Constitutional Convention:
Constitutional Convention Supporters Preparing to File Initiatives; Poll Says Voters Want Proposition 13 Preserved, Oppose Split Roll

Concerned about the future of a dysfunctional government and inability to raise revenue, policymakers met behind closed doors to reform the U.S. Constitution and cure the "mischiefs of faction." That was in 1787. If reformers get their way, Californians may be pulling out their white wigs in 2010.

By the end of this week, Repair California, a coalition with $2 million in funding from the Bay Area Council, expects to file two constitutional convention initiatives with the attorney general. With their financial and political backing, the sponsors expect to be able to qualify their measures for the November 2010 ballot.

Steven Hill, a coalition member and director of the New America Foundation, said his proposal still is being "tweaked" with regard to how convention delegates would be chosen. Currently, he is looking at a hybrid selection of 435 delegates, with some chosen by California's 58 county boards of supervisors at random, and others "scientifically selected throughout the state."

As proposed, one of the initiatives would empower the people to call for a constitutional convention, and the other would actually call for the convention and set the process. Once the measures are submitted and cleared to circulate, sponsors will have until approximately mid-April to collect signatures. If voters approved the measures in the November 2010 election, the convention would be held in 2011, and any suggested reforms would be placed on the next statewide ballot for voter approval.

Mr. Hill's news came during his speech at the end of a full-day conference on "avenues to Constitutional change in California," sponsored by the University of California at Berkeley, Stanford University and Sacramento State University.

According to Mr. Hill, the constitutional convention would be a "limited call," reviewing only structural issues of governance, elections and initiatives, budgeting, and state-local revenue sharing. The estimated cost of the convention would be about $55 million.

After Mr. Hill's announcement, Small Business Action Committee President and former Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Joel Fox spoke to attendees at the conference. Mr. Fox polled the audience, asking them who would support Proposition 13 if it were to appear again on a ballot. Fewer than 10 people – out of roughly 150 in attendance – raised their hands in support of the landmark property tax limitation initiative. Then, Mr. Fox asked: "What do you want to reform? A rainy day fund? Spending cap? Pension reform?" He said he does not think anyone can reform California's structural issues as described by the Repair California initiative without addressing Proposition 13.

Earlier in the day, Richard Temple, executive vice president of McNally Temple Associates, offered legal advice on the obstacles for achieving reform. He said that any politically feasible reform proposal should stay clear of divisive policy issues, noting that once you bring in such "third rails," you draw sides and lose bipartisan support. He said such issues may include illegal immigration, same-sex marriage and Proposition 13. He also noted that there are two key differences between the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and any constitutional convention of today: media and open meetings. "Thank God the U.S. Constitution didn't have to stand up to public scrutiny," he commented. (Cal-Tax: Another difference: The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to make sure the government couldn't accumulate too much power, while many groups discussing a constitutional convention now are trying to give the government more power, and to limit the public's ability to pass laws via the initiative process.)

Also offering legal advice was Stanford Professor Pamela Karlan, who said that in choosing the delegates for a convention, California would not be able to ensure that the delegates are representative of the state's demographics. Any intentional selection of individuals based on race, gender, religion or political affiliation would violate the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, she said.

Another concern voiced by some skeptics is that an individual interest group might hijack the proceedings, which some argue the Workingman's Party did during the drafting of the California Constitution in 1879. The Workingman's Party persuaded the delegates of the convention to include numerous regulations on large corporations, and many anti-Chinese labor laws. As UC San Diego Political Science Professor Amy Bridges noted, "It is possible to limit the agenda of a constitutional convention, but in 1879 it wasn't." She continued, "For an issue like Proposition 13, no issue that sharply divides us is best resolved through a convention."

Following Ms. Bridges was San Jose State University History Professor Glenn Gendzel, who called for a repeal of Proposition 13 and said most of the backers of the 1978 initiative were commercial property owners. (Cal-Tax: The history professor should review his history! Proposition 13 was backed largely by homeowners who were fed up with unpredictable, escalating property tax bills. Many owners of commercial property, and indeed most of the state's business community, opposed the initiative at the time.)

The first speaker of the day was Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. In preparation for the conference, Field had released a new poll on constitutional reform. According to the poll, most Californians would oppose a flattening of the personal income tax (the question included the rates proposed by the Commission on the 21st Century Economy); 65 percent disapproved of eliminating the corporate income tax and adopting a Business Net Receipts Tax; 52 percent disapproved of changing the two-thirds majority vote requirement for passage of a budget; and 69 percent disapproved of amending Proposition 13 to allow the Legislature to increase taxes with a majority vote.

Since 1980, Field Poll has asked likely voters if they would support taxing commercial property at a higher rate than residential property. Only 37 percent of likely voters said they would support such a split roll. (Cal-Tax: As illustrated by the accompanying graphs, public support for a split roll is weak and has decreased continually over the years, despite the constant drumbeat for such a change from groups affiliated with public employee unions.)

Not everyone agreed that California needs radical reform. William Hauk, president of the California Business Roundtable, said, "California is still governable." He argued that once California reforms term limits and implements Proposition 11 (the voter-approved 2008 redistricting initiative), the Legislature may become more moderate, and more likely to come to the table to negotiate policy solutions.

Cal-TaxReports, October 19, 2009

© 2009 California Taxpayers' Association. All Rights Reserved.