< PREVIOUS ] [ 1994 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Most of the commentary concerning Amendment 12, Doug Bruce's latest effort to empower mere citizens like himself, has been negative. Nobody has mentioned anything positive.
But if you're of the right frame of mind, there are silver linings in this cloud.
For instance, Amendment 12 greatly simplifies petitions.
As it is, I'm never sure how to sign one because I can't
remember how I'm registered to vote. I could be a mere
Ed Quillen
on the county clerk's list. I might also
be Edward K. Quillen,
Edward Kenneth Quillen,
III,
or some variant thereof.
Nor can I remember whether the zip code is part of my
legal address. Or whether my street is just Teller
or a full Teller Street.
I know full well that if one jot or tittle is out of place, Natalie Meyer will throw out my signature. So what's the point of signing?
But if Amendment 12 passes, I can scribble almost anything. To simplify matters more, somebody else can scribble something that looks like my name and address. The petition will probably still pass muster, since the challenger, rather than the petitioner, will have the burden of proof. Challenging a petition, even if all the signatures are in the same handwriting, would become quite expensive and time-consuming.
This means that we won't be harassed by petition-bearers while going about our business. This should make all of us happier and more productive.
If some promoters need signatures for a noble public purpose like arranging a constitutional monopoly on gambling in a town that doesn't want casinos, they won't have to hire flunkies to stand out in bad weather, importuning passers-by. Instead, they can just sit at home with a phone book and fabricate all the signatures they need.
There are many other ways in which Amendment 12 would simplify our lives. Supposed you're hauled into court.
As it is, you've got to hire a lawyer and construct a defense, and even then, the judge might rule against you. Since judges now serve six-year terms, you might have to wait four or five years to mount a campaign to remove that tyrant from office.
But if Amendment 12 passes, you could start a recall drive any time. If you're a good organizer (or good at forging signatures on petitions), any judge facing you would know that he was also facing a threat to his position.
What an excellent way to keep our arrogant judiciary in line. If it were in place in California now, then O.J. Simpson wouldn't have to hire a formidable team of lawyers to question the validity of the evidence the prosecution wants to present. Instead, there'd be a petition hanging over the head of Judge Lance Ito, and he'd know that unless rules for the defense, he'll be a mere private citizen.
You tell me which is simpler and easier for the average person: put signatures on a recall petition aimed at the judge, or hire expensive attorneys to persuade the judge with arguments based on precedents, statutes and logic. To ask that question is to answer it, and so the courts would become more responsive.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of Amendment 12 lies its treatment of public officials. Currently, if you file a suit against, say, the local school board on account of a decision you don't like, then the board can use public money to defend itself.
Amendment 12 bans this practice. Under it, a public official must use her own funds to defend against lawsuits that arise in the course of her official actions.
Given that lawsuits are generally expensive, then a public official might have to sell her house, car, portfolio, business, etc., just because she voted on some minor sewer-rate change that offended a citizen with the means to file a suit.
I already know one candidate, a fellow running for
county commissioner here, who says he'll resign on election
night if he is elected and Amendment 12 passes. I
couldn't afford to be in office if it could cost me my home
and business,
he said, and it would, if the county
attorney couldn't defend the commissioners on lawsuits
based on county actions.
This consequence of Amendment 12 should make our governments more representative. No one with anything to lose -- no one who owns a house or a car or anything to which a lien might be attached -- would dare seek public office if it passed.
Thus our legislature, county commissions, school boards, etc., would be filled with people who don't own anything. These people--homeless derelicts, college students, panhandlers--are very under-represented now in government, where most office-holders now are people of some means.
After Amendment 12, we'd no longer be governed by millionaires. You could probably get a chunk of the Romer or Benson portfolio just by threatening a suit, and getting a settlement, whenever the governor displeased you.
Douglas Bruce is often portrayed as a megalomaniac slumlord. But when you look closely at his Amendment 12, he's actually a big-time liberal, working hard for income redistribution as he insures that only the poor will dare hold public office.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1994 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >