Mark Paul

Why Constitutional Convention Must Consider Prop 13

Joe Mathews — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:22:00 -0400

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.

How to Make Self-Funding Initiative Legislation Work

Joe Mathews — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:31:00 -0400

Mark Paul, New America senior scholar, has studied the question of how the state might implement rules requiring initiatives that create new spending to include a source of revenues. (This is in reference to California legislation, SCA-14, prohibiting "something for nothing" initiatives that mandate spending without new revenues). Here is the relevant excerpt from a memo he prepared on the subject.

"The initiative process is established in Article 2, Section 8 of the state consti-
tution. This section should be amended to provide that no initiative measure
shall be placed before voters or have any effect if it increases General Fund
spending or reduces General Fund revenues and does not include provisions
that offset those effects on the state budget.
"To carry out this constitutional change, it will also be necessary to revise the
corresponding statutes involving the initiative process. Section 12172 of the
Government Code and Section 9005 of the Elections Code currently guide
the preparation of a ﬁscal analysis of initiatives submitted to the Attorney
General for title and summary. These seem the most likely places to add lan-
guage specifying how it will be determined if an initiative meets the new
constitutional language barring 'something for nothing' measures.
"Issues for consideration:
"1. Threshold. Should the prohibition on 'something for nothing' initia-
tives have a threshold? The goal of the changes proposed here is to
keep the initiative process from distorting the state's ﬁnances. But the
costs associated with "something for nothing" measures range from
very minor to huge. It seems sensible to set a threshold for application
of this provision, just as there is usually a dollar threshold set by the
appropriations committees in dealing with legislation. For example,
the constitutional provision could require an offset when the initiative is estimated to have an annual ﬁscal effect amounting to more than
one-twentieth of 1 percent of the General Fund (roughly $50 million in
current terms) or more than one-tenth of 1 percent of the General Fund
in one-time or capital costs (roughly $100 million).
2. Time frame. The language should spell out over what time the initiative
should be measured for ﬁscal effect. The time should be long enough
to discourage initiative proponents from backloading costs into future
years but short enough to allow for credible estimates by analysts.
Given that the most expensive measures have been those, like Three
Strikes, that build up slowly, ten years seems a reasonable time frame.
3. Fiscal estimates. Under current law, the Legislative Analyst, Depart-
ment of Finance, and Joint Legislative Budget Committee have roles in
determining the ﬁscal impact of initiatives. Does it make sense to set
up a process for estimating how much a measure will cost and
whether the proposed offsets are sufﬁcient or credible? Would it be
useful for there to be a way for the public to participate (by way of a
hearing?) in the analysis or give the initiative proponent an opportunity
to appeal an estimate he or she considers incorrect or arbitrary?"

Bay Area Event Thursday: What's Next in California?

Joe Mathews — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:36:00 -0400

Those of you in the Bay Area may want to check out a lunchtime event this Thursday at the San Francisco State downtown campus. My New America colleague Mark Paul and Noel Perry, founder of Next 10, will offer a detailed budget briefing of the state's options. The event is free, but be sure to reserve a seat (and find out more details) here.

Please Join Us This Saturday In San Diego

Joe Mathews — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:33:00 -0400

Please join us this Saturday morning, May 2, in San Diego for what should be a fascinating discussion about the ballot measures on the May 19 special election. The event runs from 10 to 11:30 a.m. at the San Diego Hall of Champions. (Sports fans out there would be wise to make it a day of California governance and sports). The event is free, but be sure to reserve yourself a seat by signing up here or here. And you can consider this brunch if you like--there will be food.

The panel is headlined by former Congressman and former state finance director Tom Campbell, who has thought as deeply about the state budget as anyone alive. (He has an interesting discussion on tax reform currently running on his web site). Also on the panel are Chris Reed of the San Diego Union-Tribune, writer of America's Finest Blog; New America senior scholar Mark Paul; and your blogger. The co-sponsors are New America, the Center for Policy Initiatives, and the City Club of San Diego.

Paul on Whether Voters Can Call A Constitutional Convention

Joe Mathews — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:53:00 -0500

New America senior scholar Mark Paul has a strong post on New America's political reform blog in which he rebuts claims that only the legislature can call a constitutional convention.

'The Golden Rule of Representation'

Joe Mathews — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:09:00 -0500

We're now in a panel discussion with the goo goos (Common Cause, Center for Governmental Studies, League of Women Voters). My New America colleague Mark Paul just had a good line that would be a good principle to guide a constitutional convention. "The Golden Rule of Representation," as Paul put it, is that we should "give unto others the representation you would have them give unto you."

He then launched into a call for proportional representation.

The consensus of the panel is that the legislature itself--and fixing how it works--is at the heart of the state's problems. There's been almost nothing about changing the executive and judicial branches.

What Happens When the Cash Runs Out?

Joe Mathews — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:54:00 -0500

Last night in LA, I moderated a panel with State Controller John Chiang, Barclays Capital managing director Peter J. Taylor (a public finance expert), and New America senior scholar Mark Paul on California's cash crunch. A report on what was said is here. One message: even if the tentative deal that legislators and the governor appear to have reached in the last 24 hours won't end the cash crunch. The state still has serious cash flow problems, said Chiang, comparing a state with a budget deal to an unemployed person who has suddenly found a job and income -- but still has to deal with the debts and bills he delayed paying while he was unemployed.

Why States Belong In the Stimulus Package

Joe Mathews — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:55:00 -0500

Over at the California Progress Report, my New America colleague Mark Paul explains why.

Tuesday in Sacramento: Please Join Me for 'Blockbuster Democracy' Event

Joe Mathews — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:51:00 -0400

For all the complaints about California's initiative process, there have been few serious proposals for improving it. New America is hosting an event Tuesday (October 14) in Sacramento, Blockbuster Democracy (a familiar and catchy name, don't you think?), to give several folks -- your blogger among them -- a chance to offer possible solutions. Full details of the event are here. (That link also includes space to sign up to attend the event). u

The event kicks off at 9:30 a.m. at the California State Association of Counties conference center, 1020 11th Street, 2nd floor. I'll be speaking first, offering a detailed proposal I'm calling, "More Referenda, Fewer Initiatives." After that, you'll hear from Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies, which earlier this year released an exhaustive study of direct democracy in California. Other panelists are Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign; Anthony Rubenstein, managing partner of SinoTransPacific Ventures and chairman of Californians for Clean Energy, sponsor of Proposition 87 in 2006; and my New America colleague Mark Paul, senior scholar, who will discuss the impact of initiatives on California's troubled finances. Lunch is provided, and there will be time during lunch for lots of questions from the audience. Hope you'll be able to join us. It should be worth your while.