Tonight I’m gonna party like it’s 1798
By Josh Richman
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 at 2:53 pm in ballot measures.
This just in from the Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office – a new proposed ballot measure cleared to start gathering petition signatures:
CRIMINALIZES FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT LEGISLATIVE ACTS, ELECTIONS, OR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends constitution to hold candidates for public office, government officials and employees, and members of the media criminally liable for intentionally making a false statement of “material fact” about legislative acts, elections for public office, or the employment or dismissal of government employees. Imposes on violators a 2 to 10 year prison term, a $10,000 to $500,000 fine, or both, and a lifetime ban on serving as a government official or employee, or member of the media. Permits private citizens to criminally prosecute suspected violators. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown increase in state criminal justice costs offset partially or entirely by fines levied against persons convicted under the measure. (09-0049.)
Hey, who wouldn’t oppose “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about government, public officials and public policy? But if the “false, scandalous and malicious” thing sounds familiar, that’s because I didn’t make it up – it’s verbatim from the Sedition Act enacted in July 1798 to quell political dissent. That proved to be such a good idea that the Federalists who’d backed it were turned out of power, Congress in subsequent years issued apologies and paid compensation to its victims, and President Thomas Jefferson pardoned all those who’d been convicted under it.
Hold candidates, elected officials, government workers and journalists’ feet to the fire – call them out when they’re wrong, hold them accountable. Many of you do so right here, day after day, and I’ll betcha some of you will do so again in reaction to this very post. But when you start criminalizing speech – and letting private citizens criminally prosecute suspected violators! – you’ve blown a gaping hole in the First Amendment while grinding every branch of government to an utter standstill.
Proponent Glen C. Simmons of San Clemente has until April 29 to collect valid signatures from 694,354 registered voters in order to qualify this measure for the ballot.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
December 1st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Well, it’s nice to see folks getting creative out there. Is this guy a descendant of J.Q. Adams? Obviously an absurd idea, but I have to admit it has crossed my mind a time or two — especially recently during all the lies about health care legislation and during the 2008 campaign. Actually, I’m thinking about an initiative requiring anybody who votes in an election to pass a test on the items that are on the ballot. Not the kind of literacy tests they had in the South, but a real “are you even semi-informed” test.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Maybe I’m missing something, but the Sedition act was passed under John Adams (1797 to 180l).
And, the initiative is not available for federal elections. Hay, what about a reverse poll tax?
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:46 am
Say, Steve, I like your idea about a reverse poll tax; taxing people who don’t vote! That would increase turnout, reduce election cost/voter, and raise government revenue. That’s even better than the proposal, banning divorce in CA, or banning spousal murder, if banning divorce qualifies and passes.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 am
“Hold … journalists’ feet to the fire – call them out when they’re wrong, hold them accountable.”
If that were only possible: it would be wonderful if newspapers actually cared about such things. But absent another member of the established club making an issue about accuracy, there’s little opportunity to challenge those in the industry whose reporting reflects their agendas and biases rather than the kind of journalistic standards that are often touted in theory but ignored in practice. And that is reflected in the public’s assessment of the industry in the Pew surveys.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Steve Weir. You’re right. Got the father and son mixed up. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment to prevent sons of past presidents from running for the White House themselves. Would save guys like me from getting their history mixed up and certainly would have saved us a lot of grief from 2001-2008. As for the initiative not being available for federal matters, thank God! Reverse poll tax? It’s sad that so many people don’t vote (including some notable Californians who aspire to high office). On the other hand, I don’t want a bunch of people voting just to be able to say they voted, who don’t know anything about the issues or candidates. Which is why I hate the initiative process. I wonder how many Californians who pontificate about members of Congress not reading the bills they vote on (a very misleading accusation) ever read the propositions they vote on, or know anything more than the misleading TV commercials they see.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
I was being flippant about the reverse poll tax idea.
I use to fret about people not registering and not voting. I’m not so concerned. Given the business need to have a system of voter registration, I cannot think of how we could make registering and voting any easier. I think people have the right to choose not to vote.
We can take some measure of pride knowing that of the top 15 California Counties (representing 84% of the registered voters in the state), Contra Costa consistantly ranks first or second in registration and in voter turn out.
Even with that fact, we have over 200,000 eligible voters in Contra Costa who are not registered.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Steve Weir,
Are they really ‘eligible voters’ or are they ‘people of voting age’? Often the participation levels are better than we understand them to be because we’re comparing the voting population against the census population data that includes non-citizens.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
According to the Secretary of State, they are US Citizens, voting age, and not disqualified by serving time for a felony (or on felony parole) or not under a court ordered conservator.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Of course, I was being flippant about such things as endorsing a reverse poll tax, banning divorce, and spousal murder. BTW, when was the amount of money raised dividing what is a misdemeanor and what is a felony? It seems Courts could save money, it this were tied to inflation.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Ralph, of course, your ideas have a certain appeal to my sense of irony.