The Protection of Human Rights

[mishalak]

With enactment of this amendment the passage of any ballot initiative to change this constitution to restrict rights enumerated in it or part of common law shall require fifty percent of all registered voters to vote in the affermative for passage.

(So in other words it would prevent all future modification of the enumerated rights of Californians and those part of common law as I think less than 50% of people even vote, much less vote for something. That would forever quash various anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc.. ballot iniatives. Of course it would also prevent anti-gun ballot iniatives... hey bonus! To make it more reasonable just change it to 2/3 majority.)

Comments

[von-krag.livejournal.com]

That sounds good, though I think 2/3rds of all voters works better. Ghod knows if I were you I'd break the law and carry a handgun, Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Crystalnacht was a wakeup to everyone, never forgive, or forget.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I disagree on a personal level in regards if it would be better to be tried by twelve or carried by six. I'm with Socrates that generally it is better to be hurt than to hurt and I'm all for forgiving (without forgetting). It is just that I think that not everyone lives as I do and what is right for me isn't necessarily good for everyone. I am impressed by guns, they are fun to use (I'm even good at target shooting), but I doubt I could competently use one to defend myself. But just because I cannot does not mean everyone should not.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

It would be interesting (and perhaps just barely possible) to change the U.S. Governmental System from a Representative Democracy to a Direct Popular Democracy -- which, I think, is what your suggestion involves -- but it seems unlikely that doing it in only one sphere (though "Human Rights" is quite an elastic one) would be possible. *sigh*

And it seems as though the suggested process would make is (nearly or totally) impossible to add Rights that have not already been enumerated but for which there will someday be a perceived recognition of need.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Actually I'm talking about the current problems in California with the direct democracy system that allows citizens to write laws and amend the state constitution. There is the constant threat that one of the anti-abortion, anti-gay, or otherwise stupid ballot initiatives will pass because it only takes a 50% majority to amend the state constitution in this fashion. I’m proposing that instead of a simple majority at least 2/3 of the people voting if not an outright majority of all registered voters (a higher standard given that in any election only about half of voters even turn out) be required to amend parts of the constitution to restrict the rights of Californians.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay, 2/3 of the people voting makes sense -- I'd misread or misunderstood you to be calling for that percentage of the registered or maybe even eligible voters (which would also make sense, but I'd deem excessively stringent). A provision for initiatives (and recall) seems to me a Good Thing, but California's "simple majority of those voting on the measure" is unwise and, as you say, really needs to be changed, with "2/3 majority of those voting" being a reasonable/practical compromise. I might not object, however, to requiring at least a 50% trun-out of registered voters to effect a Constitutional change.

A simple majority doesn't work in the modern world where the (Federal, at least) political climate considers a majority of a few percent to be a Mandate authorizing obviously-serious Radical changes in the entire system, and where the political economics allow any individual or group that has enough money to hire people to collect enough petition-signatures to get any initiative (or recall) on the ballot, then conduct an advertising/propaganda campaign that will probably fool enough people, long enough, to get a small majority to vote for its passage (Arnold & backers did the former, but not the latter, being too self-confident). (I think that started with CA's infamous Prop. 13 which, in the long run, benefited commercial property-owners enormously more than it did anyone else, and shifted the tax-base in ways that still haven't been resolved.)

And it's better that I shouldn't even _start_ on the unwisdom of having such a complex Constitution containing much detailed stuff that really needs to be tweaked, from time to time, by simpler legislative processes. Or the fact that Californians regularly tend to elect some seriously incompetent and dismal people to State Offices.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

The basic trouble with a quorum rule is that it gives a perverse incentive for those opposed to something passing a reason to stay away from the polls. So I would be more in favor of a 3/5 majority or even a 2/3 majority rule at least on amending the state constitution; especially in cases where it changes the personal rights of citizens.

[boywhocantsayno.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I read last night that one of these elections (I can't recall if it was California, or one of the other states) only had 17% turnout. It's ludicrous to allow 8.5% plus one of the voters to determine civil rights for the rest.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

California had a 46% turn out this time around. So not too bad. But still not great and no way to run an amendment process for the state constitution.