Tepid Support for Constitutional Change

Why did the con-con measures not get the necessary financial support? Backers blamed the recession, but perhaps because of polls like this. The Sacramento Bee reports here. Voters believe the state government is riddled with fraud and waste, and want spending cuts prior to tax increases. They also oppose deleting the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget. Meanwhile, California Forward's budget reform initiative is also in jeopardy, as the Bee reports here.

Con-Con Effort Put on Hold

Says this article from the Sacramento Bee. Turns out the Bay Area Council, or its donors, didn't come through with the money necessary to qualify the measures for the ballot.

Is the Con-Con Running Out of Steam?

Or, as least, money? That's what this article from the Sacramento Bee implies. Perhaps this explains the Los Angeles Times article posted yesterday, which touted Prop. 11, and a forthcoming budget initiative, as the cures for California's system of governance.

Timothy Egan Endorses The Con-Con

Here's the column by New York Times columnist Timothy Egan, concluding that the con-con is the cure for our broken system of government. It should be Arnold's last yodel, he says.

The Claremont Institute On The Con-Con

Patrick Collins of the Claremont Institute has written this interesting op-ed on the con-con. His message: the con-con is unlikely to paper over deep divisions over the reasons for California's ongoing budget problems and the proposed solutions. Hard to disagree with that. And a new poll, reported here, finds voters skeptical over the usual liberal solutions to the budget mess.

Legal Questions on the Con-Con

Professor Karl Mannheim of Loyola and two of his colleagues raise some interesting issues on the con-con initiatives in this op-ed from the Los Angeles Times. Among them: whether the measure's limits on the con-con's scope are constitutional and whether permitting the voters to call a convention is a "revision." I think the answer to the first question is "yes" and the answer to the second is "no."

The Battle Over The Con-Con Starts

Here is an editorial from the Orange County Register attacking the con-con as a "sneaky" way to amend Prop. 13. It's right in one respect: there are no painless, bipartisan ways to solve California's budget crisis or its structural problems of governance.

Con-Con Measures Submitted to Attorney General

Here they are! The first (here) gives the voters power to call a constitutional convention; the second (here) actually calls one. More analysis to follow. Here is an editorial from the Los Angeles Times on the filing, and here is the news story from the Times on the filing. More analysis to follow.

The Chief Justice on California's Government

It's not just you or me calling our state government "dysfunctional." it's our Chief Justice. Here's the Los Angeles Times article.

Constitutional Conventions in New York and California

Professor Thad Kousser has this interesting article, from the Los Angeles Times, comparing New York's experience with constitutional conventions to that of California. It seems some people in New York actually like the most controversial features of California's government: limits on raising taxes, the initiative, etc.

Con-Con Backers Delay Initiatives

So says this report from the Sacramento Bee.

Little Support For "Major" Constitutional Changes

That's what the PPIC reports, according to this story from the Los Angeles Times. There's more support for lowering the number of legislative votes necessary to pass a budget and for the creation of a property tax "split roll." Here is a link to the PPIC report itself.

Another Los Angeles Times Article On The Con-Con

This one (here) focuses on Repair California. The convention process is long and complicated. What else is new?

Is The Con-Con Like "Magic Beans"?

That's what the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association thinks (here). You can see why they might be leery of the idea--some of their sacred cows are in the line of fire. But I didn't remember what "Magic Beans" were. Perhaps I've forgotten my Grimm's Fairy Tales.

The Convention Requires Compromise

So says the Los Angeles Times (here). But what kind of compromise? Ending "fees that are actually taxes"? That's what's "buzzing" in Sacramento, according to this report. RIP, Sinclair Paint.

The Con-Con Makes The New Yorker

Here is Hendrik Hertzberg's "Talk of the Town" piece about our ungovernable state and the proposals for a constitutional convention.

The Los Angeles Times On Reform Proposals

This article from the Los Angeles Times summarizes the competing proposals to reform California government. It also mentions a circulating initiative to return California to a part-time Legislature. Would the cure be worse than the disease?

California Forward's Proposals To Revise The California Constitution

Here's a different approach than the con-con, a set of proposals from a business-backed group called California Forward to revise the California Constitution. The proposals are discussed in this article from the Sacramento Bee. Other than a requirement that new funding sources be identified for new programs, and perhaps a two-year budget cycle, there's not much here to warm the hearts of Republicans or conservatives. So this proposed revision probably wouldn't get the two-thirds vote of the Legislature necessary to put it on the ballot. And you couldn't put it on the ballot by initiative, because (a) a measure with all these changes would probably fall afoul of the single subject rule; and (b) it would be a revision of the constitution, which you can't do by initiative. So it's hard to see where this is headed. If they can't get the Legislature to pass it they would have to split it up into several measures, which is expensive and changes the political dynamic considerably.

A Skeptical Look at the Constitutional Convention

From the Orange County Register (here).

Is Bigger Better?

Ryan Connerty suggests that a bigger Legislature means more democracy in this op-ed piece from the Los Angeles Times. Would it cost too much? Cut the legislators' pay, he says. (Coonerty teaches constitutional law at UC Santa Cruz.)