Capitol building in California
Aging
Political leaders in California and Texas have negotiated Barbs this week on the comparative justice of their Congress maps. While most media focus on the political consequences of the spit on redistribution, the recently introduced legislation in both states underlines the confrontations of Lone Star and Golden States in policy -making.
California’s legislators are considering legislation that would find it difficult for voters to have access to basic but important voting measures that will allow higher taxes or new costs. The Bill 699 of the Assembly, admitted by the Catherine Stefani (D) meeting, will allow voting measures that increase taxes or approve new debt liabilities to appear in the vote without recording the proposed interest rates, taxpayers’ costs and other basic details.
“It allows the estimation, percentage and duration of the tax that must be reduced by the question of voting for all bond measures,” Marc Jofffe, president of the Contra Costa County TaxPayers Association and a senior partner at the California Policy Center, wrote for AB 699 in a position of X.
The purpose of AB 699, Joffe added, is to “hide the cost of voters” measures. ” The AB 699 provides another example of opposing approaches to the governance taken by the legislators of California and Texas. While California’s legislators are promoting legislation to reduce the amount of information available to voters on the proposed tax and bond measures, Texas legislators voted to do the opposite this year.
During the regular Synod of the Texas Legislative Corps that ran from January to June, Texas Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) introduced the Senate 414 bill, the laws that would require bonds appearing in the votes in Obligation of the total debt they are called upon to approve, not just the main amount of the loan. The SB 414 will impose that all bond measures appear in the vote with the language that also inform voters about the total cost of interest that taxpayers should pay.
As Texans noted for fiscal liability for SB 414, the reform defended by Senator Middleton “promotes honesty, reduces waste and helps prevent unnecessary debts and tax hikes”. The objective and impact of the Senator Middleton’s proposal is in contrast to the Stefani representative’s bill in Sacramento, which would deprive voters with the necessary information on voting proposals in an effort to facilitate the authorization of new debt and higher taxes.
As TFR explained, SB 414 “makes the local bond election more transparent, demanding ballots to show the full cost of debt – including interest – and not just the Lord.” A spokesman for the Stefani bill would, on the other hand, make the local bond election less transparent, allowing proposed bond measures in the vote without disclosing the costs that taxpayers will be borne by.
As TFR explained to their communication By calling on Texas’s legislators to support SB 414, it is more than just to force the disclosure of total debt and related costs, the SB 414 “also reports a voter information document that shows how much debt is already in and estimated by the local government and estimates 100,000 taxes.
The proposal by Senator Middleton, as TFR notes, gives Texas taxpayers more than the “tools they need to make documented decisions”. The proposal by representative Stefani, meanwhile, will deprive Californians the tools and information they need to make documented decisions.
By demanding the language of the bond measures to inform voters not only of the capital that will borrow, but also the cost of interest that taxpayers, legislators and rulers will also have to return the truth in advertising votes. Critics argue that such a requirement will make bond measures more difficult to transfer. However, if they deprive the voters of the relevant information, they are intra -lucrative to cross a bond proposal, this says nothing good about the proposal or those who support.
A state order that bond measures reveal the cost of interest will ensure that voters are provided complete information on the borrowing they are asked to consent. In Texas, legislators acknowledge that they could become even more to improve the bond proposal and approval by maximizing the share of voters they can decide.
Improving the democratic process for initiatives and referendums
While the SB 414 is about increasing the available information on voters, another bill being considered in Texas this year, the Senate 1209 bill, aims to increase the number of voters who decide the fate of bond measures. The SB 1209, introduced by Senator Bryan Hughes (R), requires bond measures seeking to allow the new public debt to display the November general electoral vote.
Local government officials in Texas seeking to take more public debt are now allowed to place bond measures in November’s general electoral vote or in the primary May vote. Supporters of SB 1209 point out that when a meter of bonds appear in Spring, a small share of the electorate is able to seize the whole community with new debt obligations. James Quintero, Director of Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, points out documented low turnout In the local elections throughout Texas, the past can prove the need for SB 1209.
“In some of the largest, most expensive Texas bond election, voters’ turnout was anemic, which means that a small fraction of Texans forced each of their neighbors to new debt and higher taxes,” Quintero noted. “This is not a good way to make big, important decisions.”
“Bond elections are better decided when the largest number of voters are involved in the decision -making process,” Quintero added. “Something so obvious should ask local governments to limit their bond elections to the uniform election date in November – and that’s it.”
A small strip of a community that has the potential to allow new debt liabilities for which all taxpayers are in Angistro is a problem that is not limited to Texas. In fact, it is on the screen right now in the most densely populated county of North Carolina.
Next week on August 8, Mecklenburg County will meet to discuss a proposal to refer a local increase in tax sales in November. The North Carolina General Assembly granted that the new tax authority in Mecklenburg County with the recent passage of Pave law. The review of the recent election is emphasized how North Carolina’s legislators could increase the number of voters who decide from many multiple, if the Pave law required local officials to place the proposed increase in tax sales.
In the General Elections of 2024, 580,321 voters published ballots in Mecklenburg, almost five times the 120,662 residents of Mecklenburg County who voted in November 2023, in the last elections of the last year. In the odd year general elections before this, in November 2021, only 120,040 Mecklenburg County voters went to the polls. Meanwhile, 569,999 voters proved in November 2020.
North Carolina legislators who want to maximize the number of Northern Carolines who decide expensive voting proposals could mimic a modified version of the Senator Hughes proposal, proposing state legislation that forces all local tax measures. Mecklenburg County Commissioners could significantly extend the share of the electorate voting for the proposed sales tax increase, referring to vote in November 2026 and not in 2025, but do not expect them to indicate that when they meet next week.
