Recent discussions surrounding California’s electoral amendment process have intensified, particularly following local writer Michael James Taylor‘s recent article advocating for a super-majority requirement for constitutional amendments. Taylor’s proposal, which suggests that a two-thirds super-majority of all registered voters must approve amendments, has been met with significant scrutiny. Critics argue that such a measure would effectively prevent any amendment from passing, given the state’s historical voter turnout rates.
California typically sees a turnout of approximately 70-80% of registered voters during presidential election years, but this figure drops considerably in non-presidential years. In the 2014 election, for example, only 42% of registered voters participated, leading to concerns about the feasibility of Taylor’s proposed standards. This means that even if all voters who participated in an election supported an amendment, it would still likely fail to meet the suggested super-majority threshold.
The proposal raises questions about the practicality of using registered voters as a measure for passing amendments. Other states have struggled to implement similar standards. Ohio voters recently rejected a proposal to increase the amendment passing threshold from 50% to 60%, and Hawaii mandates that a simple majority must represent at least 30% of registered voters, far less than what California would require under Taylor’s plan.
In his article, Taylor references significant constitutional issues, such as marriage equality and reproductive rights, to illustrate the potential vulnerabilities of the amendment process. However, critics argue that these examples do not adequately support the need for a more stringent voting requirement. They highlight that marriage equality is already federally protected, while reproductive rights remain a contentious issue influenced by state law.
The backdrop of this debate includes California Proposition 50, which temporarily suspends the non-partisan redistricting commission for the next three elections. This move is seen by some as a response to partisan efforts in Texas, where district lines are drawn to favor the Republican Party. Critics of the suspension argue it undermines fair representation, while proponents suggest it is a necessary counter to partisan gerrymandering.
Donn Harris, a local advocate for transparency and bipartisan reform, expresses concern over the implications of Taylor’s proposal. He argues that if the super-majority threshold is too high, it could effectively block meaningful change, stating, “Anything more than that could be construed as intending to stop change altogether.”
Harris also emphasizes the importance of allowing voters the option to abstain. He believes that a tally of intentional non-participation could provide valuable insights into voter sentiment, suggesting that ballots should include an “Abstain” option. On November 4, he abstained from voting on Proposition 50, feeling that the final version of the legislation did not represent good faith negotiations.
Recently, a federal court ruled that the Texas redistricting plan disadvantaged minority voters and could not be implemented, with the Supreme Court expected to hear the case. Similarly, Proposition 50 may also face legal challenges regarding its impact on minority representation in California.
As the discussion on voter standards and amendment processes continues, Harris warns that these issues could significantly affect the political landscape in the coming years. He concludes, “We need to remain alert and prepared for when the ground shifts again.” This ongoing dialogue reflects broader themes in American politics, illustrating the challenges of balancing principle and partisanship in an increasingly polarized environment.
