Increase the Size of the California State Assembly

Franco, Josh
Belinda Reyes
Cid Martinez
PUBP 1
17 May 2006

Increase the Size of the California State Assembly

(note, footnotes do not appear)

Introduction

Representative government is under siege in California and across the United States. People generally distrust their government and those individuals who are elected to represent them. And while distrust is not bad in it of itself, it is the kind of distrust that people exhibit which is most disturbing. It is a cynical distrust, a belief that the government does not care nor take into meaningful consideration the concerns of the public. Such distrust undermines the government and its ability to provide the public good because people do not just call into question the power of their government but their own power as an individual to make a difference.

And while the voice of the public may seem most powerful in direct democracy, in actuality, it is not. Direct democracy is a weak substitute for representative government for “only representative institutions can fill the need for informed deliberation, consensus, and compromise, all of which are necessary for good government in the public interest.” Direct democracy has been hijacked and it is now nothing more than a tool of the economic, political and social elite to impose its will on the masses by permitting the masses to impose it upon themselves.

“Like so much else about California, our state’s politics appears to change constantly, unpredictably, and even inexplicably.” Specifically, over the past century, the state’s population has increased from 1.5 million to over 35 million (See graph below). However, and remarkably enough, not everything about California or its politics has changed.

Source: California Department of Finance

The California State Legislature is a bicameral legislature; it is the most representative branch of the state government. The upper house, known as the Senate, consists of 40 members and the lower house, known as the Assembly, consists of 80 members. The size of both the Senate and Assembly has remained unchanged for over a century. Arguably, this constant of California State Government has had the most profound impact. In 1900, a member of the Assembly represented about 19,000 people and currently in 2000, they represent about 424,000 people. Much has changed over the course of the century and now it is time for the size of the California State Assembly to increase.

Problem: Political Representation Gap

In California, a political representation gap exists and the gap will increase as long as the population grows and the size of the Assembly remains constant. The Assembly, and its current size of 80 members, does not have enough members to effectively represent California’s 35 million people. Communication, at a human level, is necessary to sustain a healthy, vibrate representative democracy. While technological advances, such as the Internet, have increased the ability of legislators to communicate with their constituents, technology alone will not fill the representation gap.

The “the antidemocratic lack of diversity and isolation of the political class” has resulted in tremendous distrust of the national government. Compounded by the lack of effective representation at the state level, millions of Californians have grown increasingly distrustful of the state legislature. However, trust and distrust are ambiguous concepts. Mark Baldassare writes: “Over the course of several decades, distrust in government has commonly been defined in two different ways: one is through the level of confidence that people have in the public institutions that serve them, such as the executive and legislative branches of the state, federal and local government; the other is through the general perceptions that the public has towards the ways that the government and its elected officials perform their duties , such as their effectiveness, responsiveness, efficiency, fairness, and honesty.”

Moreover, distrust has been exhibited by the increase in the number of initiatives, a pillar of direct democracy, placed on the California ballot since the latter part of the 1990s. “California was thus one of the first states to adopt direct democracy; more to the point, it has used these mechanisms almost constantly and with accelerating frequency throughout the twentieth century, more so than any other state.” As the use of the mechanisms of direct democracy increase, the use of the mechanisms of representative government decrease. With more and more initiatives, referendums, and recalls on the ballot, the public is showing it’s increasingly willing to side-step the legislature, therefore reducing the legislature’s policymaking relevance.

The Assembly has the highest constituent per representative ratio in the nation with a ratio of 423,396 to 1. The ratio has been on the rise since 1900 (see graph above). In contrast, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois, the next four most populous states, have a constituent per representative ratio of 139,012, 126,510, 133,186, and 105,248 to 1, respectively. California’s ratio pales in comparison.

The final challenge facing legislator is an excess of committee assignments. Currently, the Assembly has 29 standing committees and only 80 members to fill each committee. The number of committee assignments spreads a legislator too thin and prevents them from spending time in the district and interacting with constituents. Thus, the result is that legislation is not thoroughly and thoughtfully considered because so few people review it.

Political Players

At first glance, it may be difficult to recognize the major political players because of California rich and diverse polity, figuratively and literally speaking. However, after being dazzled by the complexity of California politics, it becomes quite clear who the players are: elected officials, corporations, labor unions and citizens-at-large.

The Senate and Assembly are lead by the President Pro-Tem and Speaker, respectively. In addition to the Senate and Assembly Minority leaders, these four legislative leaders and the governor constitute the powerful and “information institution of the California state government” referred to as The Big Five. This group is incredibly powerful because “as June nears and the two houses hone their versions [of the budget bill], key legislative leaders and the governor enter into informal negotiations over the document that the legislature and governor will ultimately approve.” Power of the purse is a power that only elected official wield and therefore they are primary players in the policy process.

Is the Issue on the Agenda? Why or Why Not?

The issue of direct democracy versus representative democracy has been an underlying current in California politics since the Progressive Era of the 1920s. However, the size of the Assembly, or the Senate for that matter, is not prevalent and not on the agenda. For some reason, political reformers are fixated on the issue of reapportionment, also known as redistricting. Reapportionment is the “adjustment of legislative district boundaries by the state legislature to keep all districts equal in population.” Every ten years, after the completion of the national census, the state legislature adjusts the districts. Most of the time, districts are redrawn to protect incumbents and fortify a party’s control over a particular district.

The Policy Proposal: Increase the Size of the Assembly from 80 to 120

California’s ability to solve tomorrow’s problems depends on the legislature’s ability to effectively represent the people today. To restore trust in the Assembly, I propose that the California people increase its membership from 80 to 120 members by amending Article 4, Section 2 and 6 of the California Constitution. Increasing the size of the Assembly to 120 is within the national average. Moreover, the average size of the top five most populous states is 125. Therefore, the number of 120 is reasonable.
The enactment of this policy is both substantive and symbolic. With forty new Assembly districts, more people will have the opportunity to serve in state government. Moreover, elections will be more competitive and such districts will increase political participation. This is essential to generating trust. Second, California’s constituent per representative ratio will decrease to 282,264 to 1. This also means that the geographical size of districts will be smaller. Legislators will be more visible and closer to the people. It is essential for the public to be able to readily access their representative. Finally, more legislators will serve on fewer committees and have more time to specialize and interact with constituents. Increasing the size of the Assembly is essential to strengthening representative government and making it more accessible to all Californians.

The fiscal impact of an additional 40 Assembly members is somewhat significant. Currently, legislators are compensated $99,000 each year. By adding 40 new legislators, it will cost the public $3.9 million dollars. This amount does not include a legislator’s staff, travel or lodging expenses. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, $240 million dollars is allocated to the Legislature each year. Therefore, I would suspect that the total fiscal impact of 40 new assembly members to be relatively minor when compared to the size of the Legislature’s total budget.

What Opponents Will Argue

Opposition will be fierce. The proposed amendment strikes at the heart of incumbents’ power and incumbents do not easily relinquish such power. For the amendment to become law it must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature and then it must be approved by a majority of voters in a statewide election. The attainment of this amendment will be a long and difficult process.

I anticipate three major arguments against the amendment. First, if current politicians aren’t doing their job, then why do we need more politicians? The result of increasing of the size of Assembly is smaller, more compact districts. With districts geographically smaller, the amount of resources needed to wage an effective campaign decreases because there are fewer voters to reach. Thus, a major barrier to running for office is significantly reduced: money. Yes, the there will be more politicians. However, the politicians will be of higher quality because the increased electoral competition and great public scrutiny of candidates vying to represent them.

Next, people will argue that the 40 member increase is too much and will lead to deliberative paralysis. If there are more politicians who have different political philosophies and come from different districts with particular needs, then the result is more people deliberating rather than enacting public policies. This will result in a decline of legislation that is produced. However, the rebuttal against this argument is two-fold. First, with more politicians, the marketplace of political ideas expands. With the increase in political diversity, more perspectives of an issue will be known and addressed. Second, more deliberation is good and will result is better public policy. With the current lack of legislators, legislation can be carried and passed by few legislators and with insufficient deliberation. Public policy that is quickly created is generally not good public policy. Therefore, with more legislators, both the policy itself and its consequences can be considered more fully.

The third argument against increasing the size of the Assembly is that it does not solve the “real” problem: how districts are drawn. Reapportionment is seen as the fundamental problem with the legislature and my proposal does not consider it; therefore, people will argue that the proposed solution does not go far enough. However, the fundamental problem is the size of the Assembly, not the district. With more seats, there will be more districts that need to be defined. Inevitably, with more districts to outline, the power of incumbents is reduced because greater electoral competition. In other words, no district will be “safe.”

Post-Policy Implications

Amending the California Constitution to increase the size of the Assembly will affect the policy process. Overall, I expect the policy process to take more time. With more legislators, more problems will be identified and after such problems are identified, solutions will be developed. Agenda setting will grow more difficult and only the most pressing, state-wide problems will make the policy agenda. For smaller, geographically disparate districts, this is an unfortunate consequence because it can push their issues off the agenda.

The formulation of policy will take more time because of the increased political diversity of the Assembly. An Assembly of 120, as compared to 80, people means that 40 more peoples’ ideas, opinions, and votes need to be considered.

With a less homogenous Assembly, acceptance of proposed solutions will also take more time. For a policy to be adopted, say for example a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of 120, rather than 80, votes is needed for its passage. In other words, 80 votes are needed instead of 54; 26 more people need to be convinced that the policy is worthy of adoption. Practicing politics is a tumultuous task to say the least.

Concluding Remarks

John Stuart Mill writes: “It is evident that the only government which can fully satisfy all the exigencies of the social state is one in which the whole people participate; that any participation, even in the smallest public function, is useful; that the participation should be everywhere be as great as the general degree of improvement of the community will allow; and that nothing less can be ultimately desirable than the admission of all to share in the sovereign power of the state. But since all cannot, in a community exceeding a single small town, participate personally in any but some very minor portions of the public business, it follows that the ideal type of a perfect government must be representative.”

I agree with Mill’s argument that the best of form of government is a representative one for if all humans could do all things, then there would be no need for government. However, in reality, this is not true. Not all people can participate in all things; a division of labor is needed for the efficient function of individuals and society.

Therefore, to amend to the California Constitution to increase the size of the State Assembly from 80 to 120 will strengthen representative government, increase the public’s trust in the institutions that represent it, expand the formal political marketplace of ideas and revitalize the most effective form of democracy: representative democracy.

Increasing the size of the Assembly is not the panacea. Rather, it is just the first step in my struggle to strengthen representative government. The onus of representation rests on both the public and elected officials. The public must expect, demand and require more of its elected officials and such expectation, demands and requirements but be articulated regularly and reinforced often. Elected officials should work tirelessly to understand the complexities of issues and put more thought into determining the consequences of their actions. The connection between the public and their elected officials is a human connection and requires greater human interaction.

Sources:

Haskell, John. Direct Democracy or Representative Government? Boulder: Westview Press, 2001. pg. 11
Gerston, Larry and Terry Christensen. California Politics and Government: A Practical Approach, 7th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005. pg. 1
URL: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/Histtext.htm
“California Quick Facts.” United States Census Bureau. 12 January 2006. < http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html >
Haskell, John. Direct Democracy or Representative Government? Boulder: Westview Press, 2001. pg. 5
Baldassare, Mark. A California State of Mind. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Baldassare, Mark. A California State of Mind. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. pg. 6
Allswang, John M. The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898-1998. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
“Interactive: Two’s Company, 423,395 is a Crowd.” California Connected. 24 June 2005. < http://www.californiaconnected.org/wp/archives/236 >
“Constituents per State Legislative District.” National Conference of State Legislatures. 2005. < http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/cnstprst.htm >
“Big Five (California).” Wikipedia. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_%28California%29 >
Gerston, Larry and Terry Christensen. California Politics and Government: A Practical Approach, 7th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005. pg. 139
“California Constitution, Article 4.” California State Government. < http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_4 >
Stigler, George J. “The Sizes of Legislatures.” The Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 5, No. 1. January 1976. Pg. 17-34
“Constituents per State Legislative District.” National Conference of State Legislatures. 2005. < http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/cnstprst.htm >
Barbour, Heather. “Slice ‘N Dice: Smaller legislative districts will yield more lawmakers, more accountability and better decision making.” California Journal. 1 January 2005. < http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2149 >
Rosenthal, Alan. The Decline of Representative Democracy. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1998.
Mill, John Stuart. “Representative Government” reprinted in The Democracy Sourcebook. Boston: MIT Press, 2003. pg. 313-314