Bill Camp
There has been a lot of talk in recent days about the lawsuit we filed involving the strong-mayor initiative in Sacramento. Many have characterized it as an attack on the voters’ right to “reform” our city government, as well as an effort to stop any movement toward a strong-mayor form of government. While these characterizations may make for good sound bites, they miss the real purpose of our lawsuit: to ensure that all Sacramentans receive the benefits of the procedures the California Constitution requires for major changes to our charter.
As the Sacramento Superior Court decision clearly points out, the so-called strong-mayor initiative proposes significant changes to the city charter that would completely overhaul the structure of city government. The court made it clear that a measure that makes such radical changes to a city charter cannot be legally placed on the ballot directly through the initiative process – as Mayor Kevin Johnson is attempting to do by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers and paid signature gatherers.
The judge’s ruling outlines the two options – both with ample public participation – that the California Constitution provides for reforming a city charter:
• First, the City Council may place a revision before the voters directly after public debate.
• Alternatively, the voters may use the initiative process to place a measure on the ballot that asks for a vote on an initial question: Do you want to revise our city charter?
• If a majority of the voters says yes, then the voters are asked to elect a charter reform commission that would hold public hearings and consider revisions to the charter based on the public’s input. All Sacramento voters would be eligible to serve on the commission – not just hand-picked political insiders.
• The elected commission would place their recommended revised charter on the ballot.
• At that point, voters get to cast a second vote for or against the revised charter proposed by the commission.
We believe there is a good reason for this deliberative process. Fundamental changes in the city charter – which is the city’s constitution – should not be made casually or carelessly, as is often the case with policies crafted in the course of high-priced initiative campaigns.
Overhauling a city’s charter is no small matter. It should be done with deliberation and thoughtful input from all segments of our community, in a public and inclusive process.
This would have been the right way for the mayor to revise the city charter, but he failed to follow the law. Instead, he huddled with a small, hand-picked group of advisers in closed-door meetings and drafted a measure completely overhauling the way city government is organized.
Fortunately for us, the court has stepped in to stop this violation of the process our state constitution requires. We believe most Sacramentans will be thankful for that.
