Support independent media:donate
Sep 26, 2016 (San Diego) If you are familiar with the Brown Act, this will be familiar. The act says that public agendas have to be posted 72 hours before a public meeting. This initiative does something similar. We are linking to the full text as well. In our mind here is is the critical text in changing the state constitution:
The Legislature may make no law except by statute and may enact no statute except by bill. No bill may be passed unless it is read by title on 3 days in each house except that the house may dispense with this requirement by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two thirds of the membership
No bill may be passed or ultimately become a statute unless the bill with any amendments has been printed, distributed to the members, and published on the Internet, in its final form, for at least 72 hours before the vote, except that this notice period may be waived ifthe Governor has submitted to the Legislature a written statement that dispensing with this notice period for that bill is necessary to address a state of emergency, as defined in paragraph (Emphasis mine)
In a way this will change the dynamics in the legislature and stop all last minute changes that many a times gut bills. Or at least that is the goal. According to Ballotpedia the support for this is wide and deep, ranging fromthe League of Women Voters to tje Republican Party. Locally this is supported by Mayor Kevin Faulconer. Significantly it is also supported by Democratic clubs but not the Democratic Party
It is also supported by the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. Tje arguments in favor are as follows:
Supporters make the following arguments in support of Proposition 54:
The proposition would not cost taxpayers any new money, the existing budget would cover the measure’s costs.
The proposition would increase transparency in California’s state government.
The proposition would stop the practice of “gutting and amending” legislation.
Several California city legislatures already follow the practice of posting recordings of their sessions online.
It is opposed by the Democratic Party and the California Federation of Labor they argue:
The proposition would serve the interests of the billionaire funding the initiative.
The proposition would introduce unnecessary restrictions on the law crafting process in the legislature.
The proposition would hinder legislators’ ability to develop bipartisan solutions for issues.
The proposition would give special interests too much power in regards to the legislative process.
The proposition would increase taxpayer costs.
The proposition would increase the use of political attack advertisements.
We provided with a full link since it is critical to be familiar with these initiatives.