Last month, when New York Gov. George Pataki, one eye cast toward a future Republican presidential primary, vetoed a state budget that included tax increases, it took the state's legislators, Democrats and Republicans, less than 24 hours to override Pataki's veto. In New York they now hate Pataki almost as much as Californians hate Gov. Gray Davis.

There's a lesson here for California. Maybe Davis deserves to be recalled, maybe not. But the New York story suggests that in California, the fractious, nonperforming Legislature deserves recall at least as much.

Most people will give you two quick reasons for the mess: term limits and partisan gerrymandering. Both immunize legislators from any serious accountability to voters, particularly the middle-of-the-road voters who count for little in the party primaries that are now the only real elections in most California districts.

But there's another reason as well -- a set of constitutional rules that make it easy for legislators to dodge responsibility. At the top of that list are the provisions that require the Legislature to enact budgets and tax increases by a supermajority. California is one of three states in the union to have a two-thirds budget requirement.

The rule means that political minorities, in this case the Republicans, can veto any budget that they don't approve of, as they now are. It means that both parties can use the resulting fog to avoid blame and dodge the tough decisions that real compromise requires. It means that politicians can threaten gridlock to serve their own interests and drive up spending.

In 1991-92, when Republican Pete Wilson was governor, the two parties agreed to close a $14 billion deficit by cutting spending and raising taxes in roughly equal amounts. But that was before "no new taxes" -- or even restoration of old taxes approved by former Republican governors such as Wilson -- became the GOP's code of honor, and before GOP leaders threatened defectors with political execution.

The Legislature, of course, isn't going to get recalled. But last week, petition circulators working for a group of major public employee unions, Health Access and the League of Women Voters started collecting signatures for their Budget Accountability Act (BAA), a proposed initiative that would lower the margin required to enact budgets and raise taxes to 55 percent.

The measure had been delayed and slightly reworded to neutralize the possible effects of a competing poison pill initiative being readied by the Chamber of Commerce to overturn BAA even if it passed. But the poison pill has been withdrawn; the chamber now says it will fight BAA directly. Nonetheless, the complex maneuvers that the chamber's aborted initiatives set in motion haven't ended.

Linked to BAA, and also going out for signatures soon, is a proposed Corporate Tax Accountability Act sponsored by the same groups. The measure would permit the Legislature to repeal all corporate tax loopholes by the same vote margin -- virtually always a simple majority -- by which they were written into law in the first place. The loopholes, particularly one that allows out-of-state corporations to duck hundreds of millions in California taxes, probably save those companies (and thus cost California) about $1.5 billion a year.

It may not necessarily appear on the ballot. The proposal, managed by Lenny Goldberg, a lobbyist for labor groups and one of the most inventive political operatives in Sacramento, enjoys strong support in focus groups.

But it could be used as a bargaining chip to trade to the business community for its neutrality on -- and perhaps even its support for -- BAA. If the deep pockets don't oppose BAA, the loophole initiative might not be filed.

Goldberg has worked such trades before. He knows it may be a deal that the business community might find hard to refuse.

BAA has a string of provisions beyond the 55 percent budget and tax threshold:

• A section that would permanently dock the pay of the governor for each day beyond the state's June 15 constitutional deadline that a budget wasn't passed.

• A summary in every ballot pamphlet of how the state spends its money and a Web site showing the votes of every legislator on budget-related items.

• Creation of a rainy-day reserve and a prohibition against threats or punishment by colleagues of legislators for their votes on budget or tax items.

The last provision is troublesome. Parties have long maintained discipline -- and thus accountability -- with rewards or threats of punishment. Only rarely has that included supporting an opponent in the primary against an offending member. More frequently it involves committee assignments or office space.

Nor is the 55 percent threshold ideal. It's a compromise like the one voters approved last year lowering the margin required to pass local school bonds. But in trying to get some accountability and giving Californians comprehensible information on budget politics, a 55 percent loaf is better than nothing.