In the November 2008 Connecticut election the voters authorized a Constitutional amendment proposed by the legislature to allow 17 year olds to vote in State primaries if they turn 18 by the next election, November 2, 2010. This means that all 17 year olds should register NOW to vote.This will enable you to vote in (one or more depending upon party rules} primaries to be held in 2010. You can then also vote in the general election.
In the mean time, to exercise your new found freedom to vote why not become politically active by starting a petition to change the State's Constitution? My one day school wide (400 kids) civil sit down boycott of the high school cafeteria eliminated the daily repetitional use of raisins and peanut butter from the federal foods program. We did not have choice of menu as is the case today and a daily dose over an extended period of culinary creations for the same price was just too much to bear. Who would have known you could make so many things from these two ingrediants? One day and one detention later the menu was fixed.To this day I often wonder if I suffered long term effects and whatever happened to all those raisins and peanut butter? My mother would say the hungry children in China got the surplus.
In this petition you can cite the need for laws that you think are worthy with such examples as:
1. Choice of online education option for courses you need or would like to take and get credit in your local district.
2. The ability to play a sport or join an after school group in another district because your school does not have such a program.
3. The ability to take a course elsewhere for credit assuming transportation is available and scheduling permits.
4. More vacation. shorter days, no homework,... NO NO NO!!!!!!!!
Your petition would cite the need for a voter initiative in Connecticut for citizens to have direct democracy. Proposing legislation for consideration under guidelines to insure its legality and its up or down vote in a statewide referendum allows all voters to participate in government.The roots of our country started in Connecticut with the first Constitution (read the history) and this voter referendum puts the power in the hands of the people, directly.
Grab your history teacher, student activists, school newspaper and others to get this going. The petition needs authenticated signatures which can be accomplished with the local town registrar of voters. The target date is Ground Hog Day. Will he see the shining city of light on the hill as so described by Ronald Regan where the rest of the world looks to our beacon of hope for definition of freedom or will he see the darkness and shadow of the Berlin Wall that kept freedom out and the people in to be ruled under tyrants?
Showing posts with label voter initiative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voter initiative. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Common Good, Justice, and Reason
You have come to this blog site because you are interested in Connecticut politics. Lots of possible discussions on topics that are worthy of attention.You may agree or disagree but at least you are researching and thinking to become more informed as a voter and responsible citizen.
A website has emerged in September 2009 that reminds us of our American heritage and justification for our country's values as so eloquently described in the Declaration of Independance.The website content is not lengthy, but provides a discussion of natural philosophy and the relevance to contemporary political activity and theory of government in recent times as practiced in the United States. Martin Luther King's civil disobediance is also recognized as an underlying change agent that has been applied to achieve social justice and the will of the people.
The Manhattan Declaration document is likely to become a rallying point in the near future and next election. Visit www.manhattandeclaration.org
A website has emerged in September 2009 that reminds us of our American heritage and justification for our country's values as so eloquently described in the Declaration of Independance.The website content is not lengthy, but provides a discussion of natural philosophy and the relevance to contemporary political activity and theory of government in recent times as practiced in the United States. Martin Luther King's civil disobediance is also recognized as an underlying change agent that has been applied to achieve social justice and the will of the people.
The Manhattan Declaration document is likely to become a rallying point in the near future and next election. Visit www.manhattandeclaration.org
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Time to Petition the Connecticut Legislature
In the Connecticut 2009 session of the Legislature there were numerous attempts by the towns and cities (local government) to seek property tax relief and moratoriums on mandates to balance their budgets.With little debate and less fanfare local government officials were dismissed, sometimes with little sympathy. The delay of the budget ultimately cost towns additional fees for borrowing while the budget was in impasse.
All of this rancor and lack of collaboration to give the voters at least a voice at the table in the form of those closest to them, local government. Still no action but rather a shift in reminding everyone of who is really in charge, the legislature, as if there were any doubt.The timing of the tea parties and the town hall meetings around the country also serve as an indicator of what is going on in case you forgot.They know best. They have the elitist knowledge to do the right thing. They prevail. You are not heard.
Towns are small. They are represented by the Legislature but town boundaries per house district and overlaps with other towns often conflict and contradict the local wishes of each town and its unique identity. Out of touch with towns, legislators render them useless in actually influencing state priorities. Increased burdens with few options allowed by legislators make the towns as an overall force for change irrelevant.
After many years of probate court mischief the powers in Hartford finally took action to solve the local court system problems.The budget problems nudged the State to take action.Some time later the towns ultimately created a consensus among themselves and agreed upon a formula without a mandate.Proof of town to town cooperation, perhaps under threat of mandate to come from Hartford, but an agreement none the less. Most importasntly, an example of towns cooperation with each other to fix the system, maintain service levels, and provide a cost effective solution for each town.
Based upon this success it would seem that the power of legislation initiated by towns as a statewide referendum could address a variety of issues including:
1. Establishing common interest infrastructural changes to represent fair and equitable educational disbursements
2. Addressing mandates that are not necessary for all towns of all sizes
3. Provisioning towns with shared or individualized resources to address selected mandates
4. Providing statewide bonding access by towns to the state's borrowing authority
In short, allowing towns to use legislation to address common local needs without the interferences of a statewide agenda exercised and imprinted by the legislature could be a useful tool. Especially in those cases when appeals to the legislature go unheeded and their ears go deaf.
The local town political party committes (Independants are welcome also) could start a petition drive to gather signatures soliciting voter interest in seeking a constitutional change to allow "voter initiative" and statewide referendums. Where local officials often use this technique,budget approvals for example, it is a rare occurance on a statewide basis.
With local political parties involvement such a campaign could then aggregate the local signed petitions certified by the local voter registrar for presentation to the legislature.It is not a given that the statewide political leadership would endorse such a project due to the threat to its power, but that is the whole point.
Nobody is listening to the local voters. The petition only proposes to the legislature that such a constitutional change is needed. With the outcry of the people appealing for grass roots democracy how could the legislature not listen? The revolution has just begun!
All of this rancor and lack of collaboration to give the voters at least a voice at the table in the form of those closest to them, local government. Still no action but rather a shift in reminding everyone of who is really in charge, the legislature, as if there were any doubt.The timing of the tea parties and the town hall meetings around the country also serve as an indicator of what is going on in case you forgot.They know best. They have the elitist knowledge to do the right thing. They prevail. You are not heard.
Towns are small. They are represented by the Legislature but town boundaries per house district and overlaps with other towns often conflict and contradict the local wishes of each town and its unique identity. Out of touch with towns, legislators render them useless in actually influencing state priorities. Increased burdens with few options allowed by legislators make the towns as an overall force for change irrelevant.
After many years of probate court mischief the powers in Hartford finally took action to solve the local court system problems.The budget problems nudged the State to take action.Some time later the towns ultimately created a consensus among themselves and agreed upon a formula without a mandate.Proof of town to town cooperation, perhaps under threat of mandate to come from Hartford, but an agreement none the less. Most importasntly, an example of towns cooperation with each other to fix the system, maintain service levels, and provide a cost effective solution for each town.
Based upon this success it would seem that the power of legislation initiated by towns as a statewide referendum could address a variety of issues including:
1. Establishing common interest infrastructural changes to represent fair and equitable educational disbursements
2. Addressing mandates that are not necessary for all towns of all sizes
3. Provisioning towns with shared or individualized resources to address selected mandates
4. Providing statewide bonding access by towns to the state's borrowing authority
In short, allowing towns to use legislation to address common local needs without the interferences of a statewide agenda exercised and imprinted by the legislature could be a useful tool. Especially in those cases when appeals to the legislature go unheeded and their ears go deaf.
The local town political party committes (Independants are welcome also) could start a petition drive to gather signatures soliciting voter interest in seeking a constitutional change to allow "voter initiative" and statewide referendums. Where local officials often use this technique,budget approvals for example, it is a rare occurance on a statewide basis.
With local political parties involvement such a campaign could then aggregate the local signed petitions certified by the local voter registrar for presentation to the legislature.It is not a given that the statewide political leadership would endorse such a project due to the threat to its power, but that is the whole point.
Nobody is listening to the local voters. The petition only proposes to the legislature that such a constitutional change is needed. With the outcry of the people appealing for grass roots democracy how could the legislature not listen? The revolution has just begun!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Referendum for Referendums
In Connecticut the legislature has the power to to initiate an amendment to the Constitution without consulting the public but requiring public ratification.It was done in November 1992 to define a budgetary spending cap methodology to limit legislative spending. This has not proven to be adequate to constrain or limit spending and seems to have lost its purpose considering Connecticut's current 2009 budgetary dilemma. The amendment as stands, lacks clarity,definitions, realistic procedures, and allows manipulation to the point of rendering the amendment useless and ineffective.
The fraud continues as in November 2009 the citizens are facing a saga of budgetary crisis when the legislature did not make the hard decisions and rolled them to a future day during the 2009 session and passed a budget with gimmicks and borrowing. Nobody could agree on the "Revenue Forecast" was often cited as an excuse and required by the spending cap constitutional amendment. Knowing full well that this was not a "balanced budget" means the legislature is guilty of intentionally violating the spending cap so ill-defined by them in the constitution. They are immune from prosecution, but will face voter wrath in November 2010.
If they cannot or will not do what is necessary it is essential for the people to speak, take control, and do the right thing. With legislative authority and a favorable popular vote in November 2010 the constitution can be re-amended to provide a much needed set of parameters, definitions, priorities and boundaries to finally cap the budget and insure a more meaningful spending limit. When such a referendum is placed before the voters in 2010 everyone has a chance to fill the definition void and make concrete decisions about what is best for Connecticut.Consider this an "appeal referendum" now for the legislature to allow a voter referendum so the citizens can clean up this mess and move the state towards fiscal responsibility.This action should be a test for candidates seeking office who should not get a vote if they do not support voter referendums.
Under the current constitution adopted in 1965 and amended 30 times since, it is a 2 step process to make amendments:
1. Both houses of the legislature must first pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment by a 3/4 majority in each chamber
2.The resolution is submitted to the popular vote for ratification in the next election
This "appeal referendum" is a request by the voters to have the legislature do the right thing and fix their definitions and processes to avoid these budget impasses in the future.
A more bold approach would have the legislature hear the voice of the people and propose an additional amendment. A voter referendum or "voter initiative" as an additional capacity to voters when a similar crisis occurs would provide the direct voter involvment often used in other states to resolve the impass on what the public really wants. Where a spending cap definition is the target today, future crisis could also involve direct voter reconciliation on issues not so complex or when a contentious indecision occurs.One party majority power is not the right answer all the time. This gives the voter power to resolve conflicts and have a true democratic voice and reflection of all values not bounded by parties or brokering.
The legislature should act NOW to propose this amendment so we may vote on it in November 2010. If they don't, they do not deserve our support with a revolution to follow..
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Who speaks for the people of Connecticut?
In the 2009 January session of the Connecticut Legislature, 3 bills (SB071, SJ017, and SJ018) were introduced to allow the voters of Connecticut the ability to propose initiatives and referendums directly to the people. This granted authority by the legislature requires a constitutional amendment by way of the legislature.
In simple terms, Connecticut citizens would have the right to propose laws through direct initiative and the power to approve or reject a statute through a referendum to the people subject popular vote. Additionally:
1) A 5% threshold of those registered to vote in the preceding gubernatorial election must sign the petition. Other formulas may be considered.
2) The proposition must pass legal tests set forth. Individual rights or those of minority groups, for example, as codified in the Bill of Rights, must be protected.
3) This allows the public to directly vote on bills already passed or allowed by activist judiciary if enough people feel so inclined or outraged.
There is a volume of literature on this topic and other States, like Massachusetts and California , have used this technique to cap taxes, for example.
It is conspicuous in Connecticut that such a notion does not resonate with voters. The arrogance of our legislature does not seem to be enough to trigger enough activism on this issue to spur an outcry for justice.
The Constitutional Convention was embarrassingly defeated in the November 2008 election. Controversial laws have been passed despite attempts by legislators who encouraged direct voter involvement with a referendum; gay/same sex marriage for example was never really voted upon, the courts made us do it and we passively went along. Public opinion is not really sought and special interests groups support most legislation as directly benefitting their cause with testimony.
Without such a tool available to the voters at large we can only remain hostage to those in power who neither listen nor respect direct democracy where the voices and will of the people should be heard. We should be allowed a voice when controversy creates divides among the people that violate our fundamental moral codes and force/push us in the direction of selecting winners and losers with a moral compass that knows not which direction is true.
This is not multi-partisan reconciliation and as a result the divisiveness (attributed to diversity?) continues to grow as more causes provoke or promote their need for more recognition contrary to that of the majority. If we are to have more government involvement in social engineering, then the real elites are the elected government leaders making arbitrary choices based upon on their preferences, choices, and views on how the world should look, think or act.
Yes, tyrants can exist in a democracy, but only until the people realize a governmental crisis and that revolutionary tactics are necessary. Direct democracy is the best law abiding, civilized, peaceful, and respectful tool we have to work within the bounds of our society including its values.
In simple terms, Connecticut citizens would have the right to propose laws through direct initiative and the power to approve or reject a statute through a referendum to the people subject popular vote. Additionally:
1) A 5% threshold of those registered to vote in the preceding gubernatorial election must sign the petition. Other formulas may be considered.
2) The proposition must pass legal tests set forth. Individual rights or those of minority groups, for example, as codified in the Bill of Rights, must be protected.
3) This allows the public to directly vote on bills already passed or allowed by activist judiciary if enough people feel so inclined or outraged.
There is a volume of literature on this topic and other States, like Massachusetts and California , have used this technique to cap taxes, for example.
It is conspicuous in Connecticut that such a notion does not resonate with voters. The arrogance of our legislature does not seem to be enough to trigger enough activism on this issue to spur an outcry for justice.
The Constitutional Convention was embarrassingly defeated in the November 2008 election. Controversial laws have been passed despite attempts by legislators who encouraged direct voter involvement with a referendum; gay/same sex marriage for example was never really voted upon, the courts made us do it and we passively went along. Public opinion is not really sought and special interests groups support most legislation as directly benefitting their cause with testimony.
Without such a tool available to the voters at large we can only remain hostage to those in power who neither listen nor respect direct democracy where the voices and will of the people should be heard. We should be allowed a voice when controversy creates divides among the people that violate our fundamental moral codes and force/push us in the direction of selecting winners and losers with a moral compass that knows not which direction is true.
This is not multi-partisan reconciliation and as a result the divisiveness (attributed to diversity?) continues to grow as more causes provoke or promote their need for more recognition contrary to that of the majority. If we are to have more government involvement in social engineering, then the real elites are the elected government leaders making arbitrary choices based upon on their preferences, choices, and views on how the world should look, think or act.
Yes, tyrants can exist in a democracy, but only until the people realize a governmental crisis and that revolutionary tactics are necessary. Direct democracy is the best law abiding, civilized, peaceful, and respectful tool we have to work within the bounds of our society including its values.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
CT Constitution and Budget Cap
If you wonder why CT has such a hard time doing its budget, you can understand the overall issue by reading the CT Constitutional Amendment available below:
www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?A=3188&Question_ID=392288
On careful reading you may have to read it again, and again, ........ The definitions that are needed are not given so you can interpret them in any number of convenient/inconvenient ways depending on your preferences.
Unlike states that put budget caps in place through a voter initiative or referendum, CT continues to rely on the "mash-up" which is "in effect" ineffective despite the will of the people when this was passed with much congratulations amongst the legislators for a job well done.
Come to think of it, that same tone was evident at the end of the 2008 election when campaign finance reform efforts were appplauded as a success even though the incumbents were re-elected and new members were absent.
Funding elections only re-elects the incumbents, as we can now demonstrate, and does not attract new blood as intended.
www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?A=3188&Question_ID=392288
On careful reading you may have to read it again, and again, ........ The definitions that are needed are not given so you can interpret them in any number of convenient/inconvenient ways depending on your preferences.
Unlike states that put budget caps in place through a voter initiative or referendum, CT continues to rely on the "mash-up" which is "in effect" ineffective despite the will of the people when this was passed with much congratulations amongst the legislators for a job well done.
Come to think of it, that same tone was evident at the end of the 2008 election when campaign finance reform efforts were appplauded as a success even though the incumbents were re-elected and new members were absent.
Funding elections only re-elects the incumbents, as we can now demonstrate, and does not attract new blood as intended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)