In the waning days of every Legislative session, principles of good governance get tossed aside amid the rush of bills that must be passed by the stroke of midnight on the last day.
Last day chaos is now so commonplace that capitol watchers are typically unfazed by all the hijinks that transpire. Circumventing the process is, unfortunately, just part of the process. But this year set a low water mark for the swamp.
Despite having more than 100 bills to act on before their constitutionally mandated deadline, the Assembly decided to convene at the leisurely hour of 2 p.m. on August 31, a Saturday, the last day of the session. To make matters worse, they didn’t even show up on time and when they did, took time out of their busy schedule for group photos.
As the night wore on, it became obvious that legislative leadership would suffer the consequences from their lack of urgency. Rather than look inward, the Democratic supermajority, which controls every step of the process, decided that this was not a result of their own actions but, rather, the need for deliberation and debate. Forgive us, but we were taught that deliberation and debate was an important part of the legislative process.
Assembly leaders moved to limit debate on bills to just 30 seconds per speaker. When Republican Assemblyman Bill Essayli objected, he was told that he was “using dilatory tactics” and would not be allowed to speak on any bill. When he objected further, arguing that silencing him and the nearly half a million Californians he represents was undemocratic, his microphone was cut.
In the end, several high-profile pieces of legislation were left unaddressed because they ran out of time, which was obviously a self-inflicted problem.
The process is clearly broken and needs reform and, for that reason, we should return California to a part-time legislature. This isn’t as crazy as it may sound. Before the passage of Proposition 1A in 1966, California had a part-time legislature. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, “the Legislature met in general session (at which all subjects could be considered) in odd-numbered years and in budget session (at which only state budget matters were considered) in even-numbered years.”
Plus, most states do not have full-time legislatures. In fact, only ten states do: California, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The rest of the states meet part-time, and some states (like Montana, Nevada, Texas and North Dakota) only meet in odd-numbered years.
Ironically, the argument for a full-time legislature is that they have more time to deliberate, make better informed decisions, and that their higher compensation allows them to focus solely on the job of governing. But six of those (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan) are among the seven states that lost congressional seats in the 2020 Census. If those states truly governed more effectively, people would flock to them. Instead, they are fleeing.
Related Articles
Measure ULA and the indolent judiciary
Tom Campbell: Trump and Biden both agree on the same bad idea, a sovereign wealth fund
Lawmakers think they are smart enough to control AI
Kamala Harris’ tactic of ‘letting the maniac say maniac things’ worked perfectly
California schools face twin perils: chronic absenteeism and declining enrollment
California’s current full-time legislature has not lived up to the promises that “experts” told us would accompany the change. Because we have one-party supermajority rule, apparently there is no need for deliberation. Whether a bill lives or dies is decided in closed door caucus meetings, not in Legislative hearings.
They do not make informed decisions. In the supermajority, you vote as you are told – or else. They routinely pass bills they have not read with fiscal impacts they do not know.
As for being a full-time legislator, recall the observation of William F. Buckley about preferring to be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.
Citizens with real jobs, who have skin in the game and will share in the consequences of their actions, are preferable to professional politicians. Or, as the argument against Proposition 1A ends, “[p]rescribing laws which other people are to be forced to obey can never be a primary occupation for any man who loves liberty.”
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.