Among the heavyweight proposals, with corresponding heavyweight sponsors:

amending the California constitution by initiative

convening a constitutional convention

changing the way the Secretary of State is elected and runs elections

reducing the majority for budget approvals from 2/3s to 51%

adjusting term limits

allowing a “split roll” to put commercial properties outside Prop 13 protection

Common Cause has not endorsed any of the initiatives. Feng said their scope, directed at political processes in the state, also relates to recently passed Prop 11’s redistricting commission. Applications for that citizen commission will be accepted starting December 15.

Feng’s comments followed background presentations from league members. The first was statistical, and according to my notes, California gets the constitutional Olympic bronze, with a constitution 8 times longer than that of the U.S.; only Alabama’s and India’s are longer!

The second presentation was on Repair California and California Forward, the two major sponsoring organizations of state government reform initiatives, and covered their founders, budget, and policy direction.

League member and attorney Ann Ansman, the final local panelist, insisted that “we have a good constitution” with many protections, and efforts to change it shouldn’t go beyond fixing the infrastructure of governmental processes (tackling legislative gridlock, for example).

Be prepared for an inundation of initiatives to reform California’s constitution, budget process, elections, and governance.

The negative attention these cherished limits are getting lately should be a warning to the clear majority of Californians who oppose state tax increases.

A review article in the Glendale News Press on the idea of a state constitutional convention reported that it was “gaining traction among local lawmakers” and specifically mentioned the two-thirds majority requirement.

An LA Times editorial narrows the focus on the two-thirds majority requirement by advocating it only for tax increases, while allowing simple majorities to pass budgets:

The current system, requiring two-thirds for both, has diffused responsibility without protecting the state from excessive spending. If voters want to give a clear majority of their representation to one party, let the majority prevail — and let the people judge the consequences. Only three other states require a supermajority for budgets, but 15 require a supermajority to raise taxes.

Byron Williams, in the Huffington Post, believes that voters would preserve Prop 13’s residential property tax limit while removing the concurrent corporate property tax break, if they could. He’s apparently unable to develop a solid argument against the two-thirds majority requirement, so he simply asks if readers would have voted for it.

An earlier Calitics post by San Francisco Assessor/Recorder Phil Ting deals specifically with revenues that could be raised by eliminating the corporate tax loophole in Prop 13.

LA Times’ Joel Fox says Proposition 13 Isn’t the Problem, and disputes the notion that limitings its benefits to residential property owners would benefit the state:

The split-roll proposal is self-defeating for an economy trying to dig itself out of a hole, and implementing it would cost jobs. Former state legislative analyst William Hamm co-wrote a study last year that claimed a 1% increase in business property tax rates would lead to 43,000 jobs lost. With double-digit unemployment, that is something California can ill afford.

In the Sunroom Desk file drawer are two of its editor’s archived posts on Proposition 13 and the two-thirds majority requirement:

Next for California: Targeting the Two-Thirds Majority

Under the Paperweight, June 28 – July 4, 2009