California Senate Majority Leader Endorses Constitutional Convention
"If Madison was right about the need for well-functioning legislative bodies, and if society is losing them, then we would expect to see signs of the twin threats of which Madison warned - chaos and tyranny. Disturbingly, we do see those signs today."
These words were written by the Majority Leader of the California State Senate in a paper entitled, "The Dangers of Government Gridlock and the Need for a Constitutional Convention."
The Senate Majority Leader in question was Barry Keene and the year was 1992.
But this warning could easily grace the editorial pages of today as the state's leaders quaver on the edge of an even wider budget chasm and as the tide of discontent with the political status quo rises ever higher.
The familiarity of Keene's concerns - and he wasn't alone - belies the notion that our current problem are due to a recent rise in political polarization or a uniquely venal set of public officials. In fact, a constitutional revision commission was convened in the mid 1990s, though its sensible bipartisan recommendations were ignored by a state that was able to coast through a few more years of denial fueled by the tech and housing booms.
But after these gold rushes, we find ourselves in even more dire straits because the root causes of our problems will not go away for all of our wishing. In Keene's words:
"Some people argue that the problems of government are personal rather than structural. They say that our leaders do not lead, do not care or are crooks. But those charges beg the question - why do even the best people in government accomplish to little? The reasons are partly societal, as mentioned, partly attitudinal, as I will note, but mainly structural."
Some of the problems he identifies are endemic to the U.S. Constitutional system as a whole:
"The U.S. and California constitutions invite voters to elect legislative majorities of one philosophy and chief executives of another philosophy. The voters accept the invitation regularly. Enacting policy that moves in one direction, while implementing it in the opposite, virtually guarantees stalemate."
Conventional wisdom would suggest that our political problems primarily result from California-specific policy straitjackets we have buckled ourselves into - such as Propositions 13 and 98. But the current budget standoff between a Republican governor and Democratic legislature is just politics as usual in the checked and balanced American system. 
Thad Kousser, Professor of Political Science at the University of California at San Diego made this exact point about divided government and gridlock in his presentation at a forum that the New America Foundation hosted on constitutional reform. It is also echoed within a paper from last fall by Eric McGhee of the Public Policy Institute of California on "Redistricting and Legislative Partisanship."
But as Keene saw then - and as many are observing now - some of our structural problems, if not entirely unique, are magnified dramatically in California. An excellent example is our extraordinary abuse initiative process. As Keene explain, the sentiments that have lead Californians to develop these patterns are understandable but these actions are ultimately self-defeating:
"The public sees that the state government is stalemated. People turn to initiatives that, with all of their failings, have the one apparent virtue the Governor and the Legislature often lack - they at least accomplish something. But in doing so, they drive the regular policymakers from the decisionmaking field; the initiatives' special-interest sponsors lock them into the constitution, or into initiative statutes that the Governor and Legislature generally cannot change in response to new circumstances or new public demands. Government becomes even more stalemated."
Many of solutions to this stalemate advanced by Keene would also look very familiar to the reformers of today. He advocates for better campaign finance laws, a streamlined and simplified constitution, and an end to incumbent-oriented redistricting.
California did managed to constructively address the last of these issues through the success of Proposition 11 last year. The campaign finance system, though, has become even more embarrassingly perverse since then; the constitution even more bloated and trivialized.
Perhaps, therefore, we will put in place some of the more fundamental changes Keene recommends including the restoration of political parties, perhaps even within a parliamentary system of government. My colleague Mark Paul and I have also recommended sweeping reforms such as the implementation of full representation within legislative elections. And we're not afraid of parties.
But beyond endorsing specific reforms both incremental and radical, the punchline of Keene's piece is his call for a constitutional convention:
"The structural roadblocks to legislative decisionmaking also prevent the Legislature from enacting most constitutional reform. This is why we need a constitutional convention in California and perhaps in other states."
Over the course of the past year, the Bay Area Council, a group of 500 CEOs, has issued another clarion call for constitutional reform. Some have expressed concern that the convention would get c
aught up in debates about social issues. Keene spoke to these concerns compellingly saying:
"The risk of a runaway state convention is minor, compared with the near-certainty of continued paralysis without one."
Californians are waking up to the need for fundamental structural reform. But there is no guarantee that they will have the right leadership to make these vitally necessary changes or the wherewithal to see the process through to its conclusion. Some still dither, worried about sacred cows that artificially distort tax rates or perpetually lock in funding for specific programs. But until we all let go of our policy prejudices, take a leap of faith with each other, and fix the structural problems that ail the state, things will continue to get worse. Barry Keene saw it in 1992; organizations like the Bay Area Council, the New America Foundation, California Forward and the William C. Velasquez Institute see it today.
Or, on the other hand, we may live in denial for a few more years; after all, our once great state, was once very, very great and has not yet completely rotted to the core.
Interesting piece, Micah,
Interesting piece, Micah, with a lot of important points. However, I'm not sure either Thad's or my research says the budget battles are "politics as usual." Mine just says that the polarization we see in the legislature is not the product of redistricting--it doesn't deny that polarization has occurred (because it has), or that it might have important effects on the budget process (because I believe it does). Also, while I don't want to speak for Thad, it seems like his research only deals with gridlock on non-budgetary topics. I don't read it as saying that gridlock on the budget is necessarily normal or healthy.
Fair enough
What I meant to convey in that part of the piece was consistent with what I understood to be the point of your redistricting piece, namely that a single reform that was being touted as a panacea wouldn't necessarily address the central challenges in our system.
Further, I also meant to convey not that we should just throw up our hands about the current budget battles as being "politics as usual." They are extreme and unfortunate - though largely a part of an unusual economic downturn. But beyond that, they are not solely attributable to reforms that tinker with the central elements of the American constitutional system (such as the 2/3rds vote), but at least in part due to these elements (such as divided government). Even if the Democratic legislature could pass a majority budget right now, it would be vetoed by the governor.
Thanks for your commentary!
Past time for a constitutional convention
The Legislature cannot do it; revision commissions, laden with special interests, cannot do it; it will take a constitutional convention of the people. However, some who have special advantages in the constitution, through ballot box budgeting, want to protect their special status quo and put an advance strait jacket on what the convention could consider.
In other words, they claim their favored positions were "the will of the people", but that the people cannot be trusted with fundamental reform of government through a convention. Business and other opinion leaders should not give in to them. There is too much at stake to guarantee protection for narrow self-interests.
Where do the candidates for Governor stand on constitutional reform? They should be pestered until they answer. Or is prestige they seek, irrespective of the governmental machinery they will be stuck with?
There must be a constituency for change
At a lunchtime presentation today, one of my mentors, J. Fred Silva, told a crowd composed of mostly undergraduate UC students, as well as various members of the Sacramento policy community, about his experiences as staff director to the 1996 California Constitutional Revision Commission (CCRC).
Fred's first lesson was that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste (far from his exact words). See, the CCRC was created in 1993, but did not issue its recommendations until 1996. By that time, the crisis had passed. We cannot let this one slip away. On the other hand, if it's as bad as some experts think, maybe it won't let us slip away.
Fred's second lesson was that there needs to be a constituency for change. This is perhaps what troubles me the most about current efforts. Certainly, with the current crisis' magnitude there is a larger constituency relative to any period absent a crisis. But compared to what? Is the constituency for reform bigger than SEIU? Bigger than the Howard Jarvis folks and their conservative talk radio entourage? I doubt it.
The average citizen does not understand process distinctions. Redistricting, campaign finance, open primaries, con-cons - this is all complicated stuff.
And it is quite easy for us wonky-types to miss the forest for the trees when we recognize the acumen of the moment and the incredible logic of and need for process reform.
This is why I have taken the bold step to establish the California Moderate Party (www.camod.org). It's an idea so crazy that it just might work. Our philosophy? Let's put governing over winning. More importantly, let us build the constituency for change.
According to the May 2009 Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Statewide Survey, nearly one-third of Californians consider themselves "middle-of-the-road" politically. Yet they have zero representation in the Legislature (if you count Mr. Arambula's recent defection, the number increases to 0.8 percent).
So it's not that process reform is not more urgent now than it ever has been since the 1930s. Quite the contrary. But if we are to take ourselves seriously as reformers, we must embrace Mr. Silva's two axioms that (1) timing matters, and (2) a constituency must exist.
Heeding those two rules, my response to anyone who thinks that a mainstream third party can't thrive in this state are Fred's concluding remarks from his presentation today:
"I would rather be an optimist declared a fool than a pessimist declared right."
It is also time for a national convention
If one assumes the state legislatures require updating, this is also true of the national constitution. Article V permits amendments to it when necessary.
The states have made it clear amendments are needed. All 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention. The Constitution requires a convention call if 34 states submit 34 applications. The texts of the applications can be read at www.foavc.org.
California Constitutional Convention
California must revise the direct democracy parts of our State Constitution- referendums, etc. It is too easy for special interest groups to take a single issue to the voters in a convincing manner to mandate change in our Constitution. However, I don't recall any of these direct democracy mandates actually changing the structure of our California Government. Redistricting is especially a matter we need to change. Public employment retirement is another major change. The use of public funds to support more and more Californians who are required to do less and less in return must be changed. Political philosphies have taken the Golden State to bankruptcy, no matter the structure of the State Government. Like New York City in the early Seventies, our State is broke-we can't pay the outstanding bills. NYC had to set up an agency outside of municipal government to manage finances. Some did not like it, such as those paid to collect garbage and trash, and those in elected office.
California should call for a ConCon so that decisions of the past can be removed or changed, and the revised Constitution support the formation of an independent agency to manage finances until such time as budgets can be put into balance- and kept so. We cannot longer endure the burden of bad ideas. On yes- mandate a BALANCED BUDGET.
balanced budget
One of the interesting things about the state is that we supposedly have a balanced budget requirement, as do 48 other states. However, there are many ways to get around this such as borrowing to cover operating expenses, as the current Governor promised we'd never have to do again when he convinced us to take out a huge chunk of money a few years ago.
Though I am of the school that says that most budgetary issues should not be in the constitutional, I think that we absolutely need better laws and regulations (perhaps constitutional ones) about operating vs. capital budgeting for the state.
But, of course, if we can amend the constitutional by majority vote all of these issues are moot.
Thanks for your commentary.
No Constitutional Convention.....err Coup d'etat
A coup d'etat waiting to happen. Hopefully some conservatives will say HELL NO!! It must be labeled as a coup d'etat by politicians versus voters. I don't see any difference than Congress. If a President vetoes a budget congress needs a 2/3 budget to override until then they have to come to an agreement the President signs. Even if there wasn't a 2/3 requirement then Arnold could theoretically veto until State legislature got a 2/3 to override veto. Gridlock has occurred before and the reason it is so bad was because of massive borrowing in the past 5 years and one bad fiscal year and bills are due.
gridlock
It's an interesting observation that our supermajority budget rule is just like the supermajority override rule in the United States Constitution.
The point is that all of these veto points cause gridlock. They are, in fact, designed to do so. Maybe we have too many veto points, maybe we have too few. But borrowing doesn't cause gridlock. In fact, it is the supermajority requirement that leads us to least common denominator solutions like borrowing. If there were simple majority requirement, Dems would probably raise taxes (and perhaps get voted out for doing so) but we'd have more fiscal responsibility in the sense of matching revenues to expenditures.
Your contention that a constitutional convention represents a coup d'etat of the politicians versus voters is pure paranoid poppycock. The constitutional convention is an effort that has occured entirely outside of the legislature and is driven currently by 500 business CEOs.
I'm not sure what you mean by "conservative," but no conservative in any meaningful sense of the word would side with the Democratically controlled legislature against business CEOs.
Post new comment