Initiative Would Restore Citizen-Legislators

DEC. 13, 2011

By KATY GRIMES

Is California ready to return to citizen-legislators?

In 1966, voters passed Proposition 1A, creating a full-time legislature and an annual state budgeting process. Today, California is one of only a few states with a full-time legislature, and has the longest scheduled session of any state legislature in the country.

With 120 legislators working diligently to justify their full-time jobs, the full-time Legislature has created a culture of career politicians in California, and a labyrinth of heavy-handed state laws and regulations. Under the Democratic Party and organized labor control, not everyone in the state is happy with the way politics have become a profitable cottage industry.

There have been many legislative reform attempts to limit the power, size and scope of California’s Legislature. But these bills are forever assigned to stagnation on a dark shelf in the legislative Rules Committees, which refuses to assign reform bills to the committee process for hearings. This is just one of the reasons that many in California believe that the political process is broken and needs a complete facelift.

Ballot Initiative Filed

The California State Assembly, known as the lower house, has 80 members, 52 Democrats and 28 Republicans. The upper house, the California State Senate, has 40 members, 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans.

California for two decades has had gerrymandered legislative districts. Although that might change a little next year thanks to Proposition 11, which voters passed in 2008. It created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which has devised supposedly less-gerrymandered districts.

Under the current system, and likely the new one, most of the 120 ruling state legislators are dependent for existence on labor unions and the ever-expanding public-employee tax waistline.

This has led to the filing of a constitutional amendment ballot initiative last week to make California’s Legislature part-time. The aim is to diminish the power of professional politicians and return control of the state to citizen-legislators.

Attempts to Limit the Legislature

In 1990, California voters passed term limits on the California LegislatureProposition 140 limited state Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms. Term limits impose a lifelong ban against seeking the same office, but that hasn’t prevented politicians from making soft landings to other appointed positions within state government.

Instead of leaving Sacramento after their terms are up, California’s legislators commonly either run for a seat in the other house, or find a way to get appointed to a well-paying state board or commission until they can run for another political office.

That’s what grates on voters. America’s government was formed using a citizen legislature, primarily with citizens who have a full-time occupation besides being a legislator. James Madison, the fourth President of the United States and primary author of the Constitution, wrote that legislators should be “called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature and continued in appointment for a short period of office.”

The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves by now.

States with part-time, citizen-legislatures include Idaho, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming. Even Texas, with 25 million people, has a legislature that meets only every other year for 140 days.

Some states, by contrast, have a full-time, professional legislature.

However, the states with full-time legislatures — California, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania — have all suffered massive budget deficits, out-of-control public employee unions and unfunded public-employee pensions.

Initiative Filed

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, filed the constitutional amendment ballot initiative, along with People’s Advocate CEO Ted Costa, renowned for his leadership in the gubernatorial recall election of Gov. Gray Davis.

Grove ran for her Assembly seat as a private-sector businesswoman, and plans on going back to her business when her legislative terms are up.

If the ballot initiative is passed by voters, the California Legislature would meet no more than three months per year: 30 days in January, and 60 days in May and June. Governors would be permitted to convene special sessions, lasting no more than 15 days. Legislators’ pay would be scaled back from nearly $9,500 per month now to $1,500 per month, according to Grove.

But Grove has said that this is not an attack on legislators, and instead is only an attempt to take the perks and appeal out of the full-time job and bring it back to real public service, allowing anyone to run for office.

Most of the states pay lawmakers less than half of what California legislators are paid. Some pay much less than that: Nevada pays just $137.90 per day maximum for 60 days of session. New Hampshire pays $200 for a two-year term. Alabama  pays $10 per session day. Texas pays $7,200 per year. New Mexico only pays for legislators’ expenses; there’s no salary.

The larger, union-dominated states pay closer to California’s legislative wages, but not as high. Pennsylvania pays $78,314.66 per year. New York pays $79,500 per year. And Michigan pays $79,650 per year. Wisconsin only pays $49,943 per year.

The ballot initiative would require the Legislature to submit a balanced, two-year budget by June 15 in every other odd year, and would forfeit legislators’ pay for every day it’s late.

But the most significant change could put an end to the careers of the political elite: Legislators would be prohibited from accepting political appointments to state boards and commissions while in office, and for five years afterward. Many involved in the campaign say that this is probably as significant a change as making the Legislature a part-time body.

A long-time joke around the state Capitol is that the California Unemployment Appeals Board was created as a place for career legislators to land after they were termed out, to prevent them from being unemployed. There are currently four former state legislators on the board.

Critics and Supporters

There are critics of the measure in both parties. Some say that the Legislature needs to remain a full-time body in order to govern a state as large and economically diverse as California. Others say that Democrats don’t want to give up the power structure they have created, dominated by organized labor.

Last June, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-San Juan Capistrano, said she had mixed feelings about a part-time Legislature. She would rather see a limited schedule requiring lawmakers to work exclusively on the budget before any other legislation is introduced.

Assemblymen Dan Logue, R-Linda, and Martin Garrick, R-Solana Beach, have signed on as early supporters.

The Sacramento Bee reported, “John Vigna, spokesman for Assembly Speaker John Perez, said a part-time Legislature makes little sense in a state with one of the world’s largest economies. He also took a jab at Grove’s job performance.”

“This is an irresponsible proposal coming from someone who hasn’t put forward any real solutions to our long-term challenges,” Vigna said.

But that isn’t entirely accurate. Grove has proposed several government reforms, but can’t get the Democrat-controlled Assembly Rules Committee to assign the bills to other legislative committees.

Others ironically express support for a part time Legislature, saying that less damage can be done to the state with a limited, part-time body.

Some within the ballot initiative campaign are concerned that the Attorney General’s office could sit on the ballot proposal as long as possible, cutting into signature-gathering time. There are only 150 days to gather the 807,615 signatures needed to qualify the constitutional amendment initiative to the ballot.

“If the ballot initiative is passed by voters, we will see more Shannon Groves in the Legislature and fewer career politicians,” said one campaign insider. “They won’t be able to work on protecting their jobs anymore, and instead will work for the people of the state.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments(23)
  1. Bob says:

    “There have been many legislative reform attempts to limit the power, size and scope of California’s Legislature. But these bills are forever assigned to stagnation on a dark shelf in the legislative Rules Committees, which refuses to assign reform bills to the committee process for hearings. This is just one of the reasons that many in California believe that the political process is broken and needs a complete facelift.”

    The criminal class will not give up their stranglehold on power without a fight.

    They are worse then cockroaches. Not only can’t you get rid of them, you can’t even hold them in check.

  2. Beelzebub says:

    The way the system is currently designed the common people have little or no direct control over the direction of our society. Look at the presidential race if you question that. Look at all the goofballs that the GOP threw at us as candidates. Gingrich is a frontrunner!!! Imagine that!!! :D Look at who you had to choose from in the recent California gubernatorial election. You constantly are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. In reality, the dems and the repubs form a one party system. It is nearly impossible for third parties to gain recognition and power within our system. The paid-off mainstream media marginalizes any legitimate candidate who might have a different idea of how to run the nation or the state.

    The Stupid Committee, er… I mean the Super Committee couldn’t even cut a lousy $200B a year from the Federal Budget that is running an annual deficit in excess of a TRILLION dollars!!!

    Any movement of ordinary citizens to strengthen their power in governmental affairs will be fought tooth and nail by the oligarchs of our society.

    Democracy??? ;) Gag me.

  3. HJ Mitchell says:

    Correction: The CA Legislature is comprised of 120 members – 80 in the Assembly and 40 in the Senate. Not 140, as the article states, twice.

    (Editor’s note: Thank you for the correction. We’ve fixed the text.)

  4. queeg says:

    They gave us McDole……

    Most of them are slippery attornies and never served America in the military….

    The tea party and the lib kabal will aggresively promote new candidates over incumbents…a blood bath in the making.

    Flushing out is good for America….

  5. John Steele says:

    This is a great idea,. There isn’t any reason for these corrupt little dictators to be in office all year long. The citizen legislature is the ideal that the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the Constitution. I will happily sign and pass a petition around to restore Kalifornia to fiscal sanity

  6. queeg says:

    If your job in life is to confiscate money from someone for a living……attorney….

    A small leep to becoming a slimy politican.

    Wake up! Never elect attornies..

  7. Todd says:

    Yeah let’s vote for a part time legislature so that only those who are rich and can afford to get paid 1,500$ a month, make all the decisions. And let’s only govern the most populous state in the nation, and the 6th largest economy in the world, with a part time legislature. People don’t want the special interests to take control, wait until this is voted in. Terrible idea

  8. Charlie Bean says:

    But the most significant change could put an end to the careers of the political elite: Legislators would be prohibited from accepting political appointments to state boards and commissions while in office, and for five years afterward. Many involved in the campaign say that this is probably as significant a change as making the Legislature a part-time body.

    This alone would be something to submit for a change to the constitution!

  9. Beelzebub says:

    “Yeah let’s vote for a part time legislature so that only those who are rich and can afford to get paid 1,500$ a month, make all the decisions. And let’s only govern the most populous state in the nation, and the 6th largest economy in the world, with a part time legislature”

    And how’s that full-time state legislature been working out for ya? How could a part-time legislature possibly be any worse? Even if we get stuck with more incompetent clowns at least we only have to pay them a fraction of what we pay our current incompetent clowns.

  10. David H says:

    It’s a move in the right direction. Limiting government. It needs to be combined with spending limit caps on political advertising and collection of political contributions.

  11. queeg says:

    The current track…..not good….some drastic actions will come…hope your boat stays afloat!!”"

  12. Rex The Wonder Dog! says:

    Todd says:

    People don’t want the special interests to take control, wait until this is voted in. Terrible idea

    Errrr…right Todd, its not like we don’t have the entire legislators already in the pocket of special interest public unions and running $20 billion annual budget deficits, no it could not get any worse than that can it-NOT!

    Get serious, we are in the hole we are now because special interests OWN the legislator.

  13. Larry says:

    Great discussion! Given a choice and a voice voters can fix this.

  14. Rex The Wonder Dog! says:

    Given a choice is the key phrase, they are NOT given a choice.

    Look who we had run for gov-brown and whitman-both were idiots.

    Whitman caved in tot he police union demands to get special treatment on pensions, well I hate to break the news, but they are no better than anyone else, they are not special

  15. sprman says:

    This is up to all of us to force this change! Power is what we have when we do this correctly. Everyone must get out a copy of this and email, fax and go door to door and get everyone aware of this and demand these changes!

    We will not be tread upon again! This is OUR STATE and we are taking it back!!

  16. Keith Russell says:

    How can we get this to Californians to vote on it? This is exactly what is needed to fix the once great state of California.

  17. power and politics in california says:

    The power in the state is no longer in the hands of its citizens. Politics in California are now controlled by large corporate and union interests. The people are left to fight for scraps.

  18. nowsane says:

    I have already read a newspaper article written by a current Democratic strategist, arguing against this initiative. Probably because he fears being out of work, potentially!

  19. Cheryl Stroup says:

    For a TRUE separation of powers, attorneys should NEVER be allowed to serve in government. Such legislators mix the judicial and legislative branches ….

  20. Tony Tesoriere says:

    It is time to get this done. Having worked in the private sector most of my life in union jobs and being a strong democrat and finally retireing from the state after 15 years, I cannot support a system that that has led to such a decline in our educational system and the quality of life in general.

  21. Ed Doyel says:

    WHERE CAN WE GO TO SIGN THE PETITION?

  22. CalWatchdog says:

    Ed:

    I called Ted Costa of Peoples Advocate, which is advancing the initiative. He said the Attorney General still is preparing the Title and Summary for the initiative. That should be done by about Feb. 3. Then they should start circulating petitions.

    – John Seiler

  23. Bobby Scott says:

    I hear that the budget deficit is back to the $20 billion level. Didn’t they get it back down to $9 billion just a few months ago??? How are we back in the hole