California Constitution

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.

'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.

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?