This Old State or How to Fix California, Step One...

With the state on the verge of fiscal meltdown and our esteemed state representatives too busy pointing fingers at each other and passing the buck to voters to do anything about it, I offer maneuvers that can go a long way to repairing the nation’s Golden State and restore it to its former sheen:

Scrub the State Constitution

Article I of the state’s constitution contains the following statements:

All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, of course:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

Regular readers of this blog already know my stance on marriage equality. Regardless of that stance, the above declarations are examples of contradictions that we the voters are directly responsible for inserting into the state constitution. The solution in this particular case is to remove the marriage clause. Of the two, I would rather my right to liberty and privacy be codified than my requirement to marry a chick instead of a dude.

Our ability to contravene each others’ rights is described in Article II by the initiative process and Article XVIII by the amendment process. I won’t advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water here. The initiative process itself is useful. It gives the people direct access to their government by allowing them to supersede their representation. In the case of corrupted representation, the people’s ability to directly enact laws can be a good thing.

That ability can also be a bad thing. In good faith, a representative can support or oppose legislation on the Assembly floor. By the rules in the state constitution, a minority of voters can put initiatives on the ballot and effectively silence her out of doing her job, or even out of office. Assembly persons represent about 400,000 people. In any given district, conceivably, the rep. can become enmeshed in a power grab that has her more focused on keeping her post and not the business of the state. Her job, to represent the will of the people (not a well organized group of them), is thus compromised.

Another flaw in the initiative process is its relative ease. To amend the constitution by any means requires a ballot measure. How that measure is generated is disparate between the regular legislative process and the voter initiative process. For the legislature to propose an amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both the Assembly and Senate, meaning extensive debate and revision. The voter initiative process, by rule, requires signatures of 8% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election. With enough support, any jack-a-nape (or pastor) can write California law. In 2008, when Prop. 8 was submitted and passed, 694,354 signatures were required, compared to an estimated population of 36,553,215 the previous year. The 8% requirement is one of the lowest of any states and the disparity between signatories and the general population, those who propose the law and those who will live under it, is apparent.

The initiative process needs to be revised. It should be stricter and in the case of constitution amendments more difficult to achieve. Its most substantial modifications to the state constitution, defining marriage and taxation (which we will next visit) need to be thrown out or completely revamped.

In research for this series I have discovered a group that is proposing a constitutional convention to occur as early as next year. One of their top priorities is to reform the initiative and referendum process. I will not go into a great deal about Repair California, as I have yet to fully study who they are and what they want. I neither endorse nor denounce their agenda as yet. I am, however, encouraged that there is someone out there worried about more than just balancing a budget. A balanced budget has become the will o' the wisp of California politics and caused our distracted leaders to propose ridiculous cuts to vital services without seeking new revenue sources to pay for them. On behalf of Repair California, I will say that among their other concerns are: the structure of governance, the legislative and executive branches; campaign finance; term limits; changes to the two-thirds requirement for passing a budget and revenue distribution, particularly between localities and the state. See the website and decide for yourself if you’re on board.

My original goal was to post a bulleted “To Do” list of how to fix California (five easy steps!), but each one is much bigger than I’d anticipated. Therefore, for the second time this month, I will post a series. Next up will be: Taxes, Spending and the Folk Tale of a Balanced Budget.