Mendoza says California’s population and demographics have changed significantly since the formation of counties and by increasing the number of supervisors from five to seven, residents of California’s largest counties will get a more representative and responsive county government.

Cost of increasing government has always been an obstacle to changing the number of supervisors. Mendoza’s legislation tries to confront that issue by declaring that the cost of seven supervisors shall not exceed the cost of five supervisors at the time the measure takes effect after the 2020 census.

With California’s huge and diverse population, the suggestion that county representation be improved makes sense – but who should decide, state voters or local voters?

Los Angeles County, the largest county in the state, would be directly affected by this measure if it becomes law, along with the counties of Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and perhaps Santa Clara if it crosses the 2 million population threshold before the initiative takes effect.

In Los Angeles County, four times voters were asked to increase the size of the Board of Supervisors. Four times the voters said no.

In 1962, 1976, 1992 and 2000, Los Angeles County voters rejected increasing the board to either seven or nine members from the current five. In the most recent vote, the proposal was defeated by nearly a two to one margin.  Mendoza argues that a statewide measure is needed to prevent local county officials from defeating any local measure to expand the board. Indeed, the bill analysis for the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments argues that Los Angeles County Supervisors responded to a legislative attempt to expand the Board in 2000 with a cynical approach of the supervisors putting an expansion measure on the ballot with weak cost controls then working to defeat it. 

Be that as it may, the fact is that voters in the county have four times defeated an effort to change the number of supervisors. If Mendoza’s measure receives a two-thirds vote in the Legislature and appears on the ballot, all the voters in the state will have a say, not just the voters in the most populous counties. In fact, many voters who do not live in the affected counties will help to decide the issue. 

Under such circumstances, local self-determination could be lost to a state requirement.

ost Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on is that special interests have too much influence in politics. The little guy is feeling less and less relevant — especially at the voting booth.

John Cox says the best way to fix this is by electing a larger Legislature. He's the author of the Neighborhood Legislature initiative. I interviewed Cox for a third time since March to follow up on his progress.

Because legislators have largely become professional fundraisers, and the individual voter has so little influence, Cox is working to develop a system to elect 12,000 state lawmakers in California, rather than the current 120, to allow for better representation, closer to home.

Cox anticipates his plan would take the big crony bucks out of campaigns, and allow neighbors to campaign door-to-door, in a real grassroots campaign. “You can do it with shoe leather and a few flyers,” Cox said.

For democracy to work, it must be representative democracy. It must be a government of, by and for the people.

The Neighborhood Legislature

With 38 million California residents, there are only 120 state legislators. There are nearly 500,000 residents for each member of the Assembly, and nearly 1 million per state Senator.

Districts this large cost candidates millions of dollars to win an election, leaving special interests, public employee and labor unions, and big corporations funding the bulk of the campaigns. As a result, average Californians are left out of the process.

Compare California's meager representation with New Hampshire. The “Live free or die” state is small, with only 1.3 million residents. However, New Hampshire has 424 elected legislators. Known as the General Court of New Hampshire, it consists of two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are 400 Representatives and 24 Senators.

Each member of the New Hampshire House, their version of our Assembly, represents only about 3,170 people. Chances are, New Hampshire elected officials know most of their constituents.

Yet New Hampshire legislators review more than 1,000 bills every legislative session — and do it for $100 in pay and a mileage reimbursement.

While New Hampshire is significantly smaller than California, people who spend excessively in New Hampshire on political campaigns don't win, according to Cox. The voters don't trust them.

Making a Neighborhood Legislature happen

Under a Neighborhood Legislature, each of California’s 120 current legislative districts would be broken into 100 smaller districts. This would give California 12,000 legislative districts.

The tiny neighborhood districts would have either 5,000 residents for the Assembly, or 10,000 residents for the Senate. Each of the 12,000 sub-districts then would elect a neighborhood “working committee.”

Each group of 100 Neighborhood Assembly Members in a big district elects one member of a Working Committee, thus allowing 80 members of the Assembly Working Committee, and 40 members of the Senate Working Committee.

All the Neighborhood Assembly Members are voting members. “The 80 that go to Sacramento are just a committee of the whole who do the nitty gritty work,” according to Cox.

So ultimately, the number of legislators would remain the same as today at 120. But the process of choosing them would be insulated from the powerful interests, and all members have voting power.

This is one way to hold elected representatives accountable. As it currently stands, most Californians don't know their representatives, nor will they ever meet.

The movement is growing thanks to “grassroots research,” according to Cox. He and his colleagues have been meeting with grassroots groups — Rotary groups, Kiwanis clubs, Lions clubs, and even smaller cities' Chambers of Commerce. They've been meeting with the neighborhood councils and community activists in Los Angeles, and have nearly 100 percent support from the groups.

Because the idea is so new, and the initiative isn't on the ballot yet, there really isn't any opposition. But objections likely will be to charge that we already have too many legislators, so multiplying them to 12,000 would make them even worse. Another objection likely would be that the process insulates the voters from directly electing a legislator.

“The status-quo political people say this initiative will fail,” Cox said. He's talking about the political consultants vested in things remaining the same. “But because the average person doesn't want his or her personal life splashed all over television, the same people always run for office,” said Cox. “But not with a Neighborhood Legislature. People are already signing up to run for office.”

Cox said he already has 3,000 Californians committed to run for office. His goal is 12,000.

Cox plans on having his initiative on the Nov. 2014 ballot.

He and his statewide coordinators will be in Los Angeles for a press conference Thursday morning as they submit the initiative for title and summary.

Cox said his initiative will be “the greatest peaceful transformation of power since 1776.”

By Katy Grimes

Big spending on California politics has become one of the state’s largest industries. But the return on investment is lousy.

California’s political system has become so heavily manipulated by labor unions and other big money interests that the system is broken. Legislators have become professional fundraisers instead of managing public policy. And the individual voter no longer has much voice or influence.

It may sound farfetched, but the only way to fix this system is to expand it. California needs more lawmakers.

For democracy to work, it must be representative democracy. It must be a government of, by and for the people.

The Neighborhood Legislature

Last year Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, pushed an initiative for a part-time Legislature. She succeeded in bringing much needed attention to the broken system. And while it may not be the right fix for a state as large as California, Grove started many people thinking seriously about doable reforms.

One person is doing something about it as well. I met John Cox at the California Republican Party convention March 1. Cox, a businessman, radio host from Illinois and former Cook County Republican Party Chairman, is promoting a proposed ballot initiative to create a “Neighborhood Legislature.”

Approved for circulation in California for the November 6, 2012 ballot, the Neighborhood Legislature sponsors did not submit any signatures by the deadline. But they are working diligently on it again for 2014.

Under a Neighborhood Legislature, each of California’s 120 current legislative districts would be broken into 100 smaller districts. This would give California 12,000 legislative districts.

In each of the small districts, Cox said the neighborhood legislator would know most of his or her constituents. “Campaigns in the Neighborhood Districts would be door to door, face to face, voter by voter,” he said. “Social media, email and Internet campaigns will be key, and fundraising will be almost non-existent and of little effect.”

This could be the reason so many of California’s political elites aren’t crazy about the idea. Political consultants would be virtually unnecessary for legislative seats, and the current crop of political elites would have their power and influence greatly diminished. While this is appealing to liberty-loving Californians, those now controlling the state would lose out.

Changing the system would mean that each Neighborhood Legislator would be elected by only a few thousand voters — his neighbors — instead of 500,000 to 900,000 voters for the current districts.

Two tier system

Cox explained that, by using this two-tiered system, the actual number of lawmakers who serve in the Legislature in Sacramento would remain the same. And the 100 newly elected Neighborhood Legislators within the 12,000 districts would caucus and select one person to serve in Sacramento.

But there would still be plenty of accountability back home.

California: “Live free or die”

California’s current population is 38 million, represented by only 120 state legislators: 40 state senators and 80 Assembly members.

Compare that meager representation with New Hampshire. The “Live free or die” state is small, with only 1.3 million residents. However, New Hampshire has 424 elected legislators. Known as the General Court of New Hampshire, it consists of two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are 400 Representatives and 24 Senators.

Each member of the New Hampshire House, their version of our Assembly, represents only about 3,170 people, as opposed to the 465,000 in California state Assembly districts. Chances are, New Hampshire elected officials know most of their constituents.

Yet New Hampshire legislators review more than 1,000 bills every legislative session — and do it for $100 in pay and a mileage reimbursement. Granted, the state is smaller than California.

So what’s wrong with California?

It’s all about control. The fewer representatives California elects, the more control and power they have. Even within the legislative body, only a few of the 120 members are actually part of the elite, controlling class.

Far too few wield a big stick for a state the size of California. And that could explain why California is poised on the brink of disaster. Yet our Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown are increasing speed.

What real outreach looks like

The surest way to guarantee outreach to the many different ethnic and cultural communities in California is to increase the size of the Legislature. The Republicans keep talking about Latino outreach, but have been ineffective thus far. Latinos are voting more heavily Democratic than ever. Yet Latino legislators themselves are frustrated, especially on education reform, as the powerful Assembly and Senate leaders are heavily influenced by the public-employee unions and other special interests.

As long as too few legislators are elected to represent this growing state, the California Legislature will continue to be dominated by professional career politicians, who use the advantages of their offices to perpetuate their positions of power.

California voters tried to deal with this by voting to impose term limits in 1990. But in the ensuing years, the political class has done a work-around. Legislators instead merely move from public office to political appointments, and state boards and commissions. Many are even going back to their communities and running for local offices, proving that they cannot leave public office.

The concept of career politicians has become a very big problem in California. The question of who seeks to become a member of the Legislature in the first place anymore should make the voting public wary and take notice. The Legislature is no longer comprised of private citizens who work in the private sector.

California would be best served by an elected body composed of citizens who served out of a sense of civic duty — who then went home at the end of their terms to live their lives in the private sector, as they did before serving in the Legislature.

It’ll never work…

Cox says the nay-sayers claim special interests could overwhelm small districts with community organizers. “But candidates can follow them door to door, making their own case and telling the truth,” Cox said. And neighborhood candidates would know their neighbors and the neighborhoods. Cox said they will be able to arm themselves with persuasive policy arguments instead of the usual trite slogans and sound bites.

Another argument against the Neighborhood Legislature is finding anyone to do the job for little or no pay. “Nonsense,” said Cox. “In a state of 38 million residents, we should be able to fund 12,000 interested citizens who are civic minded, and interested.”

Finally, Cox said constituent services and legislative staff cuts supposedly would be threatened by the Neighborhood Legislature. But Cox was quick to answer, “Instead of small numbers of district offices staffed by interns in a huge district, constituents will have access to a legislator they know and have a personal relationship with.”