California

Here is some brand new analysis from Washington state results that might shed light on the efficacy of the top two primary, which many are promoting as a good thing for CA. It is especially directed at whether the top two would elect more moderates -- or more extremists? This evidence below suggests it's a bit of a crapshoot, the top two primary could as easily elect more extremists as elect more moderates. 

In taking a look at official WA state election results at http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx? for last year's primary, you can see there are basically four categories of results for the 98 house races and 25 senate races.

In the first category, which has by far the vast majority of races, one candidate (usually an incumbent) is either uncontested or is so far in the lead with anywhere from 53 percent to over 70 percent of the vote and a huge enough lead that it's obvious they will win in the general (November) election as well. That includes 24 races uncontested in the primary, and 3 with only token write-in opposition. The practical impact in those races is no different from what we have now in CA, as I outlined recently in my Los Angeles Times oped.

The question of whether Prop 13 was good or bad for California is still a contested one. But that hasn't stopped "anti-tax" activists in Arizona from filing an initiative Friday that is closely modeled on Prop 13.

Like the California initiative, which was approved by voters in 1978, this Arizona measure, if it qualifies for the ballot and passes, would limit increases in property values to 2 percent per year for tax purposes. It also would cap property taxes for residential property at one-half of one percent. That's actually lower than Prop 13's 1 percent limit. What's strangest about this initiative filing is the timing. Prop 13 was designed to put limits on how much your property value -- and thus property taxes -- may go up from year to year. That's not exactly a problem for anyone these days, much less in Arizona, where property values have been in free fall.

Conservatives likely will get behind the measure, but one wonders why. In a 2005 interview, Milton Friedman, the conservative economist, told me that if you're going to tax, the property tax is the least dangerous tax because you don't get less property by raising it. (The same is not true, he explained, of sales or income taxes).  

Joe Mathews is right: the way California lets politicians, whether the attorney general or the Legislature, put their thumbs on the scale by writing cagey or misleading titles and summaries for ballot measures invites dishonesty and abuse, as with Proposition 1A on the May special election ballot.The state needs an independent ballot title process carried out, as he says, by non-politicians.

Here’s how it might work:

When a measure for the ballot is submitted to the state, the secretary of state would ask the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to prepare a list of up to ten multiple-choice questions about its major provisions and effects.

She would then send a staff member to a randomly selected place in the state. The staffer would offer $1,000 apiece to the first three registered voters he meets on the street if they would agree to sit together and write the title and summary of the measure. They would have one hour to read the measure and write a title and summary. All three would have to agree on the wording. If they could not perform that task by consensus, the measure would be returned to the proponent for rewriting.

My old friend Bill Cavala has metamorphosed into such a creature of the Legislature –– “a veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento,” his blog taxonomy trumpets –– that the only explanation he can muster for those who believe Californians can bypass the Capitol to call a constitutional convention is that the reformers are “slow.”

It’s an odd charge coming from someone 98 years behind the times.

According to Cavala, the only legal path to a convention leads through the Legislature. Against all the lawyers who have opined that voters can give themselves the authority to put a convention call on the ballot, a power currently reserved to the Legislature, Cavala offers up the uncited authority of Joe Remcho, the famous political lawyer. Remcho, alas, is no longer around to tell us that approach would be struck down by the California Supreme Court as an impermissible “revision” of the constitution.

Not being a lawyer, I won’t join Cavala in making firm predictions about how the court would rule on that question. But as a historian and a long-time watcher of California politics and law, I do feel comfortable pointing out that, when the voters have horned in on the Legislature’s powers, the courts have almost always looked the other way.

When read the ballot description of the six measures that were put on the May 19 special election ballot as part of February's budget deal, California voters in a new Field Poll gave majority support to five of the six. But that support was soft. A sixth measure -- which involves borrowing against future lottery revenues -- trails, and may be essentially a dead letter as a result.

The poll is here. One big reason for skepticism about the prospects of any of the measures (with the exception of the sixth, a populist blast that would bar legislative pay raises during years when there's a deficit) is that solid majorities of voters are dissatisfied with the budget deal. And these measures were part of the budget deal. Also, Gov. Schwarzenegger, the politician who is most invested in the passage of these measures, is decidedly unpopular, with an approval rating below 40 percent. 

There are plenty of initiatives in California cleared for circulation, but nothing on the street, as of my last check last weekend. The May 19 special election came too quickly for anyone to qualify an initiative, and the next scheduled statewide election isn't until June 2010. And many of state's signature gatherers have departed for Florida or Washington.

What are they working on there? In Florida, there are two redistricting initiatives on the ballot, paying 70 cents a piece. In Washington, a conservative, anti-property tax initiative is paying 75 cents. Both prices are low, but I'm told that circulators are showing a lot of interest in both petitions. Deflation and the bad economy have not spared direct democracy. (Hat tip: Public Petitioner).

Independent columnist Tom Elias, a leading voice on California political matters, comes out strongly against the idea of a constitutional convention in this column.

I'm out of California this week and not monitoring direct democracy with my usual fervor. The goal is to get some writing done. Sad to miss Thursday's oral arguments before the state Supreme Court on the legal challenges to Prop 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. I'll weigh in when I'm back next weekend.

Joe Mathews, journalist, Schwarzenegger biographer, and New America Irvine Senior Fellow, recently shared his opinion on the prospect for a constitutional convention on the Fox and Hounds Daily:

 His two insights:

1.  A constitutional convention, while it would be difficult and dangerous, is something California should do. There is so much frustration with the status quo here, and so many different ideas about how to fix things, that we need a top-to-bottom review of our state constitution. We need to pare back the convention (it runs more than 150 pages), and look at all three branches - the legislative, executive and judicial.

2.  The Bay Area Council and other good government groups, in their heart of hearts, don't really want a constitutional convention. They want legislative reform - changes in how laws are made, budgets are passed, and lawmakers are elected.

That's an interesting perspective, one that reformers are going to have to address honestly as they move forward on this issue. 

It's bad enough that California law permits the attorney general -- an elected, partisan official -- to write the official titles and summaries for ballot initiatives that qualify from the ballot. Most of the time, at least, the a.g. is independent of the initiative sponsor. But when it comes to measures that are placed on the ballot by the legislature itself, lawmakers themselves get to write the official summaries. And they don't have a good record of being honest with the public.

The latest example is Prop 1A, the spending limit measure that was part of last week's budget deal and will appear on the May 19 special election ballot. As the Sacramento Bee points out in this story, the legislature's official description of the measure omits the very important fact that if the measure passes, temporary tax increases in the budget deal will last longer. (The tax provision was inserted to discourage unions and liberal groups from fighting the measure on the ballot -- a tactic that, so far, seems to be working).

California needs an independent title board that would draft titles and summaries for ballot initiatives and legislative measures -- anything that goes to the people. Such a board should be balanced between Democrats and Republicans and independents. The board's only mission would be to give voters an accurate description of the measure.