We mentioned in an editorial a few days ago the incongruity of Californians wanting lots of state-provided services and programs - but not the taxes that finance those services and programs.

California is the perfect state in which to cling to such views, because of a constitutional requirement that most tax increases get at least two-thirds of the vote for approval.

The benchmark philosophy behind such a rule is to prevent a tyrannical government from forcing unwanted taxes upon its citizenry.

A quick review of attempts to impose new taxes demonstrates just how effective the supermajority voting rule can be. It is not unusual to see bond measures receive 62 percent or more of the vote, but fail because the two-thirds supermajority was not achieved.

This situation probably makes hearts swell with pride in the anti-tax crowd. But the supermajority vote requirement actually encourages a form of governmental tyranny, while at the same time keeping valuable government programs and services from being funded.

The situation is so dire in Santa Barbara County that local government leaders are asking state lawmakers to lower the two-thirds voting requirement, at least on transportation and general-obligation bond proposals.

One of those measures will appear on the November ballot, when county voters will be asked to renew the Measure D sales tax that funds local transportation projects. It has been renamed Measure A, mainly for public-relations purposes, but it is essentially the same tax that has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the creation and upkeep of local roads and transportation systems for the past two decades.

Advertisement

A first attempt to renew Measure D failed two years ago - although 54 percent of voters gave a thumbs up, far short of the necessary 66.7 percent.

The two-thirds supermajority's history in California goes back to the late 1800s. It was just as undemocratic then as it is now, a tool that allows the minority to rule.

The supermajority rule also carries with it unintended consequences. For example, it often prevents government from eliminating tax breaks that favor special interests, because an effort to remove a tax break is viewed by many as a tax increase.

The supermajority also puts extraordinary power into the hands of small groups, especially lawmakers who need only to muster a bit more than a third of the vote to hijack important legislation. This becomes critically important during periods when the economy is in the tank - which it is now - and when governments badly need funds to keep critically important human services, and even schools, functioning properly.

All things considered, there isn't a lot positive to be said for the supermajority voting rule. It fosters the very governmental tyranny that was the basis for its creation in the first place.

California is staring another budget crisis in the face, a crisis that naturally trickles down to the local government level. The only viable choices lawmakers have are to either generate more revenue - raise taxes? - or reduce the services and programs it provides to its citizens. The supermajority requirement allows a lawmaking minority to seal the fate of the majority.

The Bush administration is busy spending billions - in dollars and human lives - in an effort to spread democracy abroad. We need to focus our attention closer to home, where democracy struggles every time a proposal goes before voters that requires a two-thirds vote.

Lawmakers should eliminate the need for a supermajority vote on local tax and bond measures. While they're at it, they should also begin the process of amending the California Constitution to allow for a simple majority to approve a state budget.

We either have a truly democratic form of government, or we don't.

May 16, 2008