Barnidge: Initiatives let voters take the law into their own hands
- May 22, 2010
A COLUMNIST runs a risk writing about a subject as dry as ballot initiatives. It is not quite as numbing as Newton's third law, but the topic begs the reader to turn the page.
So let's spice this up: The reason that California ballots brim with initiatives — propositions, to you and me — is that the people believe their legislators are dithering boobs incapable of handling lawmaking.
OK, do we have your attention?
Initiatives are the ultimate exercise in democracy. They take issues straight to voters, eliminating the middle man. No Assembly or Senate vote. No veto by the governor. All that's needed is a majority of voters statewide.
When voters go to the polls in 16 days, they will consider five propositions, three referred by the Legislature and two deriving from the initiative process — a constitutional amendment imposing restrictions on new electricity providers (you'd vote for this only if you own a lot of PG&E stock) and a state law allowing insurance companies to base premiums on a driver's history of insurance coverage (beware: insurance companies favor this).
California voters have shaped the state's fortunes with initiatives. Prop. 13, in 1978, capped property taxes and required a two-thirds vote for tax increases. Prop. 140, in 1990, set term limits for Assembly members and state senators. Prop. 184, in 1994, established the three-strikes law.
Good or bad, there is no mistaking their effects.
It's simple enough to get an initiative on the ballot. Submit a proposition to the Attorney General, pay the $200 fee and collect enough signatures from registered voters — equal to 5 percent of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election for a law (433,971) or 8 percent for a constitutional amendment (694,354).
"We have the easiest initiative process in the nation," said David Baggins, professor of political science at Cal State East Bay.
The question is whether that is good. Baggins said there is no simple answer, but he likes what we have.
"It is the democratic quality of the state that made California a special place," he said. "It's a place where ideas start. And we sometimes bring the whole nation in a different direction."
One example is Prop. 215, from 1996, which legalized medical marijuana and set the ball rolling for other states.
Professor Jack Citrin, director of the institute of governmental studies at UC Berkeley, is not so fond of initiatives.
"Any group that feels it can't get its way in the Legislature simply can try this as an end run," he said. "In the end, you have voters dealing with complex matters that are difficult to comprehend. I don't think this is a good development."
California's initiatives began in 1911, partly as a safeguard against powerful corporations — Southern Pacific Railroad, especially — accustomed to getting their way.
"By linking power back to the people," Baggins said, "they were able to help regulate abusive corporations."
The irony is that 99 years later, powerful business operations now employ initiatives for their own benefit. With the expense of signature gathering and promotion, an initiative drive can cost millions of dollars. Who besides corporations has that kind of cash?
PG&E bankrolled Prop. 16, which would effectively eliminate municipal competition in power sales. Mercury Insurance threw its support behind Prop. 17, which affects auto insurance premiums.
There are other, less sinister flaws in lawmaking by proposition, which may explain why 26 states do not permit initiatives. Some initiatives have been ill-conceived, such as the one in 1986 that declared English the state's official language but provided no means of enforcement. Others have been contradictory, such as the failed 1996 campaign finance reform measure that inadvertently would have repealed a restriction on gifts to elected officials.
Some propositions that sound good turn out to be bad. The term-limits law produced a legislature short on institutional knowledge and long on inexperienced members, none of whom need be accountable later for decisions made today.
"That passed," said Citrin, "because of the widespread cynicism and contempt for politicians, but it didn't produce better government."
Baggins contends that a bad decision or two is a small price to pay for the voters' right to make law. He ranks the initiative process as the centerpiece of state government, suggesting California could get by with a part-time Legislature. (Most states do.)
"I think the people can make mistakes," he said, "and the Legislature can make mistakes. I am not convinced that the people make more mistakes than the Legislature."
The important thing, of course, is that we keep making mistakes.
That's what government is all about.