California Ballot 2016 - Propositions 66 and 59
The biggest danger to Proposition 62, the effort to repeal California's death penalty is in the form of Proposition 66.
Proposition 66 calls for the legal process for death penalty cases to be altered, with the original trial judge being the one to hear habeas corpus petitions seeking to overturn the death penalty conviction. It would also mandate that 70% of the earnings of death row inmates awaiting execution go toward their debts to their victim and the families of those victims.
It is designed to streamline the process that takes place after a sentence of death is handed down so that it takes less time from sentence until execution. Sounds great but what it would actually accomplish is a rush to judgment that might well increase the possibility that an innocent person would be executed.
I'm voting NO on Prop 66 for two reasons. The first is that it is a bad idea in and of itself. The second is that if Prop 66 were to get more votes than Prop 62 does, it would be Prop 66 hat would become law.
* * *
Proposition 59's stated purpose is mandate that California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings.
No matter how any of us feel about the decision in the Citizens United case, this proposition is an exercise in futility. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate before the process can move forward. Considering that Republicans get much more money from corporate coffers than Democrats, there is the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell of getting the required majority there. Further, as law professor Erwin Chemerinsky writes in an op-ed piece for the Daily Breeze, "... I worry greatly about amending the First Amendment and its protection for freedom of speech. Newspapers and other media are owned by corporations. Would a constitutional amendment risk taking away their protections under the First Amendment?"
He is right to be concerned. Anything other than a new Supreme Court decision to overturn the Citizens United ruling is fraught with peril that the First Amendment's protections might be unintentionally limited.
So without getting into the argument over the Citizens United decision itself, there are very good reasons for voting NO on Prop 59.
* * *
Proposition 66 calls for the legal process for death penalty cases to be altered, with the original trial judge being the one to hear habeas corpus petitions seeking to overturn the death penalty conviction. It would also mandate that 70% of the earnings of death row inmates awaiting execution go toward their debts to their victim and the families of those victims.
It is designed to streamline the process that takes place after a sentence of death is handed down so that it takes less time from sentence until execution. Sounds great but what it would actually accomplish is a rush to judgment that might well increase the possibility that an innocent person would be executed.
I'm voting NO on Prop 66 for two reasons. The first is that it is a bad idea in and of itself. The second is that if Prop 66 were to get more votes than Prop 62 does, it would be Prop 66 hat would become law.
* * *
Proposition 59's stated purpose is mandate that California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings.
No matter how any of us feel about the decision in the Citizens United case, this proposition is an exercise in futility. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate before the process can move forward. Considering that Republicans get much more money from corporate coffers than Democrats, there is the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell of getting the required majority there. Further, as law professor Erwin Chemerinsky writes in an op-ed piece for the Daily Breeze, "... I worry greatly about amending the First Amendment and its protection for freedom of speech. Newspapers and other media are owned by corporations. Would a constitutional amendment risk taking away their protections under the First Amendment?"
He is right to be concerned. Anything other than a new Supreme Court decision to overturn the Citizens United ruling is fraught with peril that the First Amendment's protections might be unintentionally limited.
So without getting into the argument over the Citizens United decision itself, there are very good reasons for voting NO on Prop 59.
* * *
posted by me at 12:42 PM
<< Home