Posted on 01/29/2006 10:21:54 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO In their last year in the Assembly, the bipartisan duo of Democratic Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla of Pittsburg and Republican Keith Richman of Northridge say they have finally hit on how to make politics work again for an ailing state and disgusted voters.
The concept, imported from Canada, comes after a series of failed state government-revamp proposals.
It seems simple but challenges the status quo embraced by many of the politically powerful form a Citizens Assembly of regular people to suggest to voters reform of everything from redistricting and term limits to campaign finance and open primaries.
"Should we give up on trying to reform and restore our democracy when everybody knows it's notworking?" said Richman.
Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike acknowledge that decades of political gridlock under the current system have prevented California from solving its most serious problems.
Voters in California agree. The latest Public Policy Institute of California poll showed just 25 percent approve of the job the Democrat-dominated Legislature is doing.
"We recycle problems as opposed to solving them," said Canciamilla.
Numerous attempts to shake up the Legislature such as taking way their ability to draw their own districts, altering term limits and improving campaign finance laws have failed after being branded partisan power grabs.
If approved by lawmakers and adopted by voters, the Citizens Assembly consisting of randomly chosen people would make recommendations on the state's electoral process that would go back to voters.
If the Legislature rejects the Citizens Assembly constitutional amendment proposed this week by Canciamilla and Richman, they will press on even after they are termed out this year.
It's not "our swan song," Richman said.
"Right now we're focusing on the legislative process. If that doesn't work, then we're going to have to address it through an initiative," he said.
Their legislation is backed by several good-government groups and nonpartisan think tanks, including the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies.
"A Citizens Assembly would be one of the most innovative reforms in the past 100 years," said Robert Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies. "It would allow non-players to have important input into how our government works and operates."
"Californians broke the grip of the Southern Pacific Railroad 100 years ago when they adopted direct democracy," he said, referring to creation of the initiative process. "Now is the time to strive once again for another year of reform like 1911."
There are skeptics, however.
Bill Hauck, head of the California Business Roundtable, supports the idea but doubts it can succeed because it challenges the status quo that would have plenty of money to fight the proposal.
Other skeptics say ordinary citizens would not be politically sophisticated enough to produce a plan that voters would embrace, and that radical changes are hard to sell.
Under the Citizens Assembly plan, no politicians would be allowed to participate.
Some 200 names would be picked at random from voter registration rolls in each of California's 80 Assembly districts. The 16,000 voters would be invited to meetings in order to decide whether to participate.
One woman and one man would be randomly chosen from each district, for a total of
160 members. Ten more could be added to balance the demographics. The members would receive $1,000 a month and travel expenses.
The Citizens Assembly, with a $20 million budget, would spend two weekends a month for a year studying the system and alternatives, as well as conducting hearings.
The group's suggestions could be critiqued for three months by the Legislature, without the power to change them.
After an opportunity for the Citizens Assembly to make its own changes, the plan would go before voters in 2008.
Though such groups are being talked about worldwide, California would be the first U.S. state to try the idea.
Proposals by a Citizens Assembly in British Columbia required 60 percent of the vote and fell two percentage points below. But their plan is expected to be placed on the ballot again in two years.
Of course, illegals and LGBT and GReen advocates will deserve a large number of seats in such a citizens assembly were it created and empowered.
I have fought for more than a decade to resist this kind of bunk. In a republican form of government, we elect representatives who are accountable to us at the ballot box and delegate to them the authority to govern according to a written constitution. We do not allow non-elected people who are accountable to no-one govern us.
There are movements all over to try and get these "citizens democratic assemblies" in place to come up with decisions on the environment. They are trying to do this right now in the Klamath Basin. They have been holding "consensus" groups for several year and will hold the Klamath Basin "Congress" next fall.
This is very dangerous stuff. It attacks the principle of local control by locally elected officials and seeks to install a regional pari-government of lobbiests, interest groups and those who can afford to show up to make the rules. Then they call themselves representative of the people on the basis that the initial Congress was open for all to attend.
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.