Tilting the scales
Manchester initiative is inequitable

Opinion
Copyright 2001 San Diego Union-Tribune
Article date: November 12, 2001
 

Consider an election in which the votes of John Doe are counted once, while the votes of his rival, Jane Doe, are counted twice. In order to win, John therefore must receive at least twice as many votes as Jane. Anything less and Jane is declared the winner, even if she received, say, 35 percent of the vote compared to John's 65 percent. Does this sound fair? Does this sound like democracy?

It is neither. Yet this is precisely the situation that occurs when ballot measures -- local school bonds, for example -- require approval by two-thirds of the electorate. The sentiment of one-third of the voters prevails over the sentiment of two-thirds. How undemocratic can you get?

This inequitable formula is the core of a ballot initiative bankrolled by San Diego hotel magnate Doug Manchester. Slated for the March ballot, the Manchester measure would amend the city charter to require two-thirds voter approval to raise any existing general tax or to impose any new general tax.

Manchester, of course, simply wants to protect his own self-interests by making it harder for the City Council to raise San Diego's 10.5 percent levy on hotel rooms. Under existing state law, any hike in the hotel tax must be approved by a simple majority of voters. The Manchester initiative would impose the undemocratic two-thirds requirement, not only for increases in the hotel tax but also for any current or new general tax.

This page recently condemned a proposal by San Diego Firefighters Local 145 to boost the hotel tax by nearly a third at a time when the tourist industry was reeling from the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The City Council sensibly spiked that plan. In general, we are no friend of tax increases. All the same, the Manchester initiative is, plainly and simply, terrible public policy. It merits rejection by San Diego voters.

The question is, how do you head off a measure with the seductive title of "The San Diego Taxpayers Protection Act of 2000"? (Never mind that it is going on the ballot in 2002.) Many casual voters are likely to support it without bothering to read the fine print.

In a bid to neutralize the Manchester initiative, the City Council's Rules Committee, chaired by Mayor Dick Murphy, has proposed a competing ballot measure. It would require two-thirds voter approval for any measure that imposes a two-thirds requirement on other actions. In short, the Rules Committee proposition would require that the Manchester initiative receive the endorsement of two-thirds of the electorate in order to be approved.

Granted, this approach is more than a little confusing. But it also is exquisitely deserved. If Manchester thinks it's fair to allow a minority of one-third of the voters to veto any increase in the hotel tax, surely it's fair to allow a minority of one-third of the voters to veto his initiative. What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

We urge the City Council to place the Rules Committee measure on the March ballot and allow voters to decide what is fair and what is not.
 

In the News