by Annie Scott
July 16, 2009

Here’s what’s going on in a land far away, but no so far apart, from the Mitten …

Michigan may not be the only state facing a 2010 vote on whether to call a constitutional convention. In California, a growing chorus across the political spectrum is saying it’s time to drastically reform the state’s infamously troubled government.

In the midst of the recent deluge of uninspiring headlines about the Golden State’s mind-numbing $26-billion budget gap fiasco and Michigan’s foundering economy, one thing has become crystal clear: the media seem to agree on (and I daresay enjoy) painting the picture of both states as “fundamentally broken” and in need of serious repair.

Since no quick fix exists for either’s woes and both are strapped for cash, the question at hand is how to go about delivering major reforms in a cost-effective manner.

While in Michigan recently for a real summer vacation, I wasn’t surprised to hear stories from friends and family that loudly echoed my experiences here on the West Coast. Tons of people out of work. Plummeting property values. Businesses shuttered. For Sale signs on every street. Empty wallets. Weary dispositions. Uncertainty about the future. Contempt for the government. It was all too familiar.

While Michigan’s current struggles are daunting, California’s stretch the limits of the imagination. Following Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s lead, The Economist in May dubbed California “The Ungovernable State” and outlined a scathing analysis of the government’s unique characteristics that collectively amount to a fatal flaw and guarantee failure.

California’s systemic problems are well documented. For starters, there is repeated “ballot-box budgeting” that ties the legislature’s hands and gives unchecked power to the people. Then the two-thirds legislative majority required for all budget and taxation bills ensures perpetual gridlock. Prohibitive term limits shift power to special interests. Gerrymandered districts encourage a combative culture of extremists in Sacramento. A plural executive branch adds to political infighting and inaction (and seems the bane of The Governator’s existence).

Want more? How about a revenue system and tax structure that rely too heavily on the success of the wealthiest five percent (responsible for 68 percent of the state’s tax revenue in 2007), wreaking havoc on the budget in down years. As if that weren’t enough, California also has one of the nation’s lowest signature requirements for ballot propositions, which yields a glut of initiatives that dictate contradictory priorities without identifying funding and further binds elected lawmakers. The state’s annual budget process perpetually ends up in messy temporary patches and drawn-out political squabbles. Once the nation’s richest state, California is now distinguished for having the lowest credit rating in the country.

Speaking of which — don’t forget about those pathetic state-issued IOUs, which are now causing their own headaches. Kicking off the new fiscal year with empty coffers, the state apparently had no choice but to issue $450 million in IOUs to various creditors (as of July 15), with $3 billion to be printed. Unfortunately for the recipients, many large banks are no longer accepting them.

It’s easy to agree with the chorus that the current governance structure will never achieve anything beyond perennial turmoil, voter mistrust and deepening disarray.

The fact is, California’s unique brand of direct democracy is failing as spectacularly as its representative democracy. Voters seem to be sick of hearing about the legislature’s inability to get anything done and are fed up with trying to navigate dozens of mind-boggling ballot propositions. Even good initiatives seem like a trick. As it is, only a small fraction of eligible voters actually participate in most elections anyway, particularly the specials. (I have yet to hear a single friend, neighbor, coworker or acquaintance discuss any sort of special election issue — much less acknowledge voting in one.) Detachment and disgust seem to be the majority’s preferred way of coping.

The California constitution itself is a comically cumbersome testament to the state’s peculiar nature. The current version, originally passed after a Con Con in 1879 — during a time of deep economic strife, social crisis and mistrust of representative government — deliberately restricts the legislature’s ability to get much done. It ensures that any change happens slowly. The document has been amended more than 500 times over the years and is known for its exorbitant, burdensome level of detail.

A group of business leaders known as the Bay Area Council is leading California’s latest Con Con charge. Responding to swiftly escalating economic and political challenges, they are calling on Californians to go back to the drawing board and envision a more workable constitution. They’re holding meetings with all levels of stakeholders to identify a Con Con agenda. Interestingly, they’re also looking to the experiences of states like Michigan for guidance.

The Council recently posted a detailed study of Michigan’s history with Con Cons and current challenges, including the following takeaway points:

• Emphasize the value of representative-yet-cost-effective, non-elected delegations.
• Stress the relative quality of the product produced by other citizen-run conventions.
• Establish clear legal limitations to California’s Con Con; communicate them effectively.
• Re-examine the plural executive branch.
• Re-examine term limits.

In light of these lessons, the Council is proposing two key aspects of a California Con Con. First, in an effort to mitigate concerns that all manner of controversial social issues would be fair game, it recommends the scope of the Con Con agenda be limited strictly to governance and budget issues. Second, to draw an optimally representative set of delegates, it recommends the state jury system be utilized instead of a more costly election process.

Unlike Michigan’s formidable Con Con opposition led by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and MEA, in California there isn’t any organized, vocal dissent surrounding the notion that California needs a major rewrite. But while there is consensus over the need for wide-ranging reform, there are those with legitimate concerns about the cost and potential consequences of holding a Con Con. Those concerns could keep the Con Con question from getting to the ballot.

Along with several prominent state officials, a bipartisan think tank called California Forward favors more incremental change. It sees value in the traditional amendment process and applauds an important step voters took last November. A key redistricting measure was approved that should stop gerrymandering and boost the likelihood of electing more moderate candidates to the legislature. Also being discussed is the possibility of open primaries that would allow the top two vote getters, regardless of party, to face off in the general election. This also would encourage all candidates to try to build a broader, more centrist appeal rather than pandering to the party base.

Regardless of whether Michigan or California votes next year to revamp its respective constitution, the Con Con debate itself is an invaluable step forward in focusing on each state’s structural flaws and need for reinvention.

Annie Scott lives and works in San Diego and sends dispatches back to her beloved Michigan.