California Progress
Not to tell the good people of California how to run their business, but from reading stuff like this it’s clearer and clearer that the state desperately needs a new constitution. You never meet anyoen who thinks the institutions of governance in California are well-designed, or even who denies that the existing institutional configuration makes it impossible to solve any of the state’s problems. But nobody quite seems to want to do anything about it. And yet surely it can’t be impossible to change this stuff — state constitutions used to be re-written all the time.
And now that I think about it, I think maybe I should be telling the good people of California how to run our business. It’s a giant state — one eighth of our population. And it’s a state with a pretty progressive electorate — a jurisdiction that should be open to good public policy. But it’s saddled with institutions that make the adoption of good policy extremely difficult. But on areas where California is able to act, it’s a real national leader. Its combined size and progressivity lets it blaze trails and have broad influence. But that influence is being largely squandered by dysfunctional political institutions.
55 Responses to “California Progress”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 18th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Maybe he wasn’t the right pick for DOT
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081218/pl_politico/16702
December 18th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Speaking as a Progressive Californian, hell yes we need a new constitution – or the repeal of 2/3rds rule, Prop. 13, and the reform of the initiative process. At present, California lacks the basic foundation of democratic governance – majority rules. A third plus one of either house of the legislator is able to dictate policy to the two-thirds minus one, simply by virtue of their total ideological devotion to an anti-tax agenda.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
They could do their whole new constitution by ballot initiative.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
[I]t’s a state with a pretty progressive electorate — a jurisdiction that should be open to good public policy. But it’s saddled with institutions that make the adoption of good policy extremely difficult. But on areas where [New York] is able to act, it’s a real national leader. Its combined size and progressivity lets it blaze trails and have broad influence. But that influence is being largely squandered by dysfunctional political institutions.
…
If NY and CA had the political institutions of Oregon this would be a very different, much more liberal country.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I’ve been saying for a while that California is ungovernable. 50.1% of the voters can change the constitution itself, but simple legislative acts require 2/3 supermajorities. That is just crazy crazy crazy. And it makes doing simple things like pass budgets impossible. It also gives political groups the temptation to legislate via the ballot box instead of through the legislature. This ignores the complicated geopolitical reality of California; that the north controlls the water but the south has the population. Cali is ungovernable. Woe to he who becomes governor!
December 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Everything you say applies to the U.S. Constitution as well. Does it really make any sense to have a chief executive who isn’t embedded in the legislature anymore? To be stuck with a moron for four years after you elect him/her because you can’t call snap elections after a vote of no confidence? To have all major elective positions first-past-the-post?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
North California and South California. Cut it off at San Luis Obispo.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Gerrymandering has caused California’s Democrats to be corrupt and the Republicans to be knuckle-draggers. Term-limits means they’re all inexperienced, incompetant and unable to bring the deperately needed reform.
While the State may be fairly progressive as a whole, remember we’ve also got the most radical right-wingers in the nation. Orange County is like the conservative’s mecca. Since they’re in the minority, the only time they’re relevant is when budget and tax policy is determined and that’s when they flex their muscles.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Just to throw in on the post Yglesias linked to – what a very sneaky idea; I love it!
DCBob:
Separate Executive – sure it makes sense. You can have mechanisms for a vote of no confidence without a fused executive-legislative; just make it a 2/3rds vote.
F-P-T-P – To be honest, I rather like a modified FPTP, once you add in ballot fusion and/or IRV. Proportional representation leads to too much fragmentation.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Benny Lava and Blah are right. The cultural divide in California is between North and South. It has nothing to do with the Coast and the Valley. Don’t listen to people like Bum, he’s obviously not from CA and hasn’t grasped the subtleties of our politics. Also, did you know you can turn right on a red light here? Crazy, huh.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
blah, who gets SLO, NoCal or SoCal?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
scythia: “Benny Lava and Blah are right. The cultural divide in California is between North and South. It has nothing to do with the Coast and the Valley.”
I have a hard time believing that Yreka and San Francisco have more in common than SF and Los Angeles.
Politically speaking, compare the Coast and Inland county results for the 2004 and 2008 elections. There may or may not be a cultural divide between the Coast and Valley, but there seems to be a political one. (Though, admittedly, that divide seems less deep in 2008 than in 2004.)
December 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Dividing the state wouldn’t do anything, besides the main divide is rural vs urban (i.e. inland vs. coast), with the exception that OC and San Diego are more conservative for costal counties.
It’s clearly the constitution that’s broke, and it has been ever since prop 13. Almost all the revenue goes to things that are mandaged by the “constitution” because of ballot measures, so our elected reps have very little to work with, and can never raise taxes because of the 2/3 rule (and there are always enough republicans to stop that, since their sole reason for being in the legislature is to prevent tax hikes). Add to the fact that the “constitution” (through propositions, natch) puts a 6 year term limit on the legislature. So most of our reps don’t know how to run the system until their gone.
People complain that the government can’t get anything done, but the bloated constitution california has prevents them from getting anything done. A new constitution would be a highly contentious affair, but it’s long overdue and the only way to solve the systemic dysfunction.
That said, we still need some form of ballot measures; otherwise certain things out here would have not been…decriminalized. But there needs to be a high bar to direct amendment of the constitution (65% seems reasonable), with a low threshold for the passage of laws that a legislature can amend to make work properly, since most props are poorly written.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
There is an alliance just waiting to be made between opponents of Proposition 8 and fiscal conservatives (or, really, given the state of California finances, fiscal realists). Host a Constitutional Convention and right both wrongs.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Njorl actually has it right. Our entire constitution is practically put together by ballot initiative. We have over FIVE HUNDRED AMENDMENTS to the damn thing. And no wonder…while we need 2/3 majority vote to pass a budget, the state only requires 50% +1 to amend the constitution. Can you say “WTF?”
I moved here from Illinois 8 years ago, and I am flabbergasted by how things are run comparatively. Every election ballot in California has page after page of initiatives (about 35 on my ballot last month) – ballot questions that normal everyday voters have no business deciding. It’s so over the top that at every election I ask myself, “Why the hell do we send legislators and senators to Sacramento if all they’re going to do is pass this off on us?”
Every year we find ourselves in a fiscal mess, and it’s because hundreds of ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments tie the hands of government officials.
People keep complaining about how much they hate government red tape, but when given the chance to govern themselves, at least here in California, that red tape gets thicker and thicker and thicker.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
There was an opportunity to re-write the Constitution after the recall of Grey Davis, but the GOP thought it was ascendant and put the KO on considering that idea…Pete Wilson reportedly led Arnold’s “advisors” who were against.
Of course, the GOP supported most of what makes California ungovernable, from prop13 to term limits to supermajority requirements.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
And I disagree with the north vs south thing. Look at most of the political maps of recent California elections and you’ll see a major east/west division. The central valley and most of the eastern counties are very conservative, and the populated western counties, for the most part, are quite liberal. An exception in a couple of counties or so in each area, and on some ballot questions the map doesn’t necessarily divide that way. But overall, that divide is east vs west. No doubt about it.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
As a Californian and a SLO resident, I must protest! (;
Seriously, the only reason I worry about this post’s suggestions is that the current push for a Constitutional convention is backed by Republicans who want to change the rules about who the delegates would be (See AB4.)
If we were going to divide up the state, I’d want it to be east-west, not north-south. What, because the sports teams’ fandom breaks around SLO that’s a reason to do it politically? P-sha.
Rather than divide up the state, I’d like to see us keep more of our tax revenues.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
It turns out in 1995, California considered amending the constitution to create a parliamentary system, and even got people like Arend Lijphart to testify in front of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments. Needless to say, nothing came of it.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Can’t they just put an anti-initiative initiative on the ballot?
December 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Rather than divide up the state, I’d like to see us keep more of our tax revenues.
Bingo. That’s why statements like this:
I think maybe I should be telling the good people of California how to run our business.
make me laugh. Give us back our money! Then we’ll talk about letting you have a say in our politics.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
The reason why California has the institutions it has is because of Progressive politics (see ESPECIALLY initiatives). Doesn’t that give you pause at all?
December 18th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
More than anything else, it’s the 2/3 supermajority required to pass tax increases in the legislature. It lets a bunch of gerrymandered conservative districts highjack the budget. The initiative process is out of control, too, but it’s not nearly as damaging as the 2/3 thing.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
We’re at least 4 different States. It’ll never happen. Besides, you’re not a Californian – you Eastern wonk types don’t understand the civic sensibility here. It’s not a “Good Government State”. It’s a “We Don’t Give A Fuck About Government State”.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Yeah, all those progressives voting in November to issue $10 billion in bonds to build (part way) a Supertrain between Los Angeles and San Francisco are a great example of responsible progressive governance.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
A new constitution would be very useful in California, and is perhaps the only instrument available to repair errors introduced by a serious of initiatives. But there appears to be no single politician in the state at the moment with the influence to push for such a change.
As it is, the California Constitution gets several things right, in particular the organization of cities (with small, non–partisan city councils) and local districts (local school districts have their own elected boards), making them generally more agile. The judicial appointment, election, and referendum system seems to work well, hampered only by perpetual understaffing (due in no small part to the “3 strikes” initiative. Counties are probably an archaic level of government that ought to be eliminated through a combination of incorporation of adjoining territories into cities or assignment of services in less densely populated unicorporated areas to a state agency. At the state level, the Board of Equalization and the bicameral term-limited legislature both deserve serious re-thought as well as the seven directly-elected executive officers. The two-thirds voting requirement, enacted in times when the Californian Republican Party often had 2/3 control (and the principle division was between progressive and conservative Republicans) for expenditures only became a serious defect in the post-Prop. 13 era in which taxation has become a absolute issue for a solid minority.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, all those progressives voting in November to issue $10 billion in bonds to build (part way) a Supertrain between Los Angeles and San Francisco are a great example of responsible progressive governance.
Steve: the supertrain itself may or may not be a great idea on the merits — I’m certainly no expert. But the implication you seem to be making is that California’s problems primarily flow from excessive spending. Yet California’s per capita state spending is somewhere in the middle of the pack last time I looked. In fact, I did a bit of math last night, and it looks to me like its budget is about 8% of Gross State Product. Massachusetts has a budget of about 11% of GSP. New York, I’m pretty sure, is higher still.
California’s problems result from making it extremely difficult to do something that’s a normal part of responsible governance, except when you’re a Republican.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Jasper, the problem isn’t spending in some absolute sense, it’s spending more than you have. Approving more bond measures when the state is broke and the credit is so bad we can’t sell bonds is just stupid. It’s so dumb that it makes me think California’s electorate might be just as dumb as its elected representatives are.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Jasper, the problem isn’t spending in some absolute sense, it’s spending more than you have.
No, when spending is moderate and in keeping with the practices of other, more responsible polities, the problem is failure to raise taxes. California’s spending is not excessive; the penchant of the state’s Republicans for bad governance is.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Politically speaking, compare the Coast and Inland county results for the 2004 and 2008 elections. There may or may not be a cultural divide between the Coast and Valley, but there seems to be a political one.
You’re conflating national politics with state politics. Water is definitely a north-south issue, though it’s also a farm vs. urban division. Gay marriage also fared a lot better in the SF Bay Area than it did in Southern California. And culturally, San Francisco always thinks it’s in competition with Los Angeles, while Los Angeles considers San Francisco to be a nice weekend getaway.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
As it is, the California Constitution gets several things right, in particular the organization of cities (with small, non–partisan city councils) and local districts (local school districts have their own elected boards), making them generally more agile.
Yes, definitely. When I hear about cities back east having Democratic and republican candidates for mayor, it just sounds antiquated. The controlled way in which cities and local districts are formed also seems to be successful.
The judicial appointment, election, and referendum system seems to work well,
I think the initiative system has a lot of problems, and I don’t think I’m alone. Changing the constitution with a 50% +1 vote is one problem, but more deeply it’s inherently problematic to throw a proposition at the electorate fully formed, where our only input on it is a yea or nay vote. In the legislature, they can at least debate it, amend it, pound out compromises, etc.
Elections generally work fine here, but if we’re changing the constitution, we might as well go to instant runoff voting.
Counties are probably an archaic level of government that ought to be eliminated through a combination of incorporation of adjoining territories into cities or assignment of services in less densely populated unicorporated areas to a state agency.
Hmm, I dunno. I think the question of what to do with unincorporated territory is very different when you’re talking about rural areas vs. pockets between cities in urban areas. I’d have to think about this one more.
At the state level, the Board of Equalization and the bicameral term-limited legislature both deserve serious re-thought as well as the seven directly-elected executive officers.
The two houses of the state legislature as they’re currently configured are almost entirely redundant. I would favor either a unicameral legislature or a much larger differentiation between the two houses — say, maybe 20 Senators and 100 Assemblymembers. At least that much differentiation. Term limits are a crock and just lead to politicians bouncing around from job to job.
The two-thirds voting requirement, enacted in times when the Californian Republican Party often had 2/3 control (and the principle division was between progressive and conservative Republicans) for expenditures only became a serious defect in the post-Prop. 13 era in which taxation has become a absolute issue for a solid minority.
Yeah. See, the thing is that I understand and respect why Prop 13 was passed, but there needs to be some sort of change in the tax structure so that local governments can be properly funded. I don’t know what that change should be, though.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Both Oregon, my birth home and California, my current home, have initiative and referendum, but only California voters have used the initiative to break the government. Th 2/3 majority, dollars of budget locked to specific programs etc. Wort part is that every initiative is funded by somebody with bif pockets and a hidden adgenda, commerial real estate payed for prop 13
December 18th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
On the contrary, nonpartisan local government is a terrible idea, and is responsible for high incumbency rates and low turnout.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
So, California, just change your constitution to let a legislative majority decide fiscal matters.
There. Pay me $50,000,000 for my advice, and I’ll go away.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
djw (#26) said: The judicial appointment, election, and referendum system seems to work well, hampered only by perpetual understaffing (due in no small part to the “3 strikes” initiative.
1) It seems that 3 strikes has had the intended effect of locking up repeat offenders, without cramming the jails. The vast number of locked up cannabis offenders is the doing of the Federal Government.
2) The referendum system was a good way to work around the railroad dominated Assembly back in 1911, but is now hijacked by monied interests (often out-of-state), knee-jerk reactions to a well publicized crime, or attempts by special interests to limit civil liberties.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
So, in response to Matt’s comment maybe I should be telling the good people of California how to run our business: take a number, quite of your better heeled buddies back east are in line ahead of him.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
California’s big problem is that it’s a very poor state in terms of living standards. The median income for a family of four is not high and the cost of living is very high. When I used the ACCRA cost-of-living data that’s used by institutions to adjust salaries of employees they transfer around the country, California came out to have the second lowest standard of living of any state, with only Hawaii worse off. (Minnesota had the highest standard of living.)
California does have some very rich people, and when they do well, California gets lots of tax revenue. For example, California collected $6 billion in revenue in 1999 from Cisco Systems alone (directly or through capital gains on the state income tax). Similarly, when Google went public, California’s government received an unexpected windfall. But, who is getting rich right now? Nobody, so revenue is way down.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Gay marriage also fared a lot better in the SF Bay Area than it did in Southern California.
Well, then…although I sm a NorCalifornian, allow me to take a seat to LA’s best MC/producer, and ask:
“Evidence? Whoa-Ohh…
“Evidence??? Yeeahhhahh?”
December 19th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Evidence for gay marriage faring better in the Bay Area:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory
Short version: Prop 8 failed in every Bay Area county except Solano. Prop 8 passed in every Southern California county except Santa Barbara.
Percentage voting yes on 8 in Bay Area counties:
Sonoma: 33.9%
Marin: 25.1%
Solano: 55.8%
Contra Costa: 44.7%
Alameda: 37.9%
Santa Clara: 44.4%
San Mateo: 38.3%
San Francisco: 24.9%
It also failed in Humboldt, Mendocino, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Yolo, Alpine, and Mono counties. It passed in the other Northern and Central California counties.
Percent voting yes in Southern California counties:
Santa Barbara: 46.8%
Ventura: 53.1%
Los Angeles: 50.2%
San Bernardino: 66.9%
Riverside: 64.3%
Orange: 57.8%
San Diego: 53.7%
Plus, in the one truly non-urban Southern California county:
Imperial: 70.0%
Granted, the percentages aren’t overwhelming in the coastal SoCal counties, but the fact of the matter is that those percentages are a LOT higher than the ones around the Bay Area.
Now, the highest percentages of yes voters were in the more southern parts of the Central Valley like Kern and Tulare counties, along with some rural counties in the north like Glenn and Modoc. But if the percentages I showed above weren’t evidence of the gay marriage doing a lot better in the San Francisco Bay area than around Los Angeles, I don’t know what is.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:56 am
too bad no one lives in Northern California.
the five most populous NoCo counties contain about
65% of the population that LA County does.
turnout was lower in NoCo also
March 11th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Incredible site!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:19 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:36 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Thanks for the review!
viagra