Citizens Assembly: Latest Publications

Yes, Virginia, 'Average' Californians Can Manage a Constitutional Convention

Cecille Isidro — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:58:00 -0400

As you ride the bus or freeway to work tomorrow, ask yourself: Can the person seated next to me, or driving past me, be trusted with the job of redesigning California's basic political and budgetary rules? Are "average Californians" ready to don the white powdered wigs to become the Founding Mothers and Fathers of a new California?

Let the Citizens Gather to Decide on State Reforms

Cecille Isidro — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:40:00 -0400

All reform proposals for making California government more representative and responsive face the same obstacle: Entrenched interests, including lawmakers, who benefit from the status quo.

The best means for overcoming those interests is a citizens assembly, a body of approximately 160 average citizens -- randomly selected like a jury pool to ensure diversity and impartiality -- empowered to formally propose electoral reforms via a statewide referendum to their fellow voters.

The citizens assembly members study political reform recommendations for nine months, listening to experts and holding public hearings. Then they vote on which reforms to place directly on the ballot. Unlike a constitutional convention, a citizens assembly's mandate is not broad: it focuses narrowly on the rules of the electoral process, since this is where politicians have too strong a conflict of interest to make proposals themselves.

The goal is not to be a parallel legislature. It is to propose reforms with the potential to elect political leaders who will provide better governance.

Citizens assemblies have been used successfully in Canada, the Netherlands, even China. Because the assembly is composed of average citizens, its recommendation has tremendous legitimacy with the public. In one statewide survey, 75 percent of California voters said they would like to see a citizens assembly created, and 70 percent said they were more likely to support recommendations made by a panel of average citizens than to support the ideas of a government panel or even a committee of independent experts.

The clear message is: "We the people" believe average citizens have more credibility than the political class. That's an important lesson to keep in mind during any reform discussions.

How to Revive Redistricting Reform

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:40:00 -0400

In the movie Groundhog Day, the Bill Murray character, a weatherman who is doomed to repeat the same day over and over, asks a question that haunts redistricting reformers in California: "What would you do if you were stuck in one place and everyday was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?"

With the recent failure of the Legislature to place redistricting reform on the ballot -- for the second year in a row -- reformers are scrambling for a way forward. One way would be to spend millions of dollars to gather signatures on a voter initiative. But without support from California’s Democratic leaders, that path likely would result in the Son of Proposition 77, a replay of the Schwarzenegger-supported measure that failed miserably at the ballot box in 2005.

Redistricting reform is snagged in the same web of incumbent and partisan self-interest that for years has bedeviled the best of well-intentioned efforts. But a statewide survey commissioned by the nonpartisan New America Foundation offers the best way forward.

The survey found that 70 percent of California voters are more likely to support political reform proposed by a panel of average citizens than they are to support the ideas of a government committee, or even a panel of independent experts. Revealing strong distrust of politicians, the survey also found 70 percent support for the convening of a "citizens assembly" of the type that has been demonstrated recently in Canada.

A citizens assembly is composed of 160 randomly selected voters who reflect the diversity and demographics of the population. This body spends nearly a year studying the election process and holding numerous public hearings.

Then, they are empowered to formulate reform proposals that are placed directly on the ballot, without tampering by the state legislature or governor, for ratification by their fellow citizens.

In short, a citizens assembly process creates a new, more deliberative route to the ballot for political reform that removes incumbency protection and partisanship from the process. And it holds the potential to engage the public in a way the current process will never do. Instead of relying on the whims of a self-interested legislature, or some Silicon Valley gazillionaire to buy her or his way on to the ballot, a citizens assembly allows average citizens to be in the driver’s seat via a very public process.

In the New America survey, three-fourths of the respondents said they would like to see the governor and the legislature create a citizens assembly in California. And more than two-thirds said if the governor and legislature failed to create one, they would vote for an initiative to create the citizens’ assembly.

Therein lies the key to reform. In recent years, a number of promising reforms have been proposed for California’s political system -- independent redistricting, term limits, "top two" primary, public financing of campaigns, instant runoff voting -- but all have faced the same obstacle: entrenched interests, including elected lawmakers, who benefit from the status quo.

Oftentimes the reform itself has been viewed as an extension of the partisan war, whether it’s redistricting perceived as a GOP gambit or Proposition 89’s public financing seen as a vehicle of certain labor unions.

So a citizens assembly solves a real dilemma: How do we enact meaningful political reform when political parties and special interests have conflicts of interest that induce them to manipulate the rules in their favor?

Californians want reform, but they want it to be done in a fair and nonpartisan way. What is overwhelmingly clear is that people don’t trust politicians or special interests to design our democracy.

For over two years, both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders have said they agree on the need for reform but have been unable to come together on the details. Given the poll numbers showing Californians’ overwhelming support, the political moment couldn’t be riper for convening a California Citizens Assembly. Let average citizens propose to their fellow Californians what political reform is best for our state.

The Way Forward for Political Reform

Cecille Isidro — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:28:00 -0500

As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger renews his call for an independent redistricting commission, a new opinion poll finds that California voters overwhelmingly support improvements in the election process, but there's a catch -- it depends on who is proposing them.

A statewide survey commissioned by the nonpartisan New America Foundation found that 70 percent of voters are more likely to support recommendations made by a panel of average citizens than they are to support the ideas of a government committee or even a panel of independent experts. Only 10 percent said they have more confidence in a government committee.

With such distrust for politicians, the survey also found strong support for a citizen-based reform model that was demonstrated recently in Canada. In that case, lawmakers convened a "citizens' assembly" made up of 160 randomly selected average voters. The group spent nearly a year studying the election process and made proposals for improvements that were placed directly on the ballot.

In the New America survey, three-fourths of the respondents said they would like to see the governor and the Legislature create a similar citizens assembly in California. More than two-thirds also said they would vote for an initiative to create the citizens' panel if it were on the ballot.

The survey, conducted by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University, polled active voters statewide over a three-day period ending Nov. 30. It affirmed general approval of the governor and Legislature in Sacramento, but it still found overwhelming demand for better elections and better candidates that cut across all racial, partisan and ideological lines. Seventy percent of respondents said they "often feel [they] are voting for the lesser of two evils." More than 3 out of 4 voters said the system favors Democratic and Republican candidates and is unfair to independents or minor party candidates. Nearly 60 percent said the system needs improvement and that government would perform better if a wider variety of candidates were elected. More than half the voters say California needs another major political party.

What comes through in the poll is the great faith that Californians have in "We the People" -- that is, themselves -- and much less faith in "Them the Politicians." That bold self-confidence is particularly striking in light of the many political earthquakes in California in recent years, including the recall of a governor. Yet is anyone in Sacramento listening?

In recent years, a number of promising reforms have been proposed for making the California political system more representative and responsive -- from independent redistricting to term limits and "top two" primaries to public financing of campaigns -- but all have faced the same obstacle: entrenched interests, including elected lawmakers, who benefit from the status quo. Oftentimes the reform itself has been viewed as an extension of the partisan war.

In 2005, the redistricting proposal in Proposition 77 was seen as an attempt by the national Republican Party to force through a GOP-tilted gerrymander and gain an unfair advantage. This year, Proposition 89, the public-financing proposal, was viewed by some as an attempt by certain labor unions to tilt the playing field in their favor.

So while Californians keep voting down reform, what this poll shows is that it is not because Californians don't believe reform is necessary. It is because they want it to be done in a fair and nonpartisan way. What is overwhelmingly clear is that the biggest problem for political reform is not the message, it is the messenger. People don't trust politicians to design their own election system. Yet the poll findings suggest a highly popular method for improving California's election process and creating more public confidence. While some propose using voter initiatives, what the New America Foundation survey reveals is that the best solution is using a citizens' assembly where average voters would be empowered to propose political reforms to California voters, such as an independent redistricting commission, open primaries, campaign-finance reform or alternative electoral methods such as instant-runoff voting.

Two California legislators introduced a constitutional amendment, ACA28, into this year's legislative session, to establish a California Citizens' Assembly. The authors were termed out and thus have left the Legislature, so this bipartisan legislation is no longer pending and is ripe for new sponsorship.

A citizens' assembly is an important vehicle for modernizing our political system because trust is placed in a deliberative process involving average citizens who have more credibility than the political class. For nearly two years, both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez have agreed on the need for reform but have not been able to agree on the details. Well, here's the solution, one that California voters overwhelming support: Turn the details over to a California Citizens' Assembly, and let average citizens decide what political reform is best for California.

Citizens Assembly

Political Reform — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:05:00 -0400

The Problem

A number of promising reforms have been proposed for making the California political system more representative and responsive— from independent redistricting, term limits, and open primaries to more modern electoral systems and public financing of campaigns—but all face the same obstacle: entrenched interests, including elected lawmakers, who benefit from the status quo.

One means of removing partisanship and incumbent protectionism from the political reform process is known as a Citizens Assembly, which convenes a body of average citizens empowered to formally propose electoral reforms that politicians have too strong a conflict of interest to propose themselves. Already successfully employed in British Columbia, California’s legislature is now considering a Citizen Assembly measure of its own.

The British Columbia Model

The Citizens Assembly in British Columbia was established by the legislature, with a mandate to focus on electoral reform. The assembly's 160 members were chosen by a random selection process, just like a jury pool. First there was a draw of 100 men and 100 women from all of the province's 79 electoral districts, asking how many would agree to serve. Eventually one man and one woman were selected from each of the 79 districts, and two more members were added to ensure representation of native Canadians, a total of 160 members.

The Assembly's tenure was divided into three phases: first, learning about reform from noted experts, January-March 2004; second, over 50 public hearings, May-June; and third, final deliberations, Sept-Nov. They met on weekends, their expenses and a per diem of about $1000 per month paid by the government. They were addressed by top experts from all political perspectives who gave them the benefit of their knowledge and analysis.

Nearly 11 months later in December 2004 the Assembly delivered its final report. It voted 146-7 to toss out its longtime winner-take-all, single-seat district electoral system and replace it with a proportional representation system. "This really is power to the people," stated Jack Blaney, the chair of the Citizens Assembly.

For the complete paper, please see the attached PDF version below.