From the Texas Tribune: Senate bill would let Houston voters weigh in on fix to pension crisis

The question is, should they?

- Click here for the article.

If the Texas Senate gets its way, Houston city officials could have to get voter approval for a plan to partially shore up massive, multi-billion-dollar shortfalls in some of the city’s public pension funds.

The Senate on Wednesday voted 21-10 to give preliminary approval of a bill that would require voters to sign off before cities issue pension obligation bonds, a kind of public debt that infuses retirement funds with lump-sum payments. Issuing $1 billion in those bonds is a linchpin of Houston officials’ proposal to decrease the city’s unfunded pension liabilities that are estimated to be at least $8 billion.

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner told The Texas Tribune earlier this month that if the bill becomes law and voters reject the $1 billion bond proposition, a delicate and hard-fought plan to curb a growing pension crisis would be shrouded in uncertainty. He also argued that the debt already exists because the city will have to pay it at some point to make good on promises to pension members.

But lawmakers said voters should get to weigh in when cities take on such large amounts of bond debt.

Oklahoma votes against creating a constitutional right to farm and ranch

One of the more unusual items on the ballot yesterday was defeated yesterday.

It would have applied strict scrutiny to laws related to farming and agriculture. The laws would have to demonstrate a compelling purpose purpose in order to be sustained.

- Click here for Ballotpedia's detail on the proposal.

Amendment design

State Question 777, which was placed on the ballot by the Oklahoma Legislature, was designed to require courts to rule on any law regulating farming and agriculture passed after December 31, 2014, by employing "strict scrutiny." This means that courts would have to overturn any challenged agricultural or livestock regulations that are not necessary for protecting a “compelling state interest.” This would make any law restricting or regulating the farming industry in the state more vulnerable to lawsuits, which would likely result in fewer government regulations over the industry.

In other words, State Question 777 was designed to require the courts to apply the same standards to lawsuits concerning agriculture and livestock as in cases concerning free speech, gun ownership, and religious freedom.

Arguments of supporters and opponents

Supporters|

Supporters argue that State Question 777 would allow farmers to defend themselves against unjust laws or laws that would harm the industry, make the state more attractive to farmers, and allow consumers to decide best farming practices through free market competition.

Opponents

Opponents argue that State Question 777 would be used to prevent the state and local governments from passing laws to protect small farmers and provide reasonable regulations regarding food and water quality, environmental protections, and animal cruelty. They claim the amendment would give large, corporate farms an advantage over small, local farms.

From the Houston Chronicle: Robbing HISD - Voters should say 'no' to putting district under the Robin Hood recapture plan.

Voters who live in the boundaries of HISD have the chance to approve or disapprove subjecting itself to recapture - otherwise known as the Robin Hood plan.

The paper argues that voters should vote against the referendum.

- Click here for the article.

Voters will face a test on Election Day, and whether they answer correctly will determine the future of the Houston Independent School District. It should be a simple question, but it's written in the obtuse vernacular of lawmakers who really don't want voters to understand it.

The ballot provision will ask voters to authorize the board of trustees of HISD to purchase attendance credits from the state with local tax revenue. That sounds like a good, progressive measure, but be warned - it is a trick question.

The ballot is really asking whether HISD should submit itself to state recapture and send $162  million in local property tax dollars to Austin. The correct answer is "NO," or "AGAINST."

If this misleading ballot provision passes, HISD will not only be required to send $162 million in local property tax dollars to the state next year. The district will also likely face higher annual payments for the foreseeable future under the state's broken school finance system.

The mandate comes about because rising property values have made HISD subject to "Robin Hood" provisions under the Texas Education Code. All those skyscrapers and rapidly appreciating homes have apparently pushed HISD over the top.

As Texas schools are financed through property taxes, the recapture provisions (what we know as Robin Hood) were supposed to provide a way to equalize school funding across the state - for poor and wealthy schools alike.

In May, the Texas Supreme Court held that this system of school finance is marginally constitutional. Consider that assessment a D-minus grade. The fact of the matter is that the state's school funding formula fails to accomplish its intended goals of helping poor school districts.

Technically these recaptured funds are supposed to help schools that need the resources. If the provision worked like a true Robin Hood, it would "rob" from the rich and "give" to the poor. But in reality, the system robs from the poor and gives to legislators so that they don't have to raise state taxes. There's no guarantee that poor schools will receive a single extra dime if HISD pays up.

How does this work? Simply put, the state keeps two bank accounts: one for general revenue and one for the recaptured Robin Hood sums. Every dollar that the state pays from Robin Hood frees up general revenue money that the state otherwise would have to spend to help poor schools. So instead of giving extra money to needy districts, any HISD money will essentially be spent on highways, border security or some other appropriation besides education.

If this passes, then HISD is projected to send more than $1 billion of our local property taxes to the state over the next four years. Not only does that hurt HISD, but it looks an awful lot like a state property tax - which is prohibited in the Texas Constitution.

For the relevant statutes: TEA: Chapter 41: Wealth Equalization.

And there's this:

- Wikipedia: Robin Hood Plan.

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: A Game of Chicken Between Texas, Its Biggest School District

More on the purpose of the proposition that will be offered to HISD voters related to capture - and some useful commentary on the problems posed by confusing ballot language.

- Click here for the article.

Voters in Texas’ biggest school district in Texas might do what the nine Republicans on the state’s Supreme Court wouldn’t do: Force the Legislature to overhaul the way it pays for public education.

Such a move would require some daring. Voters in the Houston Independent School District will have a choice in November to approve spending $165 million raised locally from school property taxes on other, poorer school districts in the state.

The ballot language is opaque, and a pretty good argument for improving the writing skills of the people in charge of state and local governments: “Authorizing the board of trustees of Houston Independent School District to purchase attendance credits from the state with local tax revenues.”

The actual choice presented by that ballot measure? Vote “for” spending $165 million of the district’s money in other districts, or vote “against” spending that money and risk taking $18 billion of the district’s commercial properties from the tax rolls and assigning them to the tax rolls of another district.

A “No” vote in November — urged by many of the HISD’s trustees, the city’s mayor, and others — would spark some political drama.

About one Texas school district in four spends some of its locally raised money to help educate students in districts that can’t raise enough money from their own tax bases. It’s called recapture by the policy wonks, but because it takes from “property rich” districts and gives to “property poor” districts, it’s more commonly called the Robin Hood system.

When a district’s voters refuse to go along — something that hasn’t happened — the Texas Education Agency is required to move part of that district’s property tax base to another, poorer district.

The agency obviously doesn’t move the real estate, but it would assign some of one district’s biggest commercial property taxpayers to pay taxes in another district. The law gives a preference to closer districts.

In HISD’s case, a “no” vote would mean taking an estimated $18 billion in property from that district’s rolls. The TEA would start with the most valuable properties and work its way down until it has taken away enough property to cover the $165 million or so that HISD owes under the Robin Hood system.

Was the Crimea referendum legitimate

We will be discussing elections this week in 2305 and start off with a talk about the role of elections in different governing systems. In legitimate democracies they are intended to help connect the actions of government with the preferences of the general population - or at least the electorate.

In authoritarian systems they generally serve to provide a veneer of legitimacy to decisions made by governing authorities. There are suggestions that that might be what occurred a few days back in Crimea when an overwhelming majority of voters decided to break with the Ukraine and join the Russian federation.

Here's a skeptical take on the results:

To the surprise of absolutely no one, yesterday’s Crimean referendum on secession from Crimea and joining Russia resulted in a “yes” vote. What is, perhaps, somewhat striking is that the official results state that an incredible 96.7% of the voters voted yes. A 96.7% is almost never seen on anything at all controversial outside of places like North Korea – or, of course, the old Soviet Union, which Russian President Vladimir Putin served as a high-ranking KGB officer.

It is highly improbable that 96.7% would have voted yes in a genuinely free vote, since the Crimean population includes large Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar minorities that are overwhelmingly opposed to a return to Russian rule. Crimean officials are also reporting a high 83% turnout. If that figure is correct, it makes it unlikely that the 96.7% result is explicable by selective turnout. If, on the other hand, officials are lying about the turnout, they could be engaging in deception about the vote margin as well.

Thus, it is likely that the referendum result was “achieved” by fraud and/or intimidation – tactics which the Putin regime had previously resorted to in Russia itself. The likelihood of fraud is also suggested by the fact that even some Russian journalists were forcibly prevented from observing the vote count and had their camera smashed by officials.

Given Putin’s repression of opposition in Russia itself, Crimean residents inclined to vote “no” might have been scared into voting “yes” or just staying home. Even if Putin was not actually planning to punish those who voted against annexation, prudent Crimeans had no way of knowing that, and might understandably not be willing to accept even a small risk of punishment or official harrassment once Russian rule officially returns.

And here's a suggestion that the entire election was rigged to get a positive outcome. People may have only had the option to vote to join Russia:

For a start, no real choice was offered on the ballots, as many in the Western media took pains to note. At least, there was no choice to vote in favor of keeping the Crimean region as a semi-autonomous part of Ukraine, as it has been for many decades. Rather, the voters' choice was to either join Russia or allow the Russian-leaning Crimean legislature to decide for themselves who they would like to align with.

"Residents of Crimea, up to 60% percent of whom are Russian, were given a choice of either joining Russia or opting for more autonomy from Ukraine under the 1992 constitution. The status quo, in which Crimea is a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine, was not an option," reported USA Today.

Reuters offered more details, explaining that "there is no room on the ballot paper for voting 'Nyet' to control by Russia."

So, for a start, while the ballot offered two different questions, only one of which voters were allowed to check (or their ballots were to be considered "spoiled"), a Yes/No paradigm seemed to be offered, but wasn't really. The ballot question(s) themselves were rigged in favor of Russia.

Still, if the first option on the ballot, asking about reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation is considered "Da", and the second option, calling for "restoring the 1992 Constitution" was considered "Nyet", that still leaves a lot of voters who are said to have voted to join Russia, according to the officially reported results. The lack of an option to keep the status quo as is certainly tipped the entire affair towards Russia, but it doesn't tell us whether or not the "Da" option actually received 97.6% approval from voters.

Term Limits to be Extended in Houston? Not just yet.

Houston's city council voted down a measure that would have allowed the city's voters to extend term limits on council members and the mayor from six years to twelve, and the term lengths from 2 to 4 years. We discuss term limits in a few places in this class, primarily in the sections on democracy, legislatures and elections.
Term limits were promoted heavily in the 1980s and 90s as ways to reign in legislators who allegedly had grown too powerful and distant from their constituents. Other pointed out that if they had grown too distant from their constituents, they could easily be voted out and that term limits actually limited democracy more than anything else. There seems to be a small developing backlash against term limits though, and this effort may be indicative of this movement.

The proposal's chief advocate in Houston argues that limiting elected officials to three two year terms empowers lobbyists at the expense of rank and file constituents. It also makes long term decision making difficult. A 2 years election cycle makes governing difficult and places a priority on campaigning instead.

Whether or not he had a point, the proposal was handily defeated. I won't be surprised to see it brought up again.

Related stories:

- Longer term limits could go on fall ballot
- City Council panel nixes proposal to expand term limits
- Burks blasts opposition to longer Council terms

Was there a backlash against the Tea Party in last Wednesday's election?

Are swing voters still swinging?

Does this tell us anything about what might or might not happen in November 2012?

- OHIO TURNS BACK A LAWLIMITING UNIONS’ RIGHTS
- MISSISSIPPI VOTERSREJECT ANTI-ABORTION MEASURE

Maybe there wont be a referendum in Greece

From the Washington Post:

Prime Minister George Papandreou backed away Thursday from a proposal to hold a referendum on a European bailout plan as Greek politicians appeared to be rallying around the rescue despite the tough austerity measures it entails.

The move came after the country’s main opposition party dropped its objections to the bailout package and indicated it would back the measures. But the opposition also called for new elections, which Papandreou opposes, suggesting that a deal could still fall apart.

Papandreou’s proposal to hold a national referendum on the bailout plan, a vote that would also determine Greece’s future in the euro zone, had caused fissures within his Socialist party and sent shockwaves through Europe. Thursday evening, he told an emergency cabinet meeting that if the opposition agreed to the bailout, there was no need to put it to a popular test.

Apparently proposing a referendum on the bailout proposal - which was likely to fail, meaning no bailout - forced the issue. The opposition could have staged their own opposition to the proposal, but now they are stuck with it. To not support it would have risked the future of the European Union. This was less about the merit of the bailout than determining how best to rally support for it.

That raises an interesting point should we have national referenda in the United States? The agreement imposes costs on the general public. Should they be able to vote on it? Is it the right thing to do? But this creates tremendous uncertainty prior to the election. And what if they decide against the measure and Europe falls apart as a result. It wouldn't be the first time.

Judge invalidates vote ending red-light cameras

From the Chron:

Houston city leaders are assessing their options after a federal judge invalidated the November referendum that turned off a red-light surveillance system and halted a stream of millions of dollars into strapped city coffers.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled Friday that the referendum was improperly placed on the ballot last year, and the city cannot be forced to turn off the cameras.

Hughes said Houston's city charterrequires that efforts to overturn ordinances by referendum must occur within 30 days of an ordinance's passage.

Opponents to the red-light ordinance, which passed in 2004, mounted the election challenge last year and got it on the ballot as a charter amendment, but Hughes said that was essentially the same as repealing it.

"Presented with this mislabeling, the council supinely ignored — over voices of some of its members — their responsibility and put the proposition to the voters as an amendment to the charter," Hughes wrote.

The city filed a federal suit against the camera vendor as a way of having a judge review the procedure for shutting off the system, winding down the contract and determining the amount owed the company.

Egyptian voters say ‘yes’ to speedy elections

From the Washington Post:

On Sunday, judicial officials reported that 77 percent of those who cast ballots in a historic referendum Saturday voted “yes” on constitutional amendments designed to speed Egypt’s transition from temporary military rule to credible parliamentary and presidential elections.

About 18 million out of more than 45 million eligible voters went to the polls — or 41 percent, below the optimistically high estimates officials had issued Saturday but still a remarkable display of democratic vigor as Egyptians embraced their first chance since the colonial era to participate in a political process whose outcome wasn’t essentially rigged.

The constitutional changes, drafted by a military-appointed panel of legal experts, will encourage the formation of political parties, restrict future presidents to two four-year terms, rein in executive powers, and limit emergency rule to six months, subject to parliamentary approval, rather than the 30 years that marked the tenure of former president Hosni Mubarak.
A useful topic for this week's discussion in 2301 about elections and past discussions about constitutions.

Referendum in Ohio?

From the Atlantic, an item for 2301:

Yesterday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich -- who after just two months in office already had a 28-year record low 40 percent job approval rating -- unveiled his budget plan, which includes slashing public school budgets and selling several state prisons to the private sector. Meanwhile, a coalition of labor unions, community groups, and small student associations held a "Day of Actions" in protest of Senate Bill 5, with activities such as a teachers' rally, picketing on Columbus's Capitol Hill and phonebanking.

The bill, which is backed Kasich and currently making its way through the Ohio House of Representatives, would severely limit collective bargaining power by public-sector employees, including police, firefighters and teachers. Unions would not be able to bargain on pension or health-care plans, yearly step increases would be thrown out in favor of merit raises, and if there were disagreements over contract negotiations, the bill bans strikes, and adds fines for walkouts.

Labor groups and Democrats anticipate the bill's passage through the Republican dominated House -- it passed the Ohio Senate on March 5 -- but plan to fight back by working to put the legislation directly before voters in a special ballot election this fall. Ohio, unlike Wisconsin, lacks a mechanism for recalling elected officials, but it does have a direct means for overturning unpopular legislation: If labor and Democrats are able to secure 200,300 signatures in the coming months, a ballot proposition to vote on overturning Senate Bill 5 will appear before voters come November.

That means Ohio pro-union forces won't need to rely on labor-friendly Democrats to get elected in a special election in order to overturn anti-union legislation -- their plan in Wisconsin, where they are seeking to recall eight GOP senators, elect Democrats in their stead, then repeal the just-passed law stripping public sector unions of most collective bargaining rights in the state. Instead, Ohio union supporters can take on the offending legislation directly themselves.

Voter Initiatives in California

A huge subject in 2301 will be the nature of the American democratic system. The founder's deliberately avoided creating a pure, or direct, democracy and opted instead for a representative system, or republic. One reason was to ensure that the anger and fluctuations common to mass public opinion would not have an immediate impact on public policy. The intent was that slow rational deliberations would win out over heated superficial ones.

Nevertheless, more direct democratic mechanisms have been instituted over American history, notably the Progressive movements' push for recall, initiative and referendum elections a century back. Perhaps no state has used them more than California, but it is commonly argued that many of the budgetary problems the state faces stem from this process. Anger from the left and right have, respectively, increased social spending and limited the ability of the state to pay for those services. In addition, the ability of legislators to effectively manage crises has been also been limited.

The following NYT story suggests that these woes will continue.

As we discuss the nature of democracy and our views about the appropriate relationship between the government and the governed, it is worth considering how close the relationship ought to be. A major lesson we will learn from discussing the constitutional structure will be how the entire constitutional system structures that relationship. Without an understanding of that relationship, the the entire purpose of the governing system is a mystery.

An Elected Dictatorship

That's what the Anti-Federalists wanted to avoid by opposing the Constitution, and what Venezuela has due to a recent national referendum.

This raises an uncomfortable point about democracy. Though we tend to believe that democracy allows the people to protect themselves from government, it often becomes a tool for would be tyrants. By frightening the population--sometimes focusing animosity towards competing elites--executives can persuade the public to support a reduction in their rights by promising stability and security.

It happens here too of course. Consider FDR's rhetoric, as well as W. Bush's support for expanded war times powers and the current debate about the economy.