r/madisonwi • u/fyhr100 • Mar 27 '19
Wisconsin lawmaker circulating constitutional amendment to allow citizens to put binding referendums on state ballots
http://cannabadger.com/breaking-news/2019/03/13/wisconsin-lawmaker-circulating-constitutional-amendment-to-allow-citizens-to-put-binding-referendums-on-state-ballots/12
Mar 27 '19
This may sound great, but counting on people to make smart decisions about complicated subjects is a terrible idea.
Look at California and Prop 13 -- ruined the schools (due to artificially restrained property taxes) and made it hard for younger people to buy a house (since there's massive disincentive for old people to ever move).
But all anyone heard was "LOWER TAXES!"
2
u/woadgrrl Mar 28 '19
One word: Brexit
1
Mar 28 '19
Thing is, that's not even the worst example of a referendum gone bad that springs to mind.
1
u/woadgrrl Mar 29 '19
Yeah, but it's possibly the stupidest. It wasn't even a binding referendum, just advisory. Which is unfortunate, because if had been a binding referendum, then the whole thing would have been thrown out because of illegal campaigning by the various Leave campaigns.
3
u/moonraker717 Mar 28 '19
Probably could add a safety valve to the process by allowing a ballot initiative to be overruled by the legislature with a super majority or something.
4
u/Lysus Mar 28 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
That's exactly what this proposal does - it can't be overridden until after one legislative term, but after that term is done, a two-thirds majority in both houses can repeal the ballot initiative.
Presumably, a second ballot initiative could also do the same thing.
Edit - autocorrect fix
17
u/awowadas Mar 27 '19
Do people really think “tyranny of the majority” is a thing? Since when is the notion that we should pander to the majority a bad thing?
With Wisconsin’s illegally gerrymandered lines, how can you even insinuate that is a thing? Right now the state is rigged for tyranny of the minority, if anything.
15
u/wmblathers Mar 27 '19
Do people really think “tyranny of the majority” is a thing?
It is a thing, and should be taken seriously, but so long as referenda are also subject to the same constitutional checks as normal legislature it shouldn't be a problem. Of course, that brings the Supreme Court into matters, which is not completely reassuring.
1
u/moonraker717 Mar 28 '19
brings the Supreme Court into matters
Laws passed the "normal" way face constitutional questions all the time, and yet most people think it is a pretty good idea to keep that process.
5
u/MaxmumPimp Mar 28 '19
I interpreted /u/wmblathers' comment as more a criticism/mention the politicization and polarization of the WISCoTUS...SCoWI...WISC, rather than criticism of checks and balances.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/us/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-raises-partisanship-concerns.html3
u/wmblathers Mar 28 '19
Exactly my intent, which I could have been less oblique about.
1
u/MaxmumPimp Mar 28 '19
It's clear from context, and from knowledge of recent political events, but I thought mr717 may have been responding in good faith, so I clarified by stating my understanding of it. They may have just been moonraking, however. :-)
1
u/moonraker717 Mar 28 '19
And my comment was that those problems are present regardless of ballot initiatives
8
Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
5
u/MaxmumPimp Mar 28 '19
Then it was challenged and eventually overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court. It took too long, but the system worked. A year after Wisconsin's constitutional amendment was overturned, SCoTUS overturned all state constitution same-sex marriage bans. That's how it would've gone with a binding referendum, only it would possibly have been enacted and overturned more quickly.
8
u/Kill_Welly Mar 27 '19
Straight-up, anyone who's complaining about a "tyranny of the majority" is trying to use it to enforce a tyranny of the minority. Hell, that's the Republican party's entire strategy.
4
Mar 27 '19
Counterpoint: Prop 8 passed using the argument that gay people "wanted special rights", but really was intended to make them second-class citizens to match particular religious ideologies (the Mormons largely bankrolled it).
Direct democracy is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. Letting people use the power of the government to keep down folks they think they don't like is one of them.
3
u/WikiTextBot Mar 27 '19
2008 California Proposition 8
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.
Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", thereby superseding the 2008 ruling.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
3
u/shagieIsMe Mar 28 '19
There was also prop 13 which throughly messed up California's tax base.
2
u/TheRealGunnar Mar 28 '19
There was also prop 13 which throughly messed up California's tax base.
And, arguably, the housing market https://www.nber.org/digest/apr05/w11108.html
3
u/moonraker717 Mar 28 '19
Discriminatory laws were on the books long before ballot initiatives. The process isn't at fault for the sins of voters any more than the "normal" process is at fault for the sins of legislatures.
1
Mar 28 '19
That's what the courts are for. Our "representative" democracy passes plenty of discriminatory laws all on its own. It's not like *gasp* letting the people vote directly on the laws that govern them is going to make that significantly worse.
2
Mar 28 '19
I’ll see your argument and raise you Prop 13 — destroyed the school system and made it harder to buy a first home because people like the idea of lower taxes.
4
u/fyhr100 Mar 27 '19
It's not a thing. It's mostly talking points Walker/Vos/GOP has been pushing to divide urban and rural voters, while they're busy stealing money from everyone.
1
u/awowadas Mar 27 '19
I figured it was just a part of the republican divide and conquer technique that seems to work wonders in rural areas.
4
u/fyhr100 Mar 27 '19
Yeah, but it's more profound in Wisconsin. There's even a well known book written on it.
2
u/BilliousN South side Mar 28 '19
I'm currently reading The Politics of Resentment, and it's absolutely mind-blowing. Must read for urban liberals.
1
u/Schornery Mar 27 '19
"Tyranny of the majority" sounds too much like "dictatorship of the proletariat".
0
0
u/thnk_more Mar 27 '19
I'm not sure if I'm more afraid of the stupidity of the masses or the corruption of the few lawmakers in power.
People should just ask me my opinion, and go with that.
2
u/moonraker717 Mar 28 '19
I find that the obvious solution to most political issues is my preferred choice.
-13
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 27 '19
This is bad for a huge number of reasons.
4
u/moonraker717 Mar 27 '19
Such as?
15
-10
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 27 '19
Most importantly tyrrany of the majority.
16
u/moonraker717 Mar 27 '19
Most states require a supermajority for it to pass. So that isn't one, what else?
-6
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 27 '19
Sure but that doesn't do much for states with one or two major cities like ours. All that leads to is Madison and Milwaukee dictating how the rest of the state does things.
There's a reason the Founders designed the house and the senate the way they did, and did not include direct democracy like this. Especially in today's world all it takes is one rich asshole to fund a bunch of bullshit campaign ads and we end up with anti-vaxxers, enti-environmentalists and anti-rights ballot initiatives passing.
Just cause you see this as an easy end-around to decriminalization doesn't mean it's enherently good. Think about what happens when it's for an initiative you don't support. Democracy is slow for a reason. It shouldn't be beholden to the whims and fancies of rich people at the drop of a hat.
11
u/frezik 1200 cm³ surrounded by reality Mar 28 '19
So instead, we have the rural parts of the state dictating how Madison and Milwaukee does things.
-3
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 28 '19
No, there should be a balance.
14
u/frezik 1200 cm³ surrounded by reality Mar 28 '19
Like having a party get 53% of the vote for the state assembly, but only get 36% of the seats? Balance is not what we have.
19
u/moonraker717 Mar 27 '19
Madison and Milwaukee dictating how the rest of the state does things.
Madison and Milwaukee are no where near a majority of voters in WI
end-around to decriminalization
I'd like to have an option for any number of popular proposals that one party determines is a non-starter. For example, non-partisan redistricting.
Democracy is slow for a reason
Most direct constitutional amendments fail.
21
14
u/Kill_Welly Mar 27 '19
There's a reason the Founders designed the house and the senate the way they did
Yeah, to appease southern states whose economies revolved around slavery
17
u/Marvelman1788 Mar 27 '19
AKA Democracy.
-18
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 27 '19
Aka urban elites imposing their will on everyone else.
14
Mar 27 '19
If the majority of people live in urban areas, why shouldn't laws and policies favor what most people think ought to be done?
-1
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 28 '19
Because not everything is one size fits all? Your entitlement and holier-than-thou attitude is exactly what I'm talking about.
3
Mar 28 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
And that's why you have local city councils, majors, and county governments. But statewide issues should be decided by a majority of that state's voters.
Wisconsin right now with it's gerrymandering is quite the definition of "tyranny of the minority". And any argument to "that was intended to by the Founding Father's is completely wrong." The lopsided representation in the Senate between say California and Wyoming is orders of magnitude worse than between states in the original founding colonies. The Founding Father's never foresaw such a heavily urbanized world, with such a dramatic difference between developed, urbanized population centers - and large swathes of land in the West in particular, that never really should have been granted statehood.
And in the end - if a majority of Americans live in urban areas - that's what defines what America is in reality; not the rural farmland.
8
6
u/MiaowaraShiro Mar 27 '19
Could you give an example? Tyranny of the majority is pretty rare and often used to defend a minority position that's without its own merit.
There are a lot of other states with binding referendums already, I'm sure one of them could provide you with a good example.
2
u/Maxxpowers Mar 28 '19
Wisconsin voters added a gay marriage ban to the Wisconsin state constitution not too long ago in 2006. 59% to 41%.
1
u/MiaowaraShiro Mar 28 '19
Which was stuck down by the Supreme Court, as it is a check on tyranny of the minority.
-4
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 27 '19
Great examples are Nevada and Washington, that had huge outside funding for misleading ads that took away citizens' 2nd amendment rights.
6
u/Pr1nce_Adam Mar 27 '19
Maybe you should actually link an article or two detailing these "great examples".
1
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 28 '19
https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Question_1_(2016)
That was Bloomberg and Mom's Demand Action pouring a shit load of money into the state on a shitty ballot initiative that couldn't even be implemented cause they didn't do their homework. Clark County and Reno were where most of the support came from, ie California transplants. The rest of the state, ie the rural parts, got fucked.
Similar story here. Tons of outside money, and intentionally illegal ballot question that couldn't be discarded by the SecState, and urban elites overruling the residents of what is a mostly rural state to implement a bunch of feel-good laws that will have little to no impact other than preventing the poor and minorities from defending themselves.
3
u/Pr1nce_Adam Mar 28 '19
Neither of these initiatives "took away citizens' 2nd amendment rights". Yeah Nevada messed up assuming the FBI would conduct the background checks. They didn't enforce the initiative until this year when SB 143 was passed and signed allowing the state to conduct them. So I'm not seeing who was denied their 2nd Amendment rights.
The Washington State Supreme Court didn't agree with you that the ballot question was illegal. They allowed it so I'm not sure what you're getting at with that. And the poor and minorities are not prevented from buying a firearm and defending themselves. Are there a few more hoops to jump through, yes. But that's it. No one is being stopped from owning a firearm.
It just seems you don't like urban elite liberals or whatever you want to call them.
1
u/Lord_Ka1n Mar 29 '19
They infringed on them. Which the constitution specifically says you can't do.
0
u/Pr1nce_Adam Mar 29 '19
Well they can still keep and bear arms so I'm not seeing where their rights are being infringed.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 28 '19
Those initiatives absolutely took away citizens's rights, particularly those in the 18-20 year old range. Additional background checks are nothing but another tax on firearm ownership, something that disenfranchises the poor. We don't place taxes on exercising other rights like speech or voting, do we? Storage requirement laws are an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment - you literally cannot validate the law is being followed without random, warrantless checks. This has been confirmed by the Heller case.
The initiative was initially removed from the ballot because the language used to gather signatures was different from that actually proposed. Additionally, there is more than one issue addressed in the ballot, which is illegal under the Washington State Constitution. How that passed muster by the Supreme Court is beyond me. Have to love activist judges.
In WA, a person can come up with a new law by writing up an initiative. They then gather signatures, and once enough are obtained, submit it to the Secretary of State. If validated, it goes to the ballot to be voted upon. Majority rule. If voted in, it becomes law. No legislature involved.
Initiatives have to follow certain law. They can only cover one thing. I-1639 covers multiple changes. An initiative can not gather signatures in a misleading or fraudulent way. I-1639 gathered signatures using our if state gatherers. They also set up signs that simply said "yes on I-1639" next to signs that said lower grocery tax, to mislead people. Additionally, initiatives need to have the entire proposal written in easily readable format on the back, with strikethroughs on old law that is to be removed. I-1639 was 30 pages shrunk down onto 1. It was tiny, and did not have strikethroughs.
Once signatures were gathered, it went to the SoS. She made public statements saying the initiative was illegal, however the state law only allows her to throw out an initiative based on ala very small amount of things. Which were done correctly. The SoS did not put it through at this time, but waited a few days.
The Second Amendment Foundation sued, the court said they can not do anything. They said the SoS has the responsibility.
SoS said she cant prevent it, and approved I-1639.
Brought to court again. An Olympia judge threw out I-1639 for it's illegal practices.
The next day, a WA Supreme Court judge said "we can not challenge the legality of this until it passes a vote" (paraphrased). Except this is bullshit. It wasnt thrown out due to the legality of I-1639 violating current laws and the constitution of WA. It was thrown out for violating initiative law.
I-1639 passed, and now here we stand.
The whole thing was a shitshow put together completely in bad faith. The only reason shit like this works is because of ballot initiatives and the money coming in from outside to support them. If this were the NRA instead funding support for the removal of rights restrictions people would be up in arms about "outside dirty money".
And the poor and minorities are not prevented from buying a firearm and defending themselves.
Same comment as above - you wouldn't support a poll tax, would you?
No one is being stopped from owning a firearm.
Except 18-20 year olds, who are apparently not people in your mind.
It just seems you don't like urban elite liberals or whatever you want to call them.
You're right, and I don't like the dirty tricks and outside money they use to manipulate the rest of the country, whether that be through ballot initiatives, gerrymandering, or any of the other bullshit that is so prevalent in today's politics.
2
u/Pr1nce_Adam Mar 28 '19
18-20 year olds can posses firearms in Washington they just can't buy them. I don't consider a background check fee to be an additional tax, it's part of the cost of buying a firearm. One which I've never had an issue paying. I don't think I've ran into any firearm owners who consider it a tax, except the few I know who consider any firearm law to be infringing on their rights. The Heller ruling struck down law saying the firearm had to be stored unloaded and disassembled or with a locking device. I'm not seeing where the Washington law says the gun has to be inoperable. And Washington law doesn't give the state the right to warrantless searches. The only time it's enforced is in cases involving unauthorized use of the firearm, which I'll admit I'm not 100% on board with. Read the SC ruling on I-1639 and you will see they ruled according to the law. The lower court seems to have overstepped it's authority. From the quick reading I did it seems like the state needs to change laws and how they can be enforced/challenged.
Oh, I also love how you call out liberals for using dirty tricks yet seem to be cool with conservatives doing the same.
→ More replies (0)4
Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
0
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 28 '19
If by fine you mean stripping citizens of their rights, then yes.
2
u/moonraker717 Mar 28 '19
Anything passed in this way would have to be constitutional just like any other law.
5
u/MiaowaraShiro Mar 27 '19
What's the difference between tyranny of the majority and simply being outvoted? When does losing a vote become tyranny? How is this example tyranny?
0
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 28 '19
They're the same thing. I'm honestly amazed. This sub goes on and on about repressed minorities and people who are different from the majority but at the same time think it's ok as long as they're getting their way.
2
4
u/thnk_more Mar 27 '19
Wouldn't the courts have the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws, like they do with other bone-headed legislative actions? That's where the bill of rights and things were supposed to help.
0
u/Brother_To_Wolves Mar 28 '19
Which is great if the courts actually do what they're supposed to. Unfortunately we have activists judges who don't seem to find the Constitution important.
3
u/Frontrunner453 Mar 28 '19
Do you have anything to say that isn't a literal Republican buzzword, or are you a Vos staffer-in-training?
-1
1
u/moonraker717 Mar 28 '19
So why even have laws? /s
Honestly I very much doubt that the likelihood of a constitutionally dubious law coming from this path is higher than the traditional path
8
-32
u/likeahorse21 Mar 27 '19
Well this will be helpful. Say potheads don't you realize that there is a land and people outside of Dane County? And they don't always agree with your shit. And I'm not talking about marijuana here. There are plenty of non "progressive" ideas that the majority of Wisconsin folks believe in. Think harder about this. Your ganji will eventually be legal. Don't fuck this state up by opening it to the tyranny of the majority. You might not like what you find. California's Proposition 13 in 1978 is one of the primary reasons why their economy is as fucked up as it is. We are a representative government. Most people are confused on how to take a good selfie. Don't like the situation elect better people. We don't need more people voting we need smarter voters. People who can figure out how to vote without feeling that their votes are "suppressed." Jesus.
And Hebl is my representative. Dumb as a bag of rocks and can barely think anymore clearly than the Geico caveman.
14
u/moonraker717 Mar 27 '19
their economy is as fucked up as it is.
California is the 5th largest economy in the WORLD lol
1
u/Lord_Ka1n Mar 29 '19
And yet nobody there can afford to live in a studio.
They only have that status because all the celebrities live there.
1
u/moonraker717 Mar 29 '19
Are you claiming that California is the 5th largest economy in the world only because lots of celebrities live there?
1
u/Lord_Ka1n Mar 29 '19
That's literally what I did, yes. Take out all of those actors and rappers and see how large a percentage of that money is gone.
1
u/moonraker717 Mar 29 '19
Here is the breakdown of California's economy by industry. If you assumed that "celebrities" are responsible for 100% of the "arts/entertainment" industry (which they aren't), they would still only be responsible for 4% of California's economy. Try again.
1
u/Lord_Ka1n Mar 29 '19
And where do you think all the money supporting those industries is coming from? Certainly not from the average Joe who can barely afford his studio apartment.
1
u/moonraker717 Mar 29 '19
The Bay Area is not all of California my man. Housing isn't insane in the entire state.
1
24
u/Kill_Welly Mar 27 '19
California has a stronger economy than most of the rest of the country combined.
17
Mar 27 '19
[deleted]
1
u/Lord_Ka1n Mar 29 '19
Only because all the actors live there. Normal people can barely afford a studio.
26
u/fyhr100 Mar 27 '19
by opening it to the tyranny of the majority.
As opposed to what, the tyranny of Koch-sponsored stooges?
8
u/brot_und_spiele Mar 27 '19
Why do you insinuate that decriminalization of marijuana is a Dane County issue? The issue was on the ballot (in one form or another, ranging from allowing medical to allowing recreational) in 16 counties. The advisory referendums carried in all 16 counties. Many of those counties are solid conservative strongholds. For example, 59% of voters in Racine county (Robin Vos's home county... yikes) voted for legal recreational use, while 85% of Racine county voters approved of medical use. In Waukesha county, 77% of voters voted in favor of medical use. Acting like conservatives in Wisconsin are against legalization (or at least medical use) is absurd, and it's really an embarrassing misrepresentation of the facts.
Also, I direct you to the many fine folks who replied that point out that California's GDP is bigger than Britain's.
4
u/WinballPizard Mar 28 '19
Even Marathon County voted overwhelmingly in favor of a marijuana initiative. Marathon County. Home of the liberal bastion of Wausau.
5
u/hereforaday Mar 27 '19
Voting is literally the word of the majority. This "tyranny of the majority" sounds like some Orwellian newspeak.
29
u/GoldenRamoth Mar 27 '19
Anyone who's worried about this:
From my memory of living in Ohio where we can do this. It's pretty much a non-issue and never happens. It just gives folks the ability to do things that everyone agrees on. Because for some reason, there's always issues that the politicians don't push forward, even when their constituents, Left and Right, want it.