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.

FPPC looks to clean up the initiative gathering money bonanza

by Brian Leubitz

It was rule-making week over at the FPPC, and they served up a few rules of note. Starting with something on the initiative front:

The people who pay for petition drives in support of statewide ballot measures can no longer hide their identity, thanks to a regulation adopted by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission on Thursday.(SDUT)

Anybody who drops more than $100K on signature gathering, which won’t really get you too far these days, must now report.

On another front, political committees that send out emails must now identify themselves. It seems shocking that this wasn’t the case before, but apparently a few tricksters sent out an email last cycle signed only as “The Hardy Boys” and “Nancy Drew”. Cute.

There is still much work to be done on initiative reform. For most folks who sign the form, the last thing they are going to think to do is look at Cal-Access to see who is paying the gatherers. But, baby steps forward are better than no steps.

Measure has broad support from unlikely sources

by Brian Leubitz

Since 2000, we have executed a total of 6 murderers in California=CA&sex_1=All&federal=All&foreigner=All&juvenile=All&volunteer=All]. The last of those was a 76 year old man in 2006. Since then, for a variety of reasons we have had no executions.  But meanwhile we have been warehousing criminals at the exorbitant costs for death row.  

And now it appears that the voters of California will have another decision point on the death penalty in November:

For the third time in 40 years, Californians will likely vote in November on the death penalty, a practice that has had at least as much impact on the state’s politics as on its institutions of crime and punishment.

Opponents of capital punishment said Thursday they were submitting 800,000 signatures on petitions for an initiative to close the nation’s largest Death Row, which has 725 condemned prisoners. The measure needs 504,760 valid signatures to make the ballot.

“California voters are ready to replace the death penalty with life in prison with no chance of parole,” declared Jeanne Woodford, who oversaw four executions as warden of San Quentin State Prison. She now heads the anti-capital-punishment group Death Penalty Focus. ([SF Chronicle

Along with Woodford, the initiative also has the support of Ron Briggs, the author of the death penalty initiative in 1978 that reinstated the punishment. And as he said in the LA Times on Feb 12, the death penalty “simply does not work”:

The ineffective legal beast created by California’s death penalty laws costs taxpayers more than $100 million annually and ties up the lives of prosecutors and victims who could be moving on to other things.

We thought our 1978 initiative created a system to support victims’ families. It didn’t. The only people benefiting today are the lawyers who handle expensive appeals and the criminals who are able to keep their cases alive interminably.

The Briggs death penalty law in California simply does not work.

Perhaps this time we can take one step towards a humane state while also addressing our fiscal concerns.

And deceptive signature gathering practices abound…

by Brian Leubitz

Last week, I ran into Safeway to grab a few groceries and saw the various assortment of your typical signature gatherers. I’m always intrigued to see what they are pushing, and how hard they are pushing it, so I took a look.

It looked like the one who approached me had a couple of clipboards but she only asked me about one, a measure to “repeal the new districts proposed by the NAACP.”

“Interesting,” I said, “because that measure is in fact paid for by the California Republican Party. They have already pumped more than a half a million dollars into it.”

“Oh, that’s not what they told me. They told me it was from the NAACP and Equality California.”

“Well,” I said, “that just isn’t true, and you probably shouldn’t be telling people that.”

I was in a bit of a rush so I ran in and grabbed my few groceries. As I was headed out, I saw the signature gatherer speak to another gentleman.  I quickly told him that it was paid for by the Republican party and he immediately said no thanks.

That’s when the story gets more interesting, as the other signature gatherer decides to tell me that it was Equality California that hated the Senate maps.  I assured him that was not true and that I am in fairly regular contact with EQCA.  He would not take no for an answer and kept telling me that Equality California was paying for this.  That is somewhat laughable as it fairly well-known that EQCA is having some serious money issues and could not consider funding something like that even if they were against the maps. (Which, as far as I know, they are not.)

But, rest assured, dear reader, that it was the CRP and their friends that are trying to put the referendum on the ballot. The irony that their one time savior, Arnold Schwarzenegger, put this thing on the ballot is kind of funny.  But, now the right-wing interests are out to get it:

The financial woes of the California Republican Party have been well documented. The state GOP had just over $200,000 in the bank as of July 1, but in recent days, it has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into an effort to repeal the new state Senate district lines drawn by an independent commission earlier this year.

The source of that money has been the source of some speculation in Capitol circles since it began moving late last week. Jeff Green, a spokesman for George Joseph, the head of Mercury Insurance, confirmed Tuesday that Joseph wrote the state party a $1-million check to specifically fund the state party’s efforts to have those Senate district lines redrawn. (LA Times)

Joseph also funded last year’s Prop 17, the skeezy insurance measure that would discriminate against drivers that dropped their coverage for whatever reason. If they do get the entirety of this million bucks to the signature gatherers, they have a decent shot at qualifying, but it is far from guaranteed. They have to get 504,000 valid signatures by Nov. 13.

Now, the California Supreme Court today unanimously said that the Senate and Congressional maps are valid under the state and federal constitutions.  If the CRP is successful in gathering enough signatures, it will then be up to the Court to decide which maps the state should use in June when the referendum will take place.  They could either have their own drawn up by a special master, or just use the maps the commission drew up.  It certainly wouldn’t shock me to see them just use the Commission’s maps even if it does go to a referendum.  And, of course if the referendum goes through, well, all hell breaks loose and the Court has to come up with a new map.

Broad coalition will work towards ending the death penalty in California

by Brian Leubitz

It is often said that California voters are attached to the death penalty, that they would never vote against it.  That something like 2/3 of voters support it in concept.  But reality is far different from concept, and voters know that.  We don’t actually carry out the death penalty, yet we spend millions of dollars prosecuting it.

It’s time for something different.

Today a statewide coalition of law enforcement, murder victim family members, exonerees and community groups announced the launch of signature gathering for the SAFE California Act (the Savings, Accountability and Full Enforcement for California Act), a ballot initiative that will replace the death penalty with life in prison without possibility of parole.   The SAFE California Act will save California taxpayers millions of dollars, protect the innocent from execution, and direct funds to local law enforcement to solve more rapes and murders.

Over the last thirty-three years, we have spent something on the order of $4 billion pursuing the death penalty, but executed only thirteen prisoners.  That money could have gone to solving some of the 46% of murders or 56% of rapes that go unsolved. Or it could have gone into prevention efforts that actually lower the crime rate.

Now is the time to end the death penalty. We can help save our budget, our prisons, and make us all safer at the same time. This is the right answer for California.

Legislation waits for Governor’s yay or nay

by Brian Leubitz

During that long legislative session, the legislature sent on a number of notable bills to consider.  However, none will get the attention of SB202, which will push initiatives put on the ballot by signature back where they should have been in the first place: the general election.

When the idea came up a few weeks ago, CalBuzz did a nice look at the history of initiative timing.  Long story short, signature based initiatives were always on either a special election called by the governor or the general election.  The constitution did not envision a raft of them on various primary elections.

Of course, what Jerry Brown will do with this measure is never an easy question.  You would think that he would support this measure, but there are several measures that looked set for approval that met Brown’s veto stamp.  But, if it does go through, the two measures that have already qualified will stay on the June ballot.  However, I’m sure the measures in question, a term limits reform that switches all terms to 12 years and the tobacco tax for cancer, would rather be on a November ballot.

The other big news was that the Amazon deal was also approved by the Legislature.  The deal was hammered out a few days ago and remains basically unchanged since then.

In other legislation, Jerry will also see legislation on:

You can find more examples at the Bee’s Capitol Alert.

Reform would force Secretary of State to hew to state Constitutional requirements

California Constitution, Art. II, Sec 8(c)

(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the  next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election.  The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.

That would be the founding document of our state government, with a requirement that initiatives gathering sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot be placed on the next general election.  However, over the years, as the Legislature has put measure after measure on primary ballots for expediency, or whatever reason, and the various secretaries of state over the past 40 years just put the signature-based initiatives on the primary ballot. Ho-Hum.

Except that really isn’t what the Constitution states, and there is a good reason for that.  Primary elections have wildly shifting electorates, in good ways and bad.  Of course, the June primary this year is just one such example.  The Republican base is going to be motivated, or at least somewhat motivated, while Democrats don’t have a presidential primary, as of yet, to get excited.

And, as you may know, “paycheck deception” is now headed to the ballot.  And given that they have now pulled the measure off the streets, it seems likely that they have the signatures.  Paycheck deceptions not only threatens the power of labor, but also of the Democratic party.  So, you know, the Legislature is getting some pleas from labor to help pull the initiative system back to 1971:

Democratic legislators are considering an 11th hour bill that would shift all initiative ballot measures to the November ballot — a move that, if enacted, would help their union allies stave off some measures they oppose.(SacBee)

Thing is, we probably never should have strayed from the Constitution, and now that we’ve let it go for this long, we look very kind of strange making the big change now.  But, the Constitution is the Constitution, and getting the SoS to act like Art. II exists seems like a reasonable goal no matter how the winds of a particular election are blowing at our backs or into our face.

UPDATE: CalBuzz ran a story with a bunch of background on the legal definitions.

Coalition aims to repeal death penalty, save a billion dollars

by Brian Leubitz

For a few months now, Sen. Loni Hancock has been working diligently on moving SB 490 through the legislative process. The bill, which would put a ballot measure on the November ballot, would have asked the voters whether it was time to eliminate the death penalty.  And she was able to get the bill to fly through the Senate on a 39-0 vote. However, the bill stalled at the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and at this point, the odds are looking quite long for anything to actually happen before 2012.

Of course, in California there is always another option: the signature route.  And that is exactly what the California Taxpayers for Justice, a coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victim advocates, and individuals exonerated from wrongful conviction, has in mind.

When legislation to let California voters decide whether to keep the death penalty got shelved last week, death penalty opponents vowed to launch a ballot initiative anyway. They’re keeping their promise. California Taxpayers for Justice is unveiling the SAFE California Act, which would replace capital punishment with life imprisonment without parole. … Proponents of the initiative say that replacing the death penalty with life behind bars without parole would free up money for local law enforcement, victim compensation and schools. (SacBee)

To be clear, this is hardly some lightweight group here.  The coalition press conference will feature former LA District Attorny Gil Garcetti and former CDCR boss and San Quentin warden Jeanne Woodford discussing the need to end the death penalty.

But, the argument this time will focus as much on cost savings as it will on morality.  While most progressives find the morality argument plenty strong to make the case, the financial side of the debate is nothing to be ignored.  By ending the death penalty, we could save $1 Billion over five years. That is money that can be better spent on education, or home health care, or any number of other priorities that have the long-term benefits that the death penalty, in study after study, has shown to lack.  In other words, the death penalty accomplishes far too little (if anything) in terms of crime prevention, and costs far too much.

But the polling numbers still make this an uphill climb.  As recently as last year, polling showed well over 60% of Californians support the death penalty.  The question now is will the financial argument be strong enough to break through, and will the opponents of the death penalty be able to raise the money to get this measure on the ballot and into a strong campaign.  We’re talking about at least $1-1.5 million to get it on the ballot, and at least another 7-10 for a strong campaign.

So, is now the time? I guess we’ll see.