By Jeremy Pilaar, BERKELEY POLITICAL REVIEW

Repair California’s decision in January to pull the plug on plans for a constitutional convention should serve as a wake-up call for Californians. With a convention out of the picture, a repeal of the two-thirds rule may now be the only shot voters have in 2010 at easing gridlock in Sacramento.

The call for a statewide convention was innovative, widely popular in preliminary polls, and supported by politicians on both sides of the aisle, a bright spot on an otherwise bleak civic landscape. The “Con-Con”, as it is known in political circles, seemed to be the first substantive opportunity in decades to mend California’s broken system of governance. Lamentably, backers were unable to transform that energy into results.

“The work on the Constitutional Convention received tremendous praise, but praise doesn’t put your measures on the ballot,” said Jim Wunderman, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council, the organization that first proposed the convention. “The money basically ran out.”

While far from perfect, the group’s measure envisioned a crucial overhaul of everything from the balance of power between state and local governments to the budget process itself. Only in a convention setting, its backers argued, could all of California’s woes be effectively addressed at once, from the issue of raising property taxes to reforming the cluttered initiative system. With the Con-Con gone, it’s hard to see where, or how, even piecemeal reforms get anywhere this year.

In the meantime, California’s fiscal mess has further deteriorated. The budget deficit promises to hit an unfathomable level again by year’s end, undoubtedly bringing with it another series of crippling cuts. Californians can expect to see thousands more state jobs slashed in the coming months, as well as further reductions to essential services like health care and senior assistance. There is little need to remind students and educators of the pain inflicted by the cuts in 2009. Although the Governor promised to protect funding levels for education, his budget plan has been thoroughly criticized by policy makers across the spectrum, and it is unlikely to see the light of day in Sacramento.

Some cuts will, of course, be necessary to help keep the state afloat in the short run. But as the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) points out, the legislature “is unlikely to bring the budget into balance without adding revenues to the mix.”

Sadly, those hoping the next Governor will lead the charge on mending the state’s revenue difficulties are sorely mistaken. At a candidates forum this February held in San Francisco, presumptive Democratic nominee Jerry Brown emphatically declared that “taxes are a burden,” going so far as to refer to them as “that ugly T-word.” Meg Whitman, the leading Republican candidate, hopes to somehow lower taxes.

Ballot initiatives are also proving discouraging in this regard – indeed, not a single proposal to raise revenues is set appear before voters in June. Not surprisingly, the two notable propositions that have actually made it onto the June ballot are designed by and for corporate interests. The first, Prop 17, is almost entirely funded by Mercury Insurance, and would essentially allow private insurers to bypass current regulation in order to charge astronomical rates to customers with insurance gaps. The second, Prop 16, is PG&E’s latest attempt to crush all competition by making it more difficult for communities to form municipal utilities.

Unlike Repair California, these two propositions are hardly strapped for cash. So far, Mercury and PG&E have pumped $3 million and $6.5 million into their respective measures for signature gathering and advertising. These backward initiatives seem likely to pass in June if voters don’t stay on their toes.

That being said, there may be a silver lining on the November ballot for reformers who still hope to accomplish something this year: George Lakoff’s promising initiative, the “California Democracy Act, is slowing gathering steam.

The measure would confront what is perhaps the most toxic element of Proposition 13’s legacy: the two-thirds super-majority needed in both legislative houses to increase taxes or pass a budget. According to Lakoff, “California’s budget crisis – and so many of our state’s systemic problems – are the result of the absurd two-thirds requirement that allows a small minority, now just 37%, to block sensible economic legislation.” The proposition would alter the threshold needed to pass a budget or raise taxes to a simple 51% majority.

Critics of Lakoff’s initiative insist that its language is too broad, leaving excess room for interpretation and debate about its implementation. Even so, Lakoff’s is the only proposal currently on the table that would give the legislature a better chance of moving quickly and effectively on issues of both taxes and the budget.

Unfortunately, the path to the ballot box appears daunting. The campaign needs to collect over one million signatures by mid-April, a seemingly impossible task for an effort that is entirely grassroots. To get the initiative into the hands of voters will take a miracle in the next several weeks, and even then the measure is unlikely to pass; a field poll taken in the fall showed only 43% of respondents in favor, versus about 52% opposed. Similar propositions have also been voted down numerous times in the past.

In the all too likely event that Lakoff’s operation fails, 2010 will certainly not be the much-needed reform year state residents have been hoping for since the start of the recession. A paralyzed Legislature, fiscally conservative gubernatorial candidates, and regressive ballot measures all promise to deliver more of the same to California voters this summer and fall. I suppose it’s never too early to start planning ahead for Con-Con 2012.