Tag: amendments

State

Rejecting Amendment C

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

My position on Constitutional Amendment C is much like my position on Amendment A – it is unnecessary tinkering with the constitution. I don’t see any advantage to starting the session a week later than we do currently.

I don’t buy his argument that citizens would "more appropriately honor the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., President George Washington, and President Abraham Lincoln" if the legislature were not in session on those two holidays.

I also expect that budget negotiations function just like any other project – they will fill every bit of time available no matter how much time we allow. Giving them an extra 8 days after the final tax revenue amounts are available will only mean that the Legislators will feel rushed in considering the budget adjustments for 22 days instead of feeling rushed about the final numbers for 14 days.

Finally, if the session were set for the first week of January I might see an advantage to moving the session back a week, but starting the third week does not seem any worse than starting the fourth week. I understand the arguments given by Sen. Valentine in favor of the time change but, like the budget adjustments, the draft legislation, budget analysis, and other technical work will fill whatever time is allotted. If our legislature needs more time they could try not considering 5 minor Constitutional amendments in a single session. (How much time was spent crafting, holding hearings, debating, and voting on those?)

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

State

Supporting Amendment B

I was pleased to find that Constitutional Amendment B was absolutely as straightforward in its proposed wording as the description suggested. It simply inserts one line into the Constitution allowing for more flexibility in adding funds to the existing state trust fund without making it easier for the Legislature to remove money from the fund. Believing that the fund is a positive tool funding our government services I am happy to support a no-nonsense change that can make it easier to augment the trust fund when resources are avaiable to do so.

At first I worried that making it easier to add to the trust fund would encourage the Legislature to keep surpluses of revenue, but then I realized that 1) they already do keep portions of any surplus fund one-time contributions to pet projects, and 2) they still have the same incentive to give tax-refunds when possible to fuel their re-election popularity. The difference now is that they have the option when there are surplusses to put some of the surplus in the trust fund so that it can increase funding for services in perpetuity rather than being limited to large, one-time gifts to specific projects.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, State Constitution, Utah

meta State

Rejecting Amendment A

Let me start off by saying that Constitutional Amendment A does not have anything sinister or devious in it. In fact, there is very little in it to raise objections about. My primary objection is rooted in my position on constitutionally based governments in which I prefer to reject any amendment to the established law unless I see good reason for the change – in other words, I default to opposition where constitutional amendments are concerned.

This amendment would clarify the specifics of succession in the office of Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The specifics themselves are fairly mundane, but the situation being addressed is one that hopefully and probably will never occur. (Davis Didjeridu reminds me that a vacancy can happen for less than tragic reasons – such as federal appointment – making this situation more common than I had been thinking.) In the event that one of those vacancies did occur, common sense should allow the succession to happen seamlessly even without these specified specifics being added to the State Constitution.

There is one place where I have a specific objection to the amendment. In the section dealing with the succession of the Lieutenant Governor, it specifies that the Governor must receive the consent of the Senate for the person they would appoint to fill the vacancy. This appears to violate the separation of powers considering that the Governor, when running for office, needs no consent from the Senate when picking a running mate. I see no reason that selecting a replacement should have tighter safeguards than the original selection.

In summary, there is little to recommend this change, and more to discourage it. I won’t be overly concerned if it does pass, but I believe that not making such a change is the better choice.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

General

17th Amendment

I love being invited to comment on things. In this case, I have been pointed towards an article from September of 2002 by John W. Dean on the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and whether it should be repealed. As a brief reminder, the 17th Amendment changed the way that senators were selected. Originally senators were chosen by state legislators while representatives in the house were selected by direct election. That structure, and the election of the president by the electoral college are the two fundamental differences between our government and a pure democracy.

Dean suggests that the 17th Amendment, along with the 16th Amendment (legalized income taxes) were the driving forces behind the expansion of the federal government in the last century. He also points to Federalist No. 10 which suggests that the purpose of the Senate is different from the purpose of the House of Representatives. The Senate was not expected to represent the citizens of their state, but rather the government of their state. In fact, what James Madison describes for the Senate sounds more like what we might have if the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association were to come together in a governing body.

The article cites law professor Todd Zywicki from George Mason University in saying that “the true backers of the 17th amendment were special interests” who “hoped direct elections would increase their control, since [direct elections] would let [the special interests] appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel – money.” Although that assessment sounds right, I cannot prove it. I can say that the change has voided any significant difference between Senators and Representatives. Now the difference is that Senators serve longer terms and do not represent a set number of constituents.

Dean concludes:

Repeal of the amendment would restore both federalism and bicameralism. It would also have a dramatic and positive effect on campaign spending. Senate races are currently among the most expensive. But if state legislatures were the focus of campaigns, more candidates might get more access with less money — decidedly a good thing.

Zywicki adds:

Absent a change of heart in the American populace and a better understanding of the beneficial role played by limitations on direct democracy, it is difficult to imagine a movement to repeal the 17th amendment.

I agree on both counts. I believe that the founders did not structure our government as they did based on whims. They knew what they were doing and most of us do not understand what they were doing, much less why they were doing it. They allowed for amendments because they knew it would be necessary to make changes at times – I think the founders would have applauded the 14th Amendment. But I also think that it is not wise for us to use the amendment process to fundamentally change the form of government that they set up. Sadly, most citizens are not sufficiently informed to understand the differences caused by this amendment.

Tags amendments, Constitution, reactions, senate, thoughts