Jerry H. Goldfeder, in his December 17, 2018 letter, says it would be “a creative measure to have the winner of the popular vote actually be elected president.”
National Popular Vote envisages a compact, an agreement, among the states to cast their elector ballots for the national popular vote winner, regardless of how the people of their respective states voted. It would take effect when states with a majority of elector votes join NPV, 270 including the District of Columbia’s three elector votes.
There are at least 17 reasons why NPV is unlikely to work.
Only roughly half the states purport to bind electors to vote in accordance with their own state’s popular vote. A state law that purports to bind its electors to vote even in accordance with itsown popular vote, let alone the nation’s, may be unconstitutional under Ray v. Blair.
Could an NPV state elector force a colleague to vote in accordance with NPV? No elector voting enforcement mechanism is provided by NPV.
Could an NPV state sue a withdrawing NPV state or its electors to vote in accordance with NPV? Where? When? How quickly?
Democratic leaders voted to file a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration, a move they hope will block the billions in funding he’s accessed for border wall construction.
“The President’s sham emergency declaration and unlawful transfers of funds have undermined our democracy, contravening the vote of the bipartisan Congress, the will of the American people and the letter of the Constitution,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a Thursday statement following the vote.
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a five-member board that controls the House of Representatives’ general counsel, voted 3-2 on Thursday to authorize a lawsuit against Trump’s emergency declaration. The lawsuit claims the president violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, which gives lawmakers in Congress the authority to control funding measures.
The vote fell strictly along party lines, with Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn voting for it, and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise voting against it.
“The President’s action clearly violates the Appropriations Clause by stealing from appropriated funds, an action that was not authorized by constitutional or statutory authority,” Pelosi continued in her statement. “Congress, as Article I — the first branch, co-equal to the other branches — must reassert its exclusive responsibilities reserved by the text of the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances.”
This isn’t the first time congressional Democrats have tried to block the emergency declaration, nor is it the first lawsuit.
Both chambers of Congress, with the help of some GOP support, were able to pass a resolution that condemned Trump’s emergency crisis. However, in the first veto of his presidency, he struck it down. Lawmakers were not able to obtain a two-thirds majority in Congress to override the veto.
New iron fence on the border between Mexico and the United States in Texas
After accepting the $1.375 billion in funds Congress appropriated for border wall construction in February, Trump declared an emergency, authorizing billions more in funding from the military’s budget. The Pentagon has already authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to shift $1 billion to the border wall.
When he originally made his crisis declaration, Trump predicted it would face a lawsuit that would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.
“We will have a national emergency, and then we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there,” the president said in February. “And we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling. And then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully, we’ll get a fair shake.”
A California coroner’s jury decided late Thursday that a lesbian couple killed themselves and their six adopted children by driving off a cliff in March 2018.
After a Wednesday coroner’s inquest, the jury found Jennifer and Sarah Hart killed themselves and murdered their family March 26, 2018, when they drove off a cliff in Mendocino County, The Associated Press reported.
Their six adopted children, ages 12 to 19, all died in the crash.
Authorities opened an investigation into the couple’s alleged mistreatment of their children just days before the fatal crash, sending social workers to the house March 23, according to the AP. The Harts left their home in Woodland, Washington, and drove to northern California, where they died.
Records recovered from Sarah Hart’s phone show deleted searches about suicide, Benadryl dosage methods, and whether drowning is painful, according to California Highway Patrol investigator Jake Slates.
After recovering the family’s bodies, authorities determined Sarah Hart had toxic levels of Benadryl in her body, according to Mendocino County Sheriff Deputy Robert Julian. Jennifer Hart also had a blood alcohol level over the legal driving limit, Slates said.
The children had large amounts of sleep-inducing drugs in their bodies, Slates also said.
“They both decided that this was going to be the end,” Slates said. “That if they can’t have their kids that nobody was going to have those kids.”
This morning, we expect to learn concluding details in the nearly yearlong investigetion into the #HartFamily SUV crash off a cliff in Northern California. @MendoSheriff says a coroner’s report being presented today will offer answers on the circumstances of the crash & deaths. pic.twitter.com/y34Onlq7V0
“It is my belief that both Jennifer and Sarah succumbed to a lot of pressure,” sheriff’s Lt. Shannon Barney said, the AP reported. “Just a lot of stuff going on in their lives, to the point where they made this conscious decision to end their lives this way and take their children’s lives.”
The suicide-murder comes after a neighbor filed a complaint alleging the Harts deprived their adopted children from eating as a form of punishment.
Sarah Hart pleaded guilty to spanking one of the children in a 2011 domestic assault charge case. Child welfare authorities also investigated the couple in 2013, but did not pursue a case against them, according to the AP.
Let parents parent. Let school board members serve, not bully.
Faced with school policies that they do not like, parents choose the best school for their children. Parents have already pulled 22% of students out of district public schools and put them in private schools, home-schooled or fled the district. Do we need more proof that parents prefer CHOICE over school board bullying?
The previous school board gave parents a choice of books for English literature. Choice is good.
The current school board members, since the November 2018 election, Betsy Connolly, Bill Gorback, Jenny Fitzgerald and Cindy Goldberg, the grinches of CVUSD, want to restrict parental rights and choice. Lack of choice is bad.
One of the books that Connolly, Gorback, Fitzgerald and Goldberg want to force our children to read, describes in graphic horror a man violently raping his own daughter. Do we want our children to be forced to read this and similar acts of violence against women and girls? Could such violent imagery trigger a vulnerable child and tragically lead to self-harm? The current policy does not infringe on Connolly, Gorback, Fitzgerald and Goldberg’s right to choose books for their children. The district teachers also presently enjoy this benefit for their children enrolled in our schools. That is the beauty of the present policy allowing choice. The parents in the district, the rest of us, would like the same for ourselves, and that is fair, no?
The overwhelming number of students in the district have not reached 18 years of age, and are therefore they are the unarguable responsibility of their parents or guardians. The newly elected board members hardly seem to have noticed that parents have parental rights over their minor children.
Are not movies and certain establishments governed by statutory age limits with such designations as R, MA, and PG13, which require parental approval or supervision? Why strip school district parents of similar protection, or at a minimum, that courtesy?
Thanks to the previous school board members, Mike Dunn, John Andersen and Sandee Everett, we currently have a choice of books under school board policy, but Connolly, Gorback, Fitzgerald and Goldberg want to bully us out of the right to choose. Lack of choice is bad.
The issue is not books. The issue is choice. It is about the right to parent. Write to the school board in support of choice. Next school board meeting is on Tuesday, April 23.
PS The figure of 22% leaving CVUSD public schools is contained in the Thousand Oaks Citizens Survey reported by former School Superintendent Ann Bonitiatibus
Tony Dolz lives with his family in Thousand Oaks. Founder of the Concerned Parents of California; MBA – International Business; Local Business Owner; Married, Father of Two Children
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
In a hearing room inCalifornia’s capitol on Tuesday, State Senator Scott Wiener described a widespread housing crisis in stark terms. California is short about 3.5 million homes, he said, citing a McKinsey report that projected housing demand by 2025. Buying a home at the Golden State’s median price—over half a million dollars—is a fantasy for most households. Rents are soaring, homelessness is up, and displacement is refacing storied neighborhoods.
“Red or blue, all of our communities are struggling,” Wiener told an audience of lobbyists, citizens, and members of the state senate housing committee, who would later have their say about how to address the housing crisis.
As they spoke, the painted figures in a Depression-era mural depicting the state’s romanticized origins looked on. Flanked by a missionary, a prospector, a frontiersman, and a native Californian, Calafia, the Amazon goddess from whom the state supposedly gets its name, graced its spectacular and varied terrain. In the foreground, a white working-class couple, child in arms, surveyed their land of promise.
As Tuesday’s hearing made clear, rarely has California’s mythic story of opportunity seemed further from reality. From Sonoma to San Diego, the state faces a massive affordability crisis; across the political gradient, few residents disagree on that, even if they don’t see eye to eye on how to solve it. Investment in below-market-rate housing? Stronger tenant protections? Better city planning? They’re all part of the solution, said Wiener. But what California fundamentally lacks is adequate housing supply, he said, and it needs to tear down needless barriers to market rate construction.
For those that are talking with the media today, I have encapsulated my thoughts, based on 54 years of designing microwave transmitting equipment, and my many peer-reviewed papers in human biology. You may quote me on any of this:
As Thousand Oaks residents we enjoy an excellent quality of life. We can still walk the streets of our neighborhoods and chat freely with other residents we meet. Yet when I cast my mind back thirty-seven years there have been changes. For example, kids no longer play so freely in the streets, or walk unaccompanied to school.
Imagine my surprise when I heard that the Thousand Oaks City Council has just passed an ordinance which will take away that freedom of movement. It will no longer be safe for our children to walk or play on our streets, they will be exposed to cancer-causing radiation from the light-poles outside our homes. Those inside the homes will also suffer from the radiation, with increased illness ranging from burnout to cancers.
Past City Councils have fought for a balance between the right of residents to use wireless communications equipment and the need to install cell-towers to communicate with those phones. They installed safe Internet Fiber and Cable throughout the city, increasingly putting power and TV cables underground, and built enough wireless towers to ensure that all of us can get phone reception.
But some utility providers have been greedy, wanting to monopolize the market for cable and wireless communication. Previous Councils fought against that in the Courts, and although there have been losses, the penalties have been a small price for us to pay for the quality of life we currently enjoy. But I have heard that the current City Council has become scared to fight for our rights. They feel the City has paid lawyers and Courts too much, that maintaining the ability for Citizens to use our streets is less important in these days of Twitter and Facebook.
Our city Planning Division, and our Planning Commissioners, have a good track-record, yet the City Council put through this new ordinance without even running it through the Planning Commission. The Council neither gave any opportunity for Public Comment, and even people like myself, who have been in frequent contact with the planning staff, had no warning that everything was about to change. The change was solely at the will of our current Council.
Last night there was a City Council meeting, the second at which a large contingent of residents have spoken against the new ordinance. The Mayor closed the discussions with words which I will summarize as: You are welcome to keep coming every Council meeting to complain, but we are not going to change the ordinance we passed.”
At one point a speaker called for any person who was prepared to have the light-pole in front of their homes changed to a cell-tower, and not one person stood up. The very minimum due diligence that our Council should have done is to make sure that at least some residents would volunteer to go along with the ordinance and welcome the changes being forced upon us. Suppressing dissent is not the same as seeking consensus.
I have more than fifty years of experience designing the microwave transmitters, receivers and antennas that are placed on these towers. I also have many peer-reviewed publications in the medical literature (PubMed) explaining how the human body works. From an Engineering point of view I see we are being promised ten times higher wireless Internet speeds via these new “5G” towers, by the use of a new “shorter wave” pulsed-millimeter-wave transmission system.
Yet there is nothing in the ordinance to ensure that this new technology, and only this new technology, is what the Telco’s will install outside our homes
At the very least the Ordinance should state that the ONLY equipment which will be placed onto these lightpoles is the this new shorter-radiation they describe in the City’s new FAQ. At this point the new Ordinance allows ALL 3G, 4G and 5G buildout in the city to be via equipment on our light poles. Who wrote this ordinance? What other loopholes are hiding in its text?
I read what is said about not allowing the radiation closer to residences than 250 ft (the ‘setback’). Oh, wait a minute, it uses the word “preferred” not “must.” This ordinance would all be a joke if it was not a matter of life or death for some of us.
Some Thousand Oaks residents, nobody seems to know exactly how many, suffer from the disability called “Electromagnetic Sensitivity” (ES) which is recognized under the Americans With Disabilities Act (The ADA). These will have no alternative but to move home, or suicide. We have recently lost Santa Barbara resident Maria Tsondru to suicide because of ES. But before leaving us she wrote us a letter explaining why she had no choice. Those of us who still talk about “tin-foil hats’ would gain a lot by reading it.
Public Health experts accept that studies have shown increased human illness in the Kilometer (about 1000 yards) around cell-towers, and several studies have shown this effect quite clearly. So where did the ordinance’s 250 ft number come from? Who is advising our lawmakers?
The CEO of Verizon has told his shareholders that their new 5G equipment transmits over 2000 ft, and penetrating obstacles is no longer a problem. So why did our Council push for this new ordinance? Perhaps AT&T and Verizon are not the vendors doing the pushing? When I spoke at the Ventura County hearing a couple of years ago both Verizon and AT&T sent their lawyers to sit in on the hearings. Why were there no AT&T or Verizon lawyers at the two recent council meetings? Just who is pulling the strings to force this change on us?
Prof. Trevor G Marshall, ME, PhD, Director, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, Thousand Oaks, California, Fellow, European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine (Brussels), International Advisory Committee, Autoimmunity 2018, Lisbon, International Expert Council, Community of Practice Preventative Medicine (Moscow),Senior Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
AIB2B hosted an informative sex education presentation on Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at the Greater Light Missionary Baptist Church in Santa Ana.
Our events are always free of charge with an RSVP required for attendance. Dinner and beverages were provided.
About the Event: The Asian Industry B2B invited members of the business, nonprofit, religious, government, and educational communities to attend a special bilingual (Spanish and English) event that addressed the sex education issue and how it affects Santa Ana.
The event had an attendance of over 80 people from diverse backgrounds. Greater Light Missionary Baptist Church was the venue host, led by Bishop Gale Oliver and food from Califuze was served. Event sponsor was Lincoln Club Faith Committee leader, Ann Coil. The multi-cultural Santa Ana community, which included an African American church host, Latino American parents and speakers, as well as an Asian American business organization united to speak about the curriculum changes around sex education.
The event kicked off with a musical performance by the Greater Light Missionary Baptist Church choir. The program then started, which featured a discussion of the California Department of Education framework curriculum changes on sex education, which exposes middle schoolers to graphic demonstrations of contraception, and elementary schoolers and kindergarteners to the gender identity spectrum, required by law with no ability for parents to opt out.
Gracey Larrea-Van Der Mark, a Latina mother of six, conservative activist and Huntington Beach Finance Commissioner, spoke briefly, relaying a simple message of age-inappropriate content. She spoke of inclusion for those in the room that were members of the LGBT community. Araceli Justiniani, a resident of Santa Ana, who has fed the homeless and been active in charity work around the community addressed the audience in Spanish and English. Jinah Yi, a school church pastor of Bethel Korean Church, also spoke about the importance of informing the community and becoming empowered parents.
Gina Gleason, Executive Director of Faith and Public Policy, showed graphic images of literature approved into the curriculum, shocking many attendees.
City Councilman Juan Villegas prepared video recorded remarks and was unable to attend due to the City Council meeting held at the same time.
The community engaged passionately in a forum to learn more nuances about these important issues, which were ultimately judged as enriching and educational by the attendees, evidenced by the fact that almost no one left early.
Organizer Marc Ang recognized that while most speakers presented socially conservative viewpoints, he takes a position that the key issue involved is the age inappropriateness and lack of practicality around sacrificing valuable class time away from math, English, science and history to focus on sexually-charged topics.
About Asian Industry B2B (AIB2B): AIB was founded by community leader, Marc Ang, for businesses and professionals in the east San Gabriel Valley, Orange County and the Inland Empire to gather once a month, every second Wednesday. The mission is to build an intimate network of quality professionals engaged in charity, cultural and political activities, to foster meaningful collaborations, enrich business owners’ lives and support a platform to elevate the Asian American community through local business leaders.
For more information, to RSVP, or to learn about the organization and/or sponsorship opportunities, please contact founder/president, Marc Ang at [email protected] or visit http;//www.aib2b.org.
AIB2B
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
(SANTA PAULA, CALIFORNIA) Twenty-six animals from the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center (SPARC) were transported this week to a rescue in Northern California. SPARC, a no-kill, non-profit animal shelter, has been receiving so many stray and surrendered animals since the beginning of 2019 that the shelter had run out of space and adoptions were not keeping up with animal intakes.
A generous business, Holt Transport, which usually shuttles horses statewide, provided a huge horse trailer and driver for free and donations from SPARC supporters covered the rest of the costs.
“The community came together to help us get our animals to rescue to free-up space for the new animals arriving. Transporting animals is always an emotional time for the staff, but it was the best choice for the animals,” said SPARC Executive director Nicky Gore-Jones.
Eight big dogs, two little dogs, 10 cats and six rabbits made up the roster of transported animals and all arrived safely, ready to luxuriate in the green grass of Fortuna, California, where their new rescue home is located. Due to stricter spay and neuter laws, Humboldt County has fewer strays so the rescue organization there is able to find homes for SPARC’s rescued animals faster than homes could be found in Ventura County, Gore-Jones said.
Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center’s no-kill mission is to give every animal arriving at the shelter a second chance at life. SPARC relies heavily on donations from the public to provide food, shelter and medical care for every single animal arriving. Donations can be made at www.santapaulaarc.org/donate.
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
The April 3, 3019 Santa Paula Council meeting agenda contained 12 items in the Consent Calendar. Recall that the Consent Calendar is used to approve perfunctory items for which no discussion or explanation should be necessary.
Other than Consent Item 7, which was pulled by Council Member Sobel, there were no questions from the public or the council on the other items. Below are a few samples which could have elicited questions:
Item 4. Police Department Monthly Report
Source: Police Monthly Report
Questions for this item could have been: 1) quantify “numerous”, 2) why were merchants “appreciative”. 3) were the homeless exhibiting anti-social or illegal behavior, 4) what were the benefits of the sweep?
Source: Police Monthly Report
The obvious question to the “sexual favors” findings could have been concerning the continuation of the business license. Is this a cause for termination?
Item 5. Community Development Department Monthly Report
With many columns of statistics on permits and fees, the report from Code Compliance stands out:
Source: Community Development Staff Report
With 60 new cases opening and only 8 closed, is a backlog building? What is the total number of open complaints? Is there enough staff assigned to this important function?
Item 6. Parks & Recreation Department Monthy Report
Source: Monthly Staff Report Parks & Rec
While Council Member Juarez reminded the audience of the many offerings of the Community Center and the Senior Center, the improvements to the parks is always an opportunity to highlight a successful project.
Item 7: Public Works Department Monthly Report
Council Member Sobel asked for this to be pulled. He questioned why Peck Road was not included. The answer was that Peck is an important road, but there are others too. Will East Harvard be edge-to-edge? The Public Works Director said ‘yes, eventually’. Council Member Juarez asked about digouts. City Manager Rock said that they must get the entire report ready to submit to county who does the digouts.
The entire Public Works report includes much valuable information: 1) Santa Paula High School Neighborhood Safety Improvement, 2) Harvard Boulevard Water/Sewer Improvements 3) Mesa Tank Study and Replacement, 4) Peck Road Pavement Improvement Caltrans. 5) Pavement Slurry Seal and Rehabilitation Program: FY 2018/2019 Project, and 6) Water Recycling Facility.
This report should not have been in the Consent Calendar, but highlighted as a feature report including a staff Powerpoint presentation.
The last item about the WRF is particularly interesting. With post-treated chlorides at 125 mg/L and well chlorides at 126.1 mg/L, how can the city recommend pumping this water to Limoneira as recommended by MKN? Blending this down to 110 mg/L seems impossible without an on-site RO (Reverse Osmosis) plant somewhere in the system.
The city has three new vendors: Veolia (plant operator), VRSD (Collection System Maintenance) and Synagro (hauler of processed and compressed solids to Bakersfield). All three of these vendors have experience with biosolids, particularly waste-to-fuel. VRSD shut down its plant which operated from 2009-2015 due to mechanical and production issues, although the facility met the USA EPA Class A or B standards for dried biosolids, according to the staff report. This topic is gaining worldwide momentum as the population increases and emphasis moves to renewable fuel. Watch the video of the successful Minnesota plant here. Though not discussed at this meeting, the topic will have a future.
Items 8 and 9 were minutes to be approved.
From the Planning Commission, the following item was approved without adequate proof of when the West Expansion Area was added to the CURB. No resolutions were provided to substantiate claims of inclusion. 125 acres requires a vote per SOAR
Source: Staff Report
Item 10. October 2018 through February 2018 Certification of Accounts Payable Checks
With a year’s worth of checks, many items pop out as interesting and worth inquiry.
010795 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 02/08/2019 Regular 0.00 104,221.08 320053 011024 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYS 02/08/2019 Bank Draft 0.00 49,195.88 991120 100-2114 P/R LIAB PAYABLE – PERS 120,708.87 014919 CITY OF LANCASTER 01/03/2019 Regular 0.00 25,000.00 319671 014812 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELO0P1M/0E3N/2T019 Regular 0.00 178,256.00 319680 010928 VENTURA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 01/03/2019 Regular 0.00 4,000,000.00 319731 011922 VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION10/11/2018 Regular 0.00 120,000.00 318898
Questions from the above drafts:
With over $1 million in payments to Edison, when will the addition of solar become a priority? With payments to CalPERS increasing monthly, is there consideration for how fast this escalating for future budget planning? What is the status of the Community Choice Aggration? Why the large payment of $178,256.00 to HUD? Did Limoneira provide the $4 million payment to VCFPD as part of the East Area 1 fire station swap? VCTC payment of $120,000 is for what service?
Item 11. Approval of the Bond Release in the Amount of $28,013 for Completed Construction of East Area 1 Padre Lane Sewer and Water Improvements
While this represents progress, was there consideration for the historic importance of the Packing House and the 100 year old Canariensis Palm Trees? Both of these should be designated as city historic resources. What is the status of the bridge and the NMFS/Army Corps of Engineers debate?
Item 12. Amendment with E.D.G.E Technologies Agreement
While the Canyon booster pump is essential, it would be important to know if this pump is degraded or inoperable now or in the near term?
Item 13. Project List for SB-1 Projects
With roads as top priority, this item should have been highlighted for presentation.
Source: Staff Report
Item 14. Housing Element Annual Progress Report
Although the dates for this appear to be a year away, the threat from Governor Newsom about rescinding SB-1 funds for cities who do not meet the housing requirements could be real. The question would be as follows: is the amount in the report sufficient to meet the Governor’s wishes? Planning Manager Mitchem directed me to the discussion from the Assembly Budget Subcommittee #4 . The SB-1/Housing connection has yet to be quantified and there appears to be pushback in Sacramento per this article. According to Mitchem, the City and its General Plan consultant are aware of these issues and are crafting the updated Housing Element to meet these contingencies.
Source:Staff Report
Council Silence
Everyone enjoys a brief meeting, but is communication sacrificed in the name of brevity? How can citizens stay informed with such a heavy handed use of the Consent Calendar?
Last week, we sent out an Action Alert asking all HJTA members to call lawmakers on the Assembly Local Government Committee and urge them to oppose Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1. This measure would make it easier to pass tax increases by cutting the vote needed to approve infrastructure bonds and taxes from the current two-thirds down to just 55 percent.
ACA 1 is an attack on Proposition 13, which says any special tax must be approved by two-thirds of voters.
We’d like to update you on the outcome of the hearing in the Local Government Committee. The bill did pass out of committee by a vote of 5-2 along party lines. Democrats Richard Bloom, David Chiu, Luz Rivas, and Robert Rivas joined the author of ACA 1, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, in voting “aye.” Republicans Tom Lackey and Randy Voepel voted no. An interesting abstention was James Ramos, a Democrat who represents a moderate district in San Bernardino.
However, in one very positive development, HJTA was joined in opposition to ACA 1 by a number of groups including the California Taxpayers Association (Cal-Tax) and the Family Business Association of California.
There are currently 61 Democrats in the Assembly, and if seven of them oppose ACA 1 or abstain from voting, it will fail in a vote on the Assembly floor. It needs a two-thirds vote to pass in the Assembly and then a two-thirds vote in the state Senate in order to get on the ballot. If that happens, it would need only a majority vote to pass.
HJTA is committed to the fight to stop ACA 1 from becoming law. You can continue to help by clicking on this link and printing copies of our online petition to give to friends and neighbors: https://www.hjta.org/take-action/print-and-mail-petition/
You can also help by contacting your State Assembly Member to tell them how important it is to protect Proposition 13. You can find your representative’s name and contact information at this link: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
Thank you for your calls to the Assembly Local Government Committee, which the tax-raising lawmakers did not especially enjoy receiving. Great work, everybody. Together, we’ll keep fighting for California taxpayers.
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
AIB2B
