For Self-Interest, Lawmakers Don’t Hesitate

Witnessing another smelly stunt by the Legislature last week, I was reminded of an old Lily Tomlin line: “No matter how cynical you get, you can’t keep up.”

Politicians with their cynical schemes always keep one step ahead of our worst expectations.

I also thought of the old scorpion story: Why’d the scorpion sting the frog after promising not to? the frog asked the scorpion. Because “I can’t help it,” the scorpion replied. “I’m a scorpion. That’s my nature.”

And there was the new self-analysis by Bill Clinton about why he had sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. “I did something,” he told CBS’ Dan Rather, “for the worst possible reason: Just because I could.”

It is the nature of politicians to act cynically -- brazenly, arrogantly -- just because they can. They’ve got the power. And the chutzpah.

So what are we talking about here?

We’re talking about self-interest and self-survival -- and political paranoia over a November ballot initiative that would create an open primary election system for California.

To fight it and attempt to retain the political status quo, legislative leaders concocted a gimmicky rival measure and rammed it through four committees and both houses in roughly 72 hours, suspending rules and providing scant public notice.

The lawmakers beat a deadline for placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot without help from the governor. It was widely assumed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t going to help with this Limburger, because he generally supports open primaries.

This is the same Legislature that takes months to pass a budget -- or almost anything of real public interest. But when it’s about self-interest, the politicians cut corners and hotfoot it.

If it were just the speed and secrecy, however, there wouldn’t be such outrage. What offends is the legislators’ too-clever-by-half insertion into their election measure of a non-germane “sweetener” designed to confuse and/or attract voters. This irrelevant provision would require that any proceeds from the sale of surplus state property be used to help pay down the $15 billion in budget-bailout bonds.

The state constitution requires that any ballot initiative be limited to a single subject. Legislative leaders contend that this single-subject rule does not apply to the Legislature when it drafts a constitutional amendment. Sponsors of the open primary initiative will test this thesis in court. They’ll also argue that the concept of different rules for different folks violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“The sweetener was a poisoner,” says Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), one of only three senators who opposed the measure (SCA18) by veteran Sen. Ross Johnson (R-Irvine).

“Bundling disparate issues in an attempt to confuse voters is disrespectful to voters and disrespectful to the initiative process,” McClintock asserts. “History warns us that politicians who disrespect voters usually discover that the feeling becomes mutual....

“This kind of tawdry game-playing taints what ought to be a quite legitimate opposition to a very bad idea. But this de-legitimizes the opposition.”

Everybody agrees that the open primary initiative would dramatically change California’s election system. It would eliminate party primaries, except in presidential races.

Citizens could vote for any candidate regardless of party. Voters overwhelmingly adopted this idea in 1996. But it lasted only two elections because party pooh-bahs went bonkers and sued. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the parties, agreeing that they had a right to exclude members of other parties from their nominating process.

The new initiative responds to the court by making state primaries nonpartisan, like local elections. The primaries no longer would select party nominees. Rather, the two top vote-getters -- even if of the same party -- would run off in November.

Backers -- including former L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan, a Republican, and state Controller Steve Westly, a Democrat -- believe that by opening up primaries to a wider range of voter ideologies, more pragmatic centrists would be elected. Now, liberals generally decide Democratic nominations and conservatives choose Republican nominees.

Supporters also contend open primaries would spark more voter interest.

Opponents argue that general election voters deserve a clear choice between opposing ideologies. They also complain that minority parties would be shut out of the runoff elections, which sounds like crocodile tears coming from Republicans and Democrats.

The Legislature’s proposal simply declares that any party has a right to field a candidate in November -- the status quo that got all these lawmakers elected.

There’s plenty to argue about, but not in the context of surplus land sales. Tossing that into the mix was the brainstorm of Senate leader John Burton (D-San Francisco), because it tested well in polling.

“This is not democracy in action. This is Alice in Wonderland,” said Assemblyman Keith Richman (R-Northridge) during the Assembly floor debate. He was one of 21 who voted “no.”

It’s not about Democrats vs. Republicans. It’s about a bipartisan stench. It’s about politicians acting in their own self-interest while contributing to their own self-destruction.

It’s the kind of stunt that voters had in mind when they imposed term limits.

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.