Constitutional Convention

The big battle is over whether to call a constitutional convention, with the aim of adding initiatives and referenda to the state constitution. But there's also a question of whether voters who are under the age of 18 on the date of a primary, but will be 18 at the general election , should be able to cast ballots in the primary. And of course, a host of local questions. A list is here.

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.

Jodi Rell tells the AP that she supports an effort to add the initiative to the Connecticut constitution. The first step is a ballot measure this fall that would call a state constitutional convention.

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:

California's elites are talking, and here's what they're saying: this governor can't get things done, the legislature is hopeless, the entire state government is dysfunctional. (OK, just because they're elites, they're not wrong. These are Western Elites, not the dreaded Eastern Elites who are being so, so, so unfair to Sarah Palin). The you know what has hit the fan. The only way to fix this is top-to-bottom reform.

So let's have a constitutional convention.

What does your blogger think? Put the convention in some place nice (Monterey, maybe, or how about Coronado?) and I'm there, live blogging every second. But while I hate to burst bubbles (OK, I enjoy the occasional bubble burst), I wonder if a constitutional convention is a realistic goal, and whether such a gathering might be more trouble than it's worth.

Take for example the two-thirds supermajority required for the legislature to pass a budget or raise taxes. That would be an obvious target of a major constitutional reform. And it would face fierce opposition from Republicans, who as the minority need the two-thirds requirement to remain relevant. Voters, who see Prop 13's supermajority requirement for taxes as sacred, also would object. But, under Article XVIII of the state constitution, the calling of a constitutional convention must begin with --  a vote of two-thirds of the legislature. Oh, bitter irony!

'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.

Supporters of bringing statewide initiatives and referenda to Connecticut are campaigning for a November measure that would establish a state constitutional convention with the goal of establishing direct democracy there. But big money interests, mostly on the left, are lining up against the November measure. The Associated Press explains.

Conservatives there, many of them active in fighting same sex marriage, are calling for a constitutional convention that would permit full direct democracy in the Nutmeg State, including ballot initiatives.

Labor is organizing to oppose the effort. The last state to adopt the initiative process was Mississippi more than a decade ago. In most states, political leaders are going the other direction, attempting to reduce the ability of voters to legislate all by themselves. If Connecticut adopts the initiative, it would be the 25th state to do so, and the 28th to adopt direcdt democracy in some form.