Brian Dahle on Government Reform

Crazy to ban candidate withholding tax returns from ballot

District-based elections OK even if protected class impaired

SFGate.com veto analysis:Gov. Brown said in his veto message that existing laws "already ensure that the voting strength of minority communities is not diluted." The law signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2002 allows minority groups to challenge at-large (city-wide) elections, increasing the likelihood of control by a white majority. [Since 2002] over 100 local governments switched to district elections. The [new] law could challenge district lines if intended to dilute minority votes.

Legislative Outcome:Passed Senate 26-14-0 on 9/3/15; Passed Assembly 53-24-3 on 9/8/15; Brian Dahle voted NO; Vetoed by Gov. Brown on 10/10/15.

Voted NO on pilot program for all-mail-in ballots

• This bill would, until 2020, authorize San Diego County to conduct, as a pilot program, an all-mailed ballot special election to fill a congressional or legislative vacancy.
• The bill would also authorize the county to process vote-by-mail ballots beginning 10 days before the election.

Status:Concurrence vote passed House, 47-29-3; passed Senate 24-8-8; approved by Governor 9/26/14

OnTheIssues Explanation:The states of Washington, Colorado and Oregon require all of their elections to be run entirely by mail. California is experimenting with the same idea in this bill, recognizing that a growing number of Californians prefer to vote-by-mail anyway. The "10 day" provision allows counting to begin before election day, to address the problem that several races were decided a week after election day, due to counting starting on election day. (Brian Dahle voted NAY).

Voted NO on overturning Citizens United

• WHEREAS, Corporations' rights should be more narrowly defined than rights afforded to natural persons; and
• WHEREAS, Corporations should not be categorized as persons for purposes related to elections; and
• WHEREAS, The U.S. Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), held that the government may not, under the First Amendment, suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity;
• This measure calls for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech.

Status: Passed House, 51-20-9; passed Senate 23-11-6; Dahle voted NAY

OnTheIssues Explanation:The Citizens United ruling gave rise to Super-PACs which can spend unlimited money on political advertising by unknown donors. This resolution seeks to overturn the Supreme Court by a Constitutional Amendment.