Brown vs. Democracy

With the California Financial Crisis
at stake, the impartiality of the California Attorney General has come
under scrutiny.

Proponents of the California Democracy
Act, a ballot initiative that would restore a majority vote for revenue
and budget in the legislature, are asking Jerry Brown, the Attorney
General, for a new title and summary. An exhaustive poll has shown that
Brown's title and summary changed the meaning and intent of the proposed

initiative by one of the largest margins ever seen in a poll.

The poll was conducted by David Binder
Research, one of California's most respected polling firms. The poll
showed that the actual initiative for majority on revenue and budget
is supported by likely California voters by a 73-to-22 percent margin
- a 51 percent lead. But Attorney General Jerry Brown personally wrote
the title and summary with wording that shifts that favorable margin
to a 38-to-56 percent unfavorable margin - a 69 percent shift!

The poll was conducted March 6-11,
with a random sample of 800 likely voters with a margin of error of
+-3.5 percent. The summary appears on www.CaliforniansforDemocracy.com.

If unchanged, Brown's wording, not
the actual initiative, would appear on the ballot, leading voters to
misinterpret it and vote against it. Brown's wording, if not changed,
could kill the initiative, despite overwhelming voter support.

The effect is crucial, since the lack
of majority rule in the legislature has made it impossible for the
legislature
to raise the revenue the state needs to prevent financial meltdown.
It is the single biggest factor in the state's budget crisis.

The California Democracy Act is one
sentence long.

All legislative actions on revenue
and budget must be determined by a majority vote.

Its intent is "to bring democracy

to the California legislature by ensuring that all legislative
actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote. The current 2/3
vote requirement for revenue and budget allows 33.4% of either
the Assembly or Senate to block the will of the majority, which violates

an essential tenet of democracy." The issue is democracy. And
on an initiative, a simple majority can end the 2/3 vote rules.

Attorney General Brown's
rewording
states:

Changes Legislative Vote Requirement

to Pass a Budget or Raise Taxes from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

It changes the legislative vote
requirement necessary to pass the budget, and to raise taxes from
two-thirds
to a simple majority. Unknown fiscal impact from lowering the
legislative vote requirement for spending and tax increases. In
some cases, the content of the annual state budget could change and
/ or state tax revenues could increase. Fiscal impact would depend
on the composition and actions of future legislatures.

The Attorney General's wording
uses the word "taxes" four times, associated with the words "raise"
and "increase". It includes the conservative language "spending
and tax increases," usually used to vilify liberals. His title and
summary raises voters' fears that their taxes could be raised.
It replaces the intent of the initiative to promote democracy via
majority
vote by a purported but untrue intent to raise taxes on individual
voters.

The Binder report notes that
taxes in general, as opposed to their taxes, are not a real
concern
of most voters. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to raising taxes
on lower and middle income Californians, as are Republicans. No
one in the legislature wants to raise taxes on most voters.

When taxes on the lower and
middle
income brackets are not at issue, 64 percent of voters support
"solving the budget crisis by closing tax loopholes on corporations
and charging oil companies an extraction fee without raising taxes on
lower and middle income Californians." 55% agree with the statement
that "we could raise revenue and balance the budget without raising
taxes on lower and middle income Californians." Tax experts,
such as Jean Ross of the Californian Budget project and Lenny Goldberg
of the California Tax Reform Association agree.

Some moderate and liberal opponents
of the Democracy Act believe that the right will attack it as raising
taxes nonetheless, and that is no doubt true. Usually such attacks would

lower support for an initiative by about 10 percent. The Binder poll
took this into account by providing a battery of such attacks and then
testing support again. The predicated effect occurred. Support for the
original wording dropped from 73-to-22 percent down to 62-to-34 percent,

still a 28 percent margin.

In short, the Attorney General's
wording raises unrealistic fears in a majority of voters that their

taxes might be raised and hides the true democratic intent of the
original
initiative. That is why proponents of the California Democracy
Act are asking for an accurate title and summary from the Attorney
General
that reflects the democratic intent of the initiative and does not raise

unrealistic fears of most voters that their taxes might be raised

via the initiative.

Indeed, voters show overwhelming
support
for such basic democracy. As Binder observes, 71% of voters agree with
the statement that "in a democracy, a majority of legislators should
be able to pass everyday legislation." And 68% of voters disagree
with the statement that "in a democracy, a minority of legislators
should be able to block everyday legislation." Percentages this
high reflect support from across the political spectrum.

Since everyday legislation requires
revenue, a majority vote requirement for both revenue and budget would
realize the aspirations of an overwhelming percentage of voters for
democracy in their legislature. And it would allow the legislature to
pass legislation that would end the budget crisis.

I ask you to write to Attorney General
Brown initiative.coordinator@doj.ca.gov asking him to provide a title and summary
of the resubmitted California Democracy Act according to its actual
intent as follows: Ensures

that all legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined
by a majority vote, and ends the ability of a minority of legislators
to block the will of the majority on such legislation.

The Attorney General ought not
to be acting against the overwhelming yearning for democracy on the
part of voters across the political spectrum, as well as their deep
desire to end the state's budget crisis.