This week, I’m in South Korea attending the 2nd Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, which brings together journalists, academics, and activists with an interest in initiative and referendum. (There are people from 25 countries here).
One presentation came from a representative of the so-called Venice Commission (aka The European Commission for Democracy Through Law), an independent think tank that advises the Council of Europe on constitutional matters. The Venice Commission has formulated a code of good conduct for direct democracy. It offers the most widely accepted international standard for initiative and referendum elections.
Reading it from the perspective of a Californian is sobering. The state doesn’t meet the standards in several regards:
-Administrative neutrality. The commission says that officials administering elections must be completely neutral. California’s secretary of state is a partisan office
– Avoiding plebiscites. The commission advises that elected officials shouldn’t sponsor their own measures (those are by nature plebiscites) and shouldn’t engage in “one-sided campaigns” for or against ballot measures. The commission should really take this up with the governor of California.
-Paid signature gathering should be prohibited in most cases, the commission says. “Payment from private sources for the collection of signatures for popular initiatives and
requests for referendums should, as a rule, be prohibited. If permitted, it must be regulated, with regard to both the total amount allocated and the amount paid to each person.” California fails twice here; we permit paid signature gathering and don’t regulate it.
-All signatures must be verified, the commission says. California permits random sampling.
-Counter proposals. The legislative body should be entitled to put a counter-proposal on the ballot next to each initiative that qualifies. California allows the legislature to add measures to the ballot, but does not permit a counter-proposal.
-Initiatives and referenda must be crystal clear. “The question put to the vote must be clear; it must not be misleading,” says the commission. Compliance with the commission standards would appear to require letting a non-partisan, neutral government office handle the drafting of measures. In California, of course, we let initiative sponsors do the drafting themselves. The commission advises against this course because of the high likelihood of errors.
-Balanced coverage of issues in the media. The commission says equal coverage must be guaranteed, including equal time on television. “Financial or other conditions for radio and television advertising must be the same for the proposal’s supporters and opponents,” advises the commission.
Do I agree with the commission on all these points? No. And U.S. court rulings would prevent compliance with the commission’s suggestions for equal media coverage, keeping public officials from sponsoring initiatives, and banning paid signature gathering.
But the other ideas are worth pursuing, and should be goals of the reform efforts currently under way: requiring that elections be administered by a non-partisan official (there’s an initiative circulating that would do that), verifying all signatures, forcing initiatives to be clearer, and providing for counter-proposals on the ballot.