The clout of the California Teachers Association was on full display last week when a bill by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, to reform a tenure law that can give lifetime job protections to teachers 18 months into their careers was abruptly

Since her election in 2012, Weber, a former school board president and college professor, has prodded her fellow Democratic lawmakers to not accept the California education status quo. Weber wants to make tenure rules more rigorous and like those in other states, to ensure the Local Control Funding Formula actually does what it was promised to do and helps English-language learners, and to seek state standards that make it easy to gauge whether schools are helping struggling minority students.

But Weber’s push for significant reforms have either been killed in the Legislature or by Gov. Jerry Brown’s veto pen.

Her latest reform measure, Assembly Bill 1220, would have delayed tenure decisions until a teacher’s third year on the job, but would have allowed marginal teachers additional time to establish their worthiness for tenure in a fourth year, and, in limited circumstances, a fifth year. Weber’s bill included a provision intended to make districts put more of an emphasis on professional development of marginal teachers.

The measure won early approvals and initially appeared relatively uncontroversial, with only five Assembly members opposing it in a preliminary June 1 vote. Weber supporters saw the provisions emphasizing helping struggling teachers as a valuable way to reassure teachers unions that the bill wasn’t an exercise in teacher or union bashing.

But later in June, the Assembly Appropriations Committee shaved off the fourth and fifth year tenure consideration provisions – without consulting Weber. Then, on July 6, Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, D-Richmond, gutted and amended AB1164, a bill he had introduced about foster care policies, so it offered an alternative to Weber’s bill. Thurmond’s version would in some cases allow struggling teachers to win tenure consideration after a third year.

The bill was knocked by reformers as unnecessarily complex and inferior to Weber’s. But the clout of its prime supporter – the CTA – led Weber last week to withdraw her bill for now in hopes it would have better chances in 2018.

Thurmond then withdrew his bill, suggesting it was only introduced as a way to block Weber and her proposal. Both are members of the California Legislative Black Caucus.

CTA expected to back lawmaker who thwarted bill

The EdSource website connected the maneuvering to Thurmond’s plan to run for state superintendent of public instruction in 2018 when incumbent Tom Torlakson is termed out. That’s because the CTA has already sent signals it will endorse Thurmond, who has established his pro-teacher union bona fides with such measures as proposing that teachers be given subsidized housing.

The CTA’s strong and early support of Torlakson was key to the low-profile Bay Area state lawmaker winning the superintendent’s job in 2010 after finishing second in the primary, and to his narrow 2014 win over fellow Democrat Marshall Tuck, a Los Angeles charter school advocate with backing from school reform groups.

Tuck has already announced he will seek the job again in 2018.

The historically low turnout in the 2014 general election will dramatically lower the number of signatures required to qualify ballot initiatives in 2016. As of November 17, turnout was at 40.1%, far surpassing the previous low mark of 50.6% in 2002.

Article II of the state Constitution dictates that the number of signatures required to qualify a ballot initiative is based on participation in the previous gubernatorial election – currently at 6.9 million votes with some outstanding ballots yet to count.

There are other factors playing into 2016’s initiative landscape:

1) With the passage of SB 202 in 2011, all initiatives and referenda are pushed to November general elections every two years

2) Democrats and independents are expected to be a larger percentage of the 2016 electorate, a speculation which could produce initiatives more favorable to that electorate

3) SB 1253 (2014) made several changes to the initiative process

• Extends the collection window from 150 days to 180 days
• Adds a 30 day public review period upon submission of a measure to the Attorney General for title and summary
• Requires notification to the Secretary of State immediately upon collection of 25% of the required signatures
• Requires a legislative informational hearing upon this notification
• Allows proponents to withdraw a qualified measure any time before 131 days before an election

Several factors can impact the cost of signature gathering, such as competition with other initiatives, timeline, and the subject of a measure. But the lower signature threshold and extended collection window very likely will make qualifying initiatives far less expensive than ever before, potentially producing a very long ballot in 2016.

In 2014, it took 807,615 valid signatures to get a proposed state constitutional amendment on the ballot. The Redwood officials expect that in 2016, it will only take 560,000.

In 2014, it took 504,760 valid signatures to get an initiative on the state ballot. It looks like it will only take 350,000 in 2016.

Of course, this relative ease in getting ballot measures before voters extends to potential measures from any political camp. But given unions’ increasing focus on monkey-wrenching signature gathering for ballot measures on causes they oppose, this could be especially helpful to those who back such causes — starting with pension and tenure reform.