Tag Archives: initiative reform

Uncategorized

PPIC’s New Report Cites Voter Desire for Initiative Reform

Voters favor the overall process, but see value in tweaks

by Brian Leubitz

The Public Policy Institute of California is out with a new report on the California initiative process (PDF). The quick takeaway: voters love it, but want to change it. In fact, the percentage of voters saying that they like the system has stayed about the same over the past ten years. In their most recent poll, 72% of voters supported the system. Despite the fact that most voters spend a few spare minutes about the proposed changes, about six in 10 adults (57%) and likely voters (60%) say that the decisions made by California voters are probably better than those made by the governor and state legislature. All that positivity despite the fact that 63% of likely voters think that special interests have too much control over the initiative system and 67% feel that there are too many initiatives. So, there’s that.

But, in the end we do pay those legislators to become experts on public policy, so why not use them? And it turns out that the voters aren’t actually against that, and favor two common sense reforms that would align the use of the plebiscite with our representative democracy:

Three in four adults say that the initiative process is in need of either major (40%) or minor changes (36%), while only 17 percent say it is fine the way it is.

*** **** ***

Eight in 10 (79% adults, 78% likely voters) favor having a period of time during which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to look for a compromise solution before an initiative goes to the ballot. … Overwhelming majorities of adults (76%) and likely voters (77%) support a system of review and revision for proposed initiatives to try to avoid legal issues and drafting errors. … Lowering the vote threshold for the legislature to place tax measures on the ballot has solid majority support among adults (61%) and likely voters (60%). (PPIC Report)

Those first two reforms would go a long way toward reducing the number of measures actually on the ballot. While some subject matters will never really have the support in the legislature and will end up at the ballot, the time for public discussion in the legislature will be positive either way. Of course, that also raises another route for special interests to control the debate, as they can force issues onto the legislative docket even if they don’t plan on supporting the measure at the ballot.

The final issue is a little more surprising, as voters think that they should get the chance to vote on revenue issues more frequently. Perhaps this is somewhat a function of the Governor’s campaign promises to bring his taxes to the ballot, but the myth of the state’s love for supermajorities takes another blow here.  While it still won’t allow revenues to get a simple majority in the legislature, which would be a true representative democracy, it is a step in the right direction.

All of these changes would require measures on the ballot after approval from the legislature or signature gathering. It would not be a big shock for reforms along these lines show up in the next legislative session, but as constitutional reforms, they would still face challenges to getting to the ballot.

Jerry Brown

Governor Vetoes Signature Gatherer Reform

12 Comments

Governor claims reform too “dramatic”

by Brian Leubitz

Last week, Justine Sarver wrote about SB 168, a fairly simple reform that would ban paying initiative signature gatherers per signature.  As Justine noted, the reform would reduce the risk of signature fraud and offer more secure employment with a living wage.  However, yesterday Governor Brown vetoed the bill:

Brown wasn’t swayed: “This is a dramatic change to a long established democratic process in California,” he wrote. “I am not persuaded that the unintended consequences won’t be worse than the abuse the bill aims to prevent.”

Corbett, in a statement, said she was disappointed in the veto. “Direct democracy can only work if voters know what they are signing and voting upon,” she said. “This law has proved to be an effective remedy in other states to help prevent fraud without making it more difficult to put initiatives on the ballot.” (SacBee)

Hopefully the bill will come back in some form or fashion.  As it stands now, the process needs some “dramatic” change.

Uncategorized

In Which I Am A Luddite

4 Comments

I love technology. Love, love, love. Gadgets, computers, phones, all of it. If it has electrons powering its innards, I’m probably going to like it.

Yet, this video chills me to the core. Probably not for its technological aspects so much as for what it portends. In it, a company called VeraFirma shows off its method of signing petitions via the iPhone. In the abstract and in principle, it’s a pretty neat idea.  Verafirma has done a bunch of research, and thinks these signatures should be valid. Sec. of State Bowen has not yet commented on the issue, so nobody knows for sure.  

However, one thing that is certain? If this method of signing a petition is upheld, the current requirements for getting something on the ballot are far too low.  If this method is allowed, we will see a free for all of initiatives over the next few years until we finally do something about the initiative system.  Think you’ve seen a lot of parental notification measures? Expect them on every ballot. Likewise for marriage equality and other gay rights issues.  As soon as marriage equality passes, the LGBT community will be expected to defend that right at every election. The labor movement will see constant ballot attacks, as will consumers.

In fact, where this is getting its first go? Well, with an initiative to ban public employee unions from using dues money for politics. The measure is being pushed by the state’s many right-wing anti-tax “tea party” fringe. It is certainly an interesting choice for a company that is run by three Democrats with a history in state politics. Most notably, Jude Barry became very prominent with his role in the Dean campaign, and then ran Steve Westly’s 2006 campaign for governor.

Sure, there will be some progressive measures, but a system that lessens the cost of ballot access to something any two-bit organization with an email list can accomplish? Well, let’s face it folks, we’re not Athens, we’re too big, we have far too many voters for us all to properly consider each issue.  We can’t handle that much direct democracy.

I love the spirit of innovation, and the excitement that future holds. Yet, we must also look at the bigger questions of why and why now?  

California

Provide CPR for California – End The Crisis

Note: I’m proud to work for the Courage Campaign

The current budget crisis has been going on since at least mid-2007. It is a reinflammation of the 2002-04 crisis that brought down Gray Davis. Which was a recurrence of the budget crisis of the early 1990s. Which was a recurrence of the 1980s crisis, generated by Prop 13.

It has become painfully clear that the budget crisis is the result of a broken government. The 2/3rds rule has made the state nearly ungovernable. The initiative process isn’t much help. Susceptible to those with enough money to game the system, and hostile to those with good ideas, it’s worsened the governance crisis. How many times has Don Sebastiani put parental notification on the ballot?

We need not just a better budget, but a better government. Conservatives have succeeded in changing the rules to favor their ideologies. It’s time progressives pushed back. If we want to implement the progressive agenda, from universal health care to global warming solutions to affordable education and job creation, we need to fix the structural obstacles that have blocked those policy solutions.

That’s why the Courage Campaign – with help from many Caliticians – has unveiled its rescue plan for state government. We’re calling it CPR for California – the Citizens Plan to Reform California. It includes the following progressive reforms (the full document can be read here, with details on each of the proposals listed below):

• Clean money

• Term limits reform

• Universal voter registration

• Initiative financial disclosure

• Pursue campaign contribution limits

• Legislative review/consultation of initiatives

• Signature reform

• Eliminate 2/3rds rule

• Biennial budgeting

• Long-term budgets

• Restore marriage equality

• Protect the Constitution

All these reforms are good ones. But which ones should come first? We’re asking Californians to rank their top 3 priorities – and we’ve provided space for folks to propose their own government reforms.

CPR for California will be a progressive reform agenda for California, much like the 1911 progressive reforms that attempted to return power to the people. It will help pressure legislators to support the right reforms. It can serve as an agenda for a constitutional convention, should that happen.

Obviously some of these have already been proposed in the new Legislative session – public support for CPR for California can help create momentum for those progressive reforms.

At Netroots Nation in July, Van Jones explained the need for progressives to move from opposition to proposition. That’s what CPR for California is. Our chance to shift the terms of debate about democracy and government in California. Conservatives frequently frame government in hostile terms, and have set up rules that make that framing believable.

If we’re going to solve the budget crisis and build the kind of public services we deserve, Californians need a government that is democratic, accountable, and effective. CPR for California is a first step in making that happen.

Over the flip is the email we sent to over 100,000 Courage Campaign members today:

Dear Robert,

California is experiencing an unprecedented crisis, facing a $28 billion budget deficit over the next 19 months.

For thirty years, we have careened from budget crisis to budget crisis as the legislature becomes increasingly gridlocked and held hostage by a right-wing minority. Every election, millions of dollars are spent on meaningless or damaging ballot initiatives that often make matters worse. The voice of the voter is drowned by a sea of money, dispiriting the average Californian.

Before we can tackle the economic and environmental problems that bedevil our state, we must fix the broken politics that produced these problems.

Only we, the people, can revive California.

That’s why the Courage Campaign is launching the Citizens Plan to Reform California — “CPR for California” — a holistic package of reforms that can heal our sick government, including initiative reform, budget reform, clean money, and restoring equal rights.

We need your vote ASAP. In just a few minutes, you can rank the top three priorities we should place on our “CPR for California” agenda this year. Just click here to read the plan and tell us what YOU think are the most important reforms we should campaign for in 2009 to fix our broken state:

http://action.couragecampaign….

Arnold Schwarzenegger can’t rescue California. Five years after winning the recall election, his promises to “rise above politics as usual” have led to just the opposite: an impotent governor who talks big, but made our budget crisis far worse than what he inherited.

The state legislature can’t rescue California. The leadership’s hands are tied by the 2/3rds budget rule that allows a small minority of extremist Republicans to hold Californians hostage to the conservative ideology made famous by Grover Norquist’s vision of “drowning government in the bathtub.”

Only you can rescue California.

Working together, we can administer some progressive CPR to our state. Just click here to check out our “CPR for California” plan and tell us the top three priorities we should focus on in 2009. You can also suggest your own reforms to rescue our broken state:

http://action.couragecampaign….

When George W. Bush and his Republican friends broke the federal government, the American people organized to elect Barack Obama to fix the mess.

It is time for the people of California to do the same for California. Nobody else is going to step up and do it for us.

Thank you for helping us make California a more progressive, governable state.

Robert Cruickshank

Public Policy Director

Uncategorized

PPIC Poll: CA Voters Like Bi-Partisanship and Are Open To Initiative Reform

1 Comment

(Cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign)

The Public Policy Institute of California released its post-election poll of California general election voters this week and the results seem to point to yet another reason Schwarzenegger didn't get swept away in the Democratic wave this year: voters really like the way the governor and the Democrats in the legislature played nice this year.

George Skelton breaks it down:

The poll showed that 53% of voters — including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents — approve of the way the Legislature and governor "are working together in making public policy." Only 36% disapprove.

For more on this and some promising signs that voters will support some common sense ballot initiative reforms, join me over the flip.

To give  you a sense of how far Schwarzenegger has come since his smackdown last year, in 2005 the numbers were 14% approve and 76% disapprove.

A similar dynamic exists among the job approval numbers.

Schwarzenegger's job performance now is approved by 60% of voters, compared to 39% a year ago. The Legislature's approval still is a relatively low 36%, but it's way up from 20%.

No wonder Arnold has annointed himself the poster boy of bi-partisan moderation.

Far more surprising than these numbers were the results regarding the initiative process.

A majority of voters, 52%, have confidence in the legislature to make policy in Sacramento. Interestingly, the exact same percentage has confidence in California voters to set policy at the ballot box via voter referendums. An odd statistic, don't you think, since in election after election voters reject most initiatives and in fact are quite content to set no policy at all.

Yet a solid 69% of voters are either very or somewhat satisfied with the way the initiative process works. That's not to say they don't think there's room for reform, however. The "somewhat satisfied" folks are a full half of the electorate and likely fuel the 67% desire for some change to the initiative process (35% want major reforms, 32% want just minor reforms.) That's good news for those of us who seek an overhaul.

In addition, voters signal their ability to separate their opinion of the initiative process in general, which they like, from their perception of  the initiatives on this year's ballot specifically, which they did not.

  • 63% of voters feel the wording of the ballot initiatives was "too complicated and confusing."  
  • 60% felt 13 initiatives was too many (by contrast, in 2005 only 41% felt 8 initiatives was too many.)
  • 78% of voters felt that too much money was spent by initiative campaigns, especially on 86 & 87.

As for what reforms voters would support:

  • 80% of voters would support a period of time devoted to the initiative sponsor and the legislature meeting to try to come to a compromise.
  • 84% support "increasing public disclosure of funding sources of signature gathering and initiative campaigns."

This tells me that voters don't want to scrap the initiative process, they like having a say. But they see that the process needs to be reformed and they provide a blueprint for some real common sense reforms that can improve the process. The question is, will they approve them in the form of an inititive to reform the initiative process or will they yet again shoot another decent one down at the ballot box?

California

Will there be any redistricting reform this year?

Maybe, as long as there’s a bill on term limits, campaign finance, etc.  There is a push, especially in the Senate, to make one giant deal out of several issues: campaign finance, redistricting, initiative reform, and term limits.

On their own, none of the four major proposed electoral reforms moving through the Legislature would seem to have much of a chance. But with separate motivations, Democratic legislative leaders are helping to guide all of the measures through the committees, and they may all be linked together by the time the legislative session is over.

Though still a long shot, it is increasingly likely that efforts to change the state’s election-financing system, the state’s initiative process, the way the state draws legislative and Congressional districts and a possible tweak of the state term-limits law may all be folded into a monster end-of-session package. Though the measures would not literally be linked, there are now talks under way to try to move all four measures as a group. (Capitol Weekly 4/13/106)

More on the flip.

Of course most of these reforms, if not all, would need to get approved by voters, individually.  The discussion of combining term limits with redistricting has been going on for quite a while.  I am a little surprised at the initiative reform getting thrown in there.  However, I think the idea of initiative reform is a great one.  As I understand it, ACA 18 makes it easier for the Legislature to work with proponents of initiatives to address their concerns.  To me, this would be a great idea.  Perhaps it would allow the Legislature to actually participate in the governance of the state.

The campaign financing issue is coming to a head because of the California Nurses Association’s efforts towards getting a public financing initiative on the November ballot.  Lori Hancock (D-Berkeley) has a bill (AB 583) that goes most of the way towards that goal.  I’m not sure how CNA feels about it, but I’m guessing that they might satisfied with that bill.  However, it passed the Assembly with no GOP votes, so it faces a tough road.  Public financing might stand a better chance in the initiative process.  It’s one reason why I’m a little confused why the GOP hasn’t begun working towards dealing a compromise plan.  Perhaps they just love their dirty money. (Perhaps—Hah!)

Now, the combining of the 4 plans might help the less popular programs, like finance and initiative reform.  You would think softening the term limits would be popular with all of the legislators, but you never know.  Maybe Perata wants to trade redistricting for public financing and initiative reform.  Is it a trade the GOP is willing to make? I guess we’ll see in the upcoming months.