| Folks. Get your brain around this petition drive  And we designed the site, to boot.
If the legislature approves a new tax shouldn't the people get to vote on it? Well, by amending the referendum section of the the Constitution (with a petition drive utilizing the amendment process), one could adopt language requiring an "automatic referendum" in cases where taxes are raised, and indeed, a referendum for this past tax increase. Emergency situations where a tax increase was necessary would not be stopped by this drive - the referendum would only kick in at the next November election (or a special election for these past increases), and if the people voted no the tax increased would be repealed by year end. This concept is essentially filling the hole in Headlee left by the courts interpretation of which taxes didn't qualify under the Headlee voting requirements (meaning that Headlee has far more impact on local millages than on state taxes). But this is not Stop Over Spending (failed 2006 initiative that would have capped state spending) and not TABOR (taxpayer bill of rights) - - in true emergencies, legislators could raise taxes. And even if a populace voted them down a year or more later the interim might be justified, or the legislature could pass tax increases again in the next cycle (though it would do so at its own trepidation if it merely copied a previously rejected tax without additional reforms). And the legislature can justify those tax increases and defend them at the ballot box. So their is a flexibility here that makes the case against an automatic referendum giving the people a choice on tax increases that similarly styled drives do not have. |
