Considering Current Dilemmas
Sometimes, it is helpful to return to the fundamentals of any human action and ask two simple questions: what should be done, and how should it be accomplished? John Locke provides clear prescriptions to address both questions. The "what" is answered by the Lockean-based assertion that the legislature should pass the laws necessary for California to address its policy challenges successfully. The "how" is responded to by Lockean prescriptions that the legislature, with regard to its elections, its organization, and its processes, conducts itself in ways considered legitimate in the eyes of the California people. In recent years, there has been a great deal of progress in reforming the "how"—the democratic processes of the legislature—with the hope that these reforms will then allow the "what"—the policy challenges we face—to be better addressed. While Locke's answers are clear, the details become a matter of debate.
Since the 1990s, the California legislature, like the US Congress and many other state legislatures, has suffered under the growing strain of political polarization. The ever-increasing ideological distance between the parties prevents the government from passing meaningful legislation to address our problems.
There are different arguments about the causes of this polarization. One view is that polarization is caused by various institutional rules and practices that push people apart and that we need to reform these rules, and then we will have an easier time working together. Another argument is that the rules aren't dividing us; it is about differences in values, lifestyles, and economics. In other words, we have difficulty working together because we are so diverse.
Consider just three institutional reforms implemented since 2008 to address polarization. Gerrymandering has been blamed for creating districts that are more ideologically extreme. It was argued that it was in the interest of lawmakers to clump voters together who would support them and to assent to other lawmakers doing the same with their voters. Seeing this as problematic, Proposition 11 in 2008 removed this role from lawmakers. It gave it to a Citizens Redistricting Commission, which would endeavor to put communities of interest together in districts in a way that would not engage in partisan bias. The result has been a very modest increase in the competitiveness (won by less than ten percentage points) of elections from about five percent of CA state legislative races to about fifteen percent (McGhee).
Next, partisan primaries were blamed for pushing representatives to the ideological extremes as they first competed for voters on only one side of the spectrum before facing a more moderate electorate in November. This resulted in a runoff between two more ideologically extreme candidates than the average voter in their district. Proposition 14, passed in 2010, was the antidote, which implemented the top-two primary system. Now, party registration (except for the US Presidency) does not limit voter choice. The top two candidates go on to a runoff in the general election. It is in their interest to moderate their positions right from the beginning of their campaigns to attract the most voters. Once elected, representatives needn't worry as much about partisan attacks; they will take more centrist positions when legislating. The few academic studies that have been done about this show this effect (Miller).
A third reform reduced the two-thirds majority required to pass a budget in the California legislature to just a simple majority. Sponsored by the public employee unions, Proposition 25 in 2010 ended the ability of a partisan minority to exercise such leverage over the majority. The result is that California budgets have been passed on time ("Rewriting the Rules"). The two-thirds majority is still present for any tax increase (as mandated by Proposition 13, passed in 1978). The net result of these and other political reforms is to help the legislature overcome partisan polarization and avoid gridlock.
The alternative argument is that polarization is caused by a deadlock between firmly held viewpoints held by roughly equal-sized partisan groups in the state. Tinkering with electoral rules will not resolve the problem; polarization will ease when one party surpasses the other in popularity. Hence, in this view, the state has overcome party polarization during the last ten years because the Democratic Party has become far more popular than the Republican Party. This is confirmed by statistics from the California Secretary of State in October 2020, showing that 46% of California voters registered as Democrats, with only 24% registering as Republicans ("Report of Registration"). Since 2020, Republicans have lost ten percent of the electorate. The only counties that have a majority of Republicans are rural. Republicans have failed to make significant inroads in the state's ideologically moderate and liberal demographically diverse urban areas.
Even if gridlock has diminished from changes in partisanship, political reforms such as the top-two primary system, the Citizens Redistricting Commission, rule changes in the legislature, and earlier reforms such as term limits and campaign finance enhance the legitimacy of government institutions. If Californians believe that democratic processes are fair, the institutions themselves will be rated more favorably, and they will have a greater capacity to address necessary policy reforms. According to the October 2020 poll of Californians by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), just 51% of respondents believe the California legislature is doing a good job.
In short, efforts to reform the legislature are essential in themselves. The legitimacy of elections, the organization of the legislature, and its processes matter to the electorate. However, performance also matters. As a state, California is confronted by many long-term challenges, many of which directly affect millions of Californians' health, welfare, and general well-being. Unless the legislature addresses these problems, political reform will not be enough to fulfill Lockean promises; policy reform is also required.
