The Blockbuster Democracy Blog

New America senior scholar Mark Paul, writing at Calbuzz, makes a very strong case for making sure that Prop 13 is considered by a constitutional convention.

Given its centrality to governance in California, it's shocking that drafts of the initiative to call the convention specifically keep Prop 13 out of it. And pointless, too. Like putting together a meeting to discuss football but saying you won't mention the passing game.

In California, statewide initiatives have been slow to hit the streets. So where are our signature gatherers? A few are in other states. But judging by my sources, an army of gatherers seems to have convened in the eastside city of Walnut Creek.

Why? Money, of course. There's a huge fight between two mall owners -- one a company, Taubman Centers, that owns a mall in nearby Concord, and the mall giant Macerich, which supports establishing a Neiman Marcus in Walnut Creek's downtown Broadway Plaza. And each side has multiple measures working. The group opposing Neiman Marcus has circulated two referenda to reverse actions of the city council supporting the project. The pro-Neiman Marcus side has an initiative that could trump the referenda. Such fights between economic interests have become more and more common in California and other states, as disputes that once were fought in city councils and planning commissions spill onto the ballot.

What does this mean for petition circulators? A windfall. Gatherers in Walnut Creek say they are being paid $4 for each signature they collect outside retail establishments -- and $10 (yes, you read that right) a signature for door-to-door work. Those are among the highest payments for work on a local petition that I've ever seen in California. In the East Bay, it's Christmas in July.

I'll be moderating a panel at 7:30 p.m. on July 9 at the California Endowment, 1000 N. Alameda, in Los Angeles. And yes, Jake, I know where that is--Chinatown.

The subject: the human cost of cuts to social services in the state of California. The event is free and open to the public (with a free reception to follow--free drinks!). You can reserve a seat and find out more about the program here.

Yes, California has issued IOUs before -- during the summer budget battle of 1992, which also came in the midst of a major recession. But tomorrow, when the state starts paying bills with IOUs (barring a budget compromise miracle in Sacramento), it will be the first time that this has happened in the era of the Internet. Let me be the first to predict some civil disobedience, with the 'net as organizing hub. Californians may launch efforts to pay their own tax bills and other government fees via IOU. And if banks refuse to accept IOUs as seems likely (they did accept IOUs in the early 90s, when California was still home to the headquarters of Bank of America), you'll see organized public pressure on them to reverse that verdict.

On a radio show, I was asked recently what my greatest worry is about the California budget crisis. I dodged the question then. It's not the damage being done to our economy. It's not even the cuts to programs that could put some of our neediest citizens in harm's way, though I do worry about that. It's the possible of civil disobedience or worse if the state starts to disintegrate.

Former California Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, chair of the new reform organization California Forward, deals a blow to the idea of state constitutional convention in today's Sacramento Bee. He says a convention couldn't produce change until 2012, and the state can't afford to wait that long. Instead, California Forward wants to give the opportunity for the legislature to act on various reform measures. If they don't, the measures will go on the ballot next year.

Many of the news reports about the Honduran military's decision to remove President Manuel Zelaya have failed to explain clearly the context and timing of the removal. Zelaya was an elected president. But he was removed because of his abuse of democracy -- specifically Honduran direct democracy.

Zelaya called an unconstitutional referendum to lift the rule limited presidents to one, four-year term. The constitution of Honduras permits a national referendum, but only if it is approved by Congress. Zelaya pursued his plebiscite despite the opposition of Congress and a clear decision from the Honduran supreme court. The military, in removing Zelaya, was acting on the lawful orders of that court. This was not a coup -- it was a defense of the constitution -- and specifically its provisions on direct democracy. 

I'll be interviewing former California Gov. Pete Wilson tomorrow night (that's Monday, June 29) at 7 p.m. at RAND, 1776 Main Street in Santa Monica. We'll discuss our state and how it might be governed. Then the floor will be open to audience questions. The event is free and open to the public, with a reception with food and drinks to follow. You can reserve a seat here.

The full description of the event is below.

WAS PETE WILSON RIGHT?

Pete Wilson’s California wasn’t too different from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s. The state’s education system lagged behind the rest of the country, interest groups had a tight grip on Sacramento, healthcare costs were rising, and the economy was the worst it had been since the Great Depression. While Wilson may be best remembered for his more controversial stances—like supporting Proposition 187, which sought to refuse services to illegal immigrants—he also managed to pass budgets and break partisan stalemates, ultimately leaving his successor a budget surplus. Ten years after he left office, at a time when many claim California is ungovernable, Pete Wilson visits Zócalo to chat about the economy, interest groups, and how he might address the problems the state faces today.

California's Little Hoover Commission, which investigates government agencies and focuses on efficiency, is out with a thoughtful new report on the state's stem cell agency and its governing board.

The report concludes that the board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is too large and that the initiative that created the agency, Prop 71 in 2004, is "overly prescriptive" and locks in place too many inefficiencies. I reported as much last month in the Scientific American.

Among the major recommendations, from a summary released by Little Hoover:

California is slowly moving in this direction. Orange County adopted a measure requiring voter approval of pension increases for government workers last fall. San Diego has a similar requirement in place. Now Ventura County is looking at putting such a measure on the ballot next year.

It's true that state legislators and local elected officials have a record of irresponsible pension giveaways. (For evidence, look no further than SB 400, the notorious 1999 law that permitted the spiking of pensions across California). But, as this story notes, voters can be big spenders too, even when it comes to pensions.

There's also a question of how intimately voters should be involved in government decisions. The move by economic conservatives to require votes on pensions mirrors the effort by environmentalists and NIMBY types to require votes on every change in land use policy. I can think of any number of controversial government decisions that might be routinely kicked to voters. Should every local community vote on any new government contract?  Every new traffic rerouting? Every school opening or closing? Where does it stop?

I've been up late tonight doing some research for a public event I'm moderating next Monday, June 29, with former Gov. Pete Wilson at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica. In the process, I came across the below article from the Los Angeles Times, published in June 1994. In the piece, California has a budget problem and a cash flow problem. The state controller is threatening to issue IOUs. Sound familiar?

By DANIEL M. WEINTRAUB, TIMES STAFF WRITER
June 16, 1994

SACRAMENTO - Raising the specter of issuing IOUs once again, state Controller Gray Davis said Wednesday that Gov. Pete Wilson's proposed budget "does not fly" because the state cannot show that it will have sufficient cash to repay the loans on which Wilson's plan depends.

A $2.7-billion accounting error led the Republican governor to overestimate the state's cash reserves, and now Wilson has nothing to back up his two-year borrowing plan but a fragile hope for a huge infusion of federal funds the year after next, Davis said.

"We have cried wolf before," said Davis, the state's chief fiscal officer. "Believe me, this time the wolf is at the door. The wolf is here."

Wilson is required to have Davis' approval to go to Wall Street for $5 billion in cash that the state needs to borrow in late July to pay employees, aid the schools and keep prisons and parks running.