California’s Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado, has made public appearances in the last few months, in which he advocates for Proposition 14 and also holds himself out as a champion of voting rights. However, his record while he was in the state legislature does not suggest that he was interested in expanding voting rights.
In 2000, he voted “No” on AB 1094, which changed the deadline for a voter to register to vote from 29 days before an election, to 15 days. The bill passed and was signed into law.
In two different legislative sessions, he voted against the National Popular Vote Plan: AB 2948 in 2006, and SB 37 in 2008. The National Popular Vote Plan, if passed by California and enough other states, would end any future occurrences at which someone could assume the presidency even though that person had polled fewer popular votes than another presidential candidate. Both bills passed the legislature but both bills were vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. A 2008 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 70% of Californians support the National Popular Vote Plan.
In 2007, he voted against SB 439, which would have provided that voter intent should control whether a write-in vote is valid. Specifically, the bill would have said that if a voter write-ins on the ballot the name of a declared write-in candidate, that vote should count, even if the voter forgot, or didn’t know, to “X” the square next to the name. The bill passed but was vetoed.
In 2007, he voted against AB 1294, which said that any general law city or county is free to use Instant Runoff Voting for its own city or county elections. Current law lets charter cities implement IRV for its own elections, but does not let general law cities or counties make this decision. The bill passed but was vetoed. All popular votes during the last ten years in California charter cities, asking the voters if they wish to use IRV for their own cities, have passed.
In 2008, he voted against AB 583, which passed and was signed into law. It provides that in June 2010, the voters vote on whether to repeal a State Constitutional ban on public funding for candidates. The existing ban applies not only to the state, but to any local government. This measure is Proposition 15. Polls indicate that it is leading.
Excellent post Richard. Thank you very much!
Without knowing all the details on these bills:
>AB 1094, which changed the deadline for a voter
>to register to vote from 29 days before an election,
>to 15 days.
>SB 439. The bill would have said that if a voter
>write-ins on the ballot the name of a declared
>write-in candidate, that vote should count, even
>if the voter forgot, or didn’t know, to “Xâ€
>the square next to the name
>In 2008, he voted against AB 583
All three sound like good bills. Sad that he voted
against them.
>National Popular Vote Plan: AB 2948 in 2006,
>and SB 37 in 2008
I support NPV but am very skeptical of the interstate compact approach and think that it will encounter significant legal/practical issues if enough states
joined to enact it. So I don’t fault anyone for voting
against the compact.
>he voted against AB 1294, which said that any general
>law city or county is free to use Instant Runoff Voting
Good! IRV is a lousy voting system in my opinion.
http://allaboutvoting.com/category/irv/
The National Popular Vote plan is an interstate compact—a type of state law that is explicitly authorized by the U.S. Constitution to enable otherwise sovereign states to enter into legally enforceable contractual obligations with one another.
There are hundreds of major interstate compacts. Examples of interstate compacts include the Colorado River Compact (allocating water among seven western states), the Multi-State Tax Compact (whose membership includes 23 states and the District of Columbia), the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact, the Interstate Corrections Compact, the Mutual Aid Compact, the Great Lakes Basin Compact, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (a two-state compact), and the Multi-State Lottery Compact (which operates the Power Ball lotto game in 21 states). Some compacts include all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Interstate compacts existed under the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution explicitly continued compacts that were in existence when the Constitution came into force.
Interstate compacts are legally enforceable on the states because the U.S. Constitution requires a state to honor all commitments that it makes in an interstate compact. The Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides:
“No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”
The Council of State Governments summarizes the nature of interstate compacts as follows:
“Compacts are agreements between two or more states that bind them to the compacts’ provisions, just as a contract binds two or more parties in a business deal. As such, compacts are subject to the substantive principles of contract law and are protected by the constitutional prohibition against laws that impair the obligations of contracts (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10).
“That means that compacting states are bound to observe the terms of their agreements, even if those terms are inconsistent with other state laws. In short, compacts between states are somewhat like treaties between nations. Compacts have the force and effect of statutory law (whether enacted by statute or not) and they take precedence over conflicting state laws, regardless of when those laws are enacted.
“However, unlike treaties, compacts are not dependent solely upon the good will of the parties. Once enacted, compacts may not be unilaterally renounced by a member state, except as provided by the compacts themselves. Moreover, Congress and the courts can compel compliance with the terms of interstate compacts.”