Posted on 07/18/2004 10:10:45 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
By 2006, California could have a dramatically different political landscape, with part-time and more moderate legislators and a more streamlined state bureaucracy, if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's renewed threats against the status quo catch fire with voters. As the governor fights against a Legislature he says is resisting his calls for change, he is campaigning this weekend against individual lawmakers. He has again threatened to push a ballot measure to create part-time Legislature. Combined with an open-ballot primary initiative on the November ballot pushed by Schwarzenegger supporters, the crop of politicians elected in 2006 could find themselves both part-time and term-limited.
"To the extent he gets stymied by a Legislature unwilling to come to grip with the issues, I think the voters are going to be totally sympathetic to making significant changes," says Sal Russo, a veteran Republican consultant.
The governor, who frequently campaigns as an anti-politician while also attempting to master the Capitol's byzantine ways, has recently resumed the outsider persona with a vengeance, deriding lawmakers individually and collectively, and threatening again to smash the political system. Rebuffed by both Democratic and some Republican legislators over his spending plan -- and losing face over his promises to deliver a budget on time -- the governor is taking aim at the state's governing institutions.
Analysts say the change in tone by a governor with 65 percent approval ratings, could, if sustained, have extensive repercussions on the nation's most extensive political system outside of Washington, D.C.
"Californians have this really interesting proclivity to really like reforming government," says Mark Petracca, political science professor at the University of California at Irvine. "It really is hard to find an example with a reform placed on the ballot where the public has not supported it."
Schwarzenegger, who already has his California Performance Review plans to cut state bureaucracy in motion, said in Long Beach on Friday he planned to call a special election next year to make the Legislature part-time.
He's not bluffing, spokeswoman Ashley Snee said Saturday.
"I would say it's something he is seriously considering," she explained after Schwarzenegger's appearance in Ontario, where he urged people to tell their legislators to pass his budget.
The notion of a part-time Legislature, coupled with term limits, alarms many veteran political observers, including Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at California State University, Sacramento.
"They would be more dominated by big business and lobbyists and the infrastructure that surrounds the Capitol," she says. "I think that's not necessarily a good solution."
California's Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo says he hasn't tested public opinion for a part-time Legislature, an issue Schwarzenegger first raised in April, but adds, "My instincts wouldn't be to dismiss it out of hand, that's for sure." His May 27 poll showed the Legislature with 27 percent approval ratings, less than half the 65 percent given the governor Californians elected last Oct. 7 in a historic recall election.
California is one of nine states where lawmaking is considered a full-time job. Voters in 1966 scrapped the state's part-time Legislature for a new "professional" institution that quickly became hailed as a model for other states and the nation's best lawmaking body. Other states with full-time legislatures include New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
A June 10 Field Poll also showed 50 percent support for an open primary system that would let voters pick whomever they want in primary elections, regardless of parties, then send the top two choices to a November runoff. Though Schwarzenegger hasn't taken a position on the idea, many of his business supporters are behind it, believing it would bring more moderate voices to a Legislature widely viewed as dominated by right- or left-wing lawmakers.
Such partisan differences have become a key ingredient of Sacramento's annual budget standoff, producing late budgets from the Legislature every year since 1986.
hmmm
All the usual suspects.........put them all on part time.....and bi-year like in TX.
excerpted and linked from the Bakersfield Californian
Stalled budget makes Schwarzenegger consider reforms
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (SMW) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is learning first-hand what Republican and Democratic experts have been saying for years: It's the system, more than the governor, that makes responsible and timely budgeting in California so difficult to accomplish.
For all his star power and bipartisan appeal, the governor is almost three weeks into the fiscal year and can't get lawmakers to agree to a budget deal, even after adding to the state's structural deficit to meet demands of lawmakers from both parties.
Talks dissolved last week over tangential partisan disputes driven by businesses, trial lawyers and labor unions.
Public policy advocates say Schwarzenegger should embrace his frustration with the way things are, go directly to voters and ask them to adopt ballot initiatives that could ease future budget gridlock.
"It's the kind of thing he may have to do - to take some of these issues to the people," said Leon Panetta, who was President Clinton's budget director and chief of staff and now runs a public policy institute in Monterey, Calif.
"I think Schwarzenegger has a license from the California voters as a result of the recall to make waves."
Unicameral Legislature?
But getting people talking about things like this is positive at this point.
I wish he would release his CPR now and add fuel to the fire. ;-)
You can take your open ballot primary Arnold, and stick it where the sun don't shine.
It would be better to revist and toss Reynolds v. Sims. The problem with the State Senate is that it used to represent the counties in much the way that the US Senate represents the States (especially before the 17th Amendment). That ruling was in direct violation of the Article IV guarantee of a Republican form of government.
Does anybody in American actually understand the meaning of a "republican form of government" any more after being force fed with democracy, democracy, democracy ad infinitum?
"You can take your open ballot primary Arnold, and stick it where the sun don't shine."
THAT NEEDS REPEATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've gotta wonder. In fact, I would prefer that boards of supervisors select a single county representative. People don't understand that with your county officers selecting the Senators, local elections actually matter more and representation improves. So does communication from the local to the State level.
Thsi would be a HUGE improvement!
Thsi would be a HUGE improvement!
Do that with the feds too! Let them be in session every two years. For 6 months. Then they go home. It does not matter if some of them are there at all anyway. Just consider the case of John Kerry. He has not been in the US Senate for over a year. Didn't matter. Which was about the same as when he WAS there ALL the time.
"They would be more dominated by big business and lobbyists and the infrastructure that surrounds the Capitol," she says. "I think that's not necessarily a good solution."
If the pols are there part time and can't make a career of the legislature, how would that increase the lobby strength?
I really don't get the lobby principle, obviously.
Go Arnold!
As a former California resident, I can tell you that the legislature in that state is corrupt and arrogant even by politician standards. But the problem is gerrymandering and special interest money (ACLU-style liberalism of the state's 'Rat party makes it worse). While a part-time legislature sounds appealing, California is just too populous and too complicated (economically and ethnically) for such an option. Remember, the population is approaching 35 million.
Uh, just which new laws are we in need of ?
"Uh, just which new laws are we in need of ?"
The real question should be, would they have enough time to void all the existing laws that shouldn't exist?
We don't need any new ones!
Here where I live, the county supervisors are all "at large", rather then being elected by district. The county is so small that it doesn't matter much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.