Constitutional Convention

As you ride the bus or freeway to work tomorrow, ask yourself: Can the person seated next to you, or driving past you, be trusted with the job of redesigning California's basic political and budgetary rules? Are "average Californians" ready to don the white powdered wigs to become the Founding Mothers and Fathers of a new California?

With efforts to call a constitutional convention picking up steam, a proposal for "citizen delegates" has generated considerable interest. Rather than holding elections or having state officials appoint the delegates, about 400 delegates would be randomly selected to produce a scientifically representative sample of all Californians. No political insiders or partisan apparatchiks need apply, just Golden Staters motivated by a sincere desire to help their state.

That's the theory, but could it actually work? Even if the citizen delegates were high-minded and lacking in partisan and personal agendas, are average people capable of the kind of in-depth understanding of complex issues necessary for redesigning California's basic institutions?

 In short, I believe the answer is yes. Read my oped in the Sacramento Bee to find out more by clicking here.

There are two -- yes, two -- town halls in Southern California this weekend to discuss the idea of a constitutional convention. (Full disclosure: New America is a sponsor of one of them). The first is tonight--Friday night--in Santa Monica. Details are here. The second is Saturday at USC. Details here.

"If Madison was right about the need for well-functioning legislative bodies, and if society is losing them, then we would expect to see signs of the twin threats of which Madison warned - chaos­ and tyranny. Disturbingly, we do see those signs today."

These words were written by the Majority Leader of the California State Senate in a paper entitled, "The Dangers of Government Gridlock and the Need for a Constitutional Convention."

The Senate Majority Leader in question was Barry Keene and the year was 1992.

But this warning could easily grace the editorial pages of today as the state's leaders quaver on the edge of an even wider budget chasm and as the tide of discontent with the political status quo rises ever higher.

The familiarity of Keene's concerns - and he wasn't alone - belies the notion that our current problem are due to a recent rise in political polarization or a uniquely venal set of public officials. In fact, a constitutional revision commission was convened in the mid 1990s, though its sensible bipartisan recommendations were ignored by a state that was able to coast through a few more years of denial fueled by the tech and housing booms.

But after these gold rushes, we find ourselves in even more dire straits because the root causes of our problems will not go away for all of our wishing. In Keene's words:

"Some people argue that the problems of government are personal rather than structural. They say that our leaders do not lead, do not care or are crooks. But those charges beg the question - why do even the best people in government accomplish to little? The reasons are partly societal, as mentioned, partly attitudinal, as I will note, but mainly structural."

New America senior scholar Mark Paul, writing at Calbuzz, makes a very strong case for making sure that Prop 13 is considered by a constitutional convention.

Given its centrality to governance in California, it's shocking that drafts of the initiative to call the convention specifically keep Prop 13 out of it. And pointless, too. Like putting together a meeting to discuss football but saying you won't mention the passing game.

Former California Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, chair of the new reform organization California Forward, deals a blow to the idea of state constitutional convention in today's Sacramento Bee. He says a convention couldn't produce change until 2012, and the state can't afford to wait that long. Instead, California Forward wants to give the opportunity for the legislature to act on various reform measures. If they don't, the measures will go on the ballot next year.

Over at Fox & Hounds Daily, Joel Fox writes about a California legislator's proposal to dust off a forgotten constitutional revision plan from the mid-90s. The plan, produced by a commission put together by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, never went anywhere because it was introduced during the summer of an election year. But reviving it is an intriguing idea -- as a vehicle for constitutional reform both faster and less risky than a full-blown constitutional convention.

The California Supreme Court's decision today to uphold Prop 8 is more about the California constitution and the initiative process (the true winner in the case) than it is about same-sex marriage. In effect, by a 6-1 vote, the court makes plain that it would have loved to overturn Prop 8--but couldn't because of the constitution.

And in the following passage from today's decision, the court seems to offer a suggestion to advocates of a constitutional convention: that the state needs provisions limiting the ability of the people to change certain parts of the constitution by initiative. The political problem with this is, of course, that advocates of such a convention desperately want to avoid having issues like same-sex marriage brought into the debate over a convention.

Anyway, here's the relevant passage:

Calbuzz surveys the 2010 gubernatorial contenders in California and gets a lot of support for the idea of a constitutional convention.

As Hitchcock knew, the fear of the unknown and the unvisible is the most powerful form of fear. I feel the same way about California. It's hard to know what happens if the special election measure goes down, legislative gridlock returns, and the state's fiscal crisis deepens.

One likely effect: some fairly wild ideas for changing the state will get more attention. Look for more scrutiny of a constitutional convention, the repeal of Prop 13, or even a break-up of the state.Above is a rendering of the two states that would be created under a plan being advanced by Central Valley agricultural interests. This "Downsize California" effort (a link to their site is here) would split the state into Coastal California and Renewed California.

from the Sacramento Bee, www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1717487.html

A constitutional convention has been proposed by some California business leaders as a vehicle to fix the Golden State's deeply entrenched political and economic woes. While a convention offers the hope of a new beginning, it also inspires understandable fear that hard won rights may get trampled in the horse-trading. The state's leadership in recent years has hardly inspired confidence. Why should we imagine that it could match the brilliance of James Madison, George Washington and the other Founders, and chart a new course for our state?  

The first thing to recognize is that the Founders were not as brilliant as the mythmakers would have us believe. Their initial design of government -- the Articles of Confederation -- was a timid attempt at national governance, more dysfunctional than California's government today. To their credit, once they realized their design had faltered, they were bold enough not merely to tinker around the edges. They had the courage to fix their eyes on a new horizon, completely redesigning their existing governmental structures to create Version 2.0, which became an inspiration to the world.