Hear from constitutional convention proponentsBy Melanie Ruiz
California's government is broken, unable to deal with this state’s many challenges, and it’s time for fundamental reform. That call was sounded in the summer of 2008 by Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council (BAC), and it was heeded by disparate allies who formed a movement that is pushing for a constitutional convention.
Tomorrow, Oct. 14, representatives from the BAC, Courage Campaign, California Forward and Political Reform Program at the New America Foundation will explain why a convention is necessary to get California out of crisis and gridlock and into prosperity. San Francisco Young Democrats (SFYD) and Citizen Hope (the grassroots political group that formed about Barack Obama successful presidential campaign) are sponsoring the panel discussion starting at 7 pm at the California State Building Auditorium, 455 Golden Gate Ave. The event is free.
One of the biggest impediments to good government is the hefty two-thirds vote requirement for passing budgets and raising taxes. Though supporters of this initiative often have opposing views on controversial issues like taxes, they all agree that one of the oldest state constitutions needs an overhaul.
The BAC reports on its website, RepairCalifornia.org, that California's constitution is eight times the length of the US Constitution. Myriad officials from across the political spectrum agree that too many amendments (512) and too much special interest control is paralyzing the government.
In a speech in October, Ronald M George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, said: “Much of this constitutional and statutory structure has been brought about not by legislative fact-gathering and deliberation, but rather by the approval of voter initiative measures, often funded by special interests. These interests are allowed under the law to pay a bounty to signature-gatherers for each signer. Frequent amendments — coupled with the implicit threat of more in the future— have rendered our state government dysfunctional, at least in times of severe economic decline.”
The panel members will discuss not just the importance of this type of renovation but what particular reforms they are each putting forward. Maxwell Szabo, president of SFYD, encourages everyone to come out tomorrow to discuss “a fundamental problem currently plaguing the state and the effectiveness of our government.” He said panel moderator and Assemblywoman Fiona Ma wants to “engage the public early on this important issue to make sure there is ongoing dialog” between Californians and their government throughout these developments.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (9)
Could somebody who supports a state constitutional convention please explain why we wouldn't expect such a convention to be dominated by the right? (I include both right-wing republicans and "moderate" democrats.) This sounds very scary to me.
Posted by nortonsf![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 14, 2009 12:22 AM
Jim Wunderman may be a nice guy, but he's just another corporate hack who was Chief of Staff under Frank Jordan!
Posted by Chris Daly | October 14, 2009 01:11 AM
I support a constitutional convention for the following reasons:
The state government is irretrievably broken.
The state's electoral process and gerrymandering virtually guarantee representatives from the same party will always win in the same districts over and over.
Those representatives become beholden to special interests from both the right and the left.
The initiative process has run amok.
For those on the extreme political left (and right) you should be scared. A constitutional convention may actually put government in the hands of regular people again, with a logical process toward budgeting, elections, and lawmaking.
Heaven forbid this should happen!
Posted by Anthony | October 14, 2009 02:15 PM
I share concerns about a constitutional convention being dominated by the right and the first neoliberal constitution written.
How about a "California Majority Rule Democracy Act", a constitutional amendment that would prohibit any initiative from establishing a threshold higher than 50%+1 for subsequent actions unless it received the level of support from the voters that it would put on future comers?
All measures which were passed by less than 2/3 of the voters which establish thresholds less than 2/3 will need to go back to the voters for ratification under the new guidelines. The legislature would schedule an orderly series of votes.
That would break the gridlock.
-marc
Posted by marcos | October 14, 2009 09:16 PM
I tweeted about my experience tonight at the SFYD Event, and one of my 600 plus friends on Facebook caught my tweets. The word I heard from other YD's is that promoting Republicans at YD Events is against the Bylaws. The SFYD's had three Republican's on platform at the Constitutional Forum tonight, and one spokesperson for the Courage Campaign - who shamelessly fronts for the Republican Funded Repair California Group. I intend formal complaint - to the California State YD's. Don't even try to tell me the Political Hack from Chevron is a Democrat! That's BS. Go ahead and keep blocking my posts here on your blog. I am going to make a ton of noise about what happened. Welcome to the grassroots 2.0. We are here. We are not going away. We want change now. And, we are Organizing California.
http://CaliforniaActionNetwork.com
Posted by Paul Currier | October 14, 2009 11:28 PM
I share the concerns about this convention being dominated by the right and people being duped into this.
Mark
Posted by SCHLIENTZ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 15, 2009 07:05 AM
As Democrats of the Democratic Party, we need to join together in seeking reform within the Democratic Party.
Many Democrats already know their elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. More importantly, we as democrats see our elected representatives within the Democratic Party abandoning the values and principles as set forth within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
At the very least, many of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer abiding to the sole reason the Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson - "Strong state governments with a weaker federal government."
This is only the beginning of our problems as Democrats, for many of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party have clearly set their own agendas over the members of the Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people. Overall, many of them no longer think of themselves as being our elected representatives, and now refer to themselves as leaders in the true form of tyrants.
Most Democrats already know their pleas are only being answered by repeated insult and injury by their elected representatives within the Democratic Party. Despite this, we as Democrats can restore control of the Democratic Party back to the party members. All we need to do is cut off donations to the local, state, and national headquarters of the Democratic Party, and to make sure the donations are made directly to worthy and honorable Democratic Party candidates.
So spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats, for the Democrat members are taking back control of the Democratic Party. Also, please don't forget to contact and request the Unions and other outside contributors to follow our lead as patriotic Americans. Thank you!
Web site: http://www.democraticreformparty.com
Posted by Eric Pearson | October 15, 2009 10:23 PM
NortonSF - FYI, delegates to a constitutional convention will not come from traditional party lines or special interests. If they were elected you'd see democrats putting up their candidates, republicans putting up their candidates, same goes for Labor and so on and so on. The delegate appointment process is complicated but would serve to self-select a very representative cross-section of Californians. Contrary to local opinion, we live in a very "purple" state. It's not that Blue or that Red. While I'm all for the more progressive initiatives to be part of a constitutional convention, it is likely that this would unhinge the process. The convention would have to be limited to fiscal governance issues, not social issues in order for it to have a chance of success - and for California to get fixed.
Excuse my rant...
Daly - You're the least popular and most divisive person in San Francisco. You complain about special interests yet you were elected in a fluke after mobilizing an unrepresentative population of D6 constituents. Your name is synonymous with eye rolling and scoffs. You will be remembered as a failure.
Currier - Take a bath. It's hard to take someone serious who is caught packing up food to take home for himself from a YD event, let alone someone who advocates for an initiative that is GOING NOWHERE. Changing something as fundamental as our State Constitution requires consensus, not direction from the far right or left. I heard you had asked to participate but were turned down. Good work to whomever made this call. You would have done nothing but detract from what was a very informative discussion.
Posted by Political Rhapsody | October 18, 2009 04:32 PM
Hey,
You are all self-important assholes!
Nick Lewis
Posted by nicholas lewis | October 20, 2009 06:09 AM