What's his alternative to referenda?

My understanding was the two-thirds vote requirement applies to the state legislature and they haven't been a model of efficiency. As far as raising taxes as the solution, you can't collect taxes if businesses just leave and that's been happening in California in droves.

Texas's constitution is also as big as a phone book and it's been doing far better. In fact, it's become something of an annoyance in that state that so many Californians over the past decade have immigrated there.

As horrifying as the prospect might sound to him, he might want to consider looking at what that state is doing differently than California and copy them.

This would never happen in Florida.

Direct democracy sounds like a great idea, until you get to the point at which it approximates mob rule.

The great thing about Californians is that they perfected how to break a state, and now they're moving to other parts of the country to break other states too.

Thanks California!

AND it's contravenes the republican form of government clause of the united states constitution

Get it right people. The AP and the NY Times are both wrong. George did not criticize the "referendum" process, he was talking about the "initiative" process. Statewide referenda are very rare. They happen, but not often. Read the speech instead of just quoting lazy reporters.

"That proposed ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California for people 21 and older - and let local government tax the sales - has a good chance of passing.

People are no longer outraged by the idea of legalization, and truth be told, there is just too much money to be made both by the people who grow marijuana and the cities and counties that would be able to tax it.

. . .

You might think the Legislature would pick up on this, and indeed Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has made a proposal to legalize and tax pot. But although legalizing marijuana fits both Republicans' libertarian instincts and Democrats' progressivism, they won't touch it with a 10-foot-long pack of rolling papers."

full commentary by former SF Mayor Willie Brown available at SFGate.com: http://tinyurl.com/yhj3jfu

"If only these damn citizens would let us tax them more!"

If spending in California over the past ten years had tracked inflation + population growth, the state would have a several-billion dollar surplus. This is not a tax problem, it's a spending problem.

As usual, conservatives are to blame for bankrupting California and hamstringing its government.

Ron George's comparison of the rights of chickens and the supposed loss of rights by gays is a silly rhetorical ploy that does not deserve respect.

The last I heard, no one was seeking to liberate gays from being physically confined in torturously small spaces and forced to, um, reproduce until they expire. When such an initiative comes along, I will wholeheartedly support it.

The "right" to which George refers--the supposed right to marry by homosexuals--was a right created for the first time mere months before the passage of Proposition 8. It was created by a 4-3 vote of appointed Supreme Court judges, in an astounding reversal of hundreds of years of legal precedent and, indeed, the experience of thousands of years of Western civilization.

In fact, it was a "right" substantially created by the same individual--Chief Judge George--who now laments the passage of Proposition 8.

There are reasonable arguments in favor of gay marriage and reasonable ones against it. However, Chief Judge George's comment adds nothing to the discussion, but seeks to influence it by introducing wholly irrelevant, inflammatory comparisons.

Unfortunately, he is the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the state in which I practice.

He's right. Referendum or "initative" is the most ridiculous political system. It does the exact opposite of what some have said it was designed to do: minimize special interests' power. In fact, whatever interest group whines the loudest and spends the most cash can typically get a bar majority on their side.

Furthermore, supposedly immutable rights can be erased by a bare majority.

George criticizes "referenda," but he is really criticizing the citizens who participated in those votes - particularly those who put the brakes on tax increases in California. It's got to be irritating for George and others who think government spending can solve every problem.

High taxes and endless spending (and the side effects of that spending - i.e., legal and illegal immigration of people who are net recipients of aid) are what have driven people out of California, not budget fights. When the economy tanks, big government should shrink, not double down on new growth. New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, you are all on notice.

Anybody that thinks the California Constitution is long has clearly never seen the Alabama Constitution.

The bourgeoisie will always spit on the proletariat. The referendum is a tool of the petite bourgeoisie, those running dog lackeys. The workers of the world are not fooled, and will get our glorious marijuana legalization amendment on the ballot.

Deport the illegal mexicans and you'll simultaneously radically reduce the strain on social sevices (i.e. the need for spending and increased taxes) and eliminate much poverty and crime. Suddenly, student achievement scores will skyrocket.

Failure to do this will perpetuate "white flight" which is really "taxpayer flight" - a phenomenon that is destroying the once golden state.

CA is hamstrung by powerful special interests that all want an ever-increasing amount of freebies. The legislature is run by freebie-giving politicians. Since the top 1% of wage-earners in the state pay nearly 50% of the taxes, I simply don't feel sorry when the "me first and the gimme gimmes" want more freebies and piss and moan when their freebies are taken away. The state can function and operate just fine on the budget it has but the gimme gimmes don't want to give up their freebies. CA's problems are spun by the media to make it look like it has a massive revenue problem when really the problem is just that too many leaches/viruses are getting too many freebies. When I read about CA's problems I read "Oh noes! Our freebies are getting taken away! How dare they take our freebies away! They're ours! We clearly earned someone else's paycheck!" End the freebie programs and you end CA's budget problems. End of story.

Things are not so bad in California as one might think reading your thread. It is a spending problem, so direct democracy is not to blame (and even less for the gay marriage thing - that's democracy, guys).
Switzerland has had a direct democracy for more than 150 years - and they are doing excellent. Do not give power to judges - give it to the people!

California is a lost cause. Just let it fall into the Pacific Ocean.

This is most welcome news. Finally an aristocrat is saying what other cowards won't: the opinions of some people are worth more than others.

The initiative process flourishes in California solely because the legislative class doesn't lead - all they do is look out for themselves and the special interests they are beholden to.

At first I liked Arnold's fiscal approach but am now pissed with his abuse of veto power.

UC Regents can KISS MY ASS!

You know, he's right. Let's stop blaming the Legislature for their incompetence. Instead, let's blame the people. Of course all this is coming from a man that was overruled by the people and is protected from voter pressure. I think all three branches of government need to be scrapped in this pathetic excuse for a state.

Yes, we absolutely need a constitutional convention in California. We need to scrap the current system and start over. Abolish the dual-house legislature, remove the super-majority requirements, and return power to our elected officials. Right now, the tyranny of the majority runs California via the initiative process, which is itself controlled by special interests.

It's gotten so bad that there's a movement to amend the constitution to allow the citizens to call a constitutional convention: http://www.repaircalifornia.org/

Those crazy-ass voters! How dare they exercise their democratic rights.

Come to think of it, I don't really want all this rabble voting either. They should just do what I say. But California's a big place. I'll need people to help me run it. I can set them up with their own fiefs, and they'll just have to pledge loyalty to me and provide me with money, etc.

I wonder why no one has thought of this system before...

Why is California broke? Because politicians have only one mission - to preserve their power; and legislators in Sacramento and their enablers at the Supreme Court long ago tore up the limits on government that the people had imposed to protect themselves.

Here's is a good example of what happens when politicians in gerrymandered districts no longer fear the will of the people and instead only look out for themselves and their helpers: http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2245509.html

REPORT ON THE SHIT GOING DOWN AT STEPTOE GODDAMNIT!!!

As a Californian I despise the initiative process. I consider myself educated and whatnot but I still don't think I should be making decisions on things like whether to fund a friggin' bullet train to San Fran or whether certain people should be able to marry or not.

The way I see it, my tax dollars are partially spent on paying lawmakers' salaries so they should be doing that crap, not me. What the hell do I know about chickens and cages and bullet trains and funding schools and bonds? Nothing. So, I shouldn't be voting on that shit.

And don't tell me to read the damn descriptions - they are written by the people trying to pass or not pass the thing, why am I gonna trust them? I always vote no on everything because I've got enough decisions to make in my own life, I don't need to make them for the State Senate, Assembly or Governator.

And I am more than happy when the California Supreme Court looks at an initiative that passed and says, "Umm...no. Nice try. But no, you stupid, stupid people" because guess what? They are also smarter than me, have more experience than me, are trained in a little thing called law, and are in a better position to make decisions.

Wow, how many of you actually live in the state?

Almost half the state's budget is mandated by the initiative process, the legislature can not override it. Run an add on keeping the streets safe and get mandatory increases or the thoughest third strike law in the US. Ignore that the prison guard's union paid for almost the entire campaign. You think special interests run the legislature? They've learned how to run the people and get protection from the legislature?

Make it harder (but not impossible) for initiatives, and increase the term limits for legislature. That is what CA needs.

28 - Send an email to tips at abovethelaw dot com.

(Lat and Elie don't work at Steptoe, so you have to fill them in.)

The New York Times is quoting Dr. Li-ann Thio as saying that she's disgusted by what partners are reportedly doing to associates at Steptoe.

Governance in California is a mess because the people, driven by special interests, have made it so. Special interests have become experts in writing initiatives, getting them on the ballot (usually with the use of paid signature gatherers) and then getting them passed with simplistic slogans. Conservative and business interests are just as responsible as liberal and union interests, since the initiatives pushed by conservativesand businesses have caused as much havoc as the initiatives pushed by liberals and unions.

As to people like #2 complaining about the tax burden driving businesses out of the state, I suggest that they actually do some research before making such broad, sweeping statements. While the total tax burden in California is higher than the mean burden, it is not the highest in the nation. Some taxes, such as property taxes for real property held for an extended period of time are actually low compared to other states "thanks" to Proposition 13.

30 - Totally agreed.

As someone from the east coast that moved out here, the process is totally out of whack here. Politicians constantly have to worry whether they are abiding by a random propositition when they make a spending decision. Furthermore, if they even think of doing something unpopular, they risk getting immediately recalled or starting the push for ANOTHER ballot measure. I think major reform is needed here.

California's problem = Proposition 13

It appears that the reforms Regan instituted in California bankrupted the state on about the same rate that they will bankrupt the country. Prison Industrial Complex much? Anywho... I'd say it is looking like CA can hold out for another year, maybe two. The US? I think that gives us 10.

Trickle down economics is brilliant. Especially when you have finished screwing the poor to the extent possible, and your rich decide they dont like to live around the poor and then leave. Then you are left with the poor and none of the educated people or people with resources. California is now losing population. I had a fantastic trip to Europe a few weeks ago. I could swing. Or I could literally swing and try to find that slut lawyer in Russia, but seriously, I'd be better off here.

I lived in California for several years. The truth? I am a lawyer. I hated the process out there. First, they were always asking me to vote on 50 different issues about which I had not a clue. Eventually, after a few times at the ballot, I just stopped voting on those issues. It is a really crazy process. We live in a representative democracy for a reason. The assumption is that politicians, for good or ill, will gather the expertise to address some of the things that they put on the ballot in California. It is also a problem because issues will repeatedly come up again and again and again because people can get the signatures. That was also annoying.

I lived in California for several years. The truth? I am a lawyer. I hated the process out there. First, they were always asking me to vote on 50 different issues about which I had not a clue. Eventually, after a few times at the ballot, I just stopped voting on those issues. It is a really crazy process. We live in a representative democracy for a reason. The assumption is that politicians, for good or ill, will gather the expertise to address some of the things that they put on the ballot in California. It is also a problem because issues will repeatedly come up again and again and again because people can get the signatures. That was also annoying.

ATL POLL

What will kill California first?

1 "the big one"

2. wildfire

3. incompetant governance

4 what are you talking about? CA is great

I wish ALL states AND the federal govt had the same sort of initiative system. I say let the people rule. The federalist/checks and balances/presidential system is pseudo-democracy. Time for some REAL democracy.

I also find it amusing how robotic the responses here on ATL are. THe more educated the american, the more brainwashed they are.

36 - Nice try. Problem you have is that California and the Feds problem is NOT lack of revenue. Its costs that have been growing at a much higher rate than revenue, population, or GDP. Try again.

It is my firmest belief that government by, for and of the people is best achieved when, after a largely substanceless campaign, the people choose the noblest specimen among them to lead. At that point, the people should step back understanding that their chosen leader has access to numerous well educated advisers with superior understanding of the people's needs than the people themselves. Ultimately the people can only achieve equality by subjugating themselves to the noblesse oblige of correct thinking intellectuals.

In summation, once a leader is elected I do not support giving less educated, individual members of society any say in the governing process.

Barack x

This would never hapen at Widener

43 - I suppose I should know the answer to this, but is Widener accredited by the American Bar Association and a member in good standing of the Association of American Law Schools?

Break the state up into four new ones. Then we'd get 8 senators instead of just 2. The fact that Wyoming has as much voice as California in the upper chamber is absolutely ludicrous.

This post is addressed to Commenter #45:

The Constitution would disagree.

45-

ROFLcopterz.

Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

Do away w/ the initiative process, then split the state into 2 or 3 new states and let them all start from scratch.

45

Um evidently you failed all of your civics classes in HS. The House of Representatives is the proportional part of the Republic you dolt. The Senate (as originally intended but then castrated) was intended to represent the states' interests via the legislative bodies of each state. STFU go away and do not post again until you are marginally educated.

9, 13, 18, 34 -- You appear to be completely ignorant about what is actually included in these initiatives. While there are a few initiatives that put significant limits on taxes, there are a much bigger number that require additional spending on specific programs. You can't say it is a spending problem while ignoring the fact that the initiatives cause the spending.

45 - You are part of the problem.

#35 - I agree. Prop 13 is definitely at the root of the problem.

49 - When our current constitutional structure was devised in the 1700's, it was NOT the case that one state was 33 times bigger than several others. An antiquated system requires revision. STFU and go away until you can think.

53 - Apparently you hate this country as currently constituted... do you think of the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties"?

Surprisingly, if you give the people complete control of the fiscal process, they will consistently vote for massive spending increases at the same time they impose ridiculous restrictions on the state's ability to tax.

Who could've guessed?

Over the last century, my home state has conducted a great and unpredecented experiment in popular democracy, the final conclusion being that "the people" are fucking idiots.

53

You had roughly 10-50x population spread in the colonies. If you really think the founding fathers were so dense and stupid that they didn't think there would a) be a spread b) there would not be an inequity in the Senate in power terms you are a fucking idiot.

The rational behind the two houses having different make ups was to keep the larger states in check. Jesus, did you study this at all?

I would vote for an initiative that said: "This is the last initiative. Henceforth, contact your elected representative."

56

This is an issue of temporal logic or your lack thereof. Manifest Destiny did not happen until decades after the founding of the U.S. Constitution and our structure of government. The founding fathers did not predict a country of this size when writing the Constitution. Nor, did they envision the rise of multinational corporations and multiple other things that people gloss over when discussing the founders. They were smart. Not mystics capable of predicting the future through the entrails of animals like some of you seem to think.

58 - What the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned is a socialist like Obama seizing one of the largest manufacturing companies in the world and running it in a "green" fashion.

59 - I agree. He should've let the company fail.

The proletariat will seize California and confiscate all of JaKe's tanning spray.

50

As I said in my original post the initiative makes it complicated for lawmakers to spend without first consulting the propositions. I never said that the propositions don't mandate spending. That is part of the problem, lawmakers cannot chose to spend more or less on certain issues because they are directly governed by certain propositions. So read posts carefully before you try to get snarky.

As a Californian, this could not be older news.

53, a huge percentage of those in the "33 times bigger" are black or mestizo.