Ballot initiatives have reshaped the lives of California citizens for almost 100 years, but the initiative process is now outmoded, complex, difficult for citizens to use and excessively dominated by money. In a new report by our organization, the Center for Governmental Studies (CGS), Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government, we conclude that California must update its system of “direct democracy” to bring it into the 21st Century. Reforms are needed to help citizens draft, circulate and vote more effectively and responsibly on initiatives that can dramatically affect the future of the state.
Initiatives have touched nearly all aspects of California life, from law enforcement to taxation to education. However, the process is almost the same as it was when Hiram Johnson proposed it in 1911.
Initiatives have appeared on the ballot in great numbers in the last few decades and initiatives continue to be a popular mode of policymaking in the state. In the 1990s, for example, 61 initiatives qualified for the ballot. Voters approved 39 percent of those measures. The number of ballot initiatives continues to climb. From 2000–2008, 63 initiatives qualified for the ballot. Voters approved 30 percent of those measures.
Currently, Californians serve as super-legislatures: writing, voting on and enacting legislation. If citizens are going to act like legislators, they should have some of the same tools as legislators, such as expert analyses and the right to amend or withdraw proposals before adoption.
Our recommendations would reduce the number of initiatives on the ballot and improve the language of those that make it to the ballot. Initiative proponents and legislators should have an opportunity to work together, by compromising to find legislative solutions.
All initiatives before going onto the ballot should be presented to the legislature. If initiative proponents and the legislature agree to legislation, the initiative will be taken off the ballot and passed by the legislature. If the proponents and the legislature don’t agree, the initiative automatically goes on the ballot. The proponent is in total control; if the proponent does not accept what the legislature wants to do, the measure appears on the ballot.
This process would have kept February’s Prop. 91 off the ballot. This initiative, dealing with transportation funds, was put before the voters even though the proponents had agreed with a legislative measure that was enacted. Although the proponents urged a no vote on the initiative, California voters still had to consider it.
Our second change improves the quality of initiatives. After the legislature has considered the measure and decided not to pass it, the proponents should be given the chance to amend the initiative provided the amendments further the purpose of the measure and the Attorney General approves the changes. During the circulation period and the legislature’s consideration, the proponents have probably found small things need to be fixed, just as legislators do when their bills are going through the legislative process.
Another major problem facing the initiative process is the extraordinary amount of money spent on initiatives. If you have $1.5 million, you can qualify almost anything. Effective campaigns can cost tens of millions of dollars, and some have reached $100 million. As a result, many times only the wealthiest individuals and organizations with the largest contributors can compete. Indeed, large contributions have too often dominated the process. For example, in 2006, two-thirds of all money to ballot measure committees came in amounts of $1 million or more. One contributor, real estate developer, film producer, and philanthropist Stephen Bing, even gave over $49 million to support one initiative, which sought to raise $4 billion in oil production taxes to help develop alternative fuels. We recommend limiting large contributions (over $100,000) to ballot measure committees.
As Democracy by Initiative details, several other critical improvements to the current process should be made. These include allowing constitutional revisions by initiative, improving voter information and lengthening the circulation period. In addition, while ballot pamphlets and the Secretary of State’s website have served as important sources of information, they could be used more effectively to communicate information to voters.
In sum, while California’s initiative process has functioned well, leading to the enactment of laws that have shaped Californian’s lives, the process is in need of reform. California’s initiative process should be updated, and it should be done by 2011, the 100th Anniversary of California’s adoption of the initiative process.