When we were young, we learned about the best and brightest minds in the nation coming together to create the foundation of a new country and fundamentally change the role of government in the lives of the people. Now there is a proposal to have a similar Constitutional Convention in California, but without those great minds, how are we to be sure that we get a document that rewrites the Constitution for the better and not make our state’s problems even worse?

It is important to note that according to recent article in the Ventura County Star by Timm Herdt, all of the candidates running for governor either support or are open to supporting the proposal, except for Steve Poizner. This could be a strategic move or he could really be worried about it resulting in higher taxes, but it gives Poizner the unique opportunity to distinguish himself from every candidate in the field. According to a press release from Repair California, the group organizing the proposal, 70 percent of registered Republicans, 71 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of decline to state voters support the proposal. If those numbers continue to stay that high, Poizner could end up on the wrong side of this issue.

The proposal that was submitted to the Attorney General yesterday places an enormous amount of responsibility in the hands of the people. The majority (240) of the approximately 465 delegates will basically be ordinary citizens chosen at random to participate in the process. At first I was worried about having hundreds of uneducated, selfish people running the convention, but the way the plans are laid out, this does not appear to be as much of a concern.

The 240 people are assembled from each of the 80 Assembly Districts. The three delegates from each district are chosen by a group of peers who have been selected at random via DMV registrations, telephone directories, voting records and other databases. A large group of 400 is initially selected, then narrowed down to 50 by people responding with letters of interest and randomly selecting 50 people who want to be a delegate. That group of 50 then meet to elect three delegates and two alternates.

People who are apathetic to the political process, the ones I would be concerned about having as a delegate, would not respond to the letter to make themselves eligible in the first place. Then I would hope that the 50 people it was narrowed down to would select the three individuals who are most qualified and the best leaders. Outliers and extremists would eliminate themselves with their crazy views, hopefully leaving just the individuals who truly cared about California. Of course the possibility remains that an extremist on either side of the aisle makes it as a delegate, but even then it would be one out of 465 attending the convention.

The other half of the delegates would be appointed by a committee of local elected officials and four would be delegates from federally recognized Indian Tribes from throughout the state.

Many people are worried about the convention running wild and overstepping its own authority, but this proposal is extremely limiting in what can be discussed. It limits reform to four areas: the budget process, the election and initiative process, restoring the balance of power between local and state governments and creating new systems to improve government effectiveness. More important than what it says you are supposed to discuss is what it says cannot be reformed; the proposal specifically prohibits tax increases and social reforms such as marriage, abortion, gambling or casinos of any type, affirmative action, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, immigration or the death penalty. All of the deliberations would also be made public, not like the original Constitutional Convention where everything was kept secret.

In order for this all to happen though, the people of California must first grant themselves permission to call a convention and then actually do so. Voters would decide on calling the convention on the November 2010 ballot. Then the Convention would be held in 2011 and the proposed reforms would have to be approved by the voters in 2012.

California’s Constitutional Convention will definitely put the fate of the state in the hands of the people. It has become abundantly clear that something needs to change and this might be just what we need to get back on track. I have faith that there are enough checks and balances in place and the voters will stop a proposal that would truly not solve the state’s problems. We may not have the historical assembly of minds that was the original Constitutional Convention, but we’ll have hundreds of citizens who have experienced first-hand the difficulties of living and working in California, and that may be just who our state needs right now.

You can read all of Repair California’s proposal here.