California’s list of crisis areas is growing longer: education, infrastructure, health care, prisons, water.  A new budget crisis begins as soon as the last year’s ended.  Many Californians believe enough is enough. Everyone agrees that our state government is broken---the overriding question seems to be, how do we fix it?

Within hours of the failure of the May 19 special election budget measures, political pundits across the state were calling for a constitutional convention, joining others who have been working towards a convention since last August. Those familiar with California’s constitution, the state’s overused initiative process, and the almost-predictable Legislative gridlock that occurs every budget cycle assert that something needs to change, and fast.  Others say a convention is unlikely to result in any implementable solutions, and could in fact further polarize voters and politicians.  Still others are concerned that opening up the constitution could result in a radically altered method of governance.

Currently, voters cannot call a constitutional convention, although Repair California, a grassroots coalition of voters organized by the Bay Area Council, is gathering signatures to change that.  The coalition is seeking to pass two measures simultaneously, one that would amend the constitution to allow voters to call a convention, and one calling for a convention.

John Grubb of Repair California believes that the state has reached the boiling point.

“We believe it’s time; these are drastic times,” he said.  “We haven’t had (a convention) in 130 years, and it’s time to open things up and make it work for our modern society.”

Even if the entire process---which would take at least a year---is executed, some say, by definition, no real reform will be enacted.  Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at University of California, Irvine, asserts that a compromise document won’t provide any innovative solutions to serious problems.

“There are countless controversial issues that could doom it,” Chemerinsky said, referencing not only social hot-button topics like gay marriage, but fiscal issues, such as Proposition 13 (which capped property tax rates at 1 percent). “I favor a convention, but I don’t think we should assume it’s the solution.”

Chemerinsky, who worked on reforming Los Angeles’ city charter, believes that the state needs to first change the two-thirds requirement for budget passage and tax increases, the allocation of Proposition 13, and initiatives that direct the spending of money.

“If we can’t adopt these reforms by themselves, how are we going to pass them with a convention?” he asked.

Repair California’s current proposal would limit the convention to four topics---budget reform, election reform, reform of state and local government relationships, and initiative reform.

“In the current (constitutional conventional) initiative language, we bar delegates from considering tax increases and touching Prop. 13,” Grubb said. “We don’t think the system is capable of healing itself through the most obvious channel---for the Legislature to pass reforms.”

Some lawmakers disagree.

“If you call one, you’re opening up a whole list of things and creating a whole new entity,” said Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (R-San Diego).  “We can’t let that distract us from the problem at hand.  There are a lot of things the Legislature can concurrently do, without one.”

Fletcher, like many Republicans, is worried that a Democrat-dominated Legislature would produce a document that wouldn’t address the necessary “tough decisions” like revenue allocation and prioritizing state services.  He is concerned about tampering with the few remaining stable sources of revenue the state has.

“A convention is such a complex way to go about things,” he said. “We need to have a real conversation about how we get our revenues and expend revenues.”

California’s constitution has been amended or revised more than 500 times (an average of four a year), is now longer than America’s Constitution, and rivals India’s and Alabama’s for being the most complex.  There are 389 statewide boards, agencies and commissions permanently written into the constitution, many of which were created as political favors or to perform services that are now defunct.  Grubb compared it to the Winchester Mystery House, a house of unconnected rooms in San Jose, built by an infamously crazy widow.

“There is room after room with no hallways connecting them,” he said. In going back to ground zero, Repair California’s supporters hope that delegates will look at the constitution holistically, both in terms of content and structure. By using the initiative process, they believe an already tangled ball of string would become only more convoluted.

“The reforms we need would take up all the letters of the alphabet in measures,” Grubb said. “You would need that many signatures, that many times, and to pay for a campaign for each of them. At about $30 million a pop, that’s prohibitively expensive.”

The process to call a convention is far from simple or cheap, following the requirements outlined in Article 18 of the constitution. If both of the initiatives backed by Repair California are placed on the ballot, they must be approved by two-thirds of voters.  Voters then must select delegates to the convention, based on districts. The convention must take place within six months of the ballot measure approving it. At a convention, delegates can refine proposals to submit to voters but cannot actually ratify the constitution. Voters would be presented with a final document and then asked to approve or reject it.

“We’re working with some former Supreme Court justices to set up a system where a judge would oversee the proceedings,” Grubb said.  “We have been privileged to have some of the state’s top constitutional law firms working pro bono to help us figure this out.”

In the meantime, Chemerinsky, Fletcher, and others lawmakers and law experts on both sides of the aisle believe immediate action needs to be taken.

“Short-term, we’re going to have to make some really painful cuts,” Fletcher said. “We’ll try to make cuts that do the least amount of harm. We can’t increase taxes again; we’re already hemorrhaging jobs to surrounding states.”

Fletcher and other Republicans believe the failure of May’s special election budget measures spelled out a clear message from voters to Sacramento that tax increases are no longer an option.  Chemerinsky, on the other hand, believes the ability of Republicans to block the budget hamstrings the budget process.

“It would be infinitely easier to meet the budget requirements without the two-thirds requirement,” he said.

The debate over whether or not to call a convention---and what issues delegates should address if one is called---will not be settled overnight. As Democrats call for changes to Prop. 13 and the two-thirds requirement, Republicans will seek tax code that generates less volatile revenues, along with a reduction in unfunded mandates. However, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: California voters will not settle for the status quo much longer.

“If we don’t get reform now, what will it take?” Grubb asked.  “I sincerely hope this is the bottom.”

                                        

Set as favorite

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

...

The REAL Goals of Proponents of a State Constitutional Convention
By Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters

The primary supporters of a state constitutional convention have THREE main goals.

1. Be able to pass the state budget with a simple majority (or, as a compromise, a lower supermajority such as 55%) vote.
2. Be able to raise all taxes with the same criteria as #1.
3. Repeal Prop 13 -- as much as possible. That could mean split roll, a change in the Prop 13 formula, easier override of Prop 13 restrictions on raising taxes, etc.

If you want to see how this simple majority system would work, read SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE’s editorial writer Chris Reed's blog (printed below) describing our liberal sister state -- New York.

NY state has only a simple majority vote requirement for taxes and budgets. This past year the state raised all sorts of taxes (too often with 51%-49% votes) -- while increasing the state budget 8%.

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/034073.html

A perfect example of what would happen in California
without a two-thirds rule on taxes, budget
by Chris Reed
4 June, 2009

Imagine there was another high-tax large state with a majority Democratic Legislature in which heavily gerrymandered election districts kept incumbents in power no matter how poorly the state was run and where the gerrymander ensured disproportionate influence for public employee unions. This state, like California, also had highly volatile revenue because of a reliance on income and capital gains taxes and a habit of spending the windfall in boom years. In this state, however, unlike California, taxes and budgets could be approved on a simple majority vote.

You don't have to imagine this state. It's real. It's New York. And guess how N.Y. lawmakers dealt with their budget crisis for their 2009-10 fiscal year, which started April 1?

They increased spending by $10 billion! By 8 percent! How did they fund this? Partly with federal aid, but mostly with $8.3 billion from two dozen increases in taxes, fees, surcharges and assessments.

Income taxes were raised on the rich.

A popular state program providing rebates of $200 to $900 to homeowners on their school property taxes was eliminated.

An extra 1 percent tax was added on utility bills.
New taxes were imposed on HMOs and health and auto insurance.

The fee the state charges retailers to sell tobacco was increased by ten-fold or more, depending on the size of the business.

The excise tax on beer and wine went from 11 cents to 14 cents per gallon.

A 5-cent-per-bottle deposit was put on plastic water bottles.

Fees to register cars and boats and to get a driver's, hunting or fishing license all went up.

There are more, but the point is obvious. Taxes and taxes disguised as fees were raised with reckless zest -- even in the middle of a deep recession. Even as state unemployment soared. Even as budget analysts decried gimmicks, unaddressed structural problems and such outrages as including $170 million for lawmakers' pork earmarks.

But what a minute -- didn't Gov. David Paterson describe the budget as a tough spending plan that made difficult choices and required "shared sacrifice"? Sure he did. That's why he announced plans for 8,500 layoffs in March. How many state employees has he actually laid off nearly three months later? Zero.

Here's the analysis of George J. Marlin, a veteran New York journalist and author of two books about the state's politics:

The governor's claim that there is "shared sacrifice" is ludicrous. While public employees in California, Ohio, Vermont, Delaware and other states are accepting wage cuts, raise freezes and furloughs, no such sacrifices are being made by New York state employees. Paterson not only gave large raises to his staff, there's a $145 million reserve in the budget to pay retroactive salary increases to unionized workers negotiating contracts with the state. Medicaid - which funds the health care unions and costs more per capita than the combined expenditures of America's three largest states, California, Texas and Florida - is slated to grow 7 percent to $48 billion, a $3 billion increase. Most state employees and their departments are not affected by this fiscal crisis. In fact, most will see increased spending.

And THIS is what "good government" groups want California to become by eliminating the two-thirds hurdle on tax hikes and budget approval? That's truly, utterly, completely mind-boggling.

Thank God for the two-thirds rule. Or Buddha. Or Oprah. Or Kobe. Whomever you worship. The two-thirds rule is the thin blue line protecting California from ruination.

Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters , August 03, 2009

Write comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.