Constitutional Reform Conference Highlights Tempered Expectations

Last Friday, February 19, 2010, Stanford University’s Law Review hosted a symposium on State Constitutions. The first panel, of less interest to this blogger, focused on the theoretical applications of the law and the role of state constitutions.

The second panel looked exclusively at the role of constitutional reform in California. Joining the moderator, Professor Jane Schacter, were reformers Fred Keeley from California Forward and Steven Miller from Repair California. The panel was rounded out by political science Professor Bruce Cain of UC Berkeley and the controversial founding Dean of UC Irvine’s Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky.

Unfortunately, this conference was held a week too late, as Repair California has recently shelved its efforts to put a constitutional convention before the voters this fall. Too much time was spent discussing the ‘what ifs’ of convention politics, when it is very clear that barring a miraculous influx of several million dollars, the voters of California will not have this option on the ballot in November. Amid the intellectual speculating, there was one instructive nugget from Dean Chemerinsky’s anecdotes about his time spent on LA’s Charter Reform Commission: in order to pass a reform package, the controversial issues need to be taken out and voted on separately.

California Forward has been using one piece at a time tactic, as they successfully passed redistricting reform in November 2008, and are gearing up to promote Abel Maldonado’s top-two primary initiative in June.

The take away point that stuck with me from Friday afternoon was Bruce Cain’s caution about the limited effects any of these reforms will have. It’s important to remember that any reform opens up new problems as it tries to solve old ones. While all of the scholars on the panel were optimistic about the proposed reforms, we should not expect the passage of these reforms to have the California legislature singing Kumbaya with budget surpluses.