The power of special interests
Interest groups – businesses, unions, and non-profit organizations – wield immense power in Sacramento. As former state legislator and president of the advocacy organization Children Now Ted Lempert said: “I’ve had private conversations with most of the current legislators on education issues… It’s not how they vote.”
Lempert noted that one reason interest groups may be more powerful in California than other states is the relatively large size of our legislative districts. With large districts, voters are less likely to know who their legislators are, much less be able to identify their policy positions. This limits accountability to voters and creates incentives for politicians to curry favor with organized interests. Politicians running to represent large districts also must raise significant money to advertise district-wide, which makes them more beholden to well-resourced interest groups.
Melissa Breach of Prosperity California and former state Senator Nancy Skinner, who provided comments via email, pointed to public financing of elections as one measure that could mitigate excessive interest group power. The City of Seattle, for instance, provides its residents with “democracy vouchers” that they can assign to preferred politicians. Public financing could reduce politicians’ reliance on wealthy interest groups, but Lempert cautioned that this must be weighed against the cost of the program in a context of tight budgets.
Lack of political competition
Another issue raised and explored was the lack of political competition in California. The Democratic Party has grown to dominate California politics, while the Republican Party has shrunk in relevance.
“Right now, in California, Democrats are not fighting for their political lives,” Thad Kousser, professor of political science at UC San Diego, observed. “And that fear of losing out and losing control is often what binds parties together to come up with a cohesive platform to whip each other into shape.”
Lack of two-party competition not only reduces the incentive for Democrats to work together to govern effectively, but it also gives rural, Republican-leaning areas of the state very little voice in Sacramento. In addition, it leads to outsized influence for Democrat-affiliated interest groups like public sector labor unions.
The decline of two-party competition in California stems from a combination of an electoral system with first-past-the-post single member districts and a nationalized media and interest group environment. Single-member districts tend to give rise to two-party competition, while multi-member districts with proportional representation generally produce multi-party competition. In the past, Democrats and Republicans have often presented somewhat distinct regional party brands in order to compete in different parts of the country. But as the media environment has nationalized, so have the parties. Given President Trump’s unpopularity in California, a heavily MAGA-influenced Republican Party is not electorally competitive. A more moderate, California-style Republican brand would likely be much more viable, but the nationalized political environment makes this difficult to build and maintain.
According to Kousser, California could get more electoral competition with multi-member districts and proportional representation. He cautioned, however, that this would also potentially allow for the emergence of more ideologically extreme parties – which has occurred in Europe over the past several decades.
Ineffective policy implementation
A common thread running through the conversation was dissatisfaction with the ability of the government in California to effectively implement policy and build the essential infrastructure the state needs. When asked to grade California governance overall, Breach gave it a “D”-, citing an inability to build enough homes, mitigate climate change, or close wealth gaps. Lempert gave California a “C”, pointing to the state’s lackluster performance in the education arena.
One implementation problem, particularly in the housing arena, is the problem of “vetocracy.” As Breach put it: “No one can say yes to a project, but dozens of people can say no.” She also noted how the state now demands local governments develop comprehensive plans for building sufficient housing in a sustainable manner, but does not provide the resources for local governments to actually conduct those planning exercises.
Commenting on California’s high-speed rail experience – a conspicuous example of policy implementation failure – Kousser noted how California has a system of governance whereby major decisions can be made without a strong majority. Indeed, high-speed rail’s initial funding came via a proposition that passed with only 53%of the vote. This points to a potential governance reform: California could require a greater majority for propositions to pass, which would mean those that do pass receive greater buy-in, and are thus more likely to be implemented effectively.
The California legislature has a related problem. It passes a large number of bills, but California often struggles to effectively implement them. “The way legislators get known is through the bills they carry,” wrote Nancy Skinner. “Whatever issue is the flavor of the month will have many legislators introducing bills in that subject area, with the associated overlap, confusing directives, etc.”
Skinner suggested cutting the number of bills legislators can introduce. The legislature will also initiate a new oversight process starting in 2026 to review the outcomes of certain pieces of legislation, which could also help with the problem of too many bills poorly implemented.
During the Q&A session, the panelists were asked about the potential for large language models to assist governments with certain elements of policy implementation. While the panelists expressed optimism about the potential for AI tools to improve governance, they also urged caution. “There are a lot of ways in which AI can be used to do more efficiently what government always wants to do, which is communicate with you and make you feel like it cares,” said Kousser. “But what I really worry about is using AI to try to replace democracy.”
