PRIMARY ELECTION THOUGHTS  >  This Week Inside the Capitol August 4, 2010  >  Get Ready to Cast Your Ballot!  >  California Family Minute  >  Out with the old, in with the new?

Out with the old, in with the new?

Out with the old, in with the new?
Business as usual in Sacramento
By Rebecca Burgoyne
A special election in Massachusetts earlier this year electrified the media and brought hope to a nation dismayed by their elected representatives’ inability to listen to their constituents and address real problems. Massachusetts’ voters, rejecting politics as usual, elected a virtually unknown candidate to the U.S. Senate seat held since 1962 by Ted Kennedy. Building on statehouse Republican victories last fall in New Jersey and Virginia, politicians nationwide took notice, and California candidates wonder if it might happen here next. 
Disillusioned Californians believe both their country and state are on the wrong track. Most voters believe Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will leave the state worse than he found it, and nearly three-quarters of them disapprove of the job their Legislature is doing, according to a Jan. 24 Field Poll.  In a January Rasmussen poll, 94 percent of Californians responded that the budget crisis was “very serious,” yet the Legislature seemed painstakingly slow to address the problem—despite a special session called to address the crisis in early January.
In a separate poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, two-thirds of Californians admitted that they didn’t believe the governor and legislators could work together in the coming year. Even so, legislators seemed oblivious—or unthreatened—by these statistics, as demonstrated by their continued business-as-usual behavior of closed door meetings and budget hearings, and the introduction and passage of trivial, convincingly partisan, or government-expansion bills. 
With a Jan. 31 deadline for bills introduced last year to pass out of their houses of origin, proposals quickly moved through the system. Many that failed last year were given an objectionable second chance—drafted into other languishing bills to circumvent the system and try again. SB 677, which previously dealt with workers’ compensation, became the new vehicle for last year’s SB 577, Yee, D-San Francisco, a vetoed bill that would allow for the property seizure of those convicted of human trafficking. SB 677 convincingly passed the Senate in January and moved on to the Assembly. Several holdout bills from 2009 (known as two-year bills) failed to pass their houses of origin in January—most notably AB 535 (elder death review teams) and SB 543 (minors’ mental health treatment without parental consent)—and are now “dead.” 
As health-care legislative efforts faltered in Washington, D.C., in Sacramento Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, revived legislation that would institute a government-run health plan in California.  SB 810, virtually identical to previously vetoed legislation, was pushed through the California Senate on a party-line vote—with Democrats voting “yes.”  Not expecting the measure to succeed, Leno told the Contra Costa Times that the move was taken to keep the debate alive and pave the way for an initiative push in a few years.
Leno’s move illustrates how out of touch many Sacramento lawmakers are with their constituents. Facing a $21 billion budget deficit, steep unemployment, and voter disillusionment, California’s majority party approved a health-agency plan to the tune of $200 billion. 
With the federal challenge to Proposition 8 grabbing headlines, Sen. Leno introduced SB 906, ostensibly to protect the religious freedom of clergy and guarantee they would not have to perform weddings contrary to their beliefs—assuming same-sex marriage becomes legal. However, SB 906 redefines the term marriage to “civil marriage” in law. First implemented in 1999, domestic partnerships were a first step to homosexual marriage, and they have been expanded until their rights and benefits mirror marriage. Incrementally, activists have continued to push the envelope, and renaming the term marriage could well become a precursor to redefining marriage.
Other newly introduced proposals deal with usual topics—crime, government reform and education—while others related to health care and the H1N1 virus seem torn from the headlines. Many of these proposals are simply “spot” bills, caged as a slight technical change or “intent” language, which will be fleshed out as the bills wind through the legislative process. 
One resolution, AJR 29, authored by Mike Feuer, D-West Hollywood, urges the Internal Revenue Service to consider California domestic partners and same-sex spouses as married under federal tax law. Resolutions do not have the force of law, but express the collective opinion of the Legislature on a particular matter.
As this Legislative Update went to print, new bill proposals, the bread and butter of many politicians, were still being introduced. Passage of bills provides boasting rights for legislators during campaigns. This year, however, a legislator’s partisan, trivial ideas may rile voters who are fed up and want real change in their state—budget solutions, jobs, and help for the economy. The June primary election—and November general election—will prove whether voters say, “enough,” or sign up for another term of business-as-usual in the Sacramento Capitol.
 
As Printed in the Christian Examiner March 1, 2010
  • Printer-friendly version