The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: supermajority
Corruption Scandals Cost California Democrats Supermajority Control Of State Senate

Corruption Scandals Cost California Democrats Supermajority Control Of State Senate

By Jessica Calefati, San Jose Mercury News

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — It took Democrats more than a century to win a supermajority in both houses of the California Legislature, but two corruption cases have cost them their dominating two-thirds majority in the state Senate in little more than a year.

State Senator Ronald Calderon’s decision Sunday to take a paid leave of absence while he fights federal corruption charges will eliminate the supermajority his party won in 2012, threatening the policy priorities of some Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown.

Proposals to create a new rainy-day fund and tax oil companies operating in California would have sailed through the Democrat-controlled Legislature last year, but now, the majority party will be forced to find some Republican support for those and other plans that require a two-thirds vote.

“Suddenly, Republicans have leverage they didn’t have a week ago,” said Bill Whalen, a former aide to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson who is a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “They’re now in a position to name a price, and the question is, do they have a price in mind?”

The legal troubles of two Southern California Democrats — Calderon and Senator Roderick Wright — have turned the fortunes of Republicans, who lost their relevance in the 2012 election that gave Democrats an iron grip on the Legislature and every statewide office. While Republicans have been forced to the sidelines, Brown has been careful to urge Democrats to use their power judiciously, holding the line on major new spending despite an improving economy and rebounding state revenues.

Senate Republicans are currently considering plans to suspend Calderon and Wright, said Peter DeMarco, a spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff. Wright was granted leave last week after his conviction on eight felony counts of perjury and voter fraud.

The legislative impact of the Democrats’ withering supermajority is “the furthest thing from his mind now,” DeMarco said of Huff’s priorities.

On Sunday, Calderon said he sought a leave of absence to focus on his legal defense and to minimize distractions. Last week, a federal grand jury indicted Calderon, a Democrat from Montebello, on charges of bribery, fraud, money laundering and other offenses.

“This is not a resignation since I still have my day in court,” Calderon said in a written statement. “However, due to the nature and complexity of the charges, and the discovery materials that I will have to review, I expect this to be a lengthy period of absence continuing until the end of the session in August.”

California law requires that proposed constitutional amendments, new taxes and fees and ballot propositions initiated by the Legislature win support from two thirds of the members in each house. That threshold does not change when lawmakers volunteer or are forced to vacate their seats.

For the first time since 1883, the Democrats had a supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, but they hardly had to use it to advance those kinds of proposals.

A bill sponsored last year by Democratic Senator Mark DeSaulnier to put a $75 document recording fee on real estate transactions such as refinancing loans needed and won support from the two-thirds of Democratic state Senators. That may be the only time the supermajority was needed to advance legislation in the Senate. Lawmakers can pass the budget with a simple majority, but they now need Republicans for other priorities.

Gov. Jerry Brown in January proposed a constitutional amendment that voters would need to approve to create a new rainy-day fund that limits when the state can withdraw money and links deposits to capital gains revenue. He has called it “essential,” pledging that it will gird the state against future financial meltdowns.

But now the plan won’t be on the ballot in November without some Republican support, and so far, Republicans aren’t biting. They have a rainy-day fund plan of their own that Huff and other Republican leaders have said has even stronger protections against inappropriate withdrawals than the protections included in Brown’s plan. To get either measure on the ballot, the parties will have to compromise.

“Republicans have been completely left out of the debate on this and other issues,” said Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State University. “Now, they’re hungry for power.”

Proposals for a new oil-extraction tax and ballot propositions to repeal a ban on affirmative action and restrict politicians’ campaign fundraising are also at risk without a supermajority. All of those plans will require support from 27 state senators — the tally required for a two-thirds vote.

With Calderon and Wright gone, only 25 Democratic senators remain, but even within that group, there are divisions, Gerston said.

“Let’s not make the mistake of viewing California Democrats as a monolithic block. We have some urban, some rural, some farmers, some environmentalists, some from Northern California and some from Southern,” Gerston said. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg “has managed to herd these cats, but now, he’s going to have to work his magic with them and the Republicans.”

Photo: Justin Brockie via Flickr 

Will The Senate Filibuster Be Nuked In 2015?

Will The Senate Filibuster Be Nuked In 2015?

Over at the Monkey Cage yesterday, former Senate staffer Richard Arenberg worried that in the case of a tied Senate after the 2014 elections (with Vice President Joe Biden serving as the Democrats’ tie-breaker), the filibuster might be doomed. In this view, the Democrats would go nuclear, reorganizing the Senate to allow legislation to pass on a straight majority vote. Kevin Drum had a smart response throwing a bit of cold water on it. I’d mostly agree with Drum here.

So what produces majority-imposed reform, anyway?

To begin with, preservation of the filibuster is a product of the balance senators maintain between their needs as party members and their needs as individual politicians.

Senators tend to support eliminating filibusters because they want to pass the party’s program. What holds them back is their wish to preserve their rights as individual senators, which gives them personal leverage over policy. They also may oppose ending the filibuster because they fear retaliation (from a minority party threatening to “shut down” the Senate) and fear the prospect of life in the minority when the Senate flips control. But those are minor factors. The former, as we have seen over the past few months, just isn’t a very compelling threat, while the latter requires a longer-term horizon than most politicians typically hold. But the ability to influence policy whenever they want? That’s something senators won’t surrender easily.

There are at least four variables that push for or against majority-imposed reform.

1. The Stakes. This is by far the most important one. It’s why, as Drum says, it’s not terribly likely that Democrats would go nuclear on the legislative filibuster during a time of divided government: Given the severe difficulties of passing legislation with the Republican House, there’s just not that much at stake. At the same time, majority parties are going to be far more likely to change the rules if the out-party uses the filibuster frequently — especially if it is perceived to be violating filibuster norms, as Bush-era Democrats did by blocking several circuit court picks, and as Obama-era Republicans have done by filibustering judicial and executive branch selections across the board and engaging in “nullification” filibusters that essentially blockade entire agencies and a key federal circuit court.

2. Frustration. The closer the majority party is to 60, the more it will be tempted to act. It’s highly unlikely that a party with a slim majority would bother to eliminate the filibuster, because it couldn’t even guarantee that a majority-rules Senate would always work in its favor.

3. Length of Majority: The longer a party is in the majority, the more likely it is to push for majority-imposed reform. Minority party senators usually sing the praises of filibusters, which makes killing the filibuster trickier when they gain the majority. The longer the majority lasts, the fewer senators are on record lauding the filibuster, and the fewer are faced with a flip-flop!

4. Party Strength: If filibuster positions reflect the tension between senators’ roles as party members and as individual politicians, then it matters to what extent senators think of themselves as party members or as individuals. It’s also likely that the emphasis changes over time and is indicative of the overall strength of the parties.

All of which explains why Republicans came close to going nuclear on judicial nominations in 2005, and why Democrats did go nuclear for nominations in 2013. Both were long-standing majorities in control of the Senate and the presidency and facing high levels of obstruction. In addition, both had solid majorities in an era of strong parties. It’s probably worth noting, too, that both were in the first year of a presidential term: Simple-majority confirmation wasn’t going to backfire for a while.

It also suggests that the most likely scenario for killing off the legislative filibuster would be a Democratic landslide in 2016, one that ushers in a House majority and a large (but sub-60-vote) Senate majority. At that point, it would be extremely tempting for Democrats to finish what they started last year. It’s possible that Republicans could go nuclear if they win big in 2016; the main missing ingredient would be length of majority, but everything else would be in place.

I do think that Arenberg is correct that curtailing the filibuster on presidential nominees in 2013 has made it more likely that some future majority will eliminate the legislative filibuster, as well. For what it’s worth, I also agree with him that the filibuster should be preserved, although I’d like to see considerable change – which is most likely to happen if a future majority threatens to go nuclear. I doubt, however, that would result from a 50/50 Senate in 2015.

(Jonathan Bernstein covers U.S. politics for Bloomberg View. He is co-editor of The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2012. Follow him on Twitter at @JBPlainblog)

AFP Photo/Alex Wong