160 years ago a group of newly arrived Anglos and Spanish-speaking Californios met at Colton Hall here in Monterey (pictured at right in a flickr photo by fritzliess) and held California’s first Constitutional Convention. The document they produced was literally copied from the Iowa state constitution but had some elements of the Mexican system of government and justice grafted onto it, and included full protection of Spanish speakers’ rights in what was officially a bilingual state.

California’s constitution has undergone significant change since then. In 1878 the Workingmen’s Party rode an anti-Chinese backlash and the Long Depression to power, and rewrote the Constitution in an effort to undermine the power of wealthy interests. (Unfortunately they also ended the 1849 bilingual policy.) In 1911 the Constitution was essentially rewritten when Progressive Republican Hiram Johnson pushed through the initiative, referendum and recall. And in 1978 another dramatic set of Constitutional revisions was initiated by Prop 13.

Americans think of their constitutions as static and unchanging, but this has never been the case. Both the US and the California constitution have undergone frequent revision. Sometimes this comes in the form of actual amendments, but it can also take the form of significant changes in Constitutional interpretation. The only amendments that came out of the New Deal were the 20th and 21st (moving Inauguration Day to January 20 and ending Prohibition) but as most historians and political scientists agree, FDR nevertheless initiated major changes to the way the American government operated.

California’s constitution has been amended frequently – over 500 times by some accounts – and included an effort in the late 1960s to modernize the document. Still, it has become clear that California’s government is broken and unable to meet the needs of one of the worst crises our state has ever faced. The economic crisis, drought, an energy and environmental crisis that seem to have faded a bit from the public mind but are still very much here – all of these problems are dumped into the lap of a government hamstrung by a conservative veto and a series of rules, many of which date from the last 30 years, designed specifically to prevent government from meeting the people’s needs.

The spectacle of Abel Maldonado blackmailing the Legislature to accede to his demands as the price of passing a budget last week showed the need to eliminate the 2/3 rule. It is the first change, the tree that blocks the tracks, the door that opens that path to all other changes. But it has become clear that California needs even deeper reform to solve the present crisis and meet the  needs of a 21st century state. Periods of major economic change usually are accompanied by constitutional change – hell, even the US Constitution itself owes its existence to the severe economic crisis of the 1780s, one of the worst in American history.

That’s why the Courage Campaign, where I work as Public Policy Director, is joining the Bay Area Council and a diverse coalition of organizations to sponsor a Constitutional Convention Summit on Tuesday in Sacramento (you can register at Repair California).

It’s my own personal belief, and one shared by the Courage Campaign, that a Constitutional Convention can successfully fix California’s broken government. In a poll of our members last September over 90% said they supported a convention. And in December we launched CPR for California – a Citizens Plan to Reform California that included some major structural fixes for the state, including fixing the budget process and producing long-overdue initiative reform as well as empowerment solutions such as public financing of elections and universal voter registration.

But the key to success is that a convention must truly be “of the people.” A convention will fail – and may not even be approved by voters – if it is seen as a top-down effort. Remember of course that a Constitution is a social compact, the product of a sovereign people, a recognition that we must have government to survive but that it must also be accountable to the people. For a Constitutional Convention to have legitimacy it must include the people of California at every step of the journey – especially in setting the Convention’s priorities. Additionally, the delegates who attend the Convention must be representative of the state’s population, and not be selected from a small group.

It’s also worth noting some of the limits of a Constitutional Convention. The Courage Campaign believes that all social issues should be off-limits at a convention, such as marriage equality (that is best dealt with by the California Supreme Court, or by the voters if the Court upholds Prop 8). The Convention alone won’t solve our state’s financial woes.

But it’s time that California’s government once again adapted to the times. We need a constitution and a government responsive to the people and able to address the broad 21st century crisis, instead of a government that was deliberately broken and subject to a conservative veto. A Constitutional Convention won’t solve all our problems, but it’s a necessary step forward for California.

It doesn’t come without risks, of course. But the time has come for progressives to assert a new set of ideas and a new agenda for California’s future.

Over the flip I explain the process of calling, holding, and approving the proposals produced out of a Constitutional Convention.

The California Constitution currently only allows the Legislature to propose a convention to the voters – and that requires the usual 2/3 vote. Since the Zombie Death Cult won’t go for a convention as it would challenge the conservative veto they hold so dear, that means the people need to be empowered to call the convention themselves.

There would be two propositions on the ballot, likely in June 2010. The first would enable the people themselves to call a convention (perhaps with a time limit – no more than one convention every 20 years) and allow them to also limit the scope of what a convention could cover. The second proposition would actually call the constitution, limited to exclude social issues, and would provide for the election of delegates (perhaps 10-12 per Assembly district).

The convention itself would meet within 6 months of voter approval. The convention would set its own rules of deliberation (or those could be spelled out in the proposition). Ultimately the convention would propose a package of reforms to be voted on as a single proposition – up or down on the whole thing. Voters then get the final say over any proposed changes, as of course the people of California hold sovereign power over such Constitutional changes.

Because there are so many reforms needed, and because of the barriers to putting each reform on the ballot (the Legislature might not go for it, and no initiative has qualified for the ballot without using paid signature gatherers in over 25 years), a Constitutional Convention is the best path for allowing a package of reforms to be approved at once.

In both the Friday and Saturday editions of the Los Angeles Times, right on page A1 above the fold, there was a graphic of a “tax calculator,” which projected the additional taxes an individual would pay based on certain factors like income, number of dependents and values of vehicles.  They have a corresponding tax calculator on their website where users can type in the data and get the precise tax hit coming to them.  The Sacramento Bee has the same thing.  Talk radio was having a field day with these calculators over the past couple days, getting people to call in and disclose their statistics and telling them how much money they will owe.  This led to perverse complaints like the lady making $126,000 a year ranting about an $800 tax increase.

In my life, I have never seen a “spending cut calculator,” where someone good plug in the services they rely on, like how many school-age children they have, or how many roads they take to work, or how many police officers and firefighters serve their community, or what social services they or their families rely on, and how much they stand to lose in THAT equation.  Tax calculators show bias toward the gated community screamers on the right who see their money being piled away for nothing.  A spending cut calculator would actually show the impact to a much larger cross-section of society, putting far more people at risk than a below 1% hit to their bottom line.

But of course, people who are perceived to depend on state services probably don’t log on to the LA Times and the Sacramento Bee websites very often to calculate their tax burden.  In reality, we all depend on the state for roads and law enforcement and libraries and schools and county hospitals and on and on.  And in Los Angeles County, one in five residents – almost 2.2 million people – receive some form of public aid.  So wouldn’t it make sense to portray the real cost of spending cuts in the same way that tax increases are portrayed?

Contra Dan Walters, it is completely untrue that “liberal Web sites” are unilaterally condemning cuts to education and health & welfare spending.  We fully understand that a $42 billion dollar hole cannot be filled by revenue alone.  We certainly condemn corporate tax cuts at a time of massive deficits, or counter-productive actions like selling the lottery, which will produce net losses in the long-term.  But there is no question that the media mentality is to highlight the tax side of the equation over the spending side, and dramatically portray the tax increases – splashed across the front page – while relegating the spending cuts to further down the page.  It feeds the tax revolt and distorts the debate.  And it’s completely irresponsible.

( – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

(This is cross-posted from my site La Vida Locavore, which covers food politics and all news related to food. Stop by and check us out if you’re ever wondering what Tom Vilsack’s up to, what really happened to all the peanut butter, or where California milk REALLY comes from… hint: not the happy cows in the pictures.)

The news in California is bad. Well, mostly bad. After all, the Oscars are tomorrow. But the budget’s a mess, the economy sucks, and on top of that there’s a drought. What’s next, an earthquake?

To manage water in the face of the drought, the federal government is cutting off water to many California farms for at least three weeks in March. The amount of time without water will depend on whether we get rain in the next few weeks. In the San Joaquin Valley, the drought will cause an estimated $1.15 billion (with a B) in lost agriculture-related wages and 40,000 lost jobs in farm-related industries. And if that ain’t bad enough, the New York Times reports that the problems go beyond food in affected towns:

Across the valley, towns are already seeing some of the worst unemployment in the country, with rates three and four times the national average, as well as reported increases in all manner of social ills: drug use, excessive drinking and rises in hunger and domestic violence.

California farms receive 80% of their water from federally-managed supplies and the rest from the state. The feds are turning off the tap, but farmers may still receive some water from the state. Unfortunately for the farmers, some of the water may be legally unavailable to them due to laws or rulings protecting endangered species.

(Meanwhile, in the parts of the state where I hang out – San Diego and Los Angeles – I’ve seen idiots who let their automatic sprinkler systems water their already wet lawns on rainy days recently.)

Over at Change.org Natasha Chart asks if a recovery is even possible on a planet headed for environmental collapse? That’s an answer I wish I knew. Natasha’s been covering the water story regularly with a post about Colorado’s fights between Big Oil and Big Water, a post about agribusiness and water use, and a post I highly recommend reading (even though it scares the shit out of me) called “We don’t have to choose a dustbowl”

My own environmentalist hippie foodie answers to the water problem begin as follows:

1. Why is it still legal to have lawns in California? Seriously. Somebody should outlaw watering your lawn. If we weren’t in such a budget crisis I’d add that the city should provide native drought resistant plants to residents who want to make their yard beautiful and able to survive without water.
2. California growers need to go organic ASAP. It’s not a fix that will help them this year, and it will reduce their productivity in the next few years but in the long run, it will make all of their crops more drought resistant because the soil will store more water.
3. We’ve gotta do something about animal agriculture. It uses a TON of water. If factory farms are something we have to have, then they shouldn’t be located in California. Period.
4. We need to expand fruit, nut, and vegetable (so-called “specialty crop”) production in the other 49 states to plan for decreased production in California and to reduce energy needs for shipping food across the country. Right now there are actually laws preventing farmers who grow commodities to switching over to grow specialty crops instead. You can’t even buy land from a farmer who used to grow commodities there and grow specialty crops on that land! The USDA is dabbling in changing that policy but only in a very small pilot program.

These things are expensive – either for the farmers or for the state that mandates it and compensates the farmers (or offers financial incentives to make it happen without mandating it). But we bailed out the banks even after they screwed up and got us into this mess. Why can’t we bail out our farmers? After all, we need to eat.

On Wednesday, February 18th the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) posted this press release…

Shady Representative Calvert Land Deal Still in Court

Did Calvert and Co. get special treatment to ‘further curry political favor’?  With questions still swirling about Representative Ken Calvert’s role in the purchase of public land, a $1.5 million lawsuit alleging the land sale may have been improper – or worse – continues to make its way through Riverside County Superior Court.

“Representative Calvert’s shady land deal refuses to go away.  After all, Calvert and his partners got a sweetheart deal on a prime piece of property that avoided a competitive bidding process and was done to ‘further curry political favor, relations and influence,'” said Andy Stone, Western Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  “Congressman Calvert should spend less time focusing on his real estate holdings and more time addressing the needs of his constituents like he could have done by supporting the economic stimulus package which is projected to create 9,000-plus jobs in California’s 44th District.  The fact that Calvert’s ‘rare’ economic chat today is a ‘private’ fundraiser shows how out of touch he is.”

Calvert says he was a silent partner in the $1.2 million deal to acquire a plot of land near new residential construction to build self-storage units.  

But it appears the Jurupa Community Services District sold the property to Calvert and his partners without first offering it to other public agencies, as required by law.  That means Calvert and his partners were able to buy a plot of land, close to the freeway, in a booming real estate market – with no competitive bidding.  In fact, a Riverside County grand jury found that the community services district violated the law when it sold the land to Calvert and his partners.

And the lawsuit goes even a step further calling the land sale “actual fraud, corruption and actual malice” and alleges that the land was sold to Calvert – who had previously supported federal legislation benefiting the Jurupa Community Services District – and his partners as a way to “further curry political favor, relations and influence.”  Of course, Ken Calvert has a long history of engaging in questionable land deals, even reportedly coming under investigation by the FBI because of allegations about Calvert-sought earmarks benefiting his property holdings.