For the second time in 8 months here in California, the Superior (HAH!) Court has overturned a decision made by the voters. I am speaking directly to Prop N, which proposed “care not cash” for the indegent population of San Francisco. It was proposed that the welfare check be reduced, and instead replaced with shelter and medical services for those in need. The majority, 77%, voted for.
A lawyer and nurse decided that this was not a good thing, took it to court, and got it overturned. Despite the fact that the majority of voters agreed that this was what SHOULD happen with their tax dollars. To me, this is a direct slap in the face to those voters. It seems to say “You didn’t really want what you voted for. Here. Since you aren’t intelligent enough to figure it out, we will fix it for you.”
So, how about it, dopesters? Is the process dead? When the people speak, and the administration decides not to listen, are we in danger of losing what is supposed to be our “due process?”
I am sincerely, deeply worried that this is the start of a trend. Don’t even get me STARTED on the antiquated electoral college and the fiasco we had in Florida.
P.S…moderators, if I am in the wrong place, I apologize. Please move me.
If the majority of Mississippi voted to reinstate slavery, is it a failure of the democratic process if a black superior court judge said “Hell no!”
If 80 percent voted for a proposition that said, let the people who dont have a high paying jobs, have just enuf to pay the rent but not enuf money for food be screwed, is it a failure of the democratic process for a judge to overturn it?
The democratic process includes the judicial checks and balances to make sure that laws and propositions do not violate the constitution or run over a portion of people’s rights. Just because a majority called for it, didnt make the proposition right.
Slayer, that is without a doubt the most ridiculous analogy I have ever heard. You are comparing how my tax dollars are spent to the civil rights of individuals? Not even apples and oranges.
And most certainly, the homeless problem is not just about “let’s do this and it’ll work, don’t worry about the details.” San Francisco has a huge homeless problem. While politicians debate what to do about it, the homeless remain homeless. This was probably not the best of solutions, but at least it was a beginning. Something to build on. If you don’t like it, fine! Start a petition and get it ammended! But don’t overturn electoral process just because you disagree.
My main concern is that the processes on which this country is based was flagrantly bitch slapped. It’s disturbing, and scary, to think that anyone can simply pay a lawyer to make our voices no longer be heard.
If it were that easy to derail the process then all of the propositions would be overturned. This one was badly done and the ease by which it was undone demonstrates it.
Maureen, I don’t remember the exact term, but its something like Tyrany of the Electorate. Checks and balances my man, checks and balances. The founding fathers KNEW that the ‘masses’ could be swayed into positions that would be unconstitutional, so they put in checks on the people as well, to protect them (us) from themselves. Its PART of the democratic process, as designed by the founding fathers.
Without the court’s opinion, we can’t really say what was done is right or wrong. If the superior court is wrong, then the appellate court should remedy the situation. If the appellate court is wrong, then the Supreme Court. If the Supremes are wrong, then use the democratic eprocess to amend the Constitution, statutes, or whatever else to make it right.
The democratic process is not dead… not perfect, but not dead.
So how is this a failure of democracy? State law forbids the voters from instituting that plan. State law - made by democratically-elected legislators and signed into law by a democratically-elected governor.
If the voters don’t like it, then they need to work to overturn the law.
From what’s been presented here, the wrong law was initiated and passed. What should’ve been done was a law that gave the electorate to make the decision it was trying to make and, ( or then), the law that was proposed.
Judges have to work within the framework given to them. If CA law says that so-and-so has the sole authority to do such-and-such, then that must be addressed first.
I’d blame the proponents of the proposal for their ignorance of their legal system before I’d blame the judges.
SimonX;
Thank you. You are quite right. Although the idea still disturbs me, it is more than possible that I saw what I felt to be a voter issue overturned, and misconstrued it as unconstitutional. Considering all the personal rights currently being stepped on, this was just one step to far for me.
This I think, points to a flaw in the current state of the California voter initiative system (which, BTW, I think is overall a good idea). A lot of laws get put on the ballot without informing voters clearly of the potential conflict with existing federal or state legislation or court rulings. Then people get upset when the ballot intiatives are taken to court and possibly overturned. It’s not a dead democratic process, it’s a badly designed initiative system.
I live in CA and I gotta say that I probably vote “no” on 9 out of 10 of the propositions. Lots of them are pretty stupid (someone’s pet peeve) and often they mandate some kind of service w/o funding. Prop 13 is probably the best example of somthing good. Flawed as it is, it was the only way to “stop the insanity” at the time.
Anyway, the details of your particular issue aren’t completely clear to me, but the courts ARE an integral part of the process. Plenty of propositions do pass and are enacted into law.
Nono, it isn’t that. It’s going to court to get those propositions overturned once they are voted in if you disagree with the majority of the people who passed the blasted law. It just seems like going around the democratic process to me.
