Would like to see some opinions on Proposition 50. Both the Democratic party

[still_one]

and League of Women's Voters endorse a yes vote.

As I understand it, the proposition allows the legislature to suspend a member while under investigation for criminal acts without pay. I am inclined to vote against this because it seems to violate due process, that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Any thoughts?

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. We are not sending members to jail, we are not removing them form office, we are not declaring them

guilty. It does stop them from legislating while under investigation. Having a Member of the Assembly or State Senate under criminal investigation is, to me, a conflict of interest between the work of he people and the members job. Because a 2/3rds majority is needed to suspend, I doubt this will ever be used except in the most extreme example.
I tend to support this. I am not sure it really means anything in the long run. A 2/3rds majority is a high hurdle to cross.

[still_one]

3. yes, that is pretty much the text of the proposition. What bothers me is suspension without pay

while someone is under a criminal investigation. What if it turns out that the criminal investigation demonstrated no wrong doing?

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. The forfeiture of pay and benefits is not mandatory.

[div class="excerpt"[link:https://ballotpedia.org/California_Suspension_of_Legislators_Amendment_(2016),_Full_Text_of_Constitutional_Changes|]California Suspension of Legislators Amendment (2016), Full Text of Constitutional Changes]
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the house may deem the salary and benefits of the Member to be forfeited for all or part of the period of the suspension by express provision of the motion or resolution.
The use of "may" means that when the motion is written, they will decide whether or not to forfeit pay.

The way the ballot description is written implies forfeiture. The actual change to the constitution gives Congress the power but does not require the loss of pay.

“
Authorizes each house of Legislature to suspend one of its Members by two-thirds vote, and to require Member to forfeit salary and benefits while suspended.
Prohibits suspended Member from exercising rights, privileges, duties, or powers of office, or using any legislative resources.
Provides suspension may end on specified date, or upon two-thirds vote of Member's house.[3]
”

[still_one]

6. Appreciate you thoughts on this. I am still thinking about it, balancing the pluses and minuses

[KamaAina]

2. It doesn't seem to spell out the procedure to be used for such a suspension.

Raising due process concerns, indeed.

[still_one]

4. They say it would require a 2/3 vote, and even though that is a higher standard than a simple

majority, it still endeavors to punish someone for being accused of wrong doing, and not necessarily guilty of that wrong doing.

I have no idea what the polls say regarding this proposition, but I sense it will probably win, because it implies getting "corrupt" legislatures out of office, and that seems like a pretty populous position

[NV Whino]

7. I'm leaning toward voting against this

Currently it's a simple majority and suspend with pay. 50 would require 2/3 majority and suspend without pay. Neither allow the person to participate in legislation while on suspension, which means the people are not represented.

Personally, I think they both suck. I'd rather defeat it, and come up with a better solution next time.

[IndyJones]

8. I agree.

It seems to circumvent appropriate due process. If the person is that bad, they need to speed the process of investigating. This might make it drag on longer than necessary for closure of any investigation.

[Tikki]

9. Let's say a legislator is suspended/removed and their pay ended at that point...what if it is....

proven that the legislator was only suspended/removed from office for political reasons and can prove it in court?

We may now have to make up all lost salary and maybe damages.

Could get expensive for the State's tax-payers.


Tikki

[still_one]

10. Good point. Even if it wasn't for political reasons, and it turns out the suspended person was

innocent of any wrong doing, there are definite damages involved for something that did not go through the court system when the suspension was issued, based on "suspicion"?