Reform by Ballot Box Legislation?

Abandoning My Principles to Support Constitutional Reform

I have lived in California for 44 years, but I am still uncomfortable with the California propensity to make major policy decisions by the voters at large. Rarely do I sign petitions for initiatives and only a little more frequently do I vote for these ballot box measures.  It’s in my blood as a native Chicagoan—a town that really knows how to govern!– and a professional political scientist to dislike how frequently we use the initiative process in this state.

I favor keeping the responsibility for making major policy choices in the hands of the legislative bodies we elect to represent us.  Decisions made by these deliberative institutions, with their capacity to consider the nuances of proposed policies and to maneuver between multiple views, usually result in better outcomes than the simplistic, take-it-or leave-it actions of the California electorate.  In other words, I prefer representative democracy to direct democracy.

The initiative was a great California concept almost 100 years ago when Governor Hiram Johnson and other Progressives got the voters to add it and other direct democracy devices—referendum and recall—to the state constitution.  But instead of empowering the people, the central purpose, the initiative has become a device for competing organized and moneyed interests to duke it out via ballot, turning the Legislature and the Governor into second fiddle players.

But I am changing my tune in this political season.  I am convinced that fundamental governmental reform is necessary.  California is practically ungovernable these days.  (How and why is a topic for another commentary, although it is clear that budgeting and revenue are the most visible part of the mess.)  Surely, the quality and timidity of our elected officials have contributed much to the troubles we are in.  The roots go much deeper, however, in the structural arrangements for state government found primarily in the constitution.

So I am getting ready to sign the petitions for two statewide ballot proposals and to vote for them when they later appear on the ballot.  Abandoning my anti-initiative principles, I intend to strike a blow for constitutional reform.  I find it necessary now to use evil to fight evil, to use new initiatives to cure the mischief created by old initiatives.

The two worthy initiative proposals have been put forward by Repair California, a coalition of good government and business groups led by the Bay Area Council. Recently filed with the Attorney General and awaiting official titles and summaries before they can be circulated for signatures, they are:

• The “Citizen’s Constitutional Convention Act”, which allows Californians to instigate a convention through initiative, adding to the sole current process which requires the Legislature by two-thirds votes in each house to place a proposal on the ballot.

• The “Call for a Citizen’s Limited Constitutional Convention”, which sets out the selection and qualification of delegates, the procedures of the convention, and arrangements for educating and informing delegates.

(Full text as items 09-0067 and 09-0068 are available on the Secretary of State website, www.sos.ca.gov)

In total, there would be 465 delegates—a large but representative body, almost four times the combined size of the Assembly and Senate and slightly larger than the U.S. House of Representatives.  They would include 240 delegates (three per Assembly district) selected by the State Auditor, 221 (at least one per county) selected at the county and large city level, and 4 from Indian tribes.

It is commendable that this would be a “limited” convention. The scope of the deliberations and results would be limited to the basic rules and processes of state government—effectiveness, elections, spending and budgeting, and state-local government relations.  Explicitly off the table are such life-style and related matters as marriage, abortion rights, gambling, affirmative action, freedom of press and religion, and the death penalty.  Also tax and revenue issues.   Presumably the ban as well extends to other major substantive policy areas, such as water, education, transportation and health.

If all goes according to schedule, the AG’s approval will come shortly, and (1) petitions to get the necessary signatures will be circulated early next year, (2) voters will decide on the two measures in the November, 2010, election; (3) if the measures are approved, delegates will be selected in March-April, 2011; (4) the convention will meet for about six months in the second half of 2011; (5) the results of the deliberations will be presented to the voters in the November, 2012 election.

Complicated, but good stuff in my opinion.  So, when the signature-gatherers show up outside Nugget sometime next spring, I will put aside my usual distrust and happily endorse their petitions.  Here’s to a better California!  It can’t get any worse.