May 20th Strategy Open Thread

On behalf of CA-46 (0.00 / 0)

I apologize. I didn't vote for him, we aren't all like him. Really!

---

by: mPowers @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 22:51:01 PM CDT

Another entirely pointless populist ballot initiative. (0.00 / 0)

And how is Mr. LeBaron going to enforce this measure? Pop quiz? How about just electing good legislators that you trust?

---

by: Spence @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:50:31 PM CDT

Didn't we try that? (0.00 / 0)

You mean good legislators like Leno, Steinberg and Bass whom we can trust to NEVER vote for something like Props 1A, 1D and 1E?  Oh, right....

---

by: mediaptera @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:18:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't be simplistic... (0.00 / 0)

If they hadn't of been forced to it by the 2/3 rule, another populist initiative disaster, they would never have been forced to support those spending caps. What would you have done, in the current, unacceptable, situation? And how does this idiotic "must read" initiative change a damn thing?

---

by: Spence @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:36:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The initiative doesn't change anything (0.00 / 0)

But so long as the 2/3 requirement remains in place, we could put the best progressives in every single district going as conservative as R+10 in 2010 and still be subject to a conservative veto.  As has been repeated by many here on Calitics, it's the process, not the personalities.

---

by: mediaptera @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:18:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

we won't be able to know (5.00 / 2)

whether our elected dems vote for such things because they are forced to, or because they want to, until we get rid of 2/3. one of the reasons why we need that thing gone is so we can have a proper sorting-out in the democratic party, when the pols no longer have the GOP's veto to stand behind and scapegoat.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

---

by: wu ming @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:54:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Looking for information on the Constitutional Convention opetion (0.00 / 0)

Lately I've been hearing a lot about the possibility of holding a constitutional convention, but I haven't heard a lot about just how this would happen, who would attend and make the decisions, etc.

To me, the 2/3 rules are the best target. We now may have majorities that would vote to eliminate these rules if we were able to get them on a ballot. Of course, it looks like it would take until Nov. 2010 which is a long time for the Republicans and the media to spin away our majority. I'm a little worried that the call for a constitutional convention is likely to suck all the air out of the room for any attack on the 2/3 rules.

Just how difficult is a constitutional convention to pull off? Further, how do we know what we would end up with. I have heard Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce calling for a constitutional convention, this does not fill me with confidence that the resultant constitution would be "better" then what we have now. I'm looking for someone who had the knowledge on this, perhaps Robert Cruickshank, to tell me just how this would go down and who would be making the decisions.  

---

by: SPK @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:27:49 PM CDT

Some answers (5.00 / 4)

1. There are two possible routes to a convention. The first is the existing route - 2/3 of the Legislature votes to call one.  Under Article 18 of the Constitution delegates would then be elected by Assembly district. There is some gray area here - how many delegates per district? Would the convention's scope be limited to exclude social issues? (One method is to say the convention cannot propose to voters anything amending Article 1). It's unclear whether a 2/3 majority can be obtained for a convention in this Legislature. The obstacle would not necessarily be the GOP, but instead might be established interests who fear what a convention might do.

The second route is through two initiatives. "Prop A" would change the Constitution to allow voters to call a convention without the Legislature. "Prop B" would then actually call the convention pursuant to the approval of Prop A. Prop B is where the key details would be - how are delegates picked? What would the scope be?

2. The key debate over the details will indeed be how delegates are picked. Some want a "jury" style method, such as the British Columbia Citizens Assembly used (where a random sample gets sent a request to serve, those who want to serve send it back, and that gets whittled down to a certain number through various processes). Others want a election process. That could be big and progressive - say, 15 per assembly district, elected under public financing rules. There are Voting Rights Act and maybe even Prop 209 considerations to this, although one could write the initiative to specifically exempt it from Prop 209. We could also exempt current and former legislators, as Montana did in their Con-Con in 1972.

3. It is possible that a Con-Con push could suck air away from 2/3rds. My own view is we need to fight a multi-front war. A Con-Con would not present its recommendations to voters until 2011 or 2012. We could get a 2/3rds change on the November 2010 ballot.

4. This is by no means a Republican trick. The Courage Campaign has backed this ever since 90%+ of our members said "yes" to the idea in September. The Bay Area Council are a group of moderates, are by no means anti-government wackos, and understand and embrace the goals of empowerment. We have other progressive groups like Common Cause on board and we're working in building a bigger coalition. Sure, the Republicans and the C of C will want to game it. But that's why we go to the people. That's why we empower the people through a Convention.

I cannot imagine that a convention comprised of the people would embrace Republican solutions. Those solutions are deeply unpopular. Even if the convention did propose that, we can kill it when it goes before voters for ratification (they would ratify the package as an up-or-down vote).

5. The status quo is a failure. We cannot continue like this - and in fact, we will not continue like this. We have had a slow-motion Constitutional Convention since 1978, driven mostly by the right. Arnold's proposals have all be amendments to the Constitution. Some of these have already passed - like Prop 11. Others will pass, like the open primary. If we don't get out in front via a Convention of the people, progressives will fall behind and the Constitution will change through other means into something more conservative.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:33:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay (5.00 / 1)

Thank you Robert. That's the analysis I was looking for. I agree we need to fight a multi-front war, and I think a repeal of the 2/3 rules is incredibly important and doable. I like the idea of a Con-Con provided we can get a decent handle on who is a delegate. I don't like the jury method, I do like the election process option. I'm still extremely leery of the C of C and other corporate interests, but I'm willing to support the idea and keep a keen eye on how it progresses.  

---

by: SPK @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 15:17:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We should really begin gaming out (0.00 / 0)

how we (and our opponents) would work to get delegates elected -- how much precinct organization would this require? -- and what we would be trying to accomplish with a Constitutional rewrite.  I think that, before too long, we need to make this discussion less abstract.

Extremely useful post, by the way; thanks.

---

by: Seneca Doane @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 16:26:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

point #5 just clicked with me (0.00 / 0)

looking at the initiatives since prop 13 as a slow-rolling right wing constitutional convention makes so much sense. and the reason for holding an explicit one is that we would get to approach it as a single, organic whole rather than a patchwork of rightwing bills broken up over decades to make it harder to put the pieces together and see what they're forming.

if we're already rewriting our constitution, why not sit it down and do it properly?

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

---

by: wu ming @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 23:17:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Precisely (0.00 / 0)

Instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger or the Howard Jarvis Association or some other wingnut organization proposing constitutional changes with their money, we can give the people the power to do it themselves.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Fri May 22, 2009 at 00:48:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]