The Special Election was Act One of a three-act drama that will play out over the next year and a half. When the curtain falls on the final act — the 2010 general election — California will set a new course for its fiscal future.
In Act One, the voters rejected the budget proposals put up by the governor and legislature. Act Two will consist of how the governor and legislature respond.
Those who see this as a chance to finally get California’s fiscal house in order with a more conservative fiscal plan are right. But they must act fast.
Reforms must be presented, implemented, and show some results before the voters make decisions on the November 2010 ballot. That ballot will likely contain a myriad of opportunities to alter direction, or to cement changes that could come out of the newly reinstituted budget negotiations. Of course, new leadership will be offered in the governor’s race. A new group of legislators will be elected. And, undoubtedly, voters will be presented with a number of options to change the way we conduct business in California.
Measures to reduce the two-thirds vote, set up a part time legislature or even call a constitutional convention could vie for the voters’ attention and approval. If positive action is taken to correct the budget problems before then, all alternatives may be pushed aside. If not, the voters could approve new, and possibly conflicting reforms.
One thing is certain; the electorate that will make decisions in 2010 will not be the same that decided the special election. The special election voter turnout of about 23% will more than double at the general election. Some polls revealed that more Republicans than Democrats voted in the special election. That will not be repeated in the general election.
By no means am I saying that the measures on the special election ballot would have passed if there were a larger turnout. Voters across the political spectrum were frustrated with California’s budget mess and the solutions presented to date. However, the voters may reflect a different temperament next time around and may take a stab at more radical changes to our governance structure. If the opportunity to make smart changes is missed, the three-act drama could end up a tragedy.