A Tool for the Grass Roots

There is little prospect of substantial reform of California’s initiative process, but the next best thing is a proposal by the League of Women Voters providing the alternative of an indirect initiative. The legislative package consisting of a constitutional amendment and an implementing statute is being sponsored by Sen. Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara). It needs help when the Legislature returns from its summer recess.

Under the plan, sponsors of an initiative statute or a constitutional amendment could first submit the proposal to the Legislature for screening and adoption. In the case of a statute there would be no need to put the measure before the state’s voters if it was passed intact by the Legislature, or with amendments acceptable to the initiative’s sponsors. The lawmakers could put a proposed constitutional amendment directly on the next election ballot by a two-thirds vote of each house.

California once had the indirect initiative. It was little used, and was repealed during a general constitutional revision in 1966. But there is hope that a revival would spark more interest in it.

But why would a Paul Gann or other initiative circulator bother going to the Legislature with his issue? Initiative campaigns normally are mounted for the very reason that the Legislature has refused to act on the subject.

There is an incentive under the league-Hart plan, however. The circulators would not have to gather as many signatures for the Legislature to be required to consider the legislation or amendment proposed in the indirect initiative. No more than 80% of the signatures required for a direct initiative would be needed. This would save the initiators considerable money and effort if there was substantial hope of the Legislature acting on their proposal. If the Legislature rejected the measure, it could go directly to the ballot without additional signatures being collected.

Hart’s implementing bill passed the Senate, 22 to 11, with just one vote to spare, and now is before the Assembly. The constitutional amendment, SCA 24, faces a full Senate vote when the session resumes, and will need 27 votes to pass.

There would be some advantages to the indirect system even if the initiative sponsors were not happy with the Legislature’s action and took the measure to the ballot. Legislative hearings would give the issue a full airing. Constitutional or drafting flaws, which often crop up in citizen-initiated legislation, could be spotlighted and corrected. Even if a vote of the people ultimately was required, the electorate would be better informed on the issue in question.

The league-Hart package would have no effect on the direct initiative. That option would be available to any group that wanted to bypass the Legislature entirely.

The Legislature should approve the league-Hart plan and allow the people to decide at the next election if they want the indirect initiative as an option in their arsenal of grass-roots law-making tools.