Whoever said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result was probably thinking about the California initiative process. We keep on putting initiatives on the ballot thinking it will solve all our problems and we keep getting the same results: either the initiatives don’t pass or the problems get worse.

Initiatives Tend to Lose
Earlier this year, Governor Schwarzenegger spoke of a day of reckoning and California voters reckoned they would reject 5 of the 6 budget-related ballot measures in the May special election. The fact that voters defeated all four of his government reform ballot measures in 2005 didn’t keep the governor from trying again. It’s a state of mind shared by many who would wield power in California: more than 50 ballot initiatives have qualified for the ballot this decade. Yet less than 30 percent passed.

Loss of Trust
Just because these initiatives didn’t pass doesn’t mean that Schwarzenegger was wrong about the critical condition in which California state government finds itself. What was wrong was his treatment program: insiders gathering in smoke-filled rooms (or tents), deciding what they think is best for the people of California, putting it on the ballot and then waging million dollar media campaigns against the insiders who were never invited in the tent in the first place or who were there and didn’t like what came out. Voters have completely lost any trust in the incestuous politico-corporate complex that plays an endless game of self-enriching tug-of-war in Sacramento. If insiders are proposing it, consulting real people only when the deals are cut and the initiative is on the ballot, then the voters are against it.

But the insiders are at it again. A whole new set of initiatives is being proposed by California Forward and Repair California. Others have written intelligently about the merits of their proposals. I’m just here to say that I’d be willing to wager that none of their initiatives will pass. Both organizations have polls that say I’m wrong. But a Field Poll last February showed that voters supported all 6 of the measures in the May special, too. To quote a dear friend and top-notch strategist, California voters are “incredibly pessimistic but, rather than angry, numb and therefore risk averse, rather than open to bold new initiatives.” I couldn’t agree more. And the revolution didn’t start with numb voters.

The Convention of 1879
Robert Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies wrote about our constitutional convention in 1879:

The convention met for 127 days, deliberating as 30 separate standing committees, and created a document that consisted of 22 articles. Then, after a spirited campaign that saw “constitution” and “anti- constitution” clubs spring up all over the state, the pro-ratification forces prevailed by a popular vote of 77,959 to 67,134—a margin of more than 7 percent.

Historians generally agree that the 1879 Constitution left much to be desired. As Pepperdine University professor Gordon Lloyd observes, “the 1879 Constitution is an excellent example of what a constitution should not look like. [It] constitutionalized the politics of class and race and was less inclusive and liberal than the first.”

Is It Real if Prop 13 and Supermajorities Are Off the Table?
I think a spirited campaign would be the best possible spin anyone can put on the upcoming campaign to get a constitutional convention on the ballot. So much of what ails California relates to how we finance our government. To truly address the question, there needs to be an honest discussion of Proposition 13 (the cap on property taxes passed in 1978) and supermajorities (passing a budget in the legislature or raising taxes requires a two-thirds vote). Yet some observers have pointed out that “[a]s written, neither of the major reform packages aimed at the 2010 ballot leave much room for changing Prop. 13.”

Supermajorities, apparently (and appropriately) are open for discussion. Yet even that discussion, in the context of an initiative campaign, will make 1879 look like a gentleman’s debate. A recent poll by the Unruh Institute of Politics showed that a majority of voters (53 percent) supported keeping the supermajority even when told that “[some] people say that this gives too much power to the minority, creating gridlock and allowing a small number of legislators to vote down the will of the majority.” Only 35 percent of voters wanted to change to a straight majority. The poll was taken just a few months after the state was required to issue more than a billion dollars in i.o.u.’s because the Republican minority had blocked any tax increases for months.

The poll respondents are the same voters who are going to be asked to pass initiatives to fix these problems, including two that will relate to a constitutional convention. I think voters will do what California voters did when asked to vote on a convention in 1898, 1914, 1928, and 1930. They will vote no.

Treating Californians Like Adults
Instead of the same old program — insiders dictate an initiative and spend millions of dollars to dumb it down on TV — I believe that changes as sweeping as California government requires a different approach. Instead of insulting the intelligence of voters with the usual 30 second spots, I think that the well-intentioned proponents of change would benefit from treating Californians like adults.

What if reform advocates went a year without putting something on the ballot and instead had a conversation with Californians about California state government and how it works? The second that something is on the ballot, voters are rightly concerned that somebody is trying to sell them something they don’t want. But if nothing is on the ballot, then maybe voters will lose some of their numbness. Some may passively listen. Some may actively process. And some may even fully engage.

Where Does the Money Go?
USC professor John Matsusaka wrote an op-ed in 2008 asking “where does it all go? California is spending 40 percent more than four years ago, but on what exactly?” What, if for the first time ever, we spent a year talking about on what exactly? Matusaka writes:

One possibility is that we simply do not notice all of the valuable services we receive. A national 2007 survey by William G. Howell at the University of Chicago and Martin R. West at Brown University found that respondents underestimated spending in their school district by 60%; on average, they believed spending was $4,231 per student when in fact it was $10,377. They also found that Americans underestimated teacher salaries by 30%. How many Californians know that public school teachers in the state earn an average of $59,000 a year, essentially tied with Connecticut for the highest average pay in the country? Likewise, perhaps we don’t notice the repaired roads or new buses and trains that take us to work.

On the other hand, maybe these billions of dollars just do not translate into services that are valuable to us.

Public Education First, Initiative Later
Have we as a state ever had a discussion about these matters without it being tarnished by partisan politics or initiative ideology? We all would learn so much from a public education effort that started with TV commercials, websites and social networking all devoted to the task of explaining where it all goes. How much goes to education? How much to transportation? How much to health care? How much to state parks? How much to prisons?

Some voters will gain a newfound appreciation for how their taxpayer money is being spent. Some will be horrified. Some will be bored. But the discussions that ensue will be more about policy than politics. Around water coolers and kitchen tables would be many more discussions about our government than there are today, many beginning with exclamations of insight, like “Did you know that…” The goal here would be to lay a foundation. Voters can’t be expected to be a partner in building a new state government if they don’t understand the one they have.

The next step in the program will be an actual exchange between the public and the parties with a specific interest in reforming state government. The constitutional convention advocates deserve credit for holding town halls, but I believe that more voters can be harvested if the field is plowed first. After 6 months of multimedia education about state government, voters would feel like they knew enough to express an opinion on how to make government work better.

Feinstein vs. Schwarzenegger
Imagine, once voters are warmed up, town hall meetings that were not centered on a ballot initiative but rather on the whole range of ideas that could make California work. Imagine that we brought out all of California’s most compelling personalities to increase interest in the town hall meetings. Since the town halls would not be for or against anything on the ballot, participation wouldn’t mean anybody was taking sides yet; it would just mean they were being part of the statewide discussion. Imagine a series of town hall meetings featuring a discussing between Dianne Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger. They could have a “debate” on all the tough issues but they wouldn’t be playing gotcha the way campaign opponents do; instead, they would simply be drawing on their vast experience and their place on opposite sides of the aisle to explain the spectrum of proposals on everything from Prop 13 to term limits.

Of course, some would say we can’t wait that long before we fix California. To which I would bet them we’re going to have to wait that long or longer anyway: I don’t believe the reform initiatives will pass. And then where will we be?

Getting Voter Buy-In
Fixing California will require the buy-in of voters. Today’s frustrated, numb voters are in no mood for bold new initiatives. Getting them in the mood will require educating them on what California state government does and how it might do those things better without the demagoguery inherent in political advertising. The foundations funding California Forward and the corporations bankrolling Repair California would do better to invest in a multimedia public education program drawing on the wealth of star power (political and otherwise) that would be willing to talk about the issues outside of the context of a vote. The public would truly work with policymakers to decide what should be on the ballot. That’s the only way the kind of ballot initiative we desperately need (whether a constitutional convention or something else) can pass in today’s political climate.

Foundations and corporations spending millions of dollars on another government reform initiative (or three) in 2010 is very risky if not insane. Spending it on public education first would not only be a gift and an end in itself, but it may also prove a strategic model for improving local and state government around the country.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 30th, 2009 at 2:05 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.