Ballot Initiatives

Cliff's Notes on California Constitutional Convention Initiatives

Joe Mathews — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:23:00 -0400

UPDATED Oct. 29, noon:

After two readings, here's my cliff notes version of what's in the proposed initiative to call a constitutional convention.
Aren't there two initiatives?
Yes. There are. The first is easy to understand. It changes the constitution to permit the voters to call a convention directly - thus paving the way for the second initiative, which sets out how such a convention would be put together. There are a couple of pieces of news here--two new rules for how future conventions can be called. Any limits placed on conventions by the initiatives calling them would be "judicially enforceable." And the people would have to wait 10 years after the last convention before they attempt to call another.
What's the stated reason for fixing the constitution?
The current one is beyond saving. To quote from the initiative: "The current Constitution was drafted over one hundred years ago, and has been amended more than 500 times to a point where its original intent is no longer recognizable, and its implementation is no longer feasible." The goal of a convention: "to facilitate a functional government for our State."

So what about that all-important 2nd initiative? How would you describe it?
Long and complicated. It runs more than 8,000 words.
   Here are some highlights:
Get ready for your close-up, Fair Political Practices Commission.
The body - often criticized as toothless and ineffective -- is supposed to be a political watchdog, enforcing campaign, lobbying and conflict of interest laws at the state and local level. This initiative gives the FPPC a huge new role, effectively putting the five-member body in charge of the convention.
The five FPPC commissioners or their designees, reconstituted as a new convention commission, will make sure a convention is convened before June 3, 2011, determine its exact dates and locations, hire the staff and lawyers, and get to have the final say on the eligibility of selected delegates to the convention (and on whether any delegates need to be kicked out of the convention).
The FPPC also will be in charge of providing training and education for the delegates - a hugely important role, since the delegate selection rules are written in a way that will keep out just about anybody who has had any recent acquaintance with state government.
Let me make a fearless prediction: Ross Johnson, the FPPC's chair, is about to become very, very popular.
   Who is eligible to be a delegate?
   Anyone who is 18, a citizen of the United States and a resident of California -- and is not a convicted felon and has not committed the crime of being involved in the government and politics of the state in the past four years. The specifically banned include:
-anyone who has been appointed to a federal, state or local office, agency or commission in California, including state or county central party committees, since 2005.
   -anyone who has worked for or been an officer a political party, candidate, or candidate political committee formed or operating after 2005.
   -anyone who has been a registered state or local lobbyist or has received any income from such a lobbyist or lobbying firm since 2005.
   -anyone who has been a paid staffer to any state agency or commission since 2005.
   How are the delegates to be selected?
   Hold onto your hats. And take a deep breath. This is going to make your head hurt.
   There isn't one delegate selection system. There are three. The first is for selecting 240 delegates by Assembly district. The second is for selecting delegates by county. And the third is for selecting four delegates by Indian tribes.
The Indian tribe selection is relatively easy to explain. There are four federal districts for tribes in each state. The tribes in each of those districts powwow (apologies) and select a delegate.
The other two systems are more complicated. Let's take ‘em one at a time.
1.   Assembly district selection.
There will be 240 delegates selected this way-exactly three, no more and no less, from each Assembly district.
How? This is the lottery-jury-reality TV portion of the competition. There are two rounds of random selection followed by an election among those who are randomly selected. Yeah, some people are gonna get voted off the island.
Here are the dirty details. First, the state auditor selects at random the names of 400 people in each Assembly district who are residents of that district. The random selection can be done from voting lists, vehicle records, telephone directories or other databases. A bit of news here: you don't have to be a registered voter to be randomly selected as a delegate.
The 400 people in each Assembly district who are randomly selected get a letter from the auditor. From the population of those who write back to say they want to be a part of the convention, the auditor randomly selects 50 in each district and invites them to attend a two-day meeting conducted by the FPPC (in its role as the new Constitutional Convention Commission). If the auditor doesn't get 50 replies, then everyone who replies to the letter gets to come.
Those who reply and go to the meeting are asked to certify that they meet the delegate eligibility rules. Then the twice-randomly-selected from each assembly district elect by secret ballot three people from among themselves to be delegates. They'll also pick two alternates. (Bummer about the secret ballot, but - TV producers take note - the initiative has no language preventing the ballots from being opened on live TV with reaction shots of the losers).
2. County delegate selections.
There will be one county delegate for every 175,000 persons residing in a county of the state. Each county gets at least one delegate. But after that, you need 175,000 for another delegate. If you're a county with 1 person or 349,999 people, you'll have the same representation: one delegate.
   Who picks these county delegates? Politicians. (ALERT: Initiative is politically vulnerable right here!)
Here's the process. Each county will have a delegate selection committee of five people that generally will include two members of the county board of supervisors, two mayors, and one person selected by school boards in that county. These county delegate selection committees can't pick whomever they want. They have to establish criteria, have public meetings, have people apply, etc. Delegates are chosen by a majority vote of the five person county committee.
There are exceptions to this system. Delegates from the state's three largest cities - Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose - are to be chosen by majority vote of their city councils. Before the fourth largest city, San Francisco, protests, let me remind you that San Francisco is its own county, so there'd be no point in exempting you. And before cities #5 (Fresno) and #6 (Sacramento) start complaining, let me remind you two that you're a lot smaller than the top 4 and that nobody really likes you.

The initiative uses Los Angeles and some scary long division to explain the big city exemption. The actual text:

"The number of delegates selected by the City Council shall be in proportion to the total population of the County in which the City lies, and the total number of delegates selected from the County, rounded to the nearest whole number percentage and whole number of delegates. For example, if a County has a population of 10,393,185 and a City within that County has a population of 4,065,585, the delegates from that County shall be selected as follows: (1) The total number of delegates allotted to the County shall be calculated by dividing the total population by 175,000, and rounding to the nearest whole number-in the example given, 10,393,185 divided by 175,000 is 59.38, meaning that the County will send a total of 59 delegates to the convention; (2) The proportionate percentage of the City population shall be calculated by dividing it by the total population of the County and rounded to the nearest whole number percentage-in the example given, 4,065,585 divided by 10,393,135, rounded to the nearest whole number percentage, is 39%, meaning that the City Council will select 39% of the 59 delegates from the County; (3) The applicable number of delegates is calculated, rounded to the nearest whole number-in the example given, 39% of 59 delegates, rounded to the nearest whole number is 23. Therefore, in the example given, the City Council will select 23 of the County's 59 delegates, and the County Delegate Selection Committee will select 36 of the County's 59 delegates.

   All right, now we return to the English language to discuss what the convention will be about.
   The convention is limited to four areas, all goo goo stuff.
   Parse the exact text for yourselves, kids:
"1) Government Effectiveness, including a method for periodically reviewing
each State agency, department, board and commission to determine whether it is performing its functions to meet the needs of the people of the State and whether it should have its enabling legislation modified, be merged into another new or existing entity, or cease to exist.
"(2) Elections and Reduction of Special Interest Influence, including the
initiative and referendum process, the election of state office holders, campaign finance, term limits, and ways to increase legislative responsiveness, reduce gridlock and produce full representation of all Californians.
"(3) Spending and Budgeting, including the budget process and related
requirements, the term and balancing of a budget, voting thresholds, mandated spending, and ways to increase fiscal accountability and efficiency.
"(4) Governance, including the relationship between the state and local
governments, and the structure of the legislative and executive branches of government.

   So what's not on the table?
   Raising or reducing taxes and fees. Specifically, the convention's revisions, amendments or suggested statutory changes "may not include new language, or
alter existing language, that (1) directly imposes or reduces any taxes or fees; (2) sets the
frequency at which real property is assessed or re-assessed; or (3) defines "change in ownership' as it relates to any tax or fee.'"
Also off the table is all the fun stuff: marriage or abortion rights, gambling or casinos of any type, affirmative action, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, immigration rights, or the death penalty.
   OK, so now that we know this thing may be a bloodless snoozefest, tell us: how will the convention be run?
   The chief justice of the California Supreme Court will kick things off at the big opening photo op. But the clerk -who is hired by the FPPC - has a ton of power. The clerk can speak for the convention when the convention is not in session. The clerk also may present a schedule and a plan, and will write a report on what happens. The clerk is a non-partisan position and must abide by the rules of an FPPC commissioner (can't be holding any other public officer, serving as an officer of a party or partisan organization, participating in campaign, or working as a lobbyist).
   Memo to CTA, the prison guards, the oil industry, big tobacco, the pharmaceutical boys: you best be sure the clerk is one of yours. Important point that might just come up some day: the clerk can be fired by the convention, but only by a two-thirds vote. (That's special protection-the convention runs on majority rules in just about everything else).
   How much is this going to cost Juan Q. Taxpayer?
   The delegates will be paid the same rate as the lowest-paid state legislators. The initiative requires that $1.75 per California resident be transferred from the state general fund to fund a convention. My quick back-of-the-envelope math puts the initial budget at $65 million. That can be increased, but there's a cap of $95 million. Which, strictly by a point of comparison, was the estimated 2009 payroll of the Los Angeles Dodgers. And they couldn't even make the World Series.
   The convention's sessions-all of them-must be public. A majority of the delegates must be present for a quorum. (My suspicion is that getting a quorum might prove difficult at times, given the fact that the convention delegates will not necessarily be the most public-spirited among us. But maybe we'll see).
   Will it ever end?
   The convention has a deadline of March 1, 2012 for completing its work. The time can be extended by a two-thirds vote of the convention, but there is an absolute drop-dead deadline of July 1, 2012. Within 7 days after the convention adjourns, the governor calls an election (that will be designated special but will be consolidated with an existing statewide election).
   That election can take place no later than Nov. 6, 2012.
   So if all goes well, the state could have a new constitution three years from next Friday.

2nd Pot Tax Initiative Drops In California

Joe Mathews — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:49:00 -0400

Now there are two -- two legalize and tax cannabis initiatives in Calfiornia. Two weeks ago, a group of three Bay Area lawyers filed an initiative to legalize the possession of cannabis for recreational purposes and to license and tax the production and sale of same. Today, a lawyer working with Richard Lee of Oaksterdam University in Oakland filed a second measure. This is more detailed than the alternative but the overall thrust -- creating a structure similar to the regulatory regime for alcohol -- is similar. A link to a PDF of the measure is here.

In a related piece, my column in the Daily Beast this week is about the heavy attention that marijuana taxation is likely to receive -- and how that attention could become a problem for groups seeking broader political and budget reform in California.

Colorado Tax Revolt?

Joe Mathews — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:26:00 -0400

Three new initiatives circulating in Colorado seek to reverse tax hikes enacted by the legislature and Gov. Bill Ritter. Organizers aren't saying who is sponsoring the measures, which could end up on a state ballot next year, but this story suggests one force behind the initiatives may be Colorado Springs anti-tax activist Doug Bruce.

Prop 98 -- A Time to Kill

Joe Mathews — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:46:00 -0400

A dispute over the meaning of California's complex education funding formula -- Prop 98, a union-backed ballot initiative that was approved by voters in 1988 -- is holding up budget talks at the moment. Prop 98 isn't as well known as Prop 13, the 1978 property tax limitation measure that also established the terrible two-thirds requirement for raising taxes in Calfiornia, but the two initiatives are cousins. Prop 98 has become Democratic holy writ, and Prop 13 is Republican holy writ. Neither measure has done what it's supposed to do (Prop 98 is supposed to protect education funding; Prop 13 is supposed to protect us from taxes and over-spending). It's time to end both and start over.

For a further explanation, check out these links.

-My recent column at Fox & Hounds Daily on why we should end Prop 98 and what we might replace it with.

-My piece from last year's LA Times on Prop 98, its complexity and its history.

-Eric Bailey's piece in today's LA Times on Prop 98's role in the current budget process.

Would Gay Marriage Initiative Benefit From Marijuana Legalization Measure?

Joe Mathews — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:19:00 -0400

Supporters of same-sex marriage seem to be moving to delay a ballot initiative campaign to overturn Prop 8 and legalize such marriages from 2010 until 2012. Their thinking is that they need more time to convert voters, and that the 2012 electorate will be larger -- and younger, and thus more inclined to back same-sex marriage.

But I wonder if they're right about that. The 2010 ballot in California could draw a number of young and new voters sympathetic to same sex marriage for one reason: an initiative legalizing marijuana. I have not seen polling on this (does anyone out there have surveys to share), but one would suspect that there's more than a little overlap between supporters of legalizing pot possession and legalizing same-sex marriage. (Your blogger, for the record, thinks the case for legalizing same-sex marriage is strong and the case for legalizing marijuana is weak). The marijuana initiative is likely to dominate the news and public discussion. That could help the cause of same-sex marriage.

Wait 'Til 2012 On Same Sex Marriage?

Joe Mathews — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:35:00 -0400

Some gay rights groups say they need more time to convince voters to back legalization of same-sex marriage in California, the LA Times reports. Reaction: this may be too cautious, but there may be advantages to waiting. One developing problem with the 2010 ballot is that it appears likely to be crowded with high profile measures on taxation, budgeting, the constitutional convention and, of course, marijuana legalization.

Personhood Is Back

Joe Mathews — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:30:00 -0400

One of the more interesting developments in abortion politics in recent years is the effort by some pro-life activists to qualify statewide ballot initiatives that define a fertilized embryo as a human being, with all legal protections. A measure reached the ballot in Colorado last year and lost. But activists in that state and in Montana are trying again, with an eye on the 2010 elections.

These measures are unlikely to win -- because the concept of personhood initiatives has not been embraced by much of the pro-life movement. In Montana, for example, several leading pro-life groups are declining to back the measure because they think the personhood approach has little strategic value. In particular, pro lifers are concerned that personhood initaitives accept the logic of Roe v. Wade -- that viability of the fetus is a bright line for legalized abortion -- and thus would strengthen that precedent. So these initiatives come from smaller, less established pro-life groups--they are grass roots. More details via Christian Post.

Navajos To Vote on Their First Ballot Initiatives

Joe Mathews — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:57:00 -0400

A judge's ruling has cleared the way for the Navajos, the nation's second largest Indian tribe after the Cherokees, to vote on their first two ballot initiatives. One measure would reduce the size of the tribal council. The other would give the tribe's president a line-item veto. The Associated Press has a very thorough story on the tribe's governing history here.

Does Every Ballot Initiative Have State Costs?

Joe Mathews — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:45:00 -0400

Writing at Fox & Hounds Daily, John Wildermuth offers an interesting criticism of California legislation that would require ballot initiatives that mandate spending to pay for themselves.

I've written favorably of the legislation, SCA-14 by Sen. Denise Ducheny, as a way to attack state voters' habit of approving spending without new revenues. But Wildermuth points out that almost every state ballot initiative produces some costs -- and in many cases, those costs are hard to quantify. So finding revenues for costs that can't be anticipated could be a difficult -- and complex -- task.

I'm not sure how to address Wildermuth's concern. Any ideas out there?

Signature Distribution Requirement Passes Nevada Senate

Joe Mathews — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:34:00 -0400

Nevada appears on its way to adopt a distribution requirement for petition circulators: to qualify an initiative, signatures would have to gather a minimum number of signatures in all four of the state's Congressional districts. (This represents a change from earlier versions of the bill, which would have required signatures from all 42 Assembly districts).

I'm torn on the question of distribution requirements. In principle, it's fair to require that signatures be gathered across the state -- a statewide measure should be truly statewide. In California, which doesn't have a signature requirement, the vast bulk of signatures come from the south. And the percentage of signatures collected in San Diego County, the hotbed of direct democracy in the state, far surpasses the percentage of state voters who live in that county.

But distribution requirements also add significantly to the cost of petition drives. And when signature gathering becomes more expensive, the initiative process can only be used by wealthy individuals and interest groups.