The court battle involving Mayor Kevin Johnson’s strong-mayor initiative has thrust some potent questions before Sacramento and all of California:
Can voters go directly to the ballot to overhaul or modernize their City Hall? Or does the state constitution force them to go through a lengthy charter revision process that, to some extent, can be checked by forces resistant to change?
Such questions are now before the courts. They were put there because of a lawsuit filed by Bill Camp, a Sacramento labor leader. Camp argues that Johnson’s strong mayor initiative – which would give the mayor broad new powers, including some now granted to the city manager and the City Council – goes beyond a simple amendment to the city charter.
Camp calls it a complete overhaul that must be handled through a charter revision instead of a direct initiative.
And in his final ruling Jan. 21, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster agreed with Camp, blocking the initiative from the June ballot.
Citing provisions in the California Constitution, McMaster said such a major change to city governance can happen only in one of two ways: 1) if the City Council agrees to put such a change before voters; 2) if voters agree to elect a charter reform commission, which then proposes a revision that would be subject to a second ballot vote.
We make no pretense of being legal scholars, so we will not second-guess McMaster’s interpretation of the law. The soundness of that ruling will soon be given a second test, since Johnson’s supporters have appealed the decision to the 3rd District Court of Appeal.
Yet even if McMaster ruled correctly, the legal hoops that spring from his decision are potentially daunting. Across the country, cities are trying to reinvent themselves, improve governance and compete against other growing municipalities and suburbs.
McMaster’s ruling suggests that, at least here in California, civic activists can pursue change only if they get approval from the city council (which may have no interest in ceding power), or if they go through a process that is costly, lengthy and convoluted. While such deliberation makes sense for something as consequential as changing the California Constitution, cities are smaller and more closely tied to their voters. They should face fewer roadblocks going forward.
Just to be clear: The Bee has not taken a position yet on Johnson’s strong-mayor plan. While we think Sacramento’s mayor needs enhanced authority, we fear that Johnson’s proposal goes too far – by proposing to give him and future mayors power over the city attorney.
That said, The Bee has long embraced the ability of voters to use initiatives for limited purposes – most expressly, for political reform. This is one of those moments.
It is easy to look back now and wish the reform process had unfolded differently. Johnson went straight to the ballot with his proposal, sidestepping the City Council and emboldening his critics. Had he played it differently, it’s possible – although not likely – that he and the City Council could have crafted a charter revision that would have achieved some of his goals, and now be on the ballot.
It’s too late for Monday morning quarterbacking. The matter is before the judiciary, and if the courts affirm McMaster’s ruling, it will be a setback for municipal reform – not just here, but across California.
If this ruling stands, lawmakers will need to step in and make a constitutional fix. Voters deserve the right to go to the ballot and fix City Hall when it is not serving their interests.