November 1, 2000

Super majorities revisited

Some state propositions are no-brainers. Prop. 39, for example. After reading several criticisms of the proposition, which would lower the votes needed to win bond elections from two-thirds to 55 percent, I still need an explanation from the critics. What makes a two-third's requirement to pass bond issues fair? When it comes to school bonds, why is my selfish, self-centered, narrow-minded "No" vote worth two of your civic-minded, goodhearted "Yes" votes? Why should my "No" vote count as two against your single "Yes" vote? It makes no sense to me.

I can make just as much sense out of a three-fourths, or an 85 % threshold to pass bond issues. How about 9 out of 10?

I realize not everyone is a property owner, but this is supposedly a democracy, where each person over 17 has an equal voice if he or she chooses to exercise it. Should return to the early days of the republic, and allow only landowners to vote? The vote might even be weighted, with large landowners given more votes than small landowners.

I was the person who actually caused one of San Mateo county's few elections by land owners to happen. In 1969 I naively decided to run for public office. My time was limited, however. I looked around for the smallest, most insignificant public office that existed, and decided on the San Mateo County Soil Conservation District, now the Resource Conservation District. It was a 30 year old district which had never undergone an election since its founding in 1939. Then I discovered I lived 40 feet outside the district. I advertised for a square inch of land within the district, but that didn't work, so I persuaded two friends to run instead. Instead of registered voters, only landowners voted. A husband and wife with a substandard lot had two votes. A bachelor farmer with 4000 acres would have had one vote. Absentees weren't permitted, but proxies were OK. I voted 9 proxies, if I remember right. A 16 year old boy voted several. Turnout was about five percent, with some voters who lived outside of Pacifica furious they hadn't been told what this election was all about.

Announcements of the election were sent all over the world. San Mateo County property is owned by people in Greece, China, Italy, France, etc. Name a country. Someone there owns land in this county. Would you require U.S. citizenship to vote in a local property owner's election?

To avoid having anyone except land owners decide property taxes, you must disqualify renters, the poor, students, the homeless, perhaps even landowners who don't have their own staff of gardeners. We can't let riff-raff vote on such matters. They don't count. Only people with either accumulated wealth or wealthy ancestors should be permitted to take part in the electoral process. (That's not my idea. It is the implicit attitude of people who demand a two-thirds vote to pass a bond issue.)

Prop. 39 is less unfair. It still requires a super majority, 11 ayes for every nine noes. But it doesn't tell the 65 percent of the voters who participated in one school bond election I remember that their Yes votes weren't good enough, and that the 35 percent who voted No would prevail.

Some recent Reactor columns may be found at Paul Azevedo's website, http://www.thereactor.net/ Reach him by e-mail at Paul@thereactor.net