OK, everybody seems to agree. California's government is dysfunctional. Now what do we do?
We go back to square one, is what we do. We write ourselves a new constitution, design ourselves a new state.
Attempts will be made to avoid reshaping the constitution and instead apply a series of Band-Aid remedies. But the crisis is too severe for incremental changes. The basic governing structure of the state has to be changed.
Our current constitution is a mess. I have a book published by the state Assembly and dated 2003-2004, that includes the federal and state constitutions. The Constitution of the United States is 39 pages long. The Constitution of the state of California is 158 pages long. It is too easy to amend.
So almost certainly there will be a constitutional convention to write a new charter for the state.
We start with the insistence that we have something worth saving. No state has everything we have: ocean, rivers, mountains, deserts, and to that we have added great cities, small cities, a once-admired higher education system, a once-admired public school system, a once-admired road systems and, unfortunately, a never-admired, larger-than-it-should-be prison system.
First question: Is California too big to govern? Should it be split into two, or three, states? Answer: No, not if it is governed efficiently.
Second question: Do we need 58 counties? Answer: To be determined.
Third question: Do we need counties at all? Answer: To be determined.
Fourth question: Do we need, as former Bee writer Peter Schrag wrote, "7,000 overlapping jurisdictions, from counties and cities to school and water districts, fire and park commissions, utility and mosquito-abatement boards, many with their own elected officials"? Answer: Probably not.
Fifth question: Do we need a bicameral legislature? Answer: Probably.
Sixth question: Would a parliamentary system, which would allow the state to be governed by the party currently most popular with the electorate, be preferable? Answer: Something to think about.
And on and on and on. Legislative redistricting, the initiative process, the two-thirds vote required for legislative approval of the budget, the distribution and cost of water – everything government does should be re-examined.
The concern about holding a constitutional convention is that special interests – big business and big unions – would be able to mold the new charter to serve their interests rather than the people's. That's a legitimate concern.
Some way is going to have to be found to select delegates to the convention who have open minds, strength of character, and common sense, and provide them with insulation from pressure. They should be aware of the concerns of the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers' Association and Silicon Valley and the California Teachers Association and the California State Employees Association and the AFL-CIO and the United Farm Workers, etc., etc.
Their job will be to come up with a balanced, workable charter that is best for the health of the entire state. It will be a tough job, but somebody's going to have to do it.
Bob Schmidt, a resident of Sacramento, is a retired reporter who covered the state Capitol for nearly 30 years for the Long Beach Press-Telegram and the San Jose Mercury News.
