Paul Jacob, in his Townhall column, goes after California Republican gubernatorial frontrunner Meg Whitman for multiple statements criticizing the initiative process. "Obviously, Whitman very much wants Californians to cast a vote for her this year," Jacob writes. "And then, apparently, she wants to stop Californians from casting a vote on much of anything else in the future.
Jacob’s name carries great weight in part because he was the founder and organizer of the successful term limits movement in the U.S. Today he runs the Citizens in Charge Foundation, which is organizing nationwide to protect and expand direct democracy. (Full disclosure: Jacob and Citizens in Charge are leading participants in the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, a conference on initiative and referendum that I’m organizing this summer in San Francisco.)
Jacob himself has suffered for his commitment to direct democracy, having been indicted in Oklahoma three years ago for using out-of-state signature gatherers. Using such signatures isn’t a crime — and shouldn’t be. Eventually, all charges against Jacob and his co-defendants — the Oklahoma Three — were dismissed.
Jacob cites a couple of Whitman blasts at California’s ballot system, including her May comments ("In many ways, the proposition process has worn out its usefulness") and an MSNBC interview last week in which she said: "I mean, the referendum process, you know, dates back to 1918, I think. And it has its useful purpose, but there’s no question we have too many referendums on the ballot and too much spending has been, ah, you know, propositioned into process." Jacob cites this and a few other Whitman positions in concluding: "One has to ask Republicans: With friends like Meg Whitman, who needs enemies?"
Jacob is an unusually fierce defender of the initiative process. I for one believe the process is worth preserving but badly needs reforms to integrate direct democracy with representative democracy. Such reform should include the adoption of a legislative counterproposal for each initiative and systemic tweaks to produce more referendums (measures reversing legislative actions) and fewer initiatives (measures that seek to go around the legislature to enact laws or constitutional amendments).
But his criticism is likely to get some attention. A word to Whitman: if you’re going to tear out after direct democracy, you need to be better briefed. "The referendum process" dates to 1911, not 1918, as she said on MSNBC. And she confuses referendums with initiatives, describing them as if they are the same thing. California has very few referendums–fewer than 75 have even been filed in our state’s history.