| Gooch and Herdt opened with a presentation of what's wrong with the State's government: A constitution that's been amended 212 times since 1878, ballot box spending, declining revenue from volatile sources (income tax on stock market wealth), rookie legislators, partisan gridlock, a 2/3 vote to pass a budget, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Herdt was vaguely critical of 2/3 and term limits, but wouldn't go so far as to say that
repealing both (or just electing a democratic majority) would solve our problems immediately.
He described the government as a leaky roof that's been patched too many times and was simply unable to withstand the economic deluge that hit us last year. But he's skeptical about the chances of a convention being approved by the voters. He thinks we're now in "a moment" that will allow action, but will it last until November 2010?
Jim Wunderman of the Bay Area Council was the "advocate" speaker. He also described the dysfunctional nature of Sacramento went on at length about where the convention idea originated, how it's been percolating through civic groups, editorial boards, legislators... and gaining ground. His main point were about the process. We need to put two props on the November 2010 ballot, one to amend the constitution to allow the voters to call for a convention by majority vote, and other the call for the convention. These need to be delivered to the State A.G. by this September 25th. Two million signatures must follow by April 16, 201O.
Both propostitions are sure to be challenged in court. But the recent Prop-8 decision showed the way to qualify the first initiative as an amendment, not a revision. The 2003 recall election demonstrated that we can put two issues - one dependent on the other's passing - on the same ballot.
Wunderman didn't have much to say about the mechanics of the convention itself. But he described what things could be changed by a new constitution: the budget process (and taxation), elections, governance (oversight issues), and the relationship between state and local governments.
The language of the initiative would limit the scope of the convention to these subjects. But who would enforce this? Wunderman said that things like public campaign funding, Prop-13, and term limits would all be on the table at the convention, but how would we keep gay marriage, abortion, and flag-burning off?
Judge Cloninger warned that the courts would be drawn into the process, like it or not. He said a few things about "judicial activism" that revealed him as a pretty staunch conservative, but he wasn't opposed to the idea of a convention, he just doubted that it could be pulled off successfully.
Wunderman said a few more things about a "runaway convention". He said that conventions tend to be less partisan and more consensus-driven than elections or legislative sessions. There have been 232 ConCons in the US since the nation's founding - and there is legal precedent from other states that conventions can be limited to an agenda set by their enabling legislation.
The crowd seemed generally supportive of the Convention. But it wasn't a proper town hall because they didn't leave enough time for questions. Only six members of the audience got to pose them to the panel, but they were pretty thoughtful.
I heard a little grumbling at the coffee break about "using voter initiatives to cripple the initiative system"... something Wunderman did NOT propose to do.
Only one Wingnut was present and he got the last turn at the microphone. He went on a rant about "electors" and "citizens" and read from - honest to god - a hardbound edition of the California Constitution, in an attempt to prove that only native-born Californians had the right to participate in a convention.
The audience at first thought he was a "birther" and groaned loudly. He wasn't shouted down, but the response dimmed his enthusiasm and retreated to his seat. Then the judge stated without hesitation that U.S. citizens who are residents of California are citizens of the state.
I arrived as a skeptic, and left as a supporter. If the initiative calling for the convention includes a "preamble" which states that the purpose of a constitution is to define and limit the powers of government, and not those of citizens, I'll vote for it. Jim Wunderman answered my fears about "opening Pandora's box" by asking, "how could we possibly make California's government any worse?"
Another benefit:
Even a plausible threat of a convention might be enough to scare the minority in legislature (and their corporate sponsors) into making concessions to head it off.
http://www.venturacountystar.c...
http://www.newamerica.net/prog... |
