When the People Draw the Lines: An Examination of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission

On November 8, 2008, a historic presidential election drove voter participation to unusually high levels. Californians cast more than 13.5 million votes for president. Much farther down their ballot, a smaller number of voters (just short of 12 million) voted on Prop 11, also known as the Voters First Act. By a margin of less than 1 percent, voters transformed the way the state went about drawing districts for state offices. Instead of the state legislature and governor (and at times, the courts), an independent citizen commission -- the California Citizens Redistricting Commission -- would now accomplish the task. With little notice in the tidal wave of the presidential race, Californians had made a major change to their state's constitution

Can a Citizens’ Commission Help Repair California Government? Lessons from Local Charter Reform

While there is widespread agreement that there is a crisis of governance in California, there is little consensus on what institutional structure would best facilitate useful reform. Although the idea of a constitutional convention captured the imagination of the reform community, it failed to generate enough financial and political support to be implemented. The citizens’ commission, another model of reform, has been largely ignored. Yet hundreds of municipal reforms have widely and successfully used the commission model over the past century. Some state constitutional reforms outside California have successfully used such commissions. Further, the legendary U.S.Constitutional Convention of 1787 more closely fits the definition of a commission than a convention. The commission model of governmental reform is much less exciting than a constitutional convention but for that very reason it reduces the initial risk of undertaking such an effort, a risk that is likely to prove fatal to reform. The low profile of citizen commissions allows a thorough airing of issues and the development of the sort of credibility that may give its recommendations surprising force. California may look to the structures of Florida and Utah—states in which permanent constitutional reform commissions have legal standing—as models of how California could steadily and effectively work toward a solution in a manner that both reduces the immediate political risk to all affected interests and leaves open the chance for long-term reform. While California’s attempt at reform by commission failed in 1996, there are lessons from that experience that can make success more likely

Can a Citizens’ Commission Help Repair California Government? Lessons from Local Charter Reform

While there is widespread agreement that there is a crisis of governance in California, there is little consensus on what institutional structure would best facilitate useful reform. Although the idea of a constitutional convention captured the imagination of the reform community, it failed to generate enough financial and political support to be implemented. The citizens’ commission, another model of reform, has been largely ignored. Yet hundreds of municipal reforms have widely and successfully used the commission model over the past century. Some state constitutional reforms outside California have successfully used such commissions. Further, the legendary U.S.Constitutional Convention of 1787 more closely fits the definition of a commission than a convention. The commission model of governmental reform is much less exciting than a constitutional convention but for that very reason it reduces the initial risk of undertaking such an effort, a risk that is likely to prove fatal to reform. The low profile of citizen commissions allows a thorough airing of issues and the development of the sort of credibility that may give its recommendations surprising force. California may look to the structures of Florida and Utah—states in which permanent constitutional reform commissions have legal standing—as models of how California could steadily and effectively work toward a solution in a manner that both reduces the immediate political risk to all affected interests and leaves open the chance for long-term reform. While California’s attempt at reform by commission failed in 1996, there are lessons from that experience that can make success more likely

2021 The SELA Agenda

The SELA Agenda is a collectively and inclusively drafted report that addresses the impact of COVID-19 in the Southeast Los Angeles (SELA) region by highlighting investment opportunities in eight policy areas: education, environmental justice, economic recovery, healthcare, housing, nonprofit safety net, civic engagement and regional advocacy. The goal is to lay out a COVID-19 recovery plan that prioritizes the SELA region and ensures the region's recovery and future prosperity by bringing SELA's needs to the attention of elected officials, philanthropy, business sector, and community stakeholders.

Were Not Giving Up: A Plan for Homelessness Governance in Los Angeles

The ongoing homelessness crisis in Los Angeles has elevated calls for a better governance structure to address this devastating issue. Los Angeles combines an already fragmented system of general governance with a fragmented governance approach to homelessness. Any new governance structure must be customized around these distinctly Los Angeles features.We often assume the problems in homelessness governance can be solved with more leadership, more data, restructured government institutions, more coordination, more city-county collaboration, and more money. This independent report commissioned by the Committee for Greater LA challenges these assumptions.