Poll: Rewrite the California Constitution?
When I was a summer intern at The Times' editorial page in 2004, I expressed some surprise to an editor that, nearly a year after Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor and Sacramento seemed to have passed the peak of its 2003 budget crisis, the state was still in a bad enough spot for the paper to continue publishing editorials under its "Reinventing California" tagline. The editor smiled and replied, "Ah, the naivete of our youth," implying that I was wrong to have ever expected the state's fiscal nightmare to end with the election of a new governor.
How right she was. Nearly five years later, the state's situation remains so dire that many prominent voices have re-calibrated their criticism of the people and interests that control Sacramento, taking aim instead at the very Constitution that sets the rules for governing California. The state needs a constitutional convention, they say, and the Times' editorial board endorsed the idea last week:
There have been calls for months now to convene a state constitutional convention and, in essence, start over. It's a good idea. The state Constitution runs to two fat volumes in print and is padded each year by new voter initiatives or legislative propositions. In the end, it's just a document. It's not the enemy. But retooling is one necessary step to make the state function better....
No convention -- in fact, no statewide fix -- will work if it consists simply of one interest group's shopping list. The Times has made no secret of its position against the two-thirds legislative threshold for tax increases and budgets, and we will keep pushing to overturn it. But the point is to get more ideas on the table.
Prepare for the season of reform and reinvention. A tax reform commission is to release its report in July. Political parties and candidates will focus on next year's gubernatorial election. It's not time to back away from government; it's time to engage it, and change it. Over the coming weeks and months, this page will not be shy about asking questions and offering suggestions. Bring on the ideas. Bring on the convention.
UC Irvine law school Dean Erwin Chemerinsky took to our Op-Ed pages this week to throw some cold water on the idea:
My experience as chairman of a similar convention -- an elected commission created in 1997 to propose a new Los Angeles city charter -- makes me skeptical that a constitutional convention can provide a solution to the serious problems that face the state.
It's not that I disagree about the roots of the crisis. The California Constitution is deeply flawed and desperately needs revision....
But is a constitutional convention the best path to a solution? Even if there is a constitutional convention, and even if it does come up with a coherent and meaningful package of proposed changes, it's uncertain that that package would ever be adopted. There are countless controversial issues that could doom it. For example, if the revised constitution protects a right to marriage equality for gays and lesbians, a significant number of voters will oppose it on that basis alone.
Fellow Anteater Bernard Grofman, a UC Irvine political science professor, suggested in his May 27 Blowback that Californians should be given the chance to vote on ballot measure to repeal "all special-interest budgeting in one fell swoop." In last week's Dust-Up, Tom Campbell and Daniel J.B. Mitchell floated their ideas to end the state's perpetual financial crisis. Forbes columnist Peter Robinson today called for a constitutional overhaul:
Jim Wunderman, president of the Bay Area Council, a business group, has begun calling for a constitutional convention. The current constitution, Wunderman argues, is so long, convoluted and encrusted with amendments that Californians ought to toss it out and start again from scratch.
To keep the political class from taking over the convention, Wunderman wants to choose delegates from the state jury pool. Does that sound like placing trust in chance? If so, you've got the idea. Ordinary Californians, redesigning the entire state government.
William F. Buckley Jr. once said, "I would rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston telephone book than by the faculty of Harvard University." Me? I'd rather be governed by a few hundred jurors from Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Irvine, San Diego, Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto and Stockton than by all the lobbyists and union officials in Sacramento.
It is, as I said, a beautiful idea.
Never let a good crisis go to waste, as the saying du jour goes, and ideas for fixing California are indeed flowing. Be a part of this conversation by leaving a comment below, taking our poll or both.
Photo: Attorney Gloria Allred writes in the phrase "except for gays and lesbians" on a posterboard showing a portion of the California Constitution Declaration of Rights (Robyn Beck / AFP/Getty Images).
Oh yeah, we need a new constitution. And after we've eliminated the systemic budgetary problems, we should put each and every one of the 500 amendments to the constitution to the test in a separate election, and require a 2/3 popular vote to approve each of them.
After that, I certainly hope that the proposition process is tightened up so it can't be played by special interests.
Posted by: Bethy | June 10, 2009 at 11:05 PM
So goes California, so goes the nation. It's nice to see that the Feds didn't bail out Cali. Because the Feds are running the country into the same hole California Politicians did. You want to buy your own bonds and the Feds want to lend money to themselves. Even the Chinese College students laughed their ass off at Geitner for such a rediculous solution. So, there is no one to bail out the good 'ol USA either. Let's see how you folks do and maybe we could learn something. I have a thought, instead of thowing out your Constitution why not throw out your politicians and start that over? It's after all, their lack of self control and spinelss spending on every teary eyed, not even American, cause that put you in this situation. Spend your taxpayer dollars on TAXPAYERS! You'll soon have a surplus.
Posted by: Mike | June 02, 2009 at 01:11 AM
We need ranked proportional voting like they have in Ireland. It would bring in some moderates and weed out the radicals who don't represent the majority. The problem is that we have no moderate politicians anymore, so no one can switch their votes to another party to protest the way government is being run. Then we're left with these ridiculous propositions restricting government, and then we all get angry when somehow it doesn't work. Maybe X does want lower taxes, but she'll be damned if she's voting for some ignorant Bible-thumping Republican. Maybe Y does want more social services, but he'll be damned if he's voting for the prison-guards' union or the police and firefighters' unions to get it.
Bring in a new voting system for some moderate voices, get rid of the 2/3 requirement, get rid of term limits, and get rid of all the propositions mandating some arbitrary levels of funding for some arbitrary programs. The solution to dysfunctional government is first to allow it to function. Every other democratic country on the planet does it this way. If India and Lebanon can produce budgets this way, surely Californian politicians can do at least as well.
Posted by: John | June 01, 2009 at 12:43 AM
There is a excellent article by Michael Hiltzick on the spending side of the problem on the Columnist's page. He shows that the current level of spending, adjusted for population and inflation is no higher than 10 years ago. Then why do some Californians feel so overtaxed? My guess is with the changing demographics of the state there are fewer people providing the revenues and more in need of the services. That is a trend likely to continue in the future regardless of the total amount of spending.
Posted by: ChrisMarks | May 31, 2009 at 03:39 PM
The 2/3 requirement to pass a budget...whom do we share that with? Little old Rhode Island, where both of my parents came from, and, I think, Arkansas? That's it? None of the states with massive economies such as our own. Why are we stuck with having to get 2/3? Budget delays are COSTLY. We can't afford them any more. We need to trash that 2/3 requirement because it is hurting us. Likewise, we need to be able to raise taxes sometimes. No one likes taxes, but the idea that we can have a functioning state without them is part of the voodoo economics which has been recently thoroughly discredited by The Great Recession. We do need some services, and we need to pay some taxes. This is such a simple concept and I don't understand why some of us refuse to stop whining and suck it up. Naturally, we deserve full accountability as to how our money is spent, and we also deserve that it be spent carefully. It is not unreasonable for us to expect that spending cuts be made. But we must also remember that cuts contract the economy. For example, although I support the idea that government officials need to purchase and drive their own cars, many car dealers rely on purchases made by Sacramento. Everyone is someone else's customer. This is what makes it a mistake to close a huge deficit solely with spending cuts during a bad economic downturn, because if you try, the deficit will just keep growing, since it is largely based on income tax revenue and those who are affected by the cuts will be paying less in taxes.
We also have to find out if illegals are a net benefit or a net drain on our economy. At least one study shows they are a benefit, and if this is true, scapegoating them is not the answer. Taking over and over again from the poor and the sick is not an answer either. It is morally reprehensible and we all need to start remembering that there but for the grace of God go we. If we can't afford to provide health care to our citizens with our current system, then let's go to single payer and save beaucoup $$$ while at the same time taking the burden of providing health care off of our businesses and allowing them more of a chance at becoming globally competitive. Being blinded by ideology has done us no good and it's time to be willing to actually try something new once in awhile. "Lazy people on welfare" and "illegal aliens" did not get us into this mess. Borrowing, rather than paying our own way, did. We need to bite the bullet, be thankful we are not living in dirt and eating worms, and pay our taxes.
Lastly, was it really necessary that commercial property be included in Prop. 13? Can't we slowly phase out a bit of this so that we have more of a tax base than just the widely fluctuating income tax? What do other states do?
There is a lot to think about and my hope is that people actually do the thinking instead of just emoting.
Posted by: The Starving Economist | May 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM
We need leadership who have what it takes to tell the people the truth instead of cowering in fear of their extremist districts, born of crazy gerrymandering. Here's that truth: we need to pay more taxes, make some spending cuts, AND increase some fees. That's how large our deficit is and that's also how overborrowed we are. I am embarrassed to be a member of a generation that stubbornly refuses to pay its own way and that would even consider killing fellow citizens who happen to be poor in order to balance a budget. I want to see spending on some social programs INCREASED to levels which would give us all of the federal funding our state is entitled to receive! We send more money than any other state to Washington and I want as much of that to come back here as possible, thank you very much! Let's cut duplicative and excessive paperwork, salaries and perks at the top, reform our the state pension system, send petty offenders home with an ankle bracelet instead of giving them three hots and a cot, and go over the administrative costs (not the classroom costs) of our schools with a fine-tooth comb. Our legislators do not need to be the highest-paid in the nation, nor do they need to have their health care paid for, since many of them insist there is nothing wrong with our state's health care market. Maybe we need a volunteer legislature. Heck, I took the budget challenge and came out with a surplus w/out killing anybody: http://www.nextten.org/budget/challenge.html . I also didn't do any stupid penny-wise pound-foolish things like close our state parks in order to lose over $2 for every $1 saved. Sheesh.
Posted by: The Starving Economist | May 31, 2009 at 12:00 PM
No the constitution is not the problem. If the politicians can’t get a majority vote, the bill in question was flawed or the bill was poorly presented. The real issue is that the politicians don’t want to cut services and funding to ILLEGAL immigrants.
On the brink of bankruptcy and not a sole will talk about or touch ILLEGAL immigrants and the costs they cause. Everyone dances around the subject.
Study after study demonstrates that the illegal alien problem costs California $9 billion to $13 billion per year. The education of illegals costs $7.7 billion alone.
That is a range from 42% to 62% of the current $21.3 billion deficit.
It is very interesting watching the dumb dance around the main issue and make wrong and insignificant cuts.
If people are not smart enough to figure out or are not smart enough to take the right action, see you in bankruptcy court.
Prop 187 is the answer.
Posted by: Todd from LA, CA | May 30, 2009 at 08:35 PM
To all of you who think California is a high tax (or HIGHEST, for you smart alecs), I invite you to examine the Legislative Analyst's annual budget report for yourselves.
The fact of the matter is this crisis can be easily remedied if Sacramento simply cuts spending AND taxes. But that's not going to happen... obviously.
..And even if it did, we'd be back to this point in a few short years. Obviously, the best fix is a constitutional convention.
Posted by: Adrian Scott | May 30, 2009 at 06:33 PM
We don't need a constitutional convention in California, at least not before the state is split. We need a split in the state more than a constitutional convention.
It is ridiculous to have everyone else in the state essentially controlled by the government employee unions through their hold on Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is ridiculous to have San Francisco in the same state as Orange County.
We have enough kinds of taxes already. The taxes are high enough - too high, in fact. The 2/3rds requirement certainly hasn't prevented that. Let San Franciso, Los Angeles, and the coastal counties between them continue on their quest for socialism and their social fringe push, and let the rest of California escape. Please.
Posted by: Ken | May 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Ernesto,
How can you possible say we are not a high tax state? California has the highest personal income tax in the country, the highest sales tax in the country, the highest gasoline tax in the country, the fourth highest corporate tax in the country, and because our property values are high we have the 7th highest property tax in the country (when measured as a percentage of per capita personal income.)
Anyone who belives that taxes are low in California, needs to do their homework and look at ALL the taxes paid by our residents.
Tommy D
Posted by: Tommy D | May 30, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is right. A constitutional convention won't result in a new constitution. We will again see the strange mixture of opponents we saw in the opposition to Proposition 1A, including unions such as UTLA and the Service Employees International Union California State Council, Al Jarvis, and the League of Women Voters. Some unions were for it (i.e. California Teachers Association), while other unions were against it(i.e. California Federated Teachers).Throughout the State, people voted either against an extension of tax hikes or against a spending cap. Despite claims of a clear message to Sacramento, the message was terribly muddy. The more problems you solve in a document, the more people there will be to disagree and to vote against the document. In the years it will take for a constitutional convention to solve the problem, the population will have fled the State. Solve the 2/3s problem.
Posted by: Olivia Gillick | May 30, 2009 at 09:34 AM
I agree that California needs to call a Constitutional Convention. It's not going to fix all the problems but it'll go a long way towards helping. You can read more here.
Posted by: Natch Greyes | May 30, 2009 at 06:00 AM
Ernesto no way are the majority of people going to throw out the 2/3 requirement. That is the only reason we aren't taxed to death right now.
We Are the HIGHEST taxed state. Raising taxes anymore especially in a recession is a stupid idea.
How about cutting out benefits to illegals?
changing union contracts to reflect what the private sector gets?
You can give all the extra tax money you want. You and all the other tax and spend libs can send it in to Sacramento.
Being so generous with other people's money ...
Honestly I truely dislike people like you.
Posted by: BV | May 29, 2009 at 08:40 PM
How about changing the union contracts and reviving something like prop 187.
Trying to change amendments is a round about way to discard prop 13 and prop 8.
How many billions are spent on illegals?
How much of the problem and the problems to come are due to over generous union retirements and payments.
Of course a liberal rag like the LA Times would try to change what people have already said they wanted.
LA Times, something to train dogs with.
Posted by: BV | May 29, 2009 at 08:31 PM
We need to get rid of the 2/3 requirement to pass a budget or raise taxes, and get rid of the 50%+1 vote requirement to change the constitution.
And - we need to realize that we are NOT a high tax state and raise our taxes to the point where we can actually support schools, roads, parks, police and firemen, and not abandon the poor.
Posted by: Ernesto Gomez | May 29, 2009 at 06:27 PM