- GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting - Ranked Choice Vote Details

Home	Vote	Results	History	Contacts	Admin
	GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting

Login

Ranked Choice Vote Details

Ranked Choice Vote ID	82
Ranked Choice Vote	GPCA position on Prop 50: Members of the Legislature: suspension Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Type	Open Ballot
Number of Seats	1
Ranked Choice Vote Administrator	Mike Feinstein
Phase	Closed
Discussion	03/08/2016 - 04/17/2016
Voting	04/18/2016 - 04/25/2016
Result	Results
Presens Quorum	12 0.5001
Candidates	GPCA endorses Proposition 50 GPCA opposes Proposition 50 GPCA takes no position on Proposition 50

Background

This is the ranked choice vote for the GPCA to take a position on Proposition 50: Members of the Legislature: suspension. Legislative Constitutional Amendment, which has been placed by the California State Legislature on the June 2016 primary election ballot.

The choices are to rank 'endorse', 'oppose', 'no position' and/or 'abstain.' Delegates can rank as many or few of these options in their order of preference.

An 'endorse' vote would mean the GPCA would endorse Proposition 50. An 'oppose' vote means the GPCA would oppose Proposition 50. A 'no position' vote means the GPCA would not take a position on Proposition 50. An 'abstain' vote means the voter is not expressing a preference, but is voting to help achieve quorum. Any of these position that receives 2/3 after all preferences are transferred is the position of the party. If neither 'endorse' nor 'opposes' receive 2/3, the GPCA's position will be 'no position'.

Following is the information from the Secretary of State and the California Legislative Analyst, as well as the recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County, that will be in their June 2016 primary election voter guide.

Text of Proposition 50: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/en/pdf/test-proposed-laws.pdf

Title & Summary: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/en/pdf/50-title-summ-analysis.pdf

Legislative Analysis: http://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=50&year=2016

Argument in Favor: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/en/pdf/50-arg-rebuttals.pdf

Rebuttal to Argument in Favor: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/en/pdf/50-arg-rebuttals.pdf

Argument Against: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/en/pdf/50-arg-rebuttals.pdf

Rebuttal to Argument Against: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/en/pdf/50-arg-rebuttals.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation from the Green Party of Alameda County
Proposition 50 - NO POSITION
Allows Salary and Benefits to be Withheld from Suspended Legislators

In general, we believe that Prop. 50 makes sense, except for one major problem, which thereby results in us being unable to support it.

The intent of Prop. 50 is to allow the legislature to suspend the salary and benefits of a legislator. Previously, a legislator could be suspended, but there was no way to prevent them from collecting salary and benefits. When three senators were suspended in 2014 for criminal investigations, they were still collecting salaries and benefits. As it turns out in those cases, investigations found them guilty and they were terminated, while California likely lost several tens of thousands of dollars.

We believe suspension of salary and benefits would benefit the balance sheet of California and prevent legislators from getting 'paid vacations' while under suspension. A suspended representative is already prohibited from exercising duties or powers of their office. The amendment basically adds the ability for their salary and benefits to be suspended as well. We interpret the wording of the amendment to mean that would be on a case-by-case basis.

California taxpayers should not be paying legislators who are suspended from performing their duties. The PDF document "05/23/14- Senate Floor Analyses" (201320140SCA17_Senate Floor Analyses.pdf ) available at
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SCA17 describes the potential savings: "This resolution may result in significant savings if a Member is subsequently suspended and his/her salary and benefits are forfeited. The current salary for a Member of the Legislature who is in a non-leadership position is $95,291. Per diem payments average approximately $28,000 per year, while forfeiting other benefits will generate additional savings of several thousand dollars."

The two-thirds majority required for the enactment of a suspension is a safety measure to ensure the strength and legitimacy of the Senate's decision to suspend a member.

In the official argument against, Sen. Joel Anderson (R-38) calls Prop. 50 "taxation without representation". Suspended representatives would not receive "salary and benefits" and "shall not exercise any of the rights, privileges, duties, or powers of his or her office, or utilize any resources of the Legislature". We see the point behind "taxation without representation” made by Senator Joel Anderson and Assemblyman Brian Jones: Citizens in a suspended member’s district would not have representation for legislative votes during the suspension. Yet, almost all state legislature votes are cast along party lines, so a citizen would still be "represented" by others in the same party. Plus, legislators can already be suspended under existing law, so defeating Prop. 50 wouldn't actually address the "taxation without representation" question anyway.

However, we would have preferred for this amendment to have also included language describing in more explicit detail the criteria for suspension, such as illegal activities, and prohibiting political attacks on minority party members. In the official rebuttal to the argument in favor, Jon Fleischman (CA Term Limits) and Ruth Weiss (CA Election Integrity Project) state that Prop 50 gives legislative leadership options “NOT TO EXPEL”, but actually the existing law lets the legislature expel or suspend. The rest of their argument is also deceptive, as Prop. 50 is not about whether a legislator should automatically be expelled upon indictment or conviction, rather, it is only about adding the elimination of compensation if suspended.

In the official rebuttal to the argument against, James P. Mayer (CA Forward) and Helen Hutchison (League of Women Voters of CA) make a good point that “it may not be appropriate to expel that person until all the facts are known and the case resolved”.

Legislators who are indicted for major crimes should be stripped of their power, salary and benefits. There should be no 'free ride' or 'paid vacation' for suspended representatives under investigation for illegal activities. Of course, Prop. 50 should not be used to "punish members who question authority" as Sen. Joel Anderson has suggested. Has anything like this ever happened? Is that even feasible in the transparency and openness of California legislative operations? Democracy is enlivened and evolves with legitimate and reasonable dissent and fear of retribution by the legislature seems unfounded.

However, we would expect that any suspension would be terminated upon a finding of innocence following an investigation, trial, or other legal proceeding. Which now brings us to the major problem that we have with Prop. 50 -- there is NOT any provision within it which requires the reinstatement of suspended legislators who have been found to be innocent, including the return of their withheld salary and benefits! Although the legislature would likely "do the right thing" in that circumstance (especially given the probability of significant media coverage of the situation), we feel that this flaw in the actual text of the measure is just too large for us to ignore: hence, we are unable to endorse Prop. 50.

To conclude, the gist of the amendment is to more thoroughly detail the procedure for initiating suspension, and to permit salary and benefits to be withheld from suspended legislators. As previously noted, the law already provides that legislators may be subject to suspension or expulsion. However, because of the problem discussed in the previous paragraph, we are split over whether Prop. 50 should be approved or defeated.

Candidate Information

GPCA endorses Proposition 50

GPCA opposes Proposition 50

GPCA takes no position on Proposition 50

Questions about this system?
Contact the Voting Admin.

The Voting is free software, licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
You can download the 2006 gp-us version here or the 2012 gpca sga version here.

To independently verify a Ranked Choice Vote, or for information about how that works, go to Jonathan Lundell's Voting Page and upload the ballot file from the ranked choice vote result page. JL's ranked choice module is licensed under an alternate free software license.