.
I like the intent here, but I wonder if this is really going to change anything? One thing it does, it raises the bar for suspending a bad apple by requiring a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, whereas right now it only take a simple majority to suspend a legislator (with pay). And this is done pending the outcome of the charges levied against them.
There’s no big money behind this proposition and no big money opposing it. The Sacramento Bee favors it and they tend to be conservative. But, I just think its rather pointless and the legislature could come up with a bill that was stronger and better worded.
If the legislature really wanted to do something to strike a blow against corruption they would require a lawmaker, upon being found guilty, to pay a fine equal to the sum of the wages paid to him while in office.
In this way, the longer they stay in office the greater the penalty is for wrong doing and I think thats fair. As they rise in power and seniority wrongdoing has a more profound impact on state government. As it is now, and speaking in general terms, the longer a lawmaker stays in officer the more liberties they take with the rules as they learn how to game the system. But, with a graduating penalty, well, they might think twice about breaking the law.
Prop 50 as written is a quagmire of deception, written by those whom it best serves, the politician in office.
Had they honestly had the peoples interest in mind they could have just written a clean bill that would stop salary and benefits, while being investigated ,but the hard issue is representation for the district while the suspension is in effect, how can a pro tem representation be created in the district the accused represents?
Jacks suggestions makes sense while allowing the tax payer to recover all salary the Politian received once found guilty of misuse of the office.
This bill is a knee jerk, “look at what we are doing ” photo op type legislation crafted solely to convince the voters something is being done. But nothing positive has been.
They should be able to construct a better bill for our benefit, so for me this is a not something I cannot support as written.
When I was a Taxifornia resident and it came time to vote, I always read the ballot booklet to see who was supporting or funding the propositions. That helped me decide which way to vote, since many were so complicated they took a Philadelphia lawyer to translate.
Still watching for a proposition to curtail $$ to the Bullet Train to Nowhere . . . . .
I like the idea of a severe penalty. Lawmakers need to know the public is serous about moral and ethical service with respect to those who represent us. But without details I’m a bit suspicious about how this might be implemented. Could it be used by the majority in power to rid themselves of those who become a thorn in their sides?
At the federal level I watched our government send Scooter Libby to jail for “conflicting recollections of a four-year-old phone call” in a case that was based on a false premise, that Libby “outed” Valerie Plame. As the case unfolded the prosecutor KNEW that Richard Armitage was responsible. I’ve watched as our federal government failed to prosecute anyone in the IRS scandal. Lois Lerner “walked away with tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses, an early retirement and a full pension. Although she was held in contempt of Congress, it meant nothing. The DOJ didn’t pursue criminal charges, because Lerner had been working with friends in the department all along.”
This proposition sounds like our state acting to prevent such from happening in California but I fear it will act to shield some and nail others under false cover. I could be wrong…hope I am, but the record for all of government has been pretty lousy. Both federal and state governments are going to have to do a lot to improve their image before they will see most Americans approaching their ideas with confidence and trust.
After reading the in favor of argument I was going to vote yes. Then I read the argument against, rebuttals and recognized names like Jon Fleischman and Joel Anderson and changed to a no vote.
The Dems hold a super majority in Sacramento and probably will for decades to come, if not forever. As the Anderson and Jones state on pg 11 this could allow the majority to stifle the minority even more.
Staging more “discrediting” of the right a la the show trial against Carence Thomas.
Re : “The Sacramento Bee favors it and they tend to be conservative.”
The Bee tends to be conservative??? Not the Bee I know. They are about as conservative as the SF Comical.
Nevertheless, thanks for the heads up, Jack.