Be careful what you wish for . . . ballot initiatives and the law of unintended consequences

In the three decades since Proposition 13 reshaped the California political landscape, most voters have become more cynical about ballot initiatives and the simplistic claims and counter-claims that abound at election time. On average, only three out of every ten measures that make the ballot actually pass -- and many voters adopt a reflexive "when in doubt vote no" position.

Still, the accumulated legacy of one shot solutions lives on in a Constitution that has been amended more than 500 times in the last 140 years (the United States Constitution has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights was adopted more than 200 years ago.) While it's convenient in tough times to blame incumbents for California's fiscal crisis, California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George recently focused on the ease with which special interests can appeal directly to the voters through the initiative process:

"One Bar leader has observed: 'California’s current constitution rivals India’s for being the longest and most convoluted in the world . . . . [W]ith the cumulative dross of past voter initiatives incorporated, [it] is a document that assures chaos.' Much of this constitutional and statutory structure has been brought about not by legislative fact-gathering and deliberation, but rather by the approval of voter Initiative measures, often funded by special interests. These interests are allowed under the law to pay a bounty to signature-gatherers for each signer. Frequent amendments — coupled with the implicit threat of more in the future — have rendered our state government dysfunctional, at least in times of severe economic decline."

Writing in today's L.A. Times, journalist Tim Rutten notes that "the chances of repealing the initiative are somewhere south of zero." But repeal isn't the answer. If we are going to fix California's broken government, every flawed step in the initiative process needs to be addressed.

First, the writing. Today, any interest group, corporation, lobbyist or political operative can write an initiative, file it and begin collecting signatures.

That's nonsense. All sorts of sneaky or ambiguous provisions can be stuck in -- or slip through. If initiatives are "people's democracy," then the writing needs to be public. A system should be devised for public posting for some reasonable period of time -- enough for supporters, opponents, those affected and the press to comment and criticize. Laws passed by local city councils require public noticing of the language, public hearings and two separate public votes before becoming law.

Opening up the "black box" of initiative writing would give the public -- and elected officials -- the opportunity to suggest and pursue alternative solutions and compromises instead of "Yes" or "No" simplistic choices on the language of the special interest's choosing.

The next stage is petition gathering. Courts have struck down residency requirements for professional signature gatherers -- but why? It's against the law to pay someone for their vote or to get a legislator to introduce a bill -- why can't it be against the law to pay someone to collect your signature on an initiative petition? The "business" of commandeering signatures is poisonous -- it invites fraud and abuse as mercenaries try to convince shoppers to sign lengthy petitions they couldn't possibly read or fully evaluate on the spot.

The number of signatures required is also ridiculously low. While signers are told, "this is just to put it on the ballot," as soon as the signatures are turned in, they are magically transformed into evidence of widespread support for the proposed measure. Right. It's classic bait and switch. Duplicates, those ineligible to vote and even forged names are all lumped together as evidence of widespread support. Yet everyone in the political business knows it is not the validity of the measure but the money behind it that counts. At the State level, one million dollars guarantees you a place on the California ballot. Who has a million dollars? Not your typical average citizen.

Then all it takes is a majority vote to pass initiatives and even amendments to the State Constitution. To amend the US Constitution takes two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by the State legislatures of three quarters of the states. To amend the California Constitution: half the people voting on that measure in any given election. We all know it takes two-thirds vote in the legislature to raise taxes -- but to authorize or earmark spending is a majority vote at the polls. So special interests can propose costly programs, subsidies and laws through initiatives -- leaving it to the legislature and governor (or mayor and councilmembers) to figure out how to pay for them. What a scam!

Is there hope for reform? A new poll shows California voters actually favor requiring a two-thirds vote for amending the State Constitution. But the very same special interests that thrive on the initiative process will fight to block any reforms. "Don't mess with the people's right to vote!!!" they will scream, with the same shameless dishonesty that they employ at election time when it comes to convincing voters to buy their half-baked or Trojan Horse ballot measures.

Ventura voters are catching up on two initiatives that qualified for this year's election. Both are being debated with the usual war of signs and soundbites. Both require reading the fine print to understand -- and thoughtful consideration of their potential unintended consequences. How many voters will take the time? Is this really the best way to do the people's business?