If Democrats want to win 2/3 of the legislature, they should start acting like a party you might trust with 2/3 of the legislature.
If they ever want to fix the governing system of California to restore majority accountability, they should start acting like people you would trust to reform the governing system.
It’s not going to be enough to point out that the other guys are nuts.
In this context, the public consideration by Democrats (pushed by their tactically acute but strategically silly labor allies) of a last-minute bill to push initiatives Democrats don’t like from the June to November ballots is doubly dangerous.
The move won’t get very far. And it’s guaranteed to sow doubts about Democrats – specifically about whether they respect the people’s will. And this is the lesser of the dangers – because doubts about Democrats are merely the party’s problem.
The move is also likely to sow doubts, and cynicism, about broad – and necessary – reforms of the initiative process. And that’s everybody’s problem.
The Democrats think they are merely answering Republican abuse of their political leverage with their own maximizing of leverage. But the mother rule applies here, and that rule is:
As your mother probably told you, just because your political opponent is behaving like a mother….er doesn’t mean it’s in your best interest to behave like a mother….er.
The distrust and cynicism that will linger from this maneuver will merely create more obstacles to reform– and there are too many such obstacles already.
Most maddeningly, this labor-Democratic move unintentionally points in the direction of what would be a good reform: a more flexible election calendar for ballot initiatives.
It should be easier to move initiatives around on ballots – but not in the service of political advantage. It should be done in the service of what is best for voters. And the Democrats’ move is not good for voters. Flooding a November ballot with multiple initiatives – and leaving June barren – is sure to deepen confusion, lessen scrutiny of initiatives, and add to the peril that could be done to the governing system next year.
(And before Democrats howl in objection, let me remind them of this: you guys are the same crowd that told us just last year that Prop 25 would make the budget better. I rest my case).
So what would be a good policy? Follow the lead of the Swiss – the original inspiration for our direct democracy – and construct a flexible election system for ballot measures—that’s entirely separate of the elections on candidate campaigns. Such a system would permit votes on ballot measures – and ballot measures only — as often as four times a year, every year. The legislature might even have a role in determining which measures go on which ballot – so long as they were dealt with in a timely fashion, and in service of limiting the number of measures on each ballot to no more than two or three. Voters wouldn’t be overwhelmed.
Such a system would offer the best environment for making decisions on initiatives. It’s the kind of system that a state serious about direct democracy would have. But, of course, as we can see by the Democrats’ gamesmanship, this state is not serious about direct democracy.