Ending Minority Rule in California: One Sentence Can Do It

California is in deep trouble because it has a dysfunctional system of government. Much of the problem can be changed by one sentence.

I have sent to the Attorney General a ballot proposition for the 2010 ballot called The California Democracy Act, whose content is the following:

All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.

It would change two words in the Constitution, turning "two-thirds" to "majority" in two places. It is simple, understandable, and it is about democracy.

I will be speaking on this in Los Angeles Thursday night. (See below.)

As I see it, democracy is the main issue in the governance of our state. The two-thirds rules have an anti-democratic effect. Our legislature is currently under minority rule. One-third plus one -- only 34% -- of either the Assembly or Senate can block the will of the majority until their demands are met. This is undemocratic.

Minority rule is why we have gridlock in the legislature. Minority rule has brought our state to near bankruptcy, causing crises throughout the state.

A majority of California voters have elected a majority of the state legislators, and that majority is responsible and, so far as I can tell, overwhelmingly dedicated to sane fiscal management and to serving the needs of our citizens. But they are handcuffed by minority rule.

Democracy can work in California. What the majority of voters want, a majority in the legislature will enact. And it only take a majority of voters to enact that one-sentence amendment.

Changing the vote requirement to a majority for budget and revenue will ensure that California's budget can meet the state's needs and be passed on time. One sentence can end economic uncertainty and provide for an improved credit rating, for payment of our bills with money instead of IOUs, and will bring stability to our schools, nursing homes and universities. One sentence can make California a well-run state again.

How does minority rule happen? By trickery. Don't be fooled. The way a minority of one-third plus one comes to run the show is by imposing a 2/3 rule. It may sound more democratic, but it is less democratic. It allows a minority to rule by gridlock, by thwarting the will of the majority in the legislature, and hence, a majority of the voters in the state.

No other state is run by such a minority. In no other state can a ruthless minority cause the chaos, disruption, pain, and near-bankruptcy that our state has suffered. A majority of the voters, can end the tyranny of the minority.

Democracy means majority rule. One sentence will do the job.

Of course, there will be a blowback. Conservatives will say, as they always do, that this is just a ruse to raise taxes.

But this is about democracy, not about how or whether revenues are raised. What the majority of citizens want, a majority of elected representatives will enact. The question is simple: do you want democracy?

Here's what government is about in a democracy. Government has two sacred moral missions: to protect and empower its citizens.

Protection starts with police and public safety and extends to protection for consumers, for our food, for workers, for the elderly, for those sick and helpless, for the environment, and for investors.

Empowerment is what allows us to earn a living and live decent lives: public roads and buildings; a working power grid; water; a basic educational system; a system of public health and nursing homes; a system of higher education with advanced research in medicine, computing, and agriculture; banks and insurance companies you can trust, and court system that works.

No one earns a living in California without protection and empowerment by the government. No one makes it without all of these things. Without them, the California Dream becomes a nightmare. Without revenue and a sensible budget, there can be no protection and no empowerment, and the world's seventh largest and richest economy starts to look like a third-world country.

Minority rule is closing California. State parks: closed. Schools: closed. Fire departments: closed. Nursing homes: closed. Medical clinics: closed. Libraries: closed.

We do not have to stand for it.

The majority of voters choose the majority of legislators. That's simple democracy. When the majority of legislators rule, the majority of voters rule.

Can this work? It can, with strong support. What is needed is a serious campaign making the case for democracy, and allowing the voters to see that minority rule is the root of the problem.

Since the minority is a strongly conservative Republican minority, progressive Democrats running for the legislature in 2010 can run on a pro-democracy platform, placing the blame for gridlock where it belongs, on their opponents.

The main question is whether we can run such a campaign successfully. That is simply a matter of organization, commitment, support, and funding. None of those is trivial. But we know how to do them.

If you want to join the movement, go to: www.camajorityrule.com or on Facebook.

We have begun raising funds for a poll. To contribute, go here.

***

Announcement

I will be speaking Thursday night at 7 pm to a coalition meeting of a wide variety of organizations dedicated to ending the 2/3 rules.

Where:
SEIU 721
500 S. Virgil Los Angeles, CA 90020
Auditorium (Located on the first floor)
R.S.V.P.: susieanneshannon@ yahoo.com
or call [phone]

George Lakoff is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley and the author of Don't Think of An Elephant! and The Political Mind.

 

 

Comments

[Charlotte Waldo]

This makes sense to me. If the Democrats are in power and go crazy with taxes, they will be voted out. If the Republicans get in power and go crazy cutting services they will be voted out. But let the majority of Californians and the people they have elected to represent them decide the direction of the state.

[kimk3]

All my CA friends, please read this. I heard Lakoff speak last night. We can get back majority rule and have the economic justice CA wants and needs.

[like-mind]

We must make this achieve the status of law, for the good of the state.

[Callyson]

Professor Lakoff, thank you thank you thank you! I heard you speak about this idea earlier when you gave a talk at the LA Public Library, and I am so glad you are staying on this. My money, time, and vote are with you on this. Best of luck and thanks again for working on this important improvement.

[sirklw]

Every time I hear this heinous proposal, I'm not sure to laugh at the sheer stupidity of it or shout out the dastardliness of it. It's dastardliness lies in how it's pure smokescreen to cover the truth of the utter incompetence of a line of Democratically controlled Legislatures that created the current fiasco. Even in the presence of the requirement of a two third majority - and just as importantly, the effects of Prop. 13 - California has had long periods of stunning economic growth and prosperity. Even with the two-thirds requirement and Prop 13, revenues have flowed into Sacramento in amounts greater than needed for the budget. So what did the Legislature do? They grew the size of the State budget at a rate and size completely out of proportion to the increase of the State's population. But Democrats in California are as stupid as Republican just about everywhere else. They simply won't see the truth that it is, in fact, a SPENDING problem, not a revenue problem. California still took in over $86 Billion in revenue. When in hell are people in this state going to ask, hey, what did you do with the money that you don't have any left over to have $100 million for the parks for $50 million for children's health care. The Democratic machine wants you to worry about the two-thirds majority, rather than consider how stupidly it's been doing its job.

[citizen of the universe]

Your argument would be true if the budget wasn't held up by two Republicans who wanted to include open election language in a State budget argument. Your argument would be plausible if Republicans didn't fight so hard against raising taxes on the wealthy and why our Republican governor is now being sued because after the Republicans got their way and balanced the budget on the backs of the sick, the elderly, and the poor, he then went and slashed an additional 654 million on the previously mentioned and opened up drilling in Santa Barbara with no provisions going to the State and against the objections of Santa Barbara residents. Santa Barbara folks remember the spill that cost the State millions to clean up resulting in a changed ecosystem to this day. It's easy to blame the Democrats when its the Republicans that have been getting their way and the State is no better shape for it, so to argue Republicans are better operators is mute by today's standards. Majority rule seems like the better solution to me.

[ProgressiveVoice]

So the only allowable growth in the state budget should be tied to population increases? What about inflation? Or hyperinflation as a result of natural disasters like, say, Katrina? Do you know how many gallons of gas the state uses every day? I don't, but I will bet the state budget took a pretty huge hit when gas prices went from the mid-$2 range to over $4.

What difference does it make how much the state brought in if it doesn't cover the bills? I don't think the state should be paying for cars or per diems for legislators - they knew where the job site was when they applied - especially at the same time the state is cutting funding for crucial programs benefiting those most in need. I also think that cutting those perks would be a drop in the bucket, not coming anywhere near the amount needed to close the deficit.

The minority that has all of California by the short hairs refuses to approve any tax increases as long as the budget is full of "wasteful spending". As many years as I have hears that, they have never identified said wasteful spending. The alternate budget they presented last year called for the same cuts in the same programs that benefit seniors, children and the needy. Apparently, they cannot identify this supposed "wasteful" spending any better than the majority.

[sirklw]

Citizen, Progressive: Your comments reflect completely partisan knee-jerk reactions worthy of any Value-Voting, Rove-Republican. 'It's completely the other party's fault and our people have done absolutely nothing wrong.' You completely miss my point that the fiasco we're in has nothing to do with how many votes are required. It has everything to do with the decisions of what to vote on. And yes, the size of the budget absolutely has to have some tie to the size of population, to the tax base that supports it and services that it's prudent to provide. Growing the State budget 100 percent, which has happened in barely 15 years, while the population has barely grown 30 percent in the same time is an act of pure recklessness. Past Legislatures built highways, colleges, universities along with providing the services that are the fundamental responsibility of the state, and did so without wondering year after year as to how they can paper over the fact that they were spending tens of billions the state didn't have. Recent Legislatures have had more than sufficient revenue [as had past Legislatures] to provide the essential services to the citizens [the legal ones] of the State within a balanced budget. It's self-evident that recent budgets include massive extravagances of one form or another. Again I ask, what did they choose to spend $86 Billion on that they don't have any left over to provide essential services to the citizens of the state?.

[Matrix3333]

You can blame spending, but it's a total lie. Thanks to ridiculous initiatives like Prop 13 (which is really a corporate tax break more than anything else thanks to their bonus property tax exemption because of it), the state is highly dependent on personal income tax (over 50% of our budget now) and is even more restricted on what it can spend that money on thanks to various budget initiatives. In essence, calling CA's budget mess a problem with spending is like blaming someone who makes $10,000 a year that they're poor because they don't live within their means.

Michael Hitzlik from the LA Times and other honest journalists like George Skelton have the actual numbers and sources to demonstrate it's not a spending problem:

"The truth is that over the last 10 years, California's spending has tracked population growth and price increases almost to the penny.

This finding comes from the nonpartisan legislative analyst's office, which subjects the state budget to more careful scrutiny than almost anyone else in Sacramento...

During this time frame, which embraced two booms (dot-com and housing) and two busts (ditto), the state's population grew about 30% to about 38 million, and inflation charged ahead by 50%. The budget's growth, the legislative analyst found, exceeded these factors by only an average of 0.2% a year. "

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/28/business/fi-hiltzik28

[Rowan Mithril-Star]

Another Liar.

Prop 13 needs to be repealed, Now. Landowner need to be taxed based on what their property is worth today, not what it was 30 years ago. Fraking Libertarians are always out to bankrupt the people.

[CommonSenseAmerican]

Here are some ideas that will ACTUALLY save CA:
- Stop allowing illegals to use your emergency departments as primary care doctors, this alone will save you BILLIONS
- Allow your Police to arrest and than deport illegals when caught in crimes or misdemeanors
- Stop ruining the lives of your Farmers by placing unrealistic water restrictions on them
- Get your heas out of this Uptopian cloud you live in and get real, make hard decisions and be ok with not making everyone happy all the time. Its life!

[citizen of the universe]

You obviously don't live here and have no clue as to what you are talking about. So I will address your concerns:

1. Most illegals here pay for private insurance.
2. The Prison Industrial Complex houses illegals, but the INS or the illegals government don't help to pay deportation cost, since these are human beings and we californians recognize that, we create a path to citizenship, thereby creating revenue for the State via their earnings.
3. CA has been in a 3 year drought. Also, water rights is a current issue being addressed with Colorado and Nevada since we share the water supply.
4. Your illusions about CA is based on Hollywood movies. There is more to the State than that and we residents know it, its the rest of the country that doesn't.

[Charlotte Waldo]

I think his illusions, or delusions more like it, come from Fox news. Hannity did a special about Farmers and water a couple of weeks ago. While that special blamed the Feds for killing crops in order to protect fish, it failed to address some of the real problems. Maybe they should blame nature for a drought, or carbon-based emissions for contributing to global warming, or wonder about the wisdom of growing crops in a desert. Or maybe they should have a little sympathy for the fishermen who are not able to fish salmon anymore because their breeding grounds are being destroyed. If a person like the original poster recognizes that these problems are complex and require thought and collaboration to solve, maybe this world will have a fighting chance.

[wyldthings]

How short sighted. If we had majority rule then The Blacks would still be Negroes, Latino's would be farming and gays would be in the closet. So be careful what you ask for, for example 52% oppose gay Marrige in California. But what % in let's say Alabama!! We do have a system of Majority rule and it's called the Supreme Court. And I'll bet your against the current majority.

[Geoffreys]

Once upon a time Blacks were Negros and Gays were in the closet. And then times change and now we are moving beyond that foolishness.

You know as well as I do that the minority is standing in the way of opinions of the masses and those opinions arc to the Left. Gay Marriage will be a reality in Alabama. A Black man will be President of the US and may well pass his office on to *gasp* a woman. 30 years ago none of that was possible. 60 years ago that was all barely thinkable.

Don't pretend that fear of the opinions of the majority comes from the Left. Seems to be coming from the Right lately.

[Malacandra]

You are confusing two things: allowing majority rule and sustaining minority rights.

The rights of minorities should be protected from a tendency for majorities to discriminate against them: that's absolutely true.

On the other hand, the ability for the majority to make decisions for all is fundamental to any democratic system of government.

Both of these propositions are absolutely essential. Sometimes they come in conflict, but to hamstring the system so that no democratic decision-making is possible is no solution.

And that's what we've got in California: a situation where an ideological minority thwarts the will of the people at every turn, making the state absolutely ungovernable.

[Bladernr1001]

I laugh when you equate slavery to gay marriage.

Our country was founded on the notion of natural rights...that is the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Slavery violates natural rights...and you are right we should not have written around that when creating the constitution (I am reading between the lines of your comment here a little).

Furthermore, I don't what the value added is to have government involved in a marriage contract.. Government is not involved in any other type of contract. If marriage was a completely private arrangement then we would not be fighting over gay marriage. Gays could do what ever they wanted in terms of forming a contractual union. Marriage is NOT a natural right and thus government should not be involved in such an agreement.

Lastly, the Supreme Court does not exist to enforce popular opinion....they are there to apply the constitution to the law. In my opinion they have done a rather poor job of that the last 100 years or so. I don't think the SCOTUS has any jurisdiction over the gay marriage thing.

[AJH]

Or possibly considering marriage really is a religious instution that is an inheritance into our civil society derived from the divine right and powers of european kings and those agents (Ships captains etc) they delegated to join people in wedlock we should just create civil unions for all. In short blame Henry the VIII.

Recognize marriages granted by religions as civil unions under the law and provide benefits to people in civil unions.

Religions get to keep marriage it truly is theirs. We get to get a religious institution out of civil society, where it belongs, religions get to freely choose whom they marry, and everyone joined under the obligations of the state civil union gets the benefits and penalties.

Gays who want the shorud of a religious union only a church can grant that to you. Religious that don't want sinners to have benefits we have a first amendment that prevents establishing religion and requires equal rights under the law.

At least that's my preferred solution but I'll vote for equality either way.

[Rrhain]

And yet, the SCOTUS disagrees, declaring that marriage is a fundamental right.

Were they wrong to do so?

[like-mind]

This is specifically to apply to budget and revenue matters alone.

[WorkingClass]

We need majority rule in the U.S. Senate. Although nothing will change until bribery is made illegal.

[wyldthings]

What if the Majority were Republicans would you feel the same?

[WorkingClass]

yes

[Bladernr1001]

Of all the problems with CA, the 2/3 vote remains as a small shining beacon of what use to be our freedom. I would fight to the death to preserve it.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Tyranny of the minority is not "freedom"

[Bladernr1001]

Actually it is freedom. Read my other posts. Our founders concept of government was to make it as hard as practical for the government to vote to decrease your rights and take away your property.

And it still was not enough. Take public employee unions for example. Why should we be paying to allow these folks to retire at 50 years old and receive 90% of their pay in pensions for life? It is stuff like this that is drowning us....we already have the highest taxes in the nation now.

[Bladernr1001]

The real problem is that government here in CA and most states exists to remove liberty little by little from the citizens including the federal government.

The framers of the constitution made it very difficult on purpose to change the document. Their reasoning was to prevent what is indeed happening now on all levels of government.

We have invented all kinds of new "rights" since then. Our founding fathers observed that humans have what is referred to as natural rights....that is the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights cannot be controlled by anyone else. Over our history, however, we have invented many, many new rights. Now we have the "right" to health care, retirement, quotas, clean needles, food and on and on...I think you get the point. These are not natural rights in that to insure that each individual shares these "rights" you most often have to take something from another citizen. So one man's rights can often be another man's tyranny.

This is what we have now. All you need in most places in order to take someone else's property by force is a 50%+1 vote. This is not what the founders envisioned and it is not what will ultimately sustain our society. We use government as a legal means to steal from Peter to pay Paul....this is not only immoral by ultimately damaging to our way of life.

[No1TrainedChimp]

Agreed and nicely put.

[ProgressiveVoice]

So we have the right to life but not the things that sustain life. We have the right to liberty but not the things that make liberty possible, like education, or desirable, like retirement. We have the right to pursue happiness - is that possible if one has to step over the bodies of those who failed to hold onto their rights to life and liberty without the support of all those other "rights"?

What you fail to mention is that the citizen who is "taken" from also benefits, even when the only benefit is avoiding the cost of not "taking" from that citizen.

When did support for the common good become tyranny?

[makeck]

Of course you have the right to those things, and I think even bladenr1001 would agree. Where we would disagree is that my idea of a "right" is that no one can deny you those things, and you believe that someone (e.g. the government) should be ensuring that everyone who wants those things, gets those things. The category of "wants" includes those with genuine needs and inability to get it for themselves, and those who merely want it without sacrificing anything on their part (time, money, comfort). The vast majority of people do not value things which cost them nothing.

In 2007 the top 50% of federal tax returns accounted for 97% of the revenue generated by income taxes. Average tax bill for the top 50% of returns was $15000, average tax bill for the bottom 50% was $450. Its real easay to always ask for "more" when there is no cost to you.

And there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. Just because 50% +1 wants something, does not make it right, and their ability to make it legal constitutes a tyranny in and of itself.

[Openeyes]

Good idea, terrible and ineffective implementation.

You'd still have to amend out the parts of the constitution that require 2/3 vote for raising taxes (like in prop 13) and the part that requires the Budget Act be approved by 2/3 vote, otherwise you're creating conflicting provisions in the constitution, and you'd have to wait for a court case to get a ruling on which provisions should prevail - not very effective.

Your language is terrible. "All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote." You don't mean "legislative action" you mean bills. The legislature can only act through passing bills (try reading the constitution you want to amend).

"on revenue and budget" - now you've conjoined the two items, meaning the provision will apply to a bill addressing both, but won't apply to a bill addressing either separately – try “or” instead of “and.”

"revenue" is too broad - you mean taxes, so say so (revenue from fees is already majority vote) . "Budget"? - you mean the Budget Act.

"Must be determined by a majority vote" - you mean "shall be passed by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature." The Legislature doesn't "determine" anything. Again - try seeing how legislation is actually worded.

This one sentence won't fix anything in its present form. Unfortunately, people writing ideas on napkins and submitting them as propositions is a big reason we have the problems in California that we do.

[AJH]

Must agree. Even on fee's it could get somewhat confusing as fee authority which is legislative authority is often delegated to Boards to set. Would that have to revert to the legislature for a fee table under this proposal vs current practice of the legislature setting the total amount of fee's to be collected via appropriation and the board doing the balancing based on statutory guidance? What about UC fee's delegated to the UC regents again set based on funds appropriated and unmet financial need.

Sign me up for a full constitutional rewrite.

Although I would probably vote for a well written majority rule section considering the line item veto and veto abilities of governor's acts as a check on legislative abuse which could then trigger the supermajority override. Still some checks but more freedom to act. Republicans shouldn't worry much since Brown left we've had 1 democratic governor and he didn't finish his second term and they would pass the hot potato to their governor.

Redistricting will hopefully help with some depolarization as well. Maybe not however.

[medicare4all]

This brings to mind how it would take one paragraph to bring health care to all in this country. One paragraph to state that as of (date) Medicare is extended to all, not just those 65 and over. The paragraph would include

"as an option" (the obligatory phrase to placate the private, for-profit insurance barons); and

"as per every participant's contribution" (right now it's about $100 a month per recipient). Make it $150 for those under 65, and it's a deal that :

pays for itself ;

does not require 1000+ pages of legalese.

[jhNY]

This piece reminds me of an old Hollywood story. A director was talking about his screenplay writer who can't understand why things are taking so long: "Then he writes, in between pages of dialog, 'Monty saves Nell from fire after train wreck.' That little sentence took me a big pile of money and two weeks to shoot."

Lots of things might be changed by the inclusion or subtraction of a word or phrase, like thou shalt kill or all men are not created equal. But there is in this author's example, a devilish amount of work and heavy lifting and special interest mooting that has to go on before his phrases might be part of an amended California constitution-- and that work must be done by a population that seems to see itself as post-political and past caring.

[pajoly]

I love CA and lived in San Diego, Los Angeles and the Silicon Valley, but I am glad I moved back to FL. This state has lots of its own dysfunction, but at least it costs 1/3 to live here versus the Bay area and that's no exaggeration.

[3dtrix]

California DOES NOT need "reform" band-aids - we need a new State Constitution, period. Our present constitution is poorly conceived and written (no glorification of our founding fathers is due) and inadequate for a modern high-tech multi-cultural mega-state. As "patches" will never repair underlying code in bad software, changing a few phrases in our State Constitution will ultimately fail as well...