California Constitution

Adversity can breed discontent, and if there is one salutary benefit of the current California malaise it is that it has bred discontent among some of our more thoughtful citizens that could lead to much-needed reforms. In Los Angeles, discontent with the public schools has bred LEARN, the public-private partnership to reinvigorate local schools. It also has bred police reform, bred political ethics reform and bred the private-sector effort to invest in the inner city, RLA (Rebuild L.A.).

The reaction to my column on Monday was, in one sense, not terribly surprising. A few readers wrote to praise Molly Munger for spearheading a thoughtful alternative to Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed tax hikes. A few others wrote to suggest that her effort will only make the governor's plan more difficult to pass. And a bunch wrote to say I'm a yahoo or a “clueless columnist” (several used more colorful language) for arguing that some form of tax increase was needed to help California through its current budget difficulties.

Since the defeat of the budget initiatives on May 19, the pressure has been mounting for a constitutional convention to deal with the state's underlying structural problems. As California plunges further into fiscal crisis, this newspaper and others, as well as pundits across the state, have endorsed the idea. But I believe it's a false hope.

Elections in democracies are supposed to be instruments through which citizens pick their leaders and send them their marching orders. But not in California. After a year of campaigning and millions of dollars spent on electioneering, Sacramento will remain stuck in quicksand, with no immediate prospect of rescue. Oh sure, Californians elected new representatives. In the race for governor, voters chose Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who held himself out as a socially liberal, fiscally stingy lover of the environment.

Some say California's current fiscal distress began in 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13, the constitutional limitation on local property tax. Others argue that Proposition 13 and its progeny--including Proposition 4 (1979), limiting state expenditures, and Propositions 98 and 99, earmarking state revenues for education and anti-smoking efforts, respectively--only exacerbated the inherent structural problems in the state's 115-year-old Constitution.

Re: "Workplace Anger Over Police Screenings," Feb. 23. Your articles regarding opposition to Anaheim's suspended ID requirements because they are deemed to violate the California Constitution raised my curiosity. I thought that people who are teachers or work in the aerospace industry were required to be fingerprinted and photographed, and stipulate to their citizen status and arrest history, just like those that were covered by the Anaheim ordinance. Doesn't the California Constitution cover all workers or has the ACLU found a way to make it apply to only certain classes of workers?

California budget: In Section A of the early Sunday edition, an article that outlined ways to improve California's fiscal efficiency said the rule requiring state budgets to be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature was established in 1978. The rule was added to the California Constitution by voters in 1933.

California has a spending problem. Over the last four years, inflation and population combined grew at a rate of 21%; revenue grew slightly faster, at 25%. Yet California government spending grew 40%. The result is what you would expect: an unprecedented budget shortfall that may exceed $35 billion.

Yes, Rose Bird, there is a Constitution. If she will refer to the California Constitution, Article 22, Section 16, she will find that even Supreme Court justices are subject to confirmation. Or, in rare instances, when it is found that these justices are not practicing the rule of law, but instead radical politics, the lowly electorate, for which she has shown such disdain, may remove same from office. RON LESOVSKY Los Alamitos

Your editorial on California Supreme Court Justices Rose Bird, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin is naive. They are on the court to interpret the Constitution of California. The voters under that Constitution periodically vote on whether or not they are doing this, as you say, "fairly." The California Constitution says clearly that certain murderers are to go to the gas chamber. These justices are clearly not implementing this law. The vast majority of voters have supported this law in the voting booths.

How do you solve a problem like Robert Rizzo? In the short run, there will be a push for greater transparency, pay caps and restrictions on pension benefits. These things may quell the immediate outrage over revelations that the city manager of working-class Bell and other top officials earned fat, six-figure incomes. But the truth is, the eye-popping salaries, platinum pensions and lavish perks accorded Rizzo and his colleagues are merely symptoms, not the disease. Nor is the disease confined to one small municipality in southeast Los Angeles County.

Proponents of a state constitutional convention that could reshape California's government have run out of money and canceled plans to put their proposal before voters in November. The announcement Friday by Repair California, the organization behind the convention bid, raises questions about how effective good-government groups can be in marshaling resources to address Sacramento's dysfunction. Repair California seemed well positioned for such a task; its leaders are from the Bay Area Council, a business advocacy group that includes some of the largest corporations in the state.

The most basic principle of any democracy is that of majority rule, with minority rights running a clear but close second. Simple though this precept may be, California seems to have gotten it backward. The budget deal that emerged from Sacramento on Monday was the result of minority rule -- the consequence of a state Constitution that vests more power in the minority party than the constitution of just about any other state.

Here are some key passages from the California Supreme Court's 185-page ruling upholding Proposition 8: On Proposition 8 as a constitutional amendment: "It is not our role to pass judgment on the wisdom or relative merit of the current provisions of the California Constitution governing the means by which our state Constitution may be altered. . . . In the absence of an explicit subject-matter limitation on the use of the initiative to propose and adopt constitutional amendments, . . .

California budget: In Section A of the early Sunday edition, an article that outlined ways to improve California's fiscal efficiency said the rule requiring state budgets to be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature was established in 1978. The rule was added to the California Constitution by voters in 1933.

Re "Too easy to amend," Opinion, Feb. 4 The authors' point, that it should be harder for voters to amend the California Constitution, has merit -- as long as we also make it harder for judges to "amend" the Constitution too. Essentially, that's what happened last May, when four justices decided that same-sex marriage suddenly became a basic constitutional right. Even those who agree with that decision should understand that it should not be easy for judges to change the meaning of the Constitution.

Prof. Michael Wald's major complaint is with the California Constitution. It allows voters to reject Supreme Court justices. Obviously such a judgment is political; it cannot help but be. The question is, By what principle should the people judge a judge? The answer, equally obvious, is fidelity to the Constitution of the United States, to the California Constitution, and to federal and state laws. The issue is not party but performance. When judges of the court can be shown to have substituted their private views for the Constitution and the laws, the people should remove them.

Your editorial of April 25, "Monumental Show Hits the Road," was welcomed by those of us who are trying to publicize the importance of this issue. The California Constitution directly imposes regulations on us long after they are appropriate, and it requires a vote of the people to modify or remove them. For example, Article XV limits the interest rate to 7% per annum. Then it continues to list various exemptions that were approved in 1909, 1917 and 1927. We have seen a shift from a goods-based economy to a service-based economy.