California Constitution

Did Arnold Jump the Gun On Budget?

Joe Mathews — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:56:00 -0500

The holiday surprise in California this year was that Gov. Schwarzenegger didn't wait to the usual date -- often January 9 or 10 -- to release his budget proposal for the 2009-10 fiscal year. Instead, the proposal was released on Dec. 31. And in another departure from protocol, the governor wasn't there to do the releasing. He was at his vacation home in Idaho with his family. Finance director Mike Genest handled the chore.

The release seems to be a way to accomplish two political goals: 1) to show urgency (we're releasing the budget early) while 2) burying the news of a horrible budget proposal that includes big spending cuts, borrowing and tax increases, many of which represent a reversal from previous Schwarzenegger positions. Shaking things up is a good thing, but I'm not sure if this early budget release accomplished much. The proposal itself is unlikely to spark fast action by a dysfunctional legislature. But it's not clear if there's any force in the universe that can force consensus in the California legislature.

I also have a more technical question: was Schwarzenegger's budget so early that it violates the state constitution. According to Article IV, Section 12, clause A, the governor shall submit his budget "within the first 10 days of each calendar year." Dec. 31 doesn't make it. But Genest, in his press conference on New Year's Eve, clarified that slightly, by saying that the official budget with budget bills will be formally delivered to the legislature on Jan. 9.

It's a fine point, sure. But it's just another way that California's leaders seem to be frustrated with the current constitutional structure, at least when it comes to the budget. Lawmakers are pushing the constitutional limits on borrowing. Democrats are plotting ways around the two-thirds requirement for passing budgets or raising taxes. The governor and his aides have never been fond of the current set of budget deadlines. I remember talk back in 2004 about whether the governor should even bother with submitting a revised budget in May. The legislature seemed to wait until then to do any real negotiating, so why not ignore that custom?

A California Constitutional Convention?

Joe Mathews — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:09:00 -0400

'All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of California.

Jim Wunderman of the Bay Area Council suggested last week that California convene a constitutional convention to look at its entire system of government. Joel Fox at Fox & Hounds Daily is skeptical. It certainly is an interesting idea. I could see Gov. Schwarzenegger, who has reached his "throw up his hands" moment, back such a convention. Emails and memos I turned up in reporting for my book, The People's Machine, show that Schwarzenegger's aides and political advisors discussed just such an idea -- albeit not too seriously and not at length -- in 2004.

A convention might provide a method to take on many of the untouchable subjects of California politics. Wunderman mentions the two-thirds requirements for passing a budget (a fact of California life since the 1930s) and for raising taxes (a provision of Prop 13, passed in 1978). But any constitutional review needs to be bigger, and think about the state government as a whole. The entire structure of the state, which was largely put in place, should be re-examined. Does the state's system of boards and commissions really serve as a check on the government and the professions? What might be a better design? How about local governments? Should counties and cities play the roles they currently play? And what of the state's system of funding education and higher education? Is the state's legislature set up correctly, with just 120 lawmakers representing more than 36 million Californians? (For example, a California state senator -- there are 40 -- represents more people than a California congressman -- there are 53). And what about the initiative process? Could it be improved? (And as a point of personal privilege, we might rethink the location of the capital.)

It may be time for California to start over. The state's constitution runs to 157 pages. At the very least, it could use some editing.

More Than 500 Amendments

Joe Mathews — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:06:00 -0400

The San Francisco Chronicle thinks the California state constitution is too easy to amend. It's been amended more than 500 times. The paper doesn't say it outright, but it might make sense to make it more difficult to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot, while making it easier to qualify an initiative statute. The constitutional change requires more signatures -- a number equal to 8 percent of the number of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election -- than the initiative -- 5 percent.

I've been wrestling with what the best formula would be. I think that if certain kinds of initiatives are to be more difficult, thus limiting the people's ability to legislate or amend the constitution directly, then it ought to be much easier for the people to overrule the legislature via referendum. How about rolling back that current requirement for signatures -- now 5 percent of the gubernatorial votes -- to something like 1 percent?