|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{CAConstitution}}{{TOCnestright}}A '''California constitutional convention''' is under consideration by some [[:California political organizations|California political organizations]] as a way to fix a system they believe is broken by a series of revisions and amendments to the [[California Constitution]].
| | #REDIRECT [[State constitutional conventions]] |
| | |
| Californians have held [[state constitutional conventions|constitutional convention]]s twice in the past. The first 1849 and the second, in 1878-1879, gave birth to the constitution that still governs California.<ref>[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/01/18613654.php ''IndyBay'', "Does California Need a Constitutional Convention?" August 1, 2009]</ref><ref name=times>[http://www.latimes.com/la-ed-convention16-2009aug16,0,2622405.story ''Los Angeles Times'', "Ready for the devil we don't know," August 16, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| The hope of those who support a constitutional convention is that it could "take on the manifold structural problems in California's budget process at a single stroke."<ref name="cons">[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/a-constitutional-conventionsolution-or-peril.html ''Los Angeles Times'', "Fixing California: A constitutional convention -- solution or threat?" June 5, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| The [[Bay Area Council]] has been a leading voice in favor of a constitutional convention. Beginning in 2009, the group has sponsored several summits and meetings to develop support for a convention. Opinion expressed at the summit included "Drastic times call for drastic measures" and "We believe it is our duty to declare that our California government is not only broken, it has become destructive to our future."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/21/ED4812EHIR.DTL&hw=constitutional+Convention&sn=005&sc=425 ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "California government has failed us," August 21, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==2010 ballot propositions abandoned==
| |
| | |
| Letters requesting [[ballot title]]s for two potential [[California 2010 ballot propositions|2010 ballot propositions]] were filed with the [[California Attorney General]] in June 2009. Revised language was submitted in October 2009.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS209918+28-Oct-2009+BW20091028 ''Government Reform Coalition Submits Measures to Call California Constitutional Convention'', October 28, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| * [[California Electors Right to Call for Constitutional Convention Act (2010)]]
| |
| * [[California Call for a Limited Constitutional Convention (2010)]]
| |
| | |
| However, in February 2010, it was announced that petition drives to qualify the measures for the November 2, 2010 ballot were being abandoned due to insufficient financial support.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-constitution21-2010feb21,0,7723106.story ''Los Angeles Times'', "Constitutional convention? Not likely," February 21, 2010]</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Reasons for a convention==
| |
| | |
| Those who support a convention argue that "California is broken" and that piecemeal changes through legislation or ballot initiatives would be unable
| |
| to solve a system they contend has become "ungovernable."<ref name="ungov">[http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649050 ''The Economist," "The ungovernable state," May 14, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| Problems they point to include:
| |
| | |
| * It has the worst bond rating of the 50 states.
| |
| * In 2009, income-tax receipts are coming in far below expectations.
| |
| * If the [[California 2009 ballot propositions|May 19 ballot propositions]] had passed, the state would still have faced a $15.4 billion budget deficit. The amount of deficit expected if they failed, as they did, was $15.4 billion.
| |
| | |
| Issues in California that supporters of a convention believe require a more systematic or "holistic" approach (such as by a far-reaching revision of the state's constitution) include:
| |
| | |
| * Any budget must pass both houses of the [[California State Legislature]] with a [[California End the Two-Thirds Requirement Amendment (2010)|two-thirds majority]].
| |
| * A minority of Californians vote. Those who do are "older, whiter and richer than the state’s younger, browner and poorer population."
| |
| * Voters in California tend to self-sort into regions that lean heavily one way or the other on the political spectrum, leading to the election of [[California State Senate|state senators]] and the [[California State Assembly|state representatives]] who are not very moderate.
| |
| * California's system of [[ballot proposition]]s is part of the problem, with California as "the only state that does not allow its legislature to override successful initiatives" through what is known as [[legislative alteration]] and with no sunset clauses on propositions.<ref name="ungov"/>
| |
| | |
| ==Prop 13 off the table?==
| |
| | |
| In June 2009, the [[Bay Area Council]] began efforts to find an independent committee to carry forward their original vision of a state constitutional convention after discussions in early June with tax activist groups who said they would oppose the idea of a convention unless those advocating for it pledged to not attempt to overturn [[California Proposition 13 (1978)|1978's Proposition 13]].<ref name="week">[https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=y2s230re5xxt3m&xid=y2s1jtzhme5s35&done=.y2s230re5yit3m ''Capitol Weekly'', "Council to offload constitutional convention effort," June 25, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| A 2,000-word draft document circulated by the group contained language that would have barred a constitutional convention from changing the property tax portions of Proposition 13. The draft document said:<ref>[http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=y2nyunz3z8tqp2&xid=y2brqkw5fzt7dw&done=.y2nyunz3z9eqp2 ''Capitol Weekly'', "Constitutional overhaul would omit Proposition 13 property tax changes," June 22, 2009] ''([[dead link]])''</ref>
| |
| | |
| :"Delegates to the convention shall be prohibited from considering and proposing revisions to the Constitution that would affect a. Property taxes associated with Proposition 13. b. Any other direct increases in taxes."
| |
| | |
| A [[Field Poll]] survey of 1,005 California voters was conducted between September 18-October 5, 2009. This poll indicated that about 69% of voters would oppose amending Proposition 13 to allow the [[California State Legislature]] to increase taxes with a simple majority vote. Only 27% of those polled would like to see that change. 52% of those polled also oppose the idea of amending Prop 13 in order to tax commercial property at a higher rate than residential property.<ref>[http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2316.pdf ''Field Poll Online'', "Polling on the Next 10 Questions," October 14, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/13/BA7J1A52HL.DTL&tsp=1 ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Field Poll: Support for Constitution Changes," October 14, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Supporters of a convention==
| |
| | |
| Individuals and groups in California who have been active in supporting a convention include:
| |
| | |
| * The [[Bay Area Council]]<ref name="mbee">[https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.modbee.com/opinion/walters/story/770478.html ''Modesto Bee'', "Dan Walters: California faces moment of decision," July 5, 2009]</ref>
| |
| * [[Lenny Goldberg]], executive director of the [[California Tax Reform Association]].<ref name="week"/>
| |
| * [[Mark Paul]], senior scholar with the [[New America Foundation]]. Paul says the constitution is "junked up," a condition he attributes to the [[ballot initiative]] process. If allowed to amend the constitution, Paul says he remove specific fiscal language from the document that ties the hands of the [[California State Legislature]] and would also make changes to the state's initiative process.<ref name="week"/>
| |
| * Dan Walters, a senior member of the California political press corps, who says, "It's time to take a chance [on a constitutional convention] for the same reasons that the nation's founders took a chance 233 years ago: The status quo is unworkable and intolerable."<ref name="mbee"/>
| |
| * U.S. Representative Sam Farr, D-Carmel. Farr is a former member of the [[California State Assembly]] and he believes that the state's fiscal problems should be blamed on the initiatives enacted in the state in the wake of Proposition 13. He said, "With that passage came a whole new initiative industry, and people in that industry realized that for a few more bucks and few more signatures you could buy a constitutional amendment with an initiative....What those constitutional amendments have done is tie the hands of the Legislature." Farr thinks that California's [[term limits]] are part of the problem.<ref>[http://thecalifornian.com/article/20090707/NEWS01/907070308/1002/Farr-backs-revising-California-constitution ''The Californian'', "Farr backs revising California constitution," July 7, 2009]</ref>
| |
| * The [[William C. Velasquez Institute]].<ref>[http://www.wcvi.org/press_room/press_releases/2009/socalconcon061709.htm "Southern California Groups Organize Town Hall to Explore State Constitutional Convention," a June 16, 2009 press release from the William C. Velasquez Institute]</ref>
| |
| * The editorial board of the [[Los Angeles Times]]. They say, "It's time to end the circus and start fresh, with a new constitution by and for the people who use it and live with it."<ref name=times/>
| |
| * [[Governor of California|Gubernatorial]] candidate [[Gavin Newsom]] who says he would like such a convention to "repeal the two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget so California won't have to issue IOUs."<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13581351?nclick_check=1 ''Mercury News'', "Dan Walters: Picture is cloudy on desires for state government reform," October 17, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Opponents of a convention==
| |
| [[Image:Chemerinsky.JPG|300px|thumb|Chemerinsky in 2007 speaking at the William & Mary School of Law in Williamsburg, Va.]]
| |
| | |
| ===Erwin Chemerinsky===
| |
| | |
| Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Irvine law school, says that it is a "false hope" to believe that a convention can change what ails California.<ref name="chem">[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12485754 ''Mercury News'', "Opinion: Why constitutional convention is wrong for California," May 30, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| He chaired an elected commission in 1997 that came together to propose a new city charter for Los Angeles. This experience is what has led him to be skeptical of what a constitutional convention can accomplish.
| |
| | |
| Specific concerns raised by Chemerinsky are:
| |
| | |
| * If a convention produced a package of reforms intended to solve the state's financial problems in an enduring way, it is uncertain that the state's voters would go on to approve those proposed changes to the constitution.
| |
| * "There are countless controversial issues that could doom it," Chemerinsky writes, mentioning gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action and immigration issues. He says that a new proposed constitution will either include or not include language about these issues but either way, some people on the side of the issue that does not get treated the way they would prefer will then vote against the package of reforms for that one reason.
| |
| * Even if the convention was limited to fiscal reform issues, it is not clear that voters would approve a revision of the constitution that deletes [[California Proposition 13 (1978)|Proposition 13]], whereas many advocates of a convention think that removing Prop 13 is a major reason to engage in a wholesale overhaul of the state's governing document.<ref name="chem"/>
| |
| | |
| ===Others===
| |
| | |
| * Patrick Collins, the director of the Claremont Institute's [[Golden State Center for State and Local Government]], says, "The very diversity we need to give the proceedings legitimacy all but guarantees dissent. The question of how best to reform government will not be decided on the true merits of the case at such a gathering but will be a repetition, and telescoping, of our current partisan bickering."<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-collins9-2009nov09,0,46218.story ''Los Angeles Times'', "The arguing is the argument against a constitutional convention," November 9, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| * Henry S. Noyes, a professor of law at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, says that unintended consequences could well flow from any attempt to convene a convention. For example, he suggests that a convention could exceed the scope of its authority, if it is supposed to only follow a limited agenda: "A constitutional convention occurs, but the delegates go far beyond the convention's 'limitations' and propose far-reaching changes to the constitution. These revisions are placed on the ballot and approved. Because this is a 'political question' (that the California Constitution explicitly leaves the people to decide) and because the people have ratified these revisions by a vote, however, the courts refuse to strike down the proposals even though they exceed the scope of Repair California's 'limited constitutional convention.'"<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/2389664.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Constitutional revision could have unintended results," December 13, 2009] ''([[dead link]])''</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Polls==
| |
| | |
| A [[Field Poll]] released in mid-October 2009 indicated that:
| |
| | |
| * 49% of voters favor changing the state constitution through a deliberative process with proposals submitted to voters as a package, while 40% would prefer separate initiatives placed on the ballot one at a time.<ref name=business>[http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/10/12/daily46.html ''San Francisco Business Times'', "Voters support changing California's constitution," October 14, 2009]</ref>
| |
| | |
| * 63% said that delegates to a constitutional convention should include a wide range of perspectives and backgrounds.<ref name=business/>
| |
| | |
| ==Constitutional Revision Commission, 1996==
| |
| | |
| A Constitutional Revision Commission met in the mid-1990s and made a series of recommendations about a wholesale revision of the state's constitution, but this process resulted in no changes.<ref name="cons"/>
| |
| | |
| ==External links==
| |
| | |
| * [http://www.repaircalifornia.org/index.php Repair California] ''([[dead link]])'', a group advocating for a constitutional convention
| |
| * [http://www.bayareacouncil.org/takeaction_ccc.php California Constitutional Convention Summit] ''([[dead link]])''
| |
| * [http://worldcat.org/arcviewer/1/CAX/2006/06/05/0000020402/viewer/file755.html Recommendations of the 1996 California Constitutional Revision Commission]
| |
| * [http://californiaconstitution.wikispot.org/ The California Constitution Wiki], a wiki project to re-design the state's constitution
| |
| | |
| ==Footnotes==
| |
| {{reflist|2}}
| |
| | |
| ==Additional reading==
| |
| | |
| * [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-reform14-2009jul14,0,7936694.story Cries for reform of California government come from all sides]
| |
| * [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-convention23-2009aug23,0,1028014.story A California constitutional convention for all]
| |
| * [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-convention31-2009aug31,0,3609275.story Long road to a constitutional convention]
| |
| * [http://www.ocregister.com/articles/convention-constitutional-delegates-2562042-voters-california Be wary of constitution re-write]
| |
| * [https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://cbs5.com/politics/california.constitutional.convention.2.1191156.html Alameda officials back constitutional convention]
| |
| | |
| {{California Constitution}}
| |
| {{california}}
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Constitutional conventions]]
| |
| [[Category:California Constitution]]
| |
