160 years ago a group of newly arrived Anglos and Spanish-speaking Californios met at Colton Hall here in Monterey (pictured at right in a flickr photo by fritzliess) and held California's first Constitutional Convention. The document they produced was literally copied from the Iowa state constitution but had some elements of the Mexican system of government and justice grafted onto it, and included full protection of Spanish speakers' rights in what was officially a bilingual state.

California's constitution has undergone significant change since then. In 1878 the Workingmen's Party rode an anti-Chinese backlash and the Long Depression to power, and rewrote the Constitution in an effort to undermine the power of wealthy interests. (Unfortunately they also ended the 1849 bilingual policy.) In 1911 the Constitution was essentially rewritten when Progressive Republican Hiram Johnson pushed through the initiative, referendum and recall. And in 1978 another dramatic set of Constitutional revisions was initiated by Prop 13.

Americans think of their constitutions as static and unchanging, but this has never been the case. Both the US and the California constitution have undergone frequent revision. Sometimes this comes in the form of actual amendments, but it can also take the form of significant changes in Constitutional interpretation. The only amendments that came out of the New Deal were the 20th and 21st (moving Inauguration Day to January 20 and ending Prohibition) but as most historians and political scientists agree, FDR nevertheless initiated major changes to the way the American government operated.

California's constitution has been amended frequently - over 500 times by some accounts - and included an effort in the late 1960s to modernize the document. Still, it has become clear that California's government is broken and unable to meet the needs of one of the worst crises our state has ever faced. The economic crisis, drought, an energy and environmental crisis that seem to have faded a bit from the public mind but are still very much here - all of these problems are dumped into the lap of a government hamstrung by a conservative veto and a series of rules, many of which date from the last 30 years, designed specifically to prevent government from meeting the people's needs.

The spectacle of Abel Maldonado blackmailing the Legislature to accede to his demands as the price of passing a budget last week showed the need to eliminate the 2/3 rule. It is the first change, the tree that blocks the tracks, the door that opens that path to all other changes. But it has become clear that California needs even deeper reform to solve the present crisis and meet the needs of a 21st century state. Periods of major economic change usually are accompanied by constitutional change - hell, even the US Constitution itself owes its existence to the severe economic crisis of the 1780s, one of the worst in American history.

That's why the Courage Campaign, where I work as Public Policy Director, is joining the Bay Area Council and a diverse coalition of organizations to sponsor a Constitutional Convention Summit on Tuesday in Sacramento (you can register at Repair California).

It's my own personal belief, and one shared by the Courage Campaign, that a Constitutional Convention can successfully fix California's broken government. In a poll of our members last September over 90% said they supported a convention. And in December we launched CPR for California - a Citizens Plan to Reform California that included some major structural fixes for the state, including fixing the budget process and producing long-overdue initiative reform as well as empowerment solutions such as public financing of elections and universal voter registration.

But the key to success is that a convention must truly be "of the people." A convention will fail - and may not even be approved by voters - if it is seen as a top-down effort. Remember of course that a Constitution is a social compact, the product of a sovereign people, a recognition that we must have government to survive but that it must also be accountable to the people. For a Constitutional Convention to have legitimacy it must include the people of California at every step of the journey - especially in setting the Convention's priorities. Additionally, the delegates who attend the Convention must be representative of the state's population, and not be selected from a small group.

It's also worth noting some of the limits of a Constitutional Convention. The Courage Campaign believes that all social issues should be off-limits at a convention, such as marriage equality (that is best dealt with by the California Supreme Court, or by the voters if the Court upholds Prop 8). The Convention alone won't solve our state's financial woes.

But it's time that California's government once again adapted to the times. We need a constitution and a government responsive to the people and able to address the broad 21st century crisis, instead of a government that was deliberately broken and subject to a conservative veto. A Constitutional Convention won't solve all our problems, but it's a necessary step forward for California.

It doesn't come without risks, of course. But the time has come for progressives to assert a new set of ideas and a new agenda for California's future.

Over the flip I explain the process of calling, holding, and approving the proposals produced out of a Constitutional Convention.

The California Constitution currently only allows the Legislature to propose a convention to the voters - and that requires the usual 2/3 vote. Since the Zombie Death Cult won't go for a convention as it would challenge the conservative veto they hold so dear, that means the people need to be empowered to call the convention themselves.

There would be two propositions on the ballot, likely in June 2010. The first would enable the people themselves to call a convention (perhaps with a time limit - no more than one convention every 20 years) and allow them to also limit the scope of what a convention could cover. The second proposition would actually call the constitution, limited to exclude social issues, and would provide for the election of delegates (perhaps 10-12 per Assembly district).

The convention itself would meet within 6 months of voter approval. The convention would set its own rules of deliberation (or those could be spelled out in the proposition). Ultimately the convention would propose a package of reforms to be voted on as a single proposition - up or down on the whole thing. Voters then get the final say over any proposed changes, as of course the people of California hold sovereign power over such Constitutional changes.

Because there are so many reforms needed, and because of the barriers to putting each reform on the ballot (the Legislature might not go for it, and no initiative has qualified for the ballot without using paid signature gatherers in over 25 years), a Constitutional Convention is the best path for allowing a package of reforms to be approved at once.