It is true, my dear, what you have long suspected. I am a woman who spontaneously accosts pleasant acquaintances with talk of a Constitutional Convention. I can't help it. Since I read about the idea of holding a convention to revise the state Constitution, I've loved the idea of having a system of governance for my state that isn't a horrible overgrown mishmash. I wrote before about how accumulated code turns into a maddeningly dense thicket, but on top of that, we've made some choices that make it nearly impossible to run the state.
We have this proposition system1, you know, and any propositions that get passed become part of our Constitution. They aren't even statutes that legislatures could amend. Our Constitution is one hundred and fifty-ish pages long. There are a couple famous anti-tax propositions, which I don't like because they seem to have given Californians the idea that infrastructure and services should be free. But setting aside specific anti-tax measures, there's the fact that so many propositions deal specifically with the budget that the legislature doesn't have any room to create a good budget. People vote in designated expenditures, so that gas taxes must go for road building, for example. They vote for bonds, which is great, but expensive down the line. The state budget must be balanced, we can't run a deficit; it requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. So the budget part is a mess2. Other propositions influence the budget as well. We passed Three Strikes, so we have to pay a lot to incarcerate people. We passed term limits, which solved the problem of extraordinarily powerful incumbency. It also solved the problem of legislator expertise, long-range planning and learned budgeting skills. There's no shortage of examples. The California Constitution is a mess.
I absolutely love the idea of a Constitutional Convention focused specifically on governance. I love it for all sorts of reasons. First, because I believe governance can be done well and if we're going to have mechanisms and institutions running my state, they should be good ones. Or at least not horrendously tangled ones. Second because how often do we get a chance to pull back and say "the process itself, is it working?" I mean, it is pretty common to decide that an outcome was good or bad. But if you're running a state, it is hard to take a step back and say "this thing that we do every day that we know all the work-arounds for, that we've adjusted to. Do we actually like it? Are we getting results despite it or because of it?" Third, I love the idea of working in a system that is designed to do something.
My biggest fear for a Constitutional Convention isn't that it will get carried away and try to solve everything. My fear for a Convention is that people won't think about what the government of California should do. Maybe they'll3 correct a few conspicuous problems and call it a day. But a document that sets our government in motion should have a goal. The goal could be to rein in those crazy Californians. It could be to promote equity. It could be to get the most out of every tax dollar. It could be to minimize fear. It could be to promote business and jobs in the state. The Constitution could promote happiness or austerity or community or security. It could be to develop wealth. It could be whatever the delegates choose. But they should choose something and then design a system that accomplishes that. I'd be so disappointed if a Constitutional Convention wrote a document that effectively extended status quo without ever thinking about why.
So yeah. I have been talking to people about a Constitutional Convention for California. But not as much as I've been thinking about it.
1 It is possible that the proposition system by itself is a problem. I kinda like the idea of direct democracy, but have to admit that the barriers to getting a proposition on the ballot are awfully low. Margie hates the whole business. She resents doing the legislature's job, says that's what she elects legislators for.
2This year the Legislature was three months late passing a budget. They openly admit that it is a terrible budget that makes the problem worse next year. There's a lot of talk in newspaper comments about writing a proposition to punish them somehow: dock their pay for every day the budget is overdue, force them to stay in continuous session until the budget is finished. Dude. The legislature isn't late with the budget because it is so damn fun to write a budget that they simply can't stop. The legislature is late with the budget because they are working in a system that doesn't have any solution spaces. Punishing legislators won't make solutions appear. If pushing doesn't solve the problem, the answer isn't to push harder. The answer is to remove the constraints.
3By "they" I mean, oh please god me. I don't know how you get to be a citizen delegate to a Constitutional Convention, and I suppose it would go to people who are already important and know things. But I know some stuff and I think about this type of thing all the time and even though I have radical ideas, I know when to play them and when to fold them and oh PLEASE DARRELL STEINBERG PICK ME!!! I will stop stalking your house and writing you love letters if you please please please PICK ME!!! Unless you like my love letters, in which case, why don't you ever write back?