---

Research Paper: The Dual Sovereignty of the California Constitution

Subject: The Conflict Between Executive Intent (The Governor) and Popular Ratification (The People) in the Formation and Amendment of the 1879 Constitution.

Abstract

The Constitution of California (1879) was born out of a fundamental conflict between the established government and the populace. While Governor William Irwin (1875–1880) initiated the call for a convention, he vehemently opposed the final document produced, arguing it was "illogical" and would drive capital out of the state. The ratification of the Constitution by the electorate, despite the Governor’s warnings, established a precedent of "Dual Sovereignty." This dynamic—where the "People’s Prayer" (expressed through ratification and later the initiative process) overrides the "Governor’s Prayer" (expressed through inaugural addresses and legislative agendas)—has become the defining characteristic of California politics. This paper analyzes this historical tension, tracking the divergence from Irwin’s original dissent to modern ballot initiatives where the electorate frequently overrules the sitting executive.

Historical Analysis

1. The 1879 Divergence: Governor Irwin prayed for specific reforms (railroad regulation, tax equalization) but believed the Constitutional Convention produced a "radical" document that threatened economic stability. He campaigned against its ratification. The People, driven by the Workingmen’s Party and anti-monopoly sentiment, ratified it over his objection.

2. The 1911 Revolution: Governor Hiram Johnson, recognizing that the "Elected People" (Legislature/Governor) were often captured by special interests (Southern Pacific Railroad), amended the Constitution to give the "People as Citizen" the permanent power to pray via the Initiative and Referendum. This institutionalized the conflict.

3. Modern Conflicts: The "People’s Prayer" has repeatedly clashed with the "Governor’s Prayer" in the modern era.

   • 1978 (Prop 13): The Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown opposed property tax caps; the People passed them by a landslide, fundamentally altering the state's financial structure against the government's will.

   • 2008 (Prop 8): The State Supreme Court and executive branch moved toward legalizing same-sex marriage; the People passed a constitutional amendment banning it (later overturned by federal courts).

   • 2020 (Prop 22): The Governor and Legislature passed AB5 to regulate gig economy work; the People (backed by corporate funding) voted to override the government’s law.

Conclusion

The California Constitution is not a static document of governance but a battlefield between the Executive’s administrative vision and the Electorate’s direct will. The "People’s Prayer" frequently contradicts the "Governor’s Prayer," leading to a disjointed constitutional framework that is arguably neither what Irwin intended nor what a cohesive government requires.

---

Blog Post

The Clash of Prayers: Governor Irwin vs. The People of California

By Paul Statchen CA

We often talk about the "Founding Fathers" of our state, but we rarely talk about the family feud that started it all.

When we look at our current Constitution—the Constitution of 1879—we assume it was a harmonious agreement between the government and the people. It was not. In fact, the man in charge, Governor William Irwin, hated it.

Irwin had a "prayer" for California. He wanted to fix the railroads and balance the taxes. But when the Constitutional Convention finished their work, Irwin looked at the document and said, "No." He believed it was too radical, too dangerous for the economy, and he actively campaigned against it.

But the People had a different prayer.

On May 7, 1879, the citizens of California went to the polls and ignored their Governor. They ratified the Constitution by a vote of 77,888 to 67,134.

This moment birthed the "Dual Sovereignty" we live under today. There are two "prayers" constantly fighting for control of our state:

1. The Governor’s Prayer: The vision of the elected administration (Laws, Budgets, Executive Orders).

2. The People’s Prayer: The direct will of the majority (Ratification, Propositions, Initiatives).

If we are going to understand why our state feels broken, we have to look at the track record of these two prayers colliding.

The Summations: The Governor vs. The People

Here is the track record of the major conflicts where the People’s Prayer (the Vote) overruled the Governor’s Prayer (the Administration).

Era	The Conflict	The Governor's Prayer (Elected Officials)	The People's Prayer (Majority Citizenry)	The Winner
1879	The Constitution Itself	Governor Irwin: "Do not ratify this. It is disjointed and will ruin our credit."	The People: "We want protection from the railroads and fair taxes. Ratify it."	THE PEOPLE (Constitution Adopted)
1911	The Power to Pray	The Legislature: "Only we should make laws."	The People (w/ Gov. Johnson): "We demand the right to bypass you via Initiative."	THE PEOPLE (Initiative Process Added)
1964	Housing Fairness (Prop 14)	Governor Brown (Sr.): "We must end housing discrimination (Rumford Act)."	The People: "We want the right to sell to whomever we choose."	THE PEOPLE (Later overturned by Feds)
1978	Property Taxes (Prop 13)	Governor Brown (Jr.) & Legislature: "We need this tax money for services; caps are dangerous."	The People: "Stop taxing us out of our homes. Cap it at 1%."	THE PEOPLE (Tax Code Rewritten)
1994	Social Services (Prop 187)	The Education/Health Systems: "We must provide services to all residents."	The People: "Cut off services to undocumented immigrants."	THE PEOPLE (Passed, but blocked by Courts)
2008	Marriage (Prop 8)	The State Courts/Legislature: "Marriage is a fundamental right for all."	The People: "Marriage is between a man and a woman."	THE PEOPLE (Passed, but blocked by Courts)
2020	Gig Economy (Prop 22)	Governor Newsom & Legislature (AB5): "Gig workers are employees and get benefits."	The People: "Keep them independent; we want cheap rides and flexibility."	THE PEOPLE (Legislature Overruled)

The Conflict Today

As you can see, the "Second Constitution" is a house divided.

• Irwin’s Prayer was for a logical, representative government.

• The People’s Prayer has been for direct intervention, often smashing the logic of the government to get immediate relief (lower taxes, specific rules).

We are left with a Frankenstein document. It has the skeleton of Irwin’s government but is covered in the scars of the People’s propositions. The Governor tries to steer the ship, but the People keep grabbing the wheel via the ballot box.

The Solution

If we cannot reconcile these two prayers—if the Governor cannot lead because the People do not trust him, and the People cannot legislate effectively because they are not the government—then this Second Constitution has failed both of them.

We have tried to "complete" Irwin’s prayer. We have tried to "complete" the People’s prayer. But perhaps they are incompatible.

Posit: If we cannot harmonize the Governor’s Prayer with the People’s Prayer under our current framework, then we are merely patching a sinking ship. We should consider making a New Constitution—one that finally answers the prayers of both the Governor and the People in a single, unified voice.

Paul Statchen CA, assisted with Google Gemini AI

February 2026