Like so many dated ideas with a populist basis, California’s
direct democracy, embodied in the current initiative and referendum
process, has outlived its usefulness. The initiative process may
have been a good idea when formally adopted in 1911, 99-years ago,
but it now fails the state where it counts the most
– at the bottom line.
Like so many dated ideas with a populist basis, California’s direct democracy, embodied in the current initiative and referendum process, has outlived its usefulness. The initiative process may have been a good idea when formally adopted in 1911, 99-years ago, but it now fails the state where it counts the most – at the bottom line.
I have been on both sides of many individual initiatives, but in the end, one has to evaluate the overall effect on our ability to govern ourselves and there the process fails the test.
According to the Secretary of State, 338 initiatives have qualified for the statewide California ballot and voters have approved 112, or 33 percent, from 1912 through January 2010. The California Constitution has been amended 46 times through the state’s initiative process and that is one of the biggest problems.
Constitutions are designed to be the legislative bedrock of our federal and state systems. When you mess with the bedrock without thoughtful consideration, the entire system shakes. The current initiative process does not promote thoughtful consideration. The public is often caught up in the big idea sold by the initiative’s supporters, but they are rarely familiar with the fine print. Like investment contracts, the devil is in the detailsÂ
Currently, only 694,354 valid signatures are required to qualify a state constitutional amendment initiative for the ballot – that is 8 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 California election. It is a low threshold and since paid petition circulators can obtain these signatures – a right protected by the U.S. Constitution – it is an easy hurdle to clear for what can be significant changes.
Additionally, the rate of constitutional changes appears to be increasing. In the 90 years between 1912 and December 2002, 38 constitutional amendments were approved, an average of one every 2.4 years. Between December 2002 to June 2010, less than eight years, eight constitutional amendments were approved, an average of one per year. Six of the 21 initiatives currently active for the November 2010 state ballot are constitutional amendments of one type or another. They may still fail or be withdrawn, but it shows that attempts to change the constitution are frequent.
Another significant problem is that the initiative process serves to let our elected representatives off the hook; it provides a ready-made excuse for their every failure. How many times have you heard a politician complain that the initiative process has tied their hands? As you read this, someone in Sacramento is teaching a course titled, “How to blame it on the public” and Chapter 1 is all about propositions.
Fixing the problem does not require the complete elimination of initiatives. The public still needs an emergency exit when things are very bad, but some logical modifications would make a big improvement. The first would be to raise the threshold for ballot qualification, especially for constitutional amendments; the 8-percent signature requirement is ridiculously low.
The second improvement would be to install a two-step voting procedure that would put some time in the process. This would warn the Legislature of the public’s concern on the issue. If the Legislature then heeds the warnings and fixes the problem, as they should, they will have done their job albeit with some prodding, and the public can back off on phase two. If they fail, they cannot use the excuse that they did not know what was coming.
These policy-wonk details do not have the pizzazz of a good political fight, but they are to our governance as oil changes are to your car’s engine, they are necessary to get it in good running order.
Marty Richman is a Hollister resident.
