Correspondence - #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW City of Santa Ana August 28, 2023 Page 18 The San Diego case was also decided against the city based on the doctrine of preemption. The court found that after the state Constitution was amended in 1970 the Legislature manifested an intent to fully occupy the field of charter amendments by enacting a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the charter amendment process, and thus state law preempted the provisions of the San Diego Proposition F that would require a supermajority vote for approval of certain charter amendments. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of San Diego (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 374, 386-387. The court concluded that the "constitutional language clearly and unambiguously ... requires only a majority vote, and a two-thirds vote cannot be required." League of Educ. Voters v. State (2013) 176 Wn.2d 808, 825-826 [295 P.3d 743, 752].) Policies Behind the Democratic Ideal of Majority Vote Additionally, courts have repeatedly held that one legislature cannot attempt to bind future legislatures by imposing higher standards for the passage or repeal of specific legislation. One especially representative example comes from a Michigan case. See, e.g., Atlas v. Wayne County, 281 Mich. 596, 275 N.W. 507, 509 (Mich. 1937) ("The power to amend and repeal legislation as well as to enact it is vested in the Legislature, and the Legislature cannot restrict or limit its right to exercise the power of legislation by prescribing modes of procedure for the repeal or amendment of statutes; nor may one Legislature restrict or limit the power of its seccessors. (sic.)"). See also, State ex rel. Stenberg v. Moore, 249 Neb. 589, 544 N.W.2d 344, 348-49 (Neb. 1996). Utilizing a supermajority for amendment of an ordinance as specified by the charter and the government code would conflict with the democratic ideal of "majority rule" that is a consistent and unquestioned rule flowing from local charter to the state constitution. The language and history of the constitution evince a principle favoring a simple majority vote for legislation. The proposed ordinance would fundamentally alter our system of government in regard to fundamental right of a vote in a free society, and such alteration is possible only through amendment of the charter, state law, and the Constitution itself. A Civics Lesson Taught in Every Public School in America Our government was founded as a representative democracy based on simple majority rule. The founding fathers escaped England in order to establish a free society, away from the dark underbelly of a totalitarian dictatorial subjugation. The most fundamental of these human rights for all Americans is a majority vote for government, to prevent the tyranny of the dictator, or a small group of autocratic despots intoxicated with the power of political office. Importantly, the framers were particularly concerned with a tyranny of the minority. The framers feared special interests that might capture or corrupt public institutions. Article XI,