Talk:Government of California

message: The last paragraph in the Bi-partisan gerrymandering section reads very much like an irate Op-Ed and less like a encyclopedia.
I quote “The redistricting was completely successful in accomplishing its goal of the total disenfranchisement of the voters for the offices involved. There was no change of political party in any of the district elected offices at either the State or Federal level - no member of the State Assembly, State Senator, or U. S. Representative was not of the same party as their predecessor.”
I do not think a goal of “total disenfranchisement” can really be shown. While one could argue that maintaining the status quo could be seen as such, I think simply stating something like “The redistricting was successful in accomplishing its goal of maintaining the status quo.” would be a more neutral way of saying this. In other words, let the reader draw their own conclusions as to whether that is right or wrong. 
However, I wanted to see if anyone had thoughts on this before making a change, so pipe up! -Falcorian 23:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your analysis.  The current treatment of the gerrymandering issue needs to be more neutral.  While I agree that the extent of gerrymandering in California is quite troubling, Wikipedia is not the place for emotional rants.  --Coolcaesar 03:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Why isn't this article California government and Politics of California? There is more than enough material available on each subject to create entirely separate articles, not to mention they are distinctly separate (though related) topics if you read the way the table of contents reads. --Schrei 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually I oppose page splits, but on this issue you probably have a point.  This article is becoming way too large and unwieldy.  --Coolcaesar 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. If we split this, once the links to it are fixed, I'd like to add more info about the way the legislature has to have a 2/3 vote and how much controversy this has caused (for the politics). There are also issues we could cover (for the government page) about the various state agencies and procedures unique to California. --Schrei 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, to be consistent with most other country sub-articles (like Federal government of the United States), I think it should be Government of California and Politics of California.  --Coolcaesar 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: I did some massive edits to the Bi-partisan gerrymandering section. What was here was a heck of alot of opinion. We have to be neutral. Period. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better.  Thanks.  --Coolcaesar 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits today 

message: The article says that "California was one of the earliest American states (the first was New York), to codify its statutes into named codes."  And later implies that California and New York were leaders of a movement around the country to have codified laws.  It would be good if we can say specifically how early California was with respect to the other states.  (Based on the article, it seems to me that California was probably second.)  It would be even better if we can find references for the claim that New York and California directly influenced other states to take a similar approach to lawmaking.  btm talk 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second state to codify its laws? 

message: I find the rule requiring supreme court and court of appeal judges to be ratified by voters an interesting one - have the voters ever not ratified an appointee? Padraic 12:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see Rose Bird. There are others, but she's the most famous. Gentgeen 06:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voter ratification of judges 

message: California signed a $145 billion dollar budget today. I checked out the wikipedia to see if I could find a breakdown of it. Surprisingly, the word "budget" doesn't even appear on this or the California page! I'm just commenting here to encourage some of the california editors to follow the money here. CA is on one of the worlds largest economies after all. Jeff Carr 01:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example: "The state’s share of the cost for the storage projects would be funded with $2.0 billion in general obligation bonds for benefits such as flood control, ecosystem restoration, and water quality improvements that serve the whole state. The non‐state portion would be funded from $2.0 billion in revenue bonds secured by contract payments to the state from the water suppliers who would benefit from the new storage. In addition to investments in surface storage, $500 million in general obligation bonds will be dedicated for grants to augment local investment in groundwater storage projects, providing an additional 500,000 acre‐feet of annual yield." is a very complicated statement. What are "revenue bonds secured by contract payments" or "general obligation bonds"? Or just: Why are there bonds and who are they issued to? Jeff Carr 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I originally wrote $145 billion due to an LA Times article. However, page 8 of the actual budget summary is ~$100B. The budget system is so convoluted that the LA Times reporters couldn't even figure out the total correctly.(?) Cynically, Jeff Carr 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget? 

message: When flipping to the "talk" page of this article, I couldn't believe that this article is rated "B" quality.  There are editorial comments/opinions in the article that should not exist.  This article should be downgraded to "C" quality until edited by someone neutral.
bad wiki, bad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.43.45 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Downgraded to "C" until sourcing issues are addressed.  According to the assessment guide, "B" level articles should cite sources for "any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged".  Several specific instances are marked in the body of the article. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be downgraded to "C" quality until edited by someone neutral 

message: The groupings are not bizarre.  The first agency mentioned deals with private insurance companies.  The second one deals with labor relations.
Managed Health Care refers to "HMOs", which are part of the private health care sphere, not the public health system.
"Industrial" is an old term for "labor".  In Great Britain, they call strikes "industrial actions".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.243 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Bizarre 

message: Here is the Spanish page of the Courts of California WhisperToMe (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courts of California Spanish page 

message: Just got an email claiming the below were all agencies in California. You won't be surprised to learn that it was coupled with some frank political discussion. But just wanted to know how true this was. Some were universities, so it is kind of a "kitchen sink" type thing. But maybe some truth.
Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: About a third of the things listed are government programs rather than agencies (e.g., the Academic Performance Index), books (State Administrative Manual), abstract concepts rather than agencies (Jobs with the State of California, California Consumer Information), divisions of other agencies (California Adoptions Branch), don't exist any more (California Youth Authority), or are corruptions of real agency names (California Office of the President).  A lot of the agencies listed are actually part of the California Department of Consumer Affairs, where they share administrative back-office services.  But it is true that California has a lot of government agencies.   The state government has a list of agencies on its Web site. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Long list of California agencies

message: Apparently the Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 2012 became effective on July 3, 2012 and will become operative on July 1, 2013. It is a major government reorganization, establishing, disestablishing, merging, and demerging many state agencies, departments, commissions, and boards, including several large cabinet-level ones. The Little Hoover Commission has a nice report on the matter, replete with pictures and diagrams for simpletons like me. Also note there are several legislative acts that tweak the plan in certain respects, such as AB 1498 from the 2011-2012 session. Int21h (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  GRP 2 of 2012 

message: The opening sentence says "The government of California comprises a democratic republic..." My reaction was "huh?" A "republic" is a country. (See Democratic republic). California is not a country; it is a state in the democratic republic called the United States of America. Examples of better opening sentences found here at Wikipedia: 
*"The government of Utah is republican, with the powers of government being divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, each department having specific functions and responsibilities under the Utah Constitution." 
*"The government of the U.S. state of Oregon, as prescribed by the Oregon Constitution, is composed of three government branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. These branches operate in a manner similar to that of the federal government of the United States."
We could replace this weird claim with the actual language from the California constitution, article 3, section 1: "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase has been removed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your detailed analysis. It turned out that it wasn't just California that had this peculiar definition of the state as a "democratic republic"; I found it or variants of it at three or four other states and eventually removed them all. I think you may be right, that somebody with a secessionist (or at least 10th Amendment) bent added it, but it really doesn't seem to be supported by any reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic republic??? 

message: What are the rules concerning county and city governments and any conflict of laws? Do city ordinances take precedence over county ordinances or vice versa? I am assuming city ordinances concerning land use (zoning) take precedence, but what are the foundations for this? And why do cities contract policing with counties if the county must provide law enforcement anyways? Is it just for contractually mandated service minimums? Int21h (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of law between county and city 

message: Why isn't the Secretary of State shown here? There are eight statewide constitutional offices in California.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhhall (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secretary of State? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The 3 branch sections: executive, legislative, judicial should come together first, followed by Direct Democracy.
47.146.12.8 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct Democracy section should follow Judiciary