Making Democracy more fair - Super Majorities defeat Democracy

A couple years ago big business interests hired sharp lobbying groups to put a measure on the California Ballot that would insulate them from paying fee's to cover the costs of damage caused by their business operations.  The lobbying groups, with millions of dollars to work with, qualified a measure for the November 2010 California Ballot, Prop 26, that expanded the 2/3 majority vote requirement enacted by Prop 13 in 1978 to cover fee's imposed on business to prevent or clean up damage their business operations cause.  They probably chose the November 2010 election carefully, as a off year election where turnout would be low, so their advertising dollars needed to sway fewer voters.

In the November 2010 election in California there were 23.5 million persons in California who were eligible to vote.  17.2 million were registered.  Less than 10 million voted on Prop 26.  4.92 million voted for the proposition, 4.27 million voted against it.  It was a approved by a margin of 52.5% to 47.5%.

The 2/3 vote requirement, since it was first enacted in 1978, it has proven to be an almost insurmountable barrier to legislative action on almost everything.  Yet this 2010 law imposing a virtually impossible 2/3 majority requirement on legislative imposition of fee's was approved by only 52% of the voters voting, and about 20% of the residents of the state eligible to vote.

Prop 13, which created the 2/3 vote requirement in 1978 was also passed by a relatively small majority of the voting population.  There were 15 million possible voters in California in June of 1978, a little less than 10 million were registered to vote,  4.3 million voters voted for Prop 13, 2.3 million voted against it.  Only 43% of the eligible voters actually voted, somewhere around 28% actually voted in favor of Proposition 13.

I am not arguing that a low turnout affects what passes and what doesn't pass, if people chose not to vote we have to go with the choice of the people that did turnout.  What I am arguing is that no vote should be able to impose higher approval requirements on future enactments than the percentage by which the enacting law was passed.

The Prop 13 2/3 vote requirement was particularly anti-democratic in its effect on local governments.  The requirement was created in Statewide elections but applies to local governments.  San Francisco and Kern Counties both voted against Prop 13, yet now they are required to get a 2/3 majority vote to impose local taxes or fees.

Lets talk partisan politics for a moment.  The 2/3 tax requirement is generally favored by anti-tax Republicans, in particular big business, who are a minority of voters.  They have recognized it is a way to leverage their votes so their votes count more than people who put a higher stock on good government.  As long ago as the 1930's they managed to get a 2/3 vote requirement to impose taxes on Banks.  It took decades to get that law changed to a simple majority vote.

We need to put a provision in the Constitution that no provision of law can impose a higher percentage vote requirement than the percentage of voters that approve the law.