Bay Area Council

Should Elected Officials Be Part of a Constitutional Convention?

Joe Mathews — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:04:00 -0500

A good sign for proponents of a constitutional convention: the main controversy here is not whether to have a convention, but how to choose delegates?

All kinds of ideas are being thrown out, but there is one dividing line: whether elected officials should be permitted to be part of a convention. Panelists have argued for a populist vision, with regular citizens serving as delegates. Some say elected officials should be kept out of the situation. They're conflicted, is one argument. They're the prisoners of special interests, goes another argument.

But the idea of excluding public officials is not popular inside this ballroom. Many of the attendees -- perhaps a majority (It's hard for me to tell) -- are local elected officials who have been vocal in cheering each other.

Blogging the California Constitutional Convention Summit, Semi-Live

Joe Mathews — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:46:00 -0500

I'm attempting to blog over a questionable wireless connection from the summit on the California constitutional convention summit today in Sacramento.(Full disclosure: New America is among the sponsors). It's a full house, standing room only in the basement ballroom of the Sheraton.

A quick bit of news: Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a candidate for governor next year, came out strongly in favor of major changes in the legislature, including eliminating one of the two houses and increasing the number of lawmakers (by more than double).

Also, the Bay Area Council, the business-backed policy organization that's been pushing the idea of a convention, disclosed results of a poll on the idea of a convention. The news: only 3 percent of those surveyed had heard "quite a bit" about the idea. When people were read a description (that didn't include much criticism of the idea and emphasized that voters would get to sign off on whatever a convention recommends), the idea of a convention had modest support.

New America Lauded For Being "Aggressive"

Joe Mathews — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:26:00 -0500

Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters draws a picture Sunday of the reform landscape in California. He puts Leon Panetta's California Forward as the incrementalist side of the reform movement and the Bay Area Council (which wants a constitutional convention) and the New America Foundation (your blogger's employer, which has been talking about changing the make-up of the legislature) as the big-thinking, "aggressive" side. More on this subject later--after I go out and aggressively hunt big game for dinner.

Panetta Raises Prospect Of Constitutional Convention

Joe Mathews — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:53:00 -0400

A tight travel schedule and a misbehaving laptop make this report two days late. But in a speech Thursday night in San Francisco, former Congressman Leon Panetta, a wise man of California politics and leader of the new reform group California Forward, gave something of an endorsement to the idea of a state constitutional convention.

Panetta was the keynote speaker at a dinner put on by the Bay Area Council, the business-backed policy group that has been pushing the idea of such a convention. JIm Wunderman of the council, in his remarks, made a full-throated case (though he was drowned out by clinking glasses and dinner conversation) that such a convention is needed and called California Forward "a strong, strong partner." He also pooh poohed concerns that interest groups would dominate a convention or that the process would be open to mischief.

I've interviewed Panetta several times and heard him speak on a number of occasions. Usually, he's easy listening--funny and avuncular. But he was passionate and compelling Tuesday night. He sounded so sad and despairing about the state of the country and of California that he seemed to approach tears. He talked about the California he was raised in as being "a state of the future." But now, the state is threatened by a political culture "more concerned with winning than governing." Decisions are made by crisis, not consensus. He cited any number of problems -- from budgeting to the way districts are drawn -- but got his biggest applause of the night for a line accusing lawmakers of using the initiative process to escape responsibility. But neither he nor California Forward has offered an agenda for reforming the initiative (More later on the ideas advanced at this week's New America conference on the subject).

Panetta rarely gets personal, but he was tough and accusatory. He said he couldn't understand why Gov. Schwarzenegger couldn't force legislative leaders into a room and not make them leave until they compromised. He was bitter in criticizing the recent budget adopted by state leaders--he called it dishonest. He got off a funny line during a description of how legislative districts used to be drawn: "I remember Phil Burton in a room with what looked like ice water."

He concluded by outlining reforms he believed the state needed. He suggested that if lawmakers continued to block such changes, the state should go around them, through the initiative process, through a citizens' assembly, or through a state constitutional convention. "We ought to take them to the people, we ought to talk about a constitutional convention, we ought to talk about a citizens assembly." Panetta is famous for giving behind-the-scenes advice to politicians of both parties; usually that advice is to compromise and make peace. But Panetta is not in a peacemaking mood these days. "I urge you to fight," he said Tuesday night.

Constitutional Convention Has Momentum

Joe Mathews — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:57:00 -0400

I visited yesterday afternoon with Jim Wunderman and othe rstaff and consultants of the Bay Area Council, the San Francisco-based organization that is pushing a state constitutional convention. I'll write at more length later, but the two main things I learned is 1. The process is still early, and even Wunderman, the strongest advocate for this idea, doesn't have a clear idea of how such a convention would be called and how it might work. 2. The convention idea has real momentum. Wunderman has been deluged with expressions of interest from across the political spectrum. And if he and his lawyers (Hanson Bridgett is providing legal advice) can figur eout the mechanics of this quickly and file a measure, he wantsan initiative to call a constitutional convention to appear on next year's special election ballot.

As evidence of that interest, Schwarzenegger gave a shout-out to the convention idea, without specifically endorsing it, in his budget press conference yesterday. Here's the paragraph in question, from the official transcript released by the governor's office:

"Each time we go through something like this that we have just gone through, it's important that we reevaluate everything. And so I think some people say we should have a constitutional convention and all kinds of different ideas are being thrown around. We know that the system itself is not working, that it's flawed and therefore we should revisit it and come up with ways so that we can speed up this process and that when we say that there should be a budget, a balanced budget by June 15th, that there is one, because I think that that says a lot for our state and for the financial community and Wall Street and all, when we are fiscally responsible."

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.