Comments on: Democrats’ congressional wins delay supermajority

By: CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:15:39 +0000

Mr. Mathews: According to Dan Walters, “The votes might be there when the two vacant Senate seats are filled, but if even one Democratic Assembly member moves up to the Senate, it would suspend the party’s supermajority in that house until the vacancy is filled by another special election.

“Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Curren Price is almost certain to resign from the Senate by June to take a seat on the Los Angeles City Council, which would spark another special election. If it were to be won by a Democratic Assembly member, there would be still another Assembly vacancy.”

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/26/5010029/dan-walters-democratic-power-in.html#mi_rss=Dan%20Walters#storylink=cpy

— John Seiler

By: Richard M. Mathews

Richard M. Mathews — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:31:21 +0000

This article is wrong and should be retracted.

Even ignoring Galgiani’s come-from-behind win, we would have had a Senate split of 28-12. Creating two vacancies makes that 26-12. While 26 is not two-thirds of 40, it is two-thirds of 38. Vacancies do not count because votes are based on “two thirds of the membership.” Adding Galgiani, makes it 27-11, or 71%.

The same happens in the Assembly. The margin at the beginning of the term will be 54-26. If Democrats were to lose two Assembly members, say to having them fill the Senate seats, it would be 52-26 until the vacancies are filled. That leave Democrats with exactly two-thirds of the remaining membership of 78. On the other hand, if one of those hypothetical Assembly members were replaced by Republicans, only then would there not be a two-thirds super-majority. Since Hueso’s seat is heavily Democratic and other current Assembly members in those regions are not likely to move up, the Democratic super majority appears safe for the foreseeable future.

By: Rex the Wonder Dog!

Rex the Wonder Dog! — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 03:58:53 +0000

I wonder if any other state has a super majority????

I know only a few have the 2/3’s majority to raise taxes.

By: Skeptical

Skeptical — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:40:59 +0000

The supermajority means that the social progessives in Sacramento with no restrictions OWN THE STATE FISCAL MESS IN TOTAL and have ABSOLUTELY NO PROTECTION from voter/taxpayer backlash if and when tax increases are shoved down the California taxpayers throats. Progressives have stonewalled the acceptance of fiscal responsibility, or any efforts to scale back the 369 department bureaucracy they have created. I might add pension-expensive bureaucracy that ends up micromanaging as wide a range of individual daily-life concerns as it can.
When the resident voters and tax payers, who assumed they only have prospects of paying state debt in their personal financial future, realize the entitlement gimmies are not free and will be paid by them, their reaction should be swift.
Once again, MONEY DOES NOT CARE!
Martial law and emergency-driven dictotorships dont work when the citizenry is armed either.

Watching a jackass ride the tiger seems unavoidable, and could be entertaining but for the tragic possibilities.

By: Michael Warnken

Michael Warnken — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 23:45:56 +0000

Having one party making all the decisions is daunting. Politics generally does not know restraint!