Part-time legislature amendment proposed
December 12, 2011
Would California fare better with a part-time legislature? [SacramentoBee]
That’s the central question at the core of a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce both the lawmaking body’s time in Sacramento and the pay for members.
First-term Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, (R-Bakersfield) and Ted Costa of People’s Advocate, a watchdog group, will seek 807,615 signatures from registered voters to quality the amendment for the November ballot.
Costa said Californians are frustrated by state lawmakers’ refusal to seriously consider such a proposal, and that disapproval of the lawmaking body’s performance is widespread. The plan would create a three-month session at the state capitol, and reduce salaries for individual lawmakers from the present $7,940 monthly to $1,500 monthly. Additionally, the new proposal would prohibit legislators from accepting state employment or appointment to a state government position for five years after they leave the Capitol.
This state has had a full-time legislature since 1966 when voters approved the concept. Since then, its annual cost has risen to $256 million.
“We’ve tried it — and it’s failed miserably,” said Costa of the full-time lawmaking system. Costa helped launch the successful recall against then-Gov. Gray Davis nearly a decade ago.
The ideas has been floated around Sacramento for years. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, proposed the idea after taking office in 2003.
Opponents of the plan contend a part-time body would strengthen the influence of lobbyists.
The comments below represent the opinion of the writer and do not represent the views or policies of CalCoastNews.com. Please address the Policies, events and arguments, not the person. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling is not. Comment Guidelines