Titled “Governing California,” the discussion aimed to provide students with a variety of perspectives on the state’s current fiscal crisis and the far-reaching consequences of its controversial referendum process.

The event, organized as an informal debate between the three guests, kicked off with a series of questions about the state of California’s government and its recent handling of the economic downturn.

The first question addressed California’s referendum process, which allows voters to make direct decisions on state statutes at the polls. While all three panelists agreed that California-style direct democracy did put more political power in the hands of the people, they disagreed on whether it has strengthened policy-making in the state.

“I, for one, think the initiative process is a good thing,” said Davis, who was removed from office under a referendum in 2003. “Is it a perfect system? No. Does it require that we be vigilant? Yes.”

According to Kousser, the initiative process in California did not arise out of a populist urge to empower the electorate, but rather from a push by politicians to exploit favorable public opinion.

“[Politicians] didn’t want the voice of people to be heard anywhere—they wanted the voices of the people to be heard when those people agreed with them,” Kousser said. “They didn’t push for direct democracy when the electorate didn’t look like them.”

More generally, the panelists were asked whether they believed California was governable.

“In theory, yes. As a practical matter, we couldn’t have made it harder for elected officials if we tried,” Davis said. “I really think the saving grace is the initiative process.”

Walters took a more pessimistic stance.

“I think the precise answer to the question is, ‘No, it’s not governable,’” Walters said. “We have effectively created a system in which everyone has veto power. Therefore, policy doesn’t just require a consensus… [it requires] unanimity.”

The panelists also engaged in an extensive discussion about recent cuts to K-12 and higher education programs in the state.

According to Davis, last year’s education cuts were tied into problems with the budget overall. The cuts had to be made, he said, because the state had given education programs—which account for the largest portion of spending in the state—excessive funding during the last economic boom without regard to future downturns.

“In very good years, we do the right thing by education and higher education. In bad years, we have no choice but to raise tuition and reduce enrollment,” Davis said. “I don’t think you can answer this question without looking at education; I think you need to look at the whole budget.”

Walters, who has been covering Sacramento politics for more than 30 years, said the demographic changes in the state pose a major problem for its education system.

“This ain’t your grandfather’s California—we have become the most culturally, linguistically complex society in the Western Hemisphere,” Walters said.

In a brief question-and-answer session following the panel discussion, the guests chimed in on a number of contentious ongoing debates, including the legalization of gay marriage under Proposition 8.

Davis, who signed a comprehensive domestic partnership bill for same-sex couples in 2003, said he believes the gay marriage ban will eventually be overturned by another initiative.

“In time, your generation will arrive at the conclusion that people should be married in a civil fashion,” Davis said. “That is not the way the vote turned out, but if you just look at the demographics of the vote, you can see that time is on the side of people who want change.”

The PSU discussion was originally conceived as a response to Sacramento’s decision last year to cut the University of California’s budget by more than 30 percent.

“I have peers and family in the UC system, where very vocal protests have taken place,” said Joseph Tseng PO ’12, a PSU board member and the event organizer. “I wanted some insight on what’s wrong with California’s education system.”

According to Tseng, PSU invited panelists with different viewpoints to obtain a comprehensive picture of the state of California governance.

“I wanted to provide three perspectives on California’s issues, and want to hear what [each] will propose,” he said.

Tseng hopes the event generated interest in California politics, and that attendees found it “pertinent and engaging.”

One quarter of Pomona students are California residents, “and they should be there, because they’re the ones with family here, paying taxes and dealing with the problems first hand,” he said.

More than 100 students, faculty and community members attended the discussion, and their response was generally positive.

“[The] event provided fabulous insights into California’s current challenges and those that it will continue to face in the near and far-distant future,” said Visiting Assistant Professor of Politics Michael Teter. “I think the speakers made it clear that there’s a structural failure in California’s governance.… The first step, after recognizing that such a problem exists, is to find a way to reestablish a means to address actual policy questions.”