I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.

One of the reasons that I oppose Prop 1A, and to a lesser extent the other measures, is the sense that it is one more thing that we’ll have to fix. It is one more layer of dysfunction on our staked seven layer dip of dysfunction. But as a practical matter, it is critical that Californians understand the structural dysfunction that is at the heart of the mess:

A defeat of six of the seven measures on the May 19 special election ballot – a good possibility, according to recent polls – could mean a return to the Capitol’s pattern of futile negotiations between Democrats, who hold large legislative majorities but little sway, and minority Republicans, who hold the last word on budgets.

If nothing else, political observers say, such a scenario could present an opening for Democrats to unmask what they believe to be the heart of the Legislature’s dysfunction: the two-thirds vote in both houses to pass a budget, as required by the state constitution since 1937.

*  *  *

California is one of only three states – alongside Rhode Island and Arkansas – to require a two-thirds vote on budgets. Only five states, including California, have a two-thirds requirement for taxes. (CoCo Times/MediaNews 5/3/09)

You know that, I know that, but at least according to the variety of polls we have seen since the marathon budget session, people forget quite quickly just exactly why we have this level of dysfunction.  They forget that the majority of California is getting mugged by an increasingly small minority that is doing its darndest just to maintain control of a third of the legislature.  Back in February we had majorities for overturning the budget 2/3 rule, and a close call for the tax rule. Now we’re looking at uphill slogs in both.

That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t work to get both out of our Constitution. It was quite the subject at the CDP convention

Lowering that threshold to a simple majority is “the next big fight we need to win,” Treasurer Bill Lockyer said at the recent state Democratic Party convention, where delegates identified the two-thirds requirement as the most pressing issue among 117 they considered.

*   *   *

Strategists and party officials say that they expect to put the issue before voters on the November 2010 ballot, perhaps lending it extra profile during the gubernatorial campaign. (CoCo Times/MediaNews 5/3/09)

I think the 117 number comes from the number of resolutions, which was actually 119. (Trust me, I was there for the marathon meeting.) As for the most pressing, I’m guessing that came from the prioritization from the resolutions committee, but  that should be taken as the consensus of the convention. It is merely that all 20 voting members of the resolutions committee recognized that it should be prioritized. But the point is still well taken, it truly is the most pressing issue.

We’ve heard rumors of propositions to change the 2/3 majorities, but the only props on the Secretary of State’s website don’t appear to be from any institutional player and don’t go back to the simpler to explain majority vote, opting rather for the arbitrary 55% figure.  I don’t know who exactly will lead the charge against 2/3, but it needs to be a cohesive effort from the grassroots all the way to the top.

We simply cannot let this dysfunction continue.  And right along with that, we can’t add on to the dysfunction with Prop 1A. I understand the need to grab the $16 Billion that will come in two years from tax increases, however, make no mistake that the spending cap formulas contained in Prop 1A will haunt us for years, and will be with us far beyond the two years of the extended regressive taxes.

We need to repeal 2/3, and on May 19, we need to be careful that we don’t add one more item to our list of things we have to change.

State Superintendent for Public Instruction Jack O’Connell discusses the impact of the budget on education today, and it’s predictably negative.  After going through the particulars ($7.4 billion cut to Prop. 98 funding, additional flexibility for local control, a repayment measure on the ballot to return $9.8 billion to education under Prop. 98 in the future), he makes a strong announcement:

The painful budget process at our state and local school district level calls out for reform of California’s dysfunctional budgeting process. It is time for a sincere and frank conversation about reform. Central to this conversation is the idea of throwing out the two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget and simply using a majority vote. Nearly every state in the nation and Congress, as well as counties, and cities use majority votes to pass their budgets. California should follow suit.

I understand that the minority party may feel that this would make them irrelevant to the process but, if anything, it would hold their majority party colleagues even more accountable.

Most importantly, a simple majority vote would protect our schools and districts from the instability they are forced to endure anytime the Legislature cannot reach a budget compromise.

It is time to bring about substantive changes to the way we do business in Sacramento – we owe the people of California this much.

Good for him, and it’s explained and framed well.  And now we have to line up our lawmakers along the fault line of a majority vote restoring democracy versus an arbitrary shift like 55%.

Majority Vote

John Burton, Jack O’Connell

55%

John Garamendi, Gavin Newsom

Every leader in the Democratic Party should be able to articulate where they stand on this crucial issue, the most important one facing the state.  Call your lawmakers and ask them what they prefer.

In all the media’s drooling over the open primary, it’s nice to see somebody pointing out the obvious problems.  Give Steve Lopez a cookie:

This annual budget nonsense has a lot to do, as well, with the state’s over-reliance on wildly fluctuating income tax revenue, and with California’s requirement that the budget be passed by a two-thirds majority.

Make it a simple majority vote, already. We would have been done with this thing three months ago. And as Burton asks, was the end result so brilliant it had to take this long? (LAT 2/20/09

I don’t really get why this is so hard for people.  Had there been majority vote rules, this would have been done within a few weeks.  Heck, when the decision was made to attempt a majority package, it was done in no time.  The state has a working majority in the Legislature, it’s just that the majority isn’t allowed to rule.

Why must people search for reasons why we can’t get the votes? We can’t get the votes because here, elections do not have consequences. You can get trounced, as the Republicans do every year, and yet retain power. Look no further, this is the problem. This one simple fix would solve the bulk of the legislature’s problems.

Lopez also points out that term limits haven’t helped either, and I wholeheartedly agree.  It’s nice to have people develop relationships and be able to work together.  It’s good to develop institutional memory outside of the leg staff. And term limits are unquestionably bad policy.

That being said, I think he overemphasizes the “dealmaking” aspect.  I mean, considering the fact that he talked to a bunch of termed-out legislators that’s no shock.  I think what nobody really wants to acknowledge is that the reason the old-timers could be deal makers is for reasons of power.  Specifically, a long-term leader is much tougher to displace through a palace coup and a long-term legislator is tougher to primary. This is just the power of incumbency and ackowledging that it’s not the people but increased power vested in a few people.

Yet, overall, it’s refreshing to see the Lopez column in a sea of open primary drooling over Maldo.