Slashdot Mirror
Why a Theoretical Physicist Wants All State Bills To Be Online Before Final Vote (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Among a slew on ballot propositions that Californians will be asked to consider on Election Day (Nov. 8) is Proposition 54, a proposed constitutional amendment that seems like a no-brainer. If passed, the law would require that the final text of all proposed legislation be published on the Internet for 72 hours before lawmakers can conduct a final vote. Typically, the text of bills in California is put online as it goes through the committee and voting process, but sometimes those bills can change at the last minute. Accessing those changes isn't always easy. The initiative, which seems all-but-certain to pass, has massive support from Charles T. Munger, Jr., the son of billionaire Charles Munger. The younger Munger, an experimental physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and a longtime Republican activist, has donated over $10.6 million to the "Yes on Prop. 54" campaign. The effort supporting the opposing view has taken in just over $27,000. Proposition 54 would also force the Assembly and State Senate to allow the public to record meetings as well, which could potentially be used in political advertising. So why would anyone oppose the bill? According to Steven Maviglio, the director of Californians for an Effective Legislature, a campaign committee formed to oppose Proposition 54. It all comes down to who is behind the initiative, and why. "The first thing you need to do is follow the money," he told Ars, pointing us to Munger, Jr. "He's been the top contributor to the California Republican Party. His goal is to disrupt the power of a legislature that's getting things done."
I think there should be a requirement that all bills are read aloud in full before the legislative body that is to vote on them. At the very least, it ensures that all present are aware of the contents. It also has the nice side effect of keeping legislation concise and likely ends bundling various thing together that have nothing to do with each other.
What I would love to see is laws being tracked in version control. The text of congressional bills are large and people can easily slip in minor changes with major impact. There is no real tracking of who edited a bills text and version control would provide that transparency.
Beats having people acting shocked with something is added at changes added at the last minute.
On the other hand, there are a good number of things I can think of where a 72 hour waiting period might be inappropriate such as disaster relief and other time sensitive bills typically handled swiftly by all parties involved.
Th categories that require an immediate response usually do not require an immediate vote. Things like grounding planes, mobilizing troops, deploying national guard to a disaster, etc.. are usually authorized by the governor and/or president without the consent of a legislative body. Declaring war and additional funding is done by the legislatures but a 72 hour freeze isn't going to really have much effect on that.
It annoys me that the summary decided that it is a bad law solely by the side funding it. A law should be decided on its merits and in this case, I think this is a good law. I also think things like picture ids for voting, background checks for buying guns, and plenty of other things which are sensible laws should not be immediately rejected just because the other side wants it. That's why we have the current stalemate that we currently have.
I don't know about California state legislation, but Federal bills are literally unreadable. You'd need a staff of dozens, all experienced in the subject matter, studying the bill to have a chance of understanding it within 72 hours.
And this is absolutely insane. We have members of congress regularly voting on bill that they themselves haven't read and don't understand. How can anyone think this is acceptable?
"Something MUST be done!"
"Well, THIS is something..."
"Then we must do it!"
Yes, the criticism is a true ad hominem: this person supporting the idea is "bad", therefore the idea itself is bad.
And then require that every law on the books be read aloud once every 6 years or the law expires.
I've been advocating law experation without renewal for years. It forces elected legislatures to review previous generations' laws for problems and continued validity.
It also recognizes the lower weight assigned to simple majority decisions (as opposed to supermajorities).
If there is too much for the government to do even a cursory review every 5 years, there's too much to expect The People to obey it all.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.