California's two-thirds budget vote in crosshairs

[DEDixon 39]

By STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press Writer

Sunday, February 22, 2009

(02-22) 14:08 PST Sacramento, CA (AP) --

California Democrats and some government-reform groups are hoping the Legislature's monthslong struggle to wipe out the state's $42 billion deficit will persuade voters to dump the requirement for a two-thirds vote to pass budget bills.

Some also are thinking about going after a tougher target: the two-thirds majority needed to approve tax increases in California.

"We have to do something," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. "I think anybody who's watched this slow-motion train wreck over the last three months ought to agree that this system no longer works, if it ever did."

California is one of only a handful of states that require more than a simple majority to pass budget bills. Rhode Island, like California, requires a two-thirds vote. Arkansas requires three-fourths votes to pass most appropriation bills and simple majorities to approve a separate bill that sets the state's spending priorities.

A half dozen other states require supermajorities in some circumstances, such as when spending would exceed a cap, when lawmakers fail to meet a budget deadline or to fund one-time projects.

Fifteen states, including California, require more than simple majorities to raise taxes, at least in some circumstances, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The two-thirds vote requirements have made California's budget negotiations drawn-out affairs almost annually. Lawmakers have missed the June 15 constitutional deadline to approve a budget in 28 of the last 32 years.

The deadlocks have often left the state unable to pay some of its bills, including payments to businesses that supply prisons, state hospitals and other facilities. The latest stalemate, to enact a midyear budget fix because of declining revenue and set the budget for next fiscal year, also held up state income tax refunds.

Democrats have had majorities in both the state Assembly and Senate for most of the last 50 years, but usually have needed at least a few Republican votes in both houses to reach the two-thirds threshold.

Last year, legislators set a record for their delay in approving a budget. The 2008-09 budget passed on Sept. 16 — 2 1/2 months after the start of the fiscal year.

Lawmakers then spent months haggling over how to deal with the red ink that began showing up just weeks after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the budget on Sept. 23. The problem was crafting a plan that would generate the needed two-thirds support.

They didn't agree on a combination of tax increases, spending cuts and borrowing to eliminate the deficit until early Thursday morning, after nearly a week of almost around-the-clock sessions in the state Senate.

Even then, the two-thirds majority was reached only after Democrats made concessions to Republican Sen. Abel Maldonado, including ballot measures that would create an open primary system and freeze lawmakers' pay when the state runs a deficit.

"Now the minority party has the dominant voice because they are holding us hostage," said Sen. Loni Hancock, a Berkeley Democrat who chairs the Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee.

Democrats hold 24 of the 40 Senate seats, with one vacancy in a heavily Democratic district, and 51 of the 80 Assembly seats. At least three Republicans in each house are needed to reach two-thirds majority.

The drawn-out negotiations and required granting of favors to lawmakers in exchange for their votes has increased calls for elimination of the two-thirds requirement, at least for the budget and perhaps for tax increases.

Hancock has introduced a constitutional amendment that would require only simple majorities to approve budgets.

"California needs to have a normal democracy like every other state in the nation except Rhode Island and Arkansas," she said.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, has proposed one that would allow lawmakers to approve budgets with 55 percent majorities if they do it by June 15. After that, it would take two-thirds votes.

Because constitutional amendments also require two-thirds votes to pass the Legislature, supporters of the change almost certainly will need an independent initiative campaign. Republicans are likely to oppose any effort in the Legislature because it would further weaken their minority status.

"By shutting out the two-thirds, you're shutting out millions of Californians," said Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks.

A small group of Sacramento Democratic activists has been cleared to circulate two ballot initiatives, one that would drop the vote needed to pass budgets to 55 percent and a second one that also would allow 55 percent votes to approve most tax increases. Property tax hikes would still need two-thirds majorities.

A spokesman for the group, 75-year-old Sacramento political consultant Maurice Read, said the "political junkies" behind the two measures haven't decided which approach to take and are looking for backing from unions, the Democratic Party — "everybody who supports progressive legislation."

The Courage Campaign, a Los Angeles-based group, is testing sentiment among its members for an initiative that would require a simple majority to pass budgets. Rick Jacobs, the group's founder, says he also is considering going after the two-thirds vote to raise taxes.

"Where we would like to end up with is a constitutional convention that can start over again," he said. "That scares the heck out of a lot of institutions in this state. That tells me it's the right thing to do."

His group is one of the sponsors of a conference in Sacramento on Tuesday that will start considering the idea of a convention to propose wholesale changes in California government.

A lower vote just on budgets would at least make it easier to approve the annual spending plans when the state has ample revenue, said Jim Wunderman, president and chief executive of the Bay Area Council, a business group that is also sponsoring the constitutional convention conference.

He suggests allowing less than a two-thirds vote except when lawmakers decide to exceed a spending limit.

The last time opponents tried to eliminate the two-thirds vote requirements, in 2004, the proposal received just about a third of the vote, despite nearly $16 million in spending by the Democratic Party and public employee unions. The GOP and its business allies spent nearly $11 million to defeat it.

Public sentiment may be changing. A poll released in January by the Public Policy Institute of California, a San Francisco-based research organization, found that 54 percent of the 2,001 adults supported lowering the budget vote to 55 percent.

Half supported dropping the vote to 55 percent for special local taxes. The poll didn't ask about state taxes.

Mark Baldassare, the institute's president, said it was the first time since the organization began asking the question in 2003 that a majority favored reducing the budget vote.

"People are not just frustrated with the budget situation, they are worried about the implications for the economy and their local communities," he said.

Baldassare said it could take a united front to approve a change in vote thresholds, but a broad coalition could be difficult to put together.

Tom Del Beccaro, vice chairman of the California Republican Party, said cutting the budget vote would lead to "one-party rule."

"It's a bad idea, and rather plainly their goal is to raise taxes...," he said. "None of that would be good for California."

[DEDixon 39]

If 2/3s requirement is changed to simple majority, watch out Democrats! The Dems will set themselves up for losing the majority seats. It will be just like the US Congress where one party brings about too much of something and then the people elect the other party to bring us back to the center (the Bush... Obama thing is prime example too). In this case, we know the Dems in California will tax us into the poor house, people will naturally rebel, the Dems will lose in the next election so that the Republicans can make cuts. So we get high taxes then low taxes, high then low, high then low as each party takes power over the many years.

This would definitely bring about more turnover among California's elected officials.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Good! It was short-sighted idea that has ended up costing California billions of dollars from long drawn out battles that go past budget deadlines. The Governor of the state has veto powers. Requiring a 2/3 on tax increases is asinine.

[Jasman0717 9]

I will take a wait-and-see attitude on this one

[DEDixon 39]

Good! It was short-sighted idea that has ended up costing California billions of dollars from long drawn out battles that go past budget deadlines. The Governor of the state has veto powers. Requiring a 2/3 on tax increases is asinine.

But the other side (not just a few people... close to half... I forget the actual figure), looks at it as SAVING California billions of dollars.

Edited February 22, 2009 by DEDixon