Showing posts with label Constitutional Convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitutional Convention. Show all posts

Thursday, May 21, 2009

L.A. Times Editorial: California Needs a State Constitutional Convention


It is a pity that Peter Miguel Camejo did not live to see this. Every major newspaper in the state now agrees that the Green Party candidate for governor's warnings about a "dysfunctional, money-dominated, winner-take-all system" of so-called conservative Republicans and so-called liberal Democrats were prophetic.

Two days after the special election, the lead editorial in The Los Angeles Times calls for a state constitutional convention:

Published in the Los Angeles Times, May 21, 2009.
Editorial: California Needs a State Constitutional Convention


California is stuck. Schools are about to lay off teachers. Prisons are about to release inmates. Historic assets are on the block. Initiatives confuse. Revolts fail. No amount of electing and reelecting people who promise to fix things seems able to move us forward. It's time to reboot.

There have been calls for months now to convene a state constitutional convention and, in essence, start over. It's a good idea. . .





. . .The state Constitution runs to two fat volumes in print and is padded each year by new voter initiatives or legislative propositions. In the end, it's just a document. It's not the enemy. But retooling is one necessary step to make the state function better.

Of course, all kinds of things can go wrong. How would delegates be picked? Would unions control a convention, or union-busters, or Proposition 8 advocates or opponents? A poorly structured convention or one populated by self-interested fringe delegates could do more harm than good. Every care must be given to the details, and it is essential to include in the initiative that authorizes a convention -- alas, there must be a ballot measure -- restrictions on what it would be allowed to address.

One benefit: A convention could push the Legislature to accept deeper, more far-reaching reforms than it might otherwise. One provocative notion being floated by the reform group California Forward would devolve decision-making on taxing and spending back to counties and cities, realigning the relationship between state and local government. In another year, lawmakers might scoff at the prospect. Fear of a convention may encourage ingenuity.

The Bay Area Council, which is leading the charge for a convention, has put "proportional representation" in the Legislature at the top of its wish list. Interesting choice. We're curious to see whether voters already angry at Tuesday's barely comprehensible ballot measures will embrace something quite so cutting-edge.

No convention -- in fact, no statewide fix -- will work if it consists simply of one interest group's shopping list. The Times has made no secret of its position against the two-thirds legislative threshold for tax increases and budgets, and we will keep pushing to overturn it. But the point is to get more ideas on the table.

Prepare for the season of reform and reinvention. A tax reform commission is to release its report in July. Political parties and candidates will focus on next year's gubernatorial election. It's not time to back away from government; it's time to engage it, and change it. Over the coming weeks and months, this page will not be shy about asking questions and offering suggestions. Bring on the ideas. Bring on the convention.


Friday, February 27, 2009

Tearing California apart


Many in the Green Party of California are getting excited about the prospect of a California Constitutional Convention. That idea has gotten significant support from such diverse sources as the Bay Area Council and columnist Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee as was clear from the Summit held in Sacramento last week.

Some aspects of this are attractive for Greens, but there are also dangers that we should be aware of. Click Read more! to get the pros and cons.


Almost every Green discussion focuses on the possibility of changing the representation in the State Legislature to include proportional representation for some, if not all, state legislative offices. This would be attractive to those political parties like the Greens who are in the 3rd or 4th rank in terms of size. Greens have only elected on member to the State Legislature in Californian and she switched parties after election.

This may happen, it should at least be considered. However, it will take a massive effort to sell the public on it. In discussion with my neighbors, it is so far away from what they are thinking that it is not even visible on their radar screen. The general tone is to change the people, not change the system, or to find a way to make those in office do their job if they want their pay.

This latter point, no pay for legislators if there is no budget on time, has financial and organizational backing as an initiative measure. The California Grange, an organization that is basically rural, is backing it and has people to gather signatures.

At the same time, there are other solutions that are not likely to happen but which will come into play during a constitutional convention. Republican ex-Assemblyman Bill Maze is pushing very hard for splitting California into two states… not North / South as others have done, but Coastal / Inland. Under Maze's proposal, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco would be part of a Chile narrow, highly urban, large population, left leaning state on the edge. The rest of the state would be much more rural, agricultural and very likely on the political left.

Some may not consider this likely either, but maybe it is just as likely as proportional representation and the Fresno Bee takes it seriously enough to criticize it in an editorial this week.

If either are considered, then Greens need to be in a position to be much more active than we have been, especially with candidates for the state legislature speaking out every opportunity that they get. California is in a crisis and that crisis is an opportunity for those who want to change the whole ball game. It will not happen in any way that we want unless we become much more active that we have been, with much more organization than we have yet demonstrated on past initiative efforts.