2/3 CA Senate Dem majority= "filibuster-proof majority"?

by: Adam Bink

Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 16:00


An interesting dynamic going on in California. Gov. Schwarzenegger just picked Republican State Senator Abel Maldonado to replace recently elected Rep. Garamendi as Lieutenant Governor. Initially this was great news because Dems could win Maldonado's seat and be just one seat away from winning the 2/3 majority needed to essentially govern the state and prevent deeper budget cuts. I'm familiar with Maldonado because when I was out in CA on book tour, he was all over the press as the Olympia Snowe of the state, demanding deal after deal to be the last vote needed to pass the budget- even winning a concession to place two propositions on the ballot. The second- Top Two Primary- has a lot of implications for state elections.

Now, Democratic Senate leaders are balking (the nomination needs to be approved by the Senate) because they think it may give him a leg up on the LG spot- something that Robert Cruickshank at Calitics, and a constituent of Maldonado's, disputes. So many are actually calling for his confirmation to sail through as quickly as possible because getting a 2/3 Dem majority is absolutely critical. On the other hand, I have some friends who sneered at it as the same "as soon as we have 60 Senate Dems all will be well" argument that never comes true.

The Calitics team has a good editorial on the topic.
Adam Bink :: 2/3 CA Senate Dem majority= "filibuster-proof majority"?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
2/3 CA Senate Dem majority= "filibuster-proof majority"? | 3 comments
Geez!! .. I wonder why .. (0.00 / 0)
Now, Democratic Senate leaders are balking

I wonder if Arnie did this just to stick it to the Dems .. after all ... according to what you say .. they could basically rule the state and render Arnie a figure head .. then once things went to crap .. the Dems would reap the blame

Not So Sure (0.00 / 0)
I read a comment about this yesterday (sorry no linkie), that this scramble for 2/3 may be for naught, because the voters passed a redistricting proposition (last election?) that throws this conclusion into question.  The commenter opined that as laudable as it is to impartially redistrict the state (ostensibly the purpose of the passed proposition), it allows a greater evil - the stranglehold by the minority - to perpetuate itself.  And so I wouldn't break out the champaign yet.
Yes and no (0.00 / 0)
Proposition 11 did pass last fall, and it creates a citizens commission to redraw the lines for state legislative seats (but NOT for Congressional seats, which will still be done by the legislature).

However, the new districts will not be used at the ballot box until 2012, as is the case across the country with decennial redistricting. And the legislature won't take seats under the new districts until December 2012. So we would have potentially two crucial years of a 2/3rds majority in the State Senate, and maybe even in the Assembly as well - two years that might include a Democratic governor.

So this scramble for 2/3rds is very much worth doing, especially since CA's budget deficit is projected to grow significantly in 2011. Redistricting will put a few more seats in play, though not all that many in the end, and in the meantime we can get a hell of a lot of good done if we go for the 2/3rds opportunity we have before us.

Thanks btw to Adam for the shout-outs in the post.

[ Parent ]
2/3 CA Senate Dem majority= "filibuster-proof majority"? | 3 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox