In a recent discussion about potential changes to California’s constitutional amendment process, local writer and reform advocate Michael James Taylor proposed a controversial requirement for a two-thirds super-majority of all registered voters. This suggestion, made in his article published on November 22, 2023, has prompted significant debate over its feasibility and implications.
Taylor argues that the current system is too lax, advocating for a standard that would necessitate approval from an overwhelming majority of registered voters, regardless of their participation in elections. To illustrate the challenges of this proposal, Donn Harris, a fellow advocate for transparency and bipartisan reform, highlights California’s historical voter turnout rates. In presidential election years, approximately 70-80% of registered voters participate, while non-presidential years see an average turnout of only 53%. In the 2014 election, turnout dipped as low as 42%.
Harris emphasizes that even if all voters who participated were in favor of an amendment, the proposed super-majority requirement could still render it ineffective. This scenario raises concerns about the practicality of such a system, as no other state has established a similar threshold for constitutional amendments. For comparison, Ohio recently rejected a proposal to raise the requirement from 50% to 60% of ballots cast. In Hawaii, a simple majority must consist of at least 30% of registered voters, significantly lower than Taylor’s suggestion.
While Taylor cites Florida’s 60% requirement for amendments as a model, Harris argues that such a threshold is still more attainable than what is being proposed for California. He expresses openness to a 60% of ballots cast requirement but contends that anything beyond that could effectively eliminate the possibility of change.
The conversation around California’s amendment process is further complicated by recent political maneuvers, including the passage of Proposition 50, which temporarily suspends the non-partisan redistricting commission for the next three elections. This move, seen as a response to actions taken by Texas under the current administration, illustrates the ongoing struggle between partisan interests and fair representation.
Harris reflects on the ethical implications of dismantling a non-partisan commission, acknowledging the tension between principle and partisanship. He notes that while he advocates for fair play, the political landscape has shifted dramatically, particularly with former President Donald Trump‘s influence on Texas’s voter manipulation efforts aimed at securing Republican dominance in future elections.
In this context, Harris raises an important point regarding the measurement of voter participation. He suggests that a non-vote should not be ignored and advocates for an option on ballots that allows voters to formally abstain. This could provide valuable insights into intentional non-participation and its implications for the amendment process.
The broader implications of these discussions remain uncertain. Harris posits that the ongoing legal challenges surrounding both California’s Proposition 50 and Texas’s redistricting plan could have profound effects on minority voter representation. A recent federal court ruling deemed Texas’s plan discriminatory against minority voters, and the Supreme Court is set to hear the case. Similarly, Proposition 50 may also face scrutiny as it attempts to strengthen minority voices.
As the political landscape evolves, the debate over California’s amendment process and its implications for governance will continue. Harris warns that while the current situation may seem inconsequential, the future could bring dramatic shifts that necessitate vigilance and preparedness from all stakeholders involved.
Ultimately, the dialogue surrounding these issues highlights the complexities of democracy and the challenges of ensuring fair representation amid competing partisan agendas.
