In the wake of the latest, but by no means the last, budget mess in California, I continue to believe that the only way to break the deeply negative cycle of fiscal dysfunction and budgetary gridlock is through a Constitutional convention that restores democracy and provides sensible, workable government in the state of California. You’ll be interested to know that this belief actually transcends party lines. Tom Karako directs the Golden State Center at the Claremont Institute, one of the nation’s most conservative think tanks. And even he agrees that the state’s Constitution needs to change to better serve the public. I haven’t previously seen a conception of what a conservative vision for a Constitutional convention would look like, and so I think it’s worth analyzing it to see their preferred options. Karako first says:
If Californians do rewrite the Constitution, it should be revised to resemble more closely the concise federal Constitution: more responsible legislators and executives, stronger control of the bureaucracy and less direct democracy.
Then he comes up with several issues that appear nowhere in the federal Constitution. Here are his six proposals:
1. Part-time Legislature
2. Hard spending cap
3. Two-year budgeting cycle
4. Eliminate the two-thirds supermajority requirement for budgets
5. Unified executive branch
6. Repeal ballot-box budgeting
The first four are either irrelevant to the federal Constitution or in direct conflict to federal Constitutional provisions. But I will soldier on and take them in kind.
Karako clarifies that his vision of a “part-time legislature” would not be a citizen legislature, and would include the same salaries and responsibilities as today. With all due respect, then, we already have this. State legislative sessions, in theory, open in January and end on August 31, and there are numerous recesses in between those dates. The only reason it seems lately like the legislature is always at work is because four extraordinary sessions have been called in the past year and a half to deal with the budget mess. Our legislature works around six months out of the year in less extraordinary circumstances. That sounds part-time to me.
This notion of a hard spending cap has been soundly rejected by the voters twice in the past four years. It is certainly not a feature of the federal Constitution, and it does not take into account emergency spending needs, the outpacing of inflation over wages in areas like health care, and multiple other provisions. States with spending caps have seen their quality of life suffer and their state rankings plummet (see TABOR in Colorado). This would in my view be disastrous, and obviously it’s the major bone of contention between liberals and conservatives.
A two-year budget cycle actually sounds prudent to me. I would supplement it with an advisory long-term budgeting benchmark that would bring the concept of long-term planning back into state government, but anything that looks beyond the horizon could improve the quality of state budgets.
Conservatives have begun to relent on the 2/3 rule for passing a state budget, while keeping in the requirement for taxes, for somewhat selfish reasons. I agree that the current system eliminates accountability for both sides of the aisle, and letting the majority rule on these issues would allow the people to decide the results of that course of action. But Karako doesn’t take this to the logical conclusion, that a budget is composed of taxes and spending, and that only with a full repeal of both of these 2/3 provisions would we have representative democracy in this state. He wants to hold one party responsible for budgeting while tying their hands on how to go about instituting that budget.
After citing positively how other states have part-time legislatures, and negatively how only two other states require a 2/3 vote to pass a budget, Karako calls for a “unified executive branch” without mentioning that practically no other state has its Governor appoint all additional Constitutional officers. Some states have Governors appoint certain various members, but not the entire slate. This and the next idea show a typical conservative contempt for the will of the people. Democracy, even direct democracy, is not the problem with California. (This “unified executive branch” is also a cover for vesting greater authority in the executive to engage in, as Karako says, “firing and controlling non-elected bureaucrats and public employee unions,” or union-busting, in the vernacular.)
And that leads us to Karako’s idea to repeal all ballot-box budgeting, where he does not specify between different types of ballot-box budgeting. Those measures with funding sources provide no strain on the budget process because they do not impact the General Fund. Unfunded mandates do represent a problem, and reformers have devised a solution, essentially “paygo” for ballot initiatives, requiring that they include a funding source before presenting them to voters. Karako, instead, wants to repeal all voter-approved measures and place them under the General Fund. I also believe in the indirect initiative, allowing the legislature a crack at either passing a ballot measure themselves in consultation with the proponents, or changing the language with amendments to better reflect current priorities.
On one thing I agree with Karako; “California needs constitutional reform before we can expect sustained fiscal reform.” I don’t think his ideas hold to his belief in drawing on the wisdom of the US Constitution; however, I do see some common ground, on two-year budget cycles, on the need for democratic rule, on initiative reform. My belief is that a Constitutional convention could bring together the entire rich diversity of the state to discuss, debate and decide on these issues, coming to a decision that will improve representative government in the state. I’ll see Mr. Karako there.
UPDATE by Robert: For a progressive vision of a constitutional convention, the Courage Campaign’s Citizens Plan to Reform California (CPR for California) is a good place to start. I plan to write more about it this week.
Last night when I was trying to decide what to write about at Calitics this morning I was torn between this and the Obama/Duncan attack on CA schools. As you can tell, that latter story registered higher on my outrage meter. But you’ve done a good job of taking down Karako’s nonsensical right-wing “solutions”.
I would just add a couple things:
1. A part-time legislature would accomplish nothing of value. California is larger than any other state. Most states with part-time legislatures are far smaller, with less governing work to do. A part-time legislature is nothing more than a “shrink the government” attack.
2. Washington State uses a 2-year budget cycle, and after watching it in practice, I am a strong supporter of adopting it here in California. It provides much-needed stability for state agencies and those Californians who rely on public services.
3. A “unified executive branch” is desired because the one office Republicans have managed to hang onto in a Democratic state is the governor’s office. It’s a ploy to ensure conservative dominance of our government. Can you imagine a right-wing secretary of state? Ugh.
I agree that about 95% of the matter in our state constitution needs to be turned into statute, while making what’s in the constitution harder to violate.
But all of these ideas out of the right wing think tanks from the last 10 years or so–spending caps, etc.–are no different than the ones they had in the 90s: line-item veto, term limits, etc. in that they just simply attempt to rig the system against spending.
I understand that priority, but spending should be tempered through the democratic process, not through constitutional straight jackets. Does anyone really think that the lack of a provision in the state constitution is going to silence the Howard Jarvis groups??!?
I agree that we need to eliminate dead hand control over the governor and legislature and eliminate mob rule through the ballot box and make our constitution more like the federal one.
And maybe they are laying down a marker there. Here’s my markers:
* Proportional representation in the lower house with no more than 50,000 voters to assemblyperson
* Keep regional concerns in the senate, but make sure that no more than 100,000 voters per senator.
* Legal gay marriage
* No constitutional limits on taxing or spending (i.e. dead hand control over the future)
* No initiatives
** I’m willing to negotiate on a unitary executive if the proportional representation house gets advice and consent.
In our federal system, states are sovereign. Their power is only limited by the constraints of the federal system and their own constitutions. We need to unleash that sovereignty a little more to be able to carry out the will of the voters now, or at least those now living, instead of people revolting against the railroad 100 years ago.
It wouldn’t be based on a two party majoritarian district election scheme. Proportionally representative democracy, by contrast, gives us real deliberative democracy, because it allows all people to be represented by the party of their choice. The deliberation takes place in the legislature, not by the voters themselves.
The good thing about proportionally representative democracy being implemented in this state is that it would allow Californians to break free of the Republican-Democrat mold that we do not fit into. Out of any state in the union, Californians are the ones who least identify with either of the major parties. But in such a polyglot state, you cannot reasonably feel represented when you only have two choices. And of course, we all know that third-parties can never really stand a chance in a majoritarian election system. Democracy should not be about a partisan fight over a majority of the votes in imperfectly drawn districts–which can never be perfectly drawn. It should be about everyone being represented and the fight taking place within the legislature.
New Jersey is the only state in which the Governor appoints all statewide executive officers. This will slightly change in November as the state will elect its first ever Lt. Governor (although candidates will be running mates with the Gubernatorial candidates instead of independently elected like they are here). Given the unbelievable amount of power that New Jersey voters give their governor (along with a lot of other peculiar political laws), it is probably not a coincidence that it is consistently one of the most corrupt states in the country.
I geeked out this weekend and began a draft of a new state constitution for California.
It contains some of the ideas being discussed here. If I hadn’t already written one, I’d make it a diary today.
For now, here it is.
This is, of course, the problem in proposing a constitutional convention — there is no way to ensure that we don’t get bizarre ideas like a part time legislature for the 6th largest economy in the world.
A question I have had — can California go to a parliamentary form of government, or does it run afoul of the US Constitution concerning separation of powers.
I don’t believe there is any specific provision in the US Constitution mandating the states to have such separation of powers; but it is certainly implied.
the influence of lobbyists representing corporate elites and the wealthy, the people who can afford to pay lobbyists and their propagandists in “Think Tanks”. How will the process of a Constitutional Convention NOT turn into a feeding frenzy for those interests who’ll attempt to turn California into some style of serfdom? You know that’s what they want. Maybe they can bring back slavery in some form.
California is 33 million people with one of the largest economies of the world. My indignancy makes me now say ’nuff said.
A “parliamentary” system need not place judicial power in the hands of the legislature; that feature is not all that common, being relegated mostly to Britain. (And even there, by convention, Law Lords and ONLY Law Lords hear judicial cases, and they don’t usually participate in other debate.) I would retain the Supreme Court as a separate body.
In the “ideal world”, I would propose a unicameral legislature, with anywhere from 100-200 members elected by single member districts, serving terms of no more than four years. To the directly-elected members, I would add 50-100 chosen from party lists based on the statewide vote totals for the legislature. Third (and even second) parties would have an incentive to campaign statewide, running up the total for their statewide allocation.
Cabinet-style government would be the norm for the executive branch. The governor would have his powers weakened, and either be directly elected or chosen by the legislature for a fixed term. I would also prefer to have the state’s chief elections official and chief prosecutor protected from partisan pressures, but I am not sure the best method for that. However, for the ordinary “business” of government, the legislative majority would run the show. It goes without saying that term limits would be weakened, if not eliminated. The motion of no confidence, or failure to pass a budget in a timely fashion, would dissolve the legislature and force new elections.
Initiatives would be subject to review and amendment by the legislature (with consent of the drafters) before being placed on the ballot, would require a significantly higher proportion of registered voters to qualify, and would automatically sunset after five to seven years. Constitutional amendments could only be adopted at regularly-scheduled general elections, and would require two-thirds vote for approval. Contributions to initiatives and referenda would be reportable, all the way back to the initial donor, i.e., any committee giving to an initiative campaign, even indirectly, must immediately disclose all reportable ($100+) contributors.
I would also eliminate contested elections for judges at all levels — trial judges would be subject to approval by the electorate at regular intervals much as appellate judges are now. Judges before the voters would be forbidden from raising campaign funds on their own behalf, and would be barred at all times from contributing to any campaign in any amount, or as near as possible and pass Constitutional muster.
Just a few thoughts…