Unconfigured Ad Widget

**baggss** · 05-17-2016, 1:35 PM

I had to look up Measure 50. On the face of it it seems fair. If a member of the state legislature gets suspended for whatever reason they don't get paid and don't have access to their staff and legislative goodies.

BUT...

It takes 2/3s of the body the member belongs to to suspend them. The potential for abuse by what is, in CA, a largely one party system is what bothers me. I would not put it past either party, but at this point the Democrat legislators to use their majority to suspend Republicans or other Democrats who might not go willingly with the flow as a form of punishment. Additionally the argument that the people of that district are left with no representation also bothers me. It could be used to effectively disenfranchise large swaths of the voting public in a super majority controlled environment. All of that being said, this doesn't happen all that often and the fiscal impact is minimal to the state as a whole.

I voted NO simply because the fiscal impact was low as was the probability of occurrence in any given legislative session.

**skishooter** · 05-17-2016, 3:31 PM

IMO, 50 is in conflict with due process. Innocent until proven guilty. No matter how much I dislike the legislature, voting to support the US Constitution should be the high road we take.

**wjc** · 05-17-2016, 6:55 PM

I already knew about the Measure 50 failings. They already have the means to punish legislators.

I saw that The San Jose Murky News supports it which clinched my no vote. Anything that editorial board supports is against my principles.