District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener. Photo by Luke Thomas.
Supervisor Scott Wiener’s proposed charter amendment would be first step in getting rigid system of ballot propositions under control
From the Office of San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener
Editor’s Note: When Mr. Wiener first began his misplaced quest to repeal or amend city-sponsored ballot measures, the legislation was retrospective. After much outcry, Mr. Wiener amended the charter-amending legislation to be prospective, applicable to measures passed by voters after November 1, 2012. Last week, he proffered an amendment to change the prospective effective date to November 1, 2011. His latest amendment, which will be voted on today, suggests that Mr. Wiener, a moderate/conservative, is targeting the repeal or amendment of progressive-sponsored measures that may be passed by voters in the upcoming November election.
July 19, 2011
Today the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote on a proposed charter amendment by Supervisor Scott Wiener that would begin the process of reforming San Francisco’s overwhelmed ballot measure system. This amendment, which would go before the voters in November, will alter the rule that ballot measures, once adopted, are only changeable through additional ballot measures, no matter how much time has passed and no matter how minor the change.
“San Francisco’s ballot measure system, like California’s as a whole, is broken,” said Supervisor Scott Wiener, the measure’s sponsor. “Currently, we have too many ballot measures. And, once the voters pass these measures, they effectively become frozen and almost impossible to change even when it makes sense to do so. This good-government measure is a first step in making our system of ballot propositions more balanced.”
Supervisor Wiener’s proposal will provide the Board of Supervisors limited power to amend or repeal future measures put on the ballot by the Board or the Mayor under the following guidelines:
– For the first three years after passage of the measure, the Board would be prohibited from amending or repealing it.
– For the next four years, the Board would be permitted to amend or repeal it with a two-thirds vote (i.e., with 8 of 11 votes).
– After seven years, the measure would be treated like other legislation and would be amendable or repealable.
The measure does not apply to measures placed on the ballot by voter signature – those would continue to be changeable only by subsequent ballot measure.
California is currently the only state in the country that makes legislation adopted by the voters permanently unamendable, no matter how much time has passed and no matter how large or small the change. Twenty of the 21 states that allow voters to pass legislation either make the legislation immediately amendable/repealable by the legislature or do so after a certain number of years or with a super-majority vote of the legislature.
Supervisor Wiener’s proposal takes a middle path. It is limited in scope and only applies to ordinances or policy statements (not charter amendments) passed by the voters and only to measures placed on the ballot by the Board or Mayor. The measure is purely prospective, and does not apply to past ballot measures adopted by the voters.
The Hunger Site
July 26, 2011 at 4:45 am
Campers,
I wouldn’t count Campos as a Progressive any longer. As a friend pointed out, David only votes on the Progressive side when it doesn’t change the outcome of the vote vis a vis the Downtown advantage.
It began with the vote for Dufty over Daly for head of the Transportation Authority. Last example was last week when he swung the environmentally damaging and technologically backward above ground AT&T utility boxes (another 726 of them) … David provided the swing vote. His reasoning was that he had been convinced by AT&T reps that they’d take neighborhood input under consideration as they site the antique monstrosities.
That was a Scott Wiener/Sean Elsbernd sponsored measure and I believe that Campos and Wiener and Chiu were in Harvard law at the same time? Campos says that Wiener mentored him. Campos also used the, “he’s my friend” excuse to vote for conservative Julius Turman for the Police Commission over David Waggoner.
Given that we all realize by now that I was correct about Chiu and Kim and Campos in the beginning (above the fray, Campos has become a friend and you meet the guy and you’ll like him – doesn’t put him above getting bitten by this bulldog) … Kim and Chiu are without redeeming virtues (unless you count Kim’s looks and on the inside she looks like Rose Pak, trust me) …
Bottom line is that the only consistent Progressive votes on the Class of 2010 Board are Avalos, Mirkarimi and Mar and Mar voted for Ed Lee for Mayor.
Looks like a long dry stretch ahead for Progressives all the way around.
Time to take up a hobby other than the Giants.
I plan to take a page from T.S. Eliot’s classic poem and:
“I shall wear white flannel trousers and walk upon the beach”
h.
July 25, 2011 at 9:44 pm
@Greg, it passed on a 7-4 vote. Against were Campos, Mar, Mirkarimi and Avalos.
July 25, 2011 at 9:37 pm
By the way, did this turkey actually pass? Can we get an update to see which supes voted to take away our vote?
July 25, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Here’s the way this would work in practice:
Say the voters pass something that the establishment doesn’t like (like IRV or district elections or public financing for example).
For 3 years, you use all the power vested in the city hall establishment to obfuscate and delay implementation.
Then after 3 years you go to the board and say “look, this is really unworkable. We can’t even seem to get it implemented.” So you ask the board to gut the law.
Then after 7 years you repeal it completely with a simple majority.
Brilliant.
July 21, 2011 at 8:52 am
Scott Weiner is “moderate,” meaning liberal, only insofar as he himself is gay and therefore supports gay rights.