I
suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the Economist Magazine’s series of articles this
week upbraiding California and the initiative process. You can look back over
the years and find the Economist’s disdain for Proposition 13. What is
surprising is how unbalanced the articles are. Hardly any supporters of the
initiative process were given a chance to speak and some of the outlandish
comments against the process were left unchallenged.
Here’s a
prime example: The article quoted former Assembly Speaker Karen Bass saying,
"any billionaire can change the state constitution. All he has to do is spend
money and lie to people." In elections just the past few years, ultra-rich
individuals T. Boone Pickens (Prop 10, Alternative Fuels, 2008) and Stephen
Bing (Prop 87, oil severance tax, 2006) and free spending companies PG&E
(Prop 16, two-thirds vote for public energy provider, 2010) and Mercury
Insurance (Prop 17, discount auto insurance, 2010) all failed to change the law
with their money. Yet, not a word to counter the inaccurate picture Bass paints
in that article.
The
articles overlook the fact that the initiative process is a check for the
people against a system that does not always representative their interests.
Complaining that the initiative can be a tool for special interests (I won’t
deny that) ignores the reality that special interests do quite well, thank you,
in the legislative process.
When
public employee unions can elect their own bosses, when the power of incumbency
and redistricting (at least in the past before Prop 11-an initiative, by the
way) shielded elected officials from real elections, when government reform is
often squashed by the political establishment, the initiative is a tool for the
people to speak their mind.
While
the Economist argues that under our initiative process there is no formula to
"cool the passions of the people" or to protect minorities, it ignores the role
courts play in our constitutional system. If minority rights are thwarted by
initiative the courts can, and have, stepped in over the years to declare
ballot initiatives unconstitutional.
I will agree that different interests, to settle
disputes, often use the initiative process.
As I wrote in this space two years ago, Carl von
Clausewitz, the great student of war, famously said war is "the continuation of
policy by other means." War is decisive. One side wins; one side loses. A firm
direction is taken as result of war. There is no compromising.
Like war, the initiative process is an establishment of policy by
extraordinary means. Initiatives are decisive. One side wins; one side loses, at
least in a policy sense. A firm direction is set. There is no compromising.
However, as I also have written here, the
initiative represents the feelings of the voters that representatives often
ignore. As pointed out by different scholars, Bruce Cain at UC Berkeley, John
Matsusaka of USC and Eugene Volkh of UCLA, California has, in essence, two
electorates. As Cain puts it, one electorate filtered though legislative
elections and the other, the direct electorate. The two often yield different
outcomes on issues because of the nature of the voting population in the
legislative districts as compared to the statewide voting bloc. Initiatives
appeal to statewide voters, who often express a different opinion than
legislators.
If the
power of the initiative were stripped from the people, a crucial check on the
political system would disappear. The people of California understand this
better than the Economist Magazine.