Governor

An Old Fight Becomes New Again in Arizona

Joe Mathews — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:43:00 -0400

Arizona's new governor, Jan Brewer, who took over when Janet Napolitano joined President Obama's cabinet as homeland security secretary, is seeking to limit initiative power in the state. Among other changes, she wants to undo a constitutional amendment that makes it next to impossible for the legislature to change a law enacted by ballot initiative.

As the Arizona Republic explains in this thorough history, Brewer is re-opening an argument that is as old as the state.

Arnold Hints He'll Protect Existing Marriages

Joe Mathews — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:27:00 -0500

Gov. Schwarzenegger, appearing Sunday on ABC's This Week, indicated he was inclined to protect the marriages of gay couples who legally tied the knot this year. These marriages could be at risk because of the passage of Prop 8. Schwarzenegger offers the caveat that such an order must be legal, and that he must first confer with Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has said he will defend Prop 8 while also protecting the existing marriages. Here's the exchange with interviewer George Stephanopolous.

STEPHANOPOULOS: In the meantime, some legal experts have suggested that you should, if you believe that, issue an edict, a ruling, that says that the marriages that have already taken place in California are absolutely legal. Will you do that?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I have to get together with Jerry Brown, our attorney general, and see what the legal opinion is, because he's my lawyer, basically. And so, we always do those things together.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're inclined to do it?

SCHWARZENEGGER: It's a conversation that I can have with him about the -- if that's the legal way to go.

Jerry Brown, Pretzel

Joe Mathews — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:27:00 -0500

Good politicians have the ability to appear to be on both sides of an issue, but Jerry Brown -- the former governor and presidential candidate, and the current attorney general of California -- is breaking new ground in this realm. Try to follow this: Brown, a likely candidate for governor in 2010, is supportive of same-sex marriage politically. But before the state supreme court, he's defending Prop 8, the just-approved initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California. At the same time, he's defending the marriages of approximately 18,000 gay couples who took the plunge in the past five months, while such unions were legal.

What's interesting about these Brown positions is that it's a safe bet he'll prevail upon all three. It's fairly likely that one of the four members of the state supreme court who voted to legalize same-sex marriage may reconsider when faced with a vote of the public. At the same time, it would be ghastly -- and legally messy -- to void the marriages of gay couples who were married legally. (This is not just a marriage issue; these married couples have changed names, adopted children, planned estates, written wills and bought property together, creating enough legal dilemmas to choke the courts). And in the long term, Brown's political position in favor of same-sex marriage is almost certain to prevail in California (assuming angry same-sex marriage supporters come to their senses and stop marching on churches).

2010 California Candidates On The Ballot Propositions

Joe Mathews — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:08:00 -0500

The Sacramento Bee's Shane Goldmacher surveyed all the potential candidates for California governor in 2010 on their positions on the 12 statewide ballot measures. The full list is here, and the story is here. The frontrunners on both sides -- Jerry Brown and Dianne Feinstein for the Dems, Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman for the Reps -- ducked the survey.

Constitutional Convention Has Momentum

Joe Mathews — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:57:00 -0400

I visited yesterday afternoon with Jim Wunderman and othe rstaff and consultants of the Bay Area Council, the San Francisco-based organization that is pushing a state constitutional convention. I'll write at more length later, but the two main things I learned is 1. The process is still early, and even Wunderman, the strongest advocate for this idea, doesn't have a clear idea of how such a convention would be called and how it might work. 2. The convention idea has real momentum. Wunderman has been deluged with expressions of interest from across the political spectrum. And if he and his lawyers (Hanson Bridgett is providing legal advice) can figur eout the mechanics of this quickly and file a measure, he wantsan initiative to call a constitutional convention to appear on next year's special election ballot.

As evidence of that interest, Schwarzenegger gave a shout-out to the convention idea, without specifically endorsing it, in his budget press conference yesterday. Here's the paragraph in question, from the official transcript released by the governor's office:

"Each time we go through something like this that we have just gone through, it's important that we reevaluate everything. And so I think some people say we should have a constitutional convention and all kinds of different ideas are being thrown around. We know that the system itself is not working, that it's flawed and therefore we should revisit it and come up with ways so that we can speed up this process and that when we say that there should be a budget, a balanced budget by June 15th, that there is one, because I think that that says a lot for our state and for the financial community and Wall Street and all, when we are fiscally responsible."

Will They Wear Powdered Wigs? Thoughts On A California Constitutional Convention

Joe Mathews — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:36:00 -0400

California's elites are talking, and here's what they're saying: this governor can't get things done, the legislature is hopeless, the entire state government is dysfunctional. (OK, just because they're elites, they're not wrong. These are Western Elites, not the dreaded Eastern Elites who are being so, so, so unfair to Sarah Palin). The you know what has hit the fan. The only way to fix this is top-to-bottom reform.

So let's have a constitutional convention.

What does your blogger think? Put the convention in some place nice (Monterey, maybe, or how about Coronado?) and I'm there, live blogging every second. But while I hate to burst bubbles (OK, I enjoy the occasional bubble burst), I wonder if a constitutional convention is a realistic goal, and whether such a gathering might be more trouble than it's worth.

Take for example the two-thirds supermajority required for the legislature to pass a budget or raise taxes. That would be an obvious target of a major constitutional reform. And it would face fierce opposition from Republicans, who as the minority need the two-thirds requirement to remain relevant. Voters, who see Prop 13's supermajority requirement for taxes as sacred, also would object. But, under Article XVIII of the state constitution, the calling of a constitutional convention must begin with -- a vote of two-thirds of the legislature. Oh, bitter irony!

(The two-thirds vote of the legislature wouldn't be enough to call the convention. That vote would be simply to ask the public whether to call the convention. Voters, by a simple majority, would then decide whether to have such a convention.)

I spent yesterday researching the subject, and talking to folks involved in the push for the constitutional convention. Supporters of the idea offer alternative methods to call a convention. One way would be to use the initiative process. Such an initiative would be complicated (so complicated it might have to be split into two parts). First, the initiative would have to change the constitution to permit voters to call a convention directly, without the legislature first voting to put the question on the ballot. Then the initiative -- or companion second initiative -- would have to ask voters to call such a convention and set out the rules under which the constitution would operate.

Kevin Starr, the distinguished historian who is on a panel of California history experts advising the effort, appeared with me yesterday on Warren Olney's KCRW (89.9-FM) show, "Which Way, LA?". He offered another alternative. Reformers could convene -- outside the normal process -- a citizens' constitutional convention. If done well, it would produce recommendations and create pressure on the legislature to act. Perhaps two thirds of the legislature could be convinced to begin the process of calling an actual convention, or to adopt some of the recommendations directly.

All of this is interesting. But it feels somewhat indirect. We have an initiative process that allows us to change the state constitution. Why go through the extra steps? Well, making big changes the normal way would require multiple initiatives. With a constitutional convention, the reforms could be presented -- as a whole, in one measure -- to voters for approval. Which would make things easier.

Put me down for now as a skeptic, unless the convention electors wear powdered wigs, of course. In that case, I'm 100 percent for it. I love costume dramas.

Governor Should Embrace Own Recall

Joe Mathews — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:49:00 -0400

Here's my LA Times piece arguing that Gov. Schwarzenegger should respond to the prison guards' recall effort -- by embracing the recall vote and using it to rebuild his political capital.

Text Of Recall Notice Against Arnold

Joe Mathews — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:01:00 -0400

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER: Pursuant to the California
Constitution and Section 11020, California Elections Code, the undersigned registered qualified voters of the State of California hereby give notice that we are the proponents of a recall petition ( and that we intend to seek your recall and removal from the office of Governor of the State of California and to demand election of a successor in that office.

The grounds for the recall are as follows:

Catastrophic leadership failings and inept management, including, but not limited to, repeated acts of untrustworthiness, gross fiscal mismanagement jeopardizing funding for schools, infrastructure, public safety and other essential services; reckless borrowing, saddling taxpayers and future generations of Californians with billions of dollars in new debt; breaking your promise to "cut up the credit cards" and oppose new taxes; failure to reform California's correctional system, causing a federal takeover of prison health care and costing taxpayers an estimated $8 billion; using state workers as "scapegoats" for your leadership failure and threatening their rights and financial wellbeing; soliciting and accepting special interest money at levels never before seen in California history'; betraying voter trust and mortgaging our children's future; and leaving California in far worse shape than before your election.