Money — not ‘the people’ — controls state ballot initiatives
Afew months ago, I attended a large political gathering. There, a gentleman was handing out flyers that read, “Abolish the Congress and replace it with direct citizen voting by phone or television.”
A few days later, a newly arrived transplant to Southern California wrote a letter to the Los Angeles Times. He said he was mystified by California’s method of writing and enacting laws by ballot initiative. He wondered what happened to the concept of laws being written by elected legislators.
The flyer and the letter represent polar opposite views about direct versus representative democracy.
The major complaint I hear about the initiative process is that it is dominated by those very interests it was originally designed to overcome. It’s a far cry from the vision Gov. Hiram Johnson had over a century ago, to take the power away from special interests. And sadly, with enough money, almost anything can make it on the California ballot.
The first problem is that proponents tend to write ballot measures as a wish list. Unlike the legislative process, which involves hearings, debates and compromise, drafters of initiatives often write extreme measures representing their own agenda in the hopes of boosting profits, raising their political profile or flattering themselves. Proposition 5 on this November’s ballot provides a good example. Had it passed, the measure would have taken upward of $1 billion a year away from local services such as fire protection and an additional $1 billion a year in local funding for California schools. Put on the ballot by the California Association of Realtors for the financial benefit of its members, it would have allowed people over 55 who buy more expensive homes to get a new property tax break.
Big spending on the “no” side will usually turn the tide on an initially popular measure. For example, Californians generally have a favorable view of rent control and early polling showed support for Proposition 10, which would have allowed cities and counties to impose rent control locally. But the real estate industry outspent proponents almost 3 to 1 to handily defeat the measure (61.7 percent to 38.3 percent).
Still, reforming this out-ofcontrol system will be difficult. First, there are widely divergent views of how best to do it. And there are powerful forces in this state opposed to any tinkering with the initiative process. Two of these forces are the political consultants and paid-signature-gathering firms that rake in millions on high-profile campaigns and think the system is just fine.
Today, paid signature gatherers can earn up to $5 per signature. One possible way to democratize the process would be to institute online signature gathering, which would allow grassroots groups to make it to the ballot without having to raise vast sums of money.
The give-and-take of the legislative process is a much better way to make public policy, especially on complex issues. For example, should California voters weigh in on the question of whether private-sector emergency ambulance employees should remain on call during work breaks, as Proposition 11 asked them to do?
True, we have to improve the legislative process by adopting real changes such as campaign finance reform. (Ironically, this is one reform that may have to be accomplished through the ballot process because the political establishment is wary of any changes in the way it conducts fundraising.) But once accomplished, the initiative may again be employed as it was prior to the passage of Proposition 13 some 40 years ago — infrequently.
I remain fearful of too much direct democracy. Think for a moment: Just how much of the Bill of Rights would we be left with if the person handing out the flyers calling for the abolition of Congress and direct citizen voting got his wish?
Roy Ulrich is a public interest lawyer and consumer advocate who lives in Berkeley.