Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Ballot’ Category

My experience at the DMV

Monday, September 17, 2018, 7:23 pm | Randy Thomasson

Have you been frustrated by the DMV too?

I tried to save time by scheduling an appointment. I even chose a DMV office in a conservative town for their perceived efficiency and fewer crowds. And I got there early. But it still took more than an hour.

The computer terminal they had me stand at to fill out an application asked me if I intended to drive a “housecar or trailer” and showed me a drawing of a little teardrop camper. I thought, well I might rent a U-Haul trailer in the future, so I checked the box. But later I was told this option was only for trailers over forty feet long, and they had to manually correct my application. But why didn’t the computer tell me that or show me a long trailer instead?

When I finished the application, a confirmation code appeared on the screen. Just to be safe, I wrote it down. Later the person processing my documents she hoped I wrote down my confirmation code. I said it’s good that I wrote it down, but they need to post a note for people to do that and put post-it notes for them to write it out. The DMV lady said those were good ideas, but that she didn’t have the power to change anything.

The most frustrating thing for me was that, while completing the computer-based application, I was asked if I wanted to register to vote and was informed that the only way not to register to vote today was to check the box declaring that I wasn’t a U.S. citizen. Shocked, I still checked that box, since I was already registered to vote. Later, at the window with a live person, I say I AM a citizen and they corrected my application. How lame was this?

I should also mention the large walls above our heads and running the length of the entire, big room were completely blank. Is there any virtue in this? There were no signs directing people to the computers to fill out their applications. And there were no signs directing us where to go afterwards. Ironically, there were large TV screens running paid, DMV-approved commercials! So communication is important if advertisers say so and the DMV says so, but not if customers need something to be clear, instead of frustrating.

After standing in one DMV line to ask where I should go next, I walked over and stood in another line next to a refined, older woman. I complained about the DMV, then she did too. I told her if I were in charge, I’d reward the good staffers and fire the bad ones. She said she agreed, and we laughed about it, both knowing it’ll never happen.

There were several other errors and miscommunications that took place during my DMV visit:

The lack of good employee standards meant DMV staffer mistakes that I had to correct. Such as trying to charge me more than what my appointment was for.

I also saw employees wasting time for minutes on end, doing nothing, just playing with their smartphones.

Meanwhile, on the back wall, the large photograph of California’s top Democrat, Jerry Brown, saw everything but did nothing.

My visit to the DMV reminded me that putting the government in charge of something usually means substandard service. And if government employees can unionize, then the pro-union laws have a tendency of making government offices slow and self-serving. For example, the privately-run Federal Express exhibits efficiency that puts to shame the government-run DMV.

And just today, I was reminded that the ruling Democrat politicians and their DMV are thieves. When canceling my automobile insurance after finding a better deal elsewhere, I was informed that, upon cancellation, I was being charged a $2 “special purpose assessment.” When I complained, the insurance carrier explained, “This is a surcharge collected by the state of California… we do not have more explanation on this surcharge.” When I searched the California DMV website, I discovered what I suspected — it just another tax permitting the wasteful, Democrat-controlled government to take — via “nickel and dime” — more money from We the People.

All of this has added to why I’m voting YES on Proposition 6 this November to repeal the Democrat politicians’ 2017 unnecessary and corrupt gas tax and DMV fee hikes. Please join me in getting a righteous return of California families’ hard-earned money and sending a message to the ruling Democrats that we recognize and reject their thievery.

“[I]f the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.”
Noah Webster, “Schoolmaster to America” (1758-1843)

Unconstitutional State Supreme Court kills ‘3 Californias’

Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 4:32 pm | Randy Thomasson

It’s in-your-face tyranny from judicial activists on the California Supreme Court. They’ve again abused their limited power by REMOVING the “3 Californias” initiative (Proposition 9) from the November 6 ballot. This is despite the California State Constitution’s foundational declaration that:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

There is NOTHING in California state law permitting the California Supreme Court to remove an initiative for any reason. And there is no law in the California Constitution or California statutes that gives any court carte blanche to strike propositions it doesn’t like from the ballot.

Consider that:

  • “3 Californias” has not failed to meet the procedural requirements to qualify for the ballot
  • “3 Californias” does not conflict with the federal or state constitution, or a federal statute
  • “3 Californias” does not violate any constitutional provision or statute, such as the rule requiring initiatives to encompass a single subject

Here’s the California Supreme Court’s lame, make-it-up-as-you-go explanation, posted on their site:

Because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity, and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election, respondent Alex Padilla, as Secretary of State of the State of California, is directed to refrain from placing Proposition 9 on the November 6, 2018, ballot.

As usual, the big media is singing the same song and reporting it wrong. At issue is Article 18 of the California Constitution, concerning “Amending and Revising the Constitution.” In 1970, this article was changed from ONLY THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE having power to place such initiatives on the ballot, to ALSO RECOGNIZING THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO DO SO, inserting the words, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” (See Prop. 16 on the 1970 ballot: https://bit.ly/2JMLmqX).

Therefore, it was unconstitutional for the California Supreme Court to suggest that the People’s initiative to revise (or nullify) the California Constitution (Prop. 9 on the November 2018 ballot, known as “3 Californias”) somehow lacked “validity” — especially in light of the California State Constitution’s Article 2 (REAFFIRMED IN 1976), which declares “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

What’s more, former Supreme Court Judge Marvin Baxter (one of the last constitutional ones), wrote in 1993: “Although the legislative power under our state Constitution is vested in the Legislature, ‘the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.’ (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.) Accordingly, the initiative power must be liberally construed to promote the democratic process. (Raven v. Deukmejian [(1990) 52 Cal. 3d 336,] 341 [276 [6 Cal. 4th 721] Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077].)

“Indeed, it is our solemn duty to jealously guard the precious initiative power, and to resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of its exercise. (Ibid., and cases cited.) As with statutes adopted by the Legislature, all presumptions favor the validity of initiative measures and mere doubts as to validity are insufficient; such measures must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.” (https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/6/707.html)

So why did the California Supreme Court go against the People? Was it to satisfy the environmental activists who had sued to protect their statewide laws burdening businesses and jobs from being “non-applicable” in three “Californias”? This ruling by the state high court’s 6 current judges is a severe miscarriage of justice.

ACTION: Please expose this tyrannical act against the People on news sites and your social networking.

Voter revolt: 3 big propositions on your November ballot

Friday, July 13, 2018, 7:34 am | Randy Thomasson

I was hoping for 5 big, good propositions on California’s November 2018 ballot, but I’ll take 3.

Sadly, not making the deadline to qualify is a very good initiative to crack down on crime, especially by restricting which convicted criminals are eligible for “early release.” However, the “Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act” has qualified extra early for the November 2020 ballot. So please plan to vote yes in two years.

Also not on the ballot (despite qualifying for it) is a much-needed initiative to protect family finances by greatly strengthening the two-thirds’ vote requirement for taxes to be raised. This fantastic proposition would have also defined new fees as new taxes, stopping this deceptive theft by big-government “pimps and prostitutes.”

So why isn’t this good initiative on this year’s ballot? It was withdrawn before final certification. One of the backers told me their coalition just didn’t want it on this year’s ballot (and I don’t know why). Nonetheless, please join me in hoping that fiscally conservative interests will bring it back in 2020.

So what’s worth voting for on the November 2018 ballot? Here are the 3 big, good propositions that have officially qualified, which California families should like:

PROPOSITION 5: Keep pro-family people in California by allowing homeowners 55 and older to buy a different primary residence anywhere in the state without triggering higher property taxes. You can stop the tax code from both penalizing home sellers and discouraging the number of available houses.

PROPOSITION 6: Get ready to save your family or business money by repealing the unnecessary and corrupt gas tax hike and DMV fee hikes of the Democrats and Jerry Brown. With unreasonably high gas prices, you can roll back the liberal politicians’ 2017 money grab that have made California’s gas prices the highest in the contiguous 48 states.

PROPOSITION 9: Finally, you can firmly tell the Democrat power structure that you are dissatisfied with how they’ve ruined many things in California. You can cast a powerful symbolic vote (non-effective unless Congress approves it — which it highly unlikely) to rebuke the existing “rulers” of California state government. The specific reform demand is for California to be divided into 3 new states that have the power to make their own rules and ignore all the bad laws of the Democrat-controlled California State Legislature from the last several decades. Most people don’t understand this initiative yet, or recognize how everything bad in California can be placed at the feet of the ruling Democrat politicians, who’ve controlled the State Legislature more than 50 years. But if you want to send an unmistakable message that the current California government is unacceptable, please vote yes on Prop. 9 to fire another shot that’ll be “heard around the world.”

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,
and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President