Judge rebukes unions' attack on voting rights

Voters in California's second- and third-largest cities (San Diego and San Jose) overwhelmingly approved serious pension reform with surprisingly little union opposition in the June primary. The unions knew that reform would pass, even in two cities with Democratic voter and council majorities, so they have focused their attention on legal and bureaucratic efforts to halt these measures. The union lawsuit against the San Jose Measure B is still winding its way through the courts. In San Diego, reformers won the first battle as a superior court judge refused to block implementation of the reform while other courts sort through the issues. Specifically, the unions had appealed to a state board dominated by union supporters, which wanted to halt implementation while it held a sham hearing to determine whether the election was an unfair labor practice. The unions argued that the entire election was a sham -- that city voters were being unduly influenced by the mayor.

City attorney Jan Goldsmith detailed the way the union approach is an assault on voters' constitutional rights. As Goldsmith argued:

Rather than attack the substance of Proposition B, they came up with a new legal theory. They argue that Proposition B is not really a citizen initiative, but is a "sham" initiative placed on the ballot by "straw men" acting for San Diego's mayor who supported and campaigned for the measure. Because it's a "sham" initiative, they argue, it should be treated as a city-sponsored measure that required bargaining with its labor unions before adoption.
Citizen initiatives have been around for over 100 years. Yet never before has any initiative that qualified for the ballot through petition signatures been deemed a "sham" citizen initiative. Governors (including Jerry Brown on his current tax initiative), mayors and other political leaders have regularly supported citizen initiatives and never has that support rendered those citizen initiatives "shams."

Goldsmith is correct. This is a reminder of the lengths to which these unions will go to protect their privileges and payouts. They don't mind undermining the right to vote even as they chatter about the supposedly sacred right to collective bargaining.

Judge rebukes unions' attack on voting rights

Categories:

Tags:

No TrackBacks

Join the conversation