How Far Out Of Touch Is California's Legislature?

The Sacramento Bee reports that for the fifth year in a row, California lawmakers passed a law allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses:

In 2001, the Legislature sent then Governor Gray Davis a driver's license bill, but pulled it back after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the East Coast raised concerns about security. In 2002, Davis vetoed another license bill. Davis finally signed a measure in 2003, but Schwarzenegger campaigned against it in the recall election and signed a bill repealing it soon after he was elected.

Schwarzenegger, who vetoed last year's version of the bill, has said he will reject any driver's license legislation that is passed before the federal government issues new guidelines aimed at preventing terrorists from getting access to state-issued licenses.

According to the Bee, Republicans blasted Democrats for supporting driver's licences for illegal alien, contending that Californians are solidly against it and that ignoring their desires will create a backlash at the polls.

A recent Field Poll finding more than three-quarters of California voters are concerned about illegal immigration supports the Republican's allegation.

California lawmakers provided more evidence they are out of touch with voters when they became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages last week. They did so despite the fact that five years ago Californians overwhelmingly voted to limit marriage to a man and woman by approving Proposition 22.

Today the Sacramento Bee reported that chief Schwarzenegger political consultant Mike Murphy, said It's great ammo for the Governor:

What the Dems have done in the last 48 hours is worth a couple of points for us.

Governor Schwarzenegger has promised to veto both bills maintaining these laws go too far and prove his point that the Legislature is out of touch with mainstream California.

Comments

[Matthew Shugart]

If Kip's question was directed at me (I'm not sure), I would refer him to my comment on this blog under the previous entry about Prop. 22 and its connection to "the will of the people."

I assume the legislators are aware of Prop. 22 and were prepared to argue that there was no conflict. How I have no idea. But once the governor vetoes it, the point will be moot.

[KipEsquire]

How do you respond to the response that each and every member of the California Legislature was elected, in some cases re-elected, after Prop. 22? That too was "the will of the people."

As Obi-Wan might say, "Who's the more foolish -- the fool or the fool who elected him?"

[Matthew Shugart]

On same-sex marriage, the recent Washington Post poll shows 46% of Californians support it, and an equal number opposed. So it is hard to call either the legislature or the governor "out of touch" on this issue. There is no consensus either way.

Regarding the drivers licence issue, I am too lazy to look it up now, but I know there was an LA Times article that said Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders had an agreement to bring up a new measure with "safeguards." This would have been not long after the drivers licence measure passed under Davis was repealed after the recall election.

I know nothing of the provisions the governor said he would accept as safeguards, nor whether they were in these more recent bills. But there was apparently an agreement to find a consensus.

I would not take the public opinion on this as necessarily well grounded, either. I did not follow the link to the Field Poll reported above because it requires registration, but all the post says is that it reports that 75% of Californians are concerned about illegal immigration. So? Does the poll ask specifically about the drivers licence issue?

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that a majority would indeed say they are opposed to this bill passed by the legislature. If you ask people if "illegal immigrants" should have a state-provided "licence" I think it is predictable what response you would get. But suppose the question is framed differently—for example, which is better: People driving with fake licences (or none at all) or people having a means to drive legally, whatever their immigration status. The results might diverge substantially.

Finally, as long as the space devoted to comments appears to be infinite (!), I might note that there is an awful lot of duplicity here within the public. How many of those 75% who are "concerened" about immigration check out the immigration status of people who DRIVE to their homes regularly to clean the house, cut the grass, and do other tasks?