California: Assembly 'Expunges' vote on revenue generating legislation

[Patranus]

Don't bother looking for the California Assembly's roll-call record of one of the most contentious issues of the budget revisions: the plan to open new offshore oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast for the first time in 40 years. It's not there.

The July 24 vote on AB23 (28 yes, 43 no, 8 not voting) has been officially expunged - erased as if it never happened.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...9/08/02/ED7E192A9L.DTL

Found this on my assemblywoman's web site

By large margins, AD14's preferred approach was to protect our schools, social services and other state programs with new revenue rather than cuts. But with every Republican legislator refusing to support new revenue and California requiring a two-thirds vote to pass a budget and increase taxes our preferred path was not available.

I know this is a local (California) issue but it is a big deal as it removes all accountability from the political process.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good, it's the voting record that keeps politicians from voting their conscience and getting all this bad legislation. See how easy it was to vote properly when it's secret?

 

[Rekonn]

Wow, totally agree with the article, expunging the record is wrong and stupid. On a side note, I live in CA and would have been happy to get the extra revenue that new oil drilling would have brought. Too bad that motion failed.

 

[Craig234]

FWIW, I was unaware of the practices the article mentioned and called my Assembliy Representative to ask her to put in a reform vote to end the practices where legislators are allowed to add or change their votes after the voting has finished, and the record doesn't show that.

Sorry righties, her legislation assistant is also calling me tomorrow to discuss the need to change the 2/3 voting requirements that give Republicans veto power on budgets.

 

[Rekonn]

What's the process for changing the 2/3 majority for passing budgets? Would that appear as another proposition at the next election?

 

[HappyPuppy]

I like the 2/3 requirement. Why should legislation pass with a 50% + 1 vote? That means that 'almost' 50% were opposed and we all know that politicians vote for their wallet ane reelection.

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Sorry righties, her legislation assistant is also calling me tomorrow to discuss the need to change the 2/3 voting requirements that give Republicans veto power on budgets.

Sorry lefty, your not getting rid of the 2/3rd requirement. It would require a constitutional amendment to change and no way in hell would the voters of this state allow it to be changed. (just look at there recent killing of new taxes during the last election).

Your going to have to find some other way to screw over the working class in this state.