The Case Against Indirect Initiative

With regard to your editorial, (Aug. 13), “A Tool for the Grass Roots,” I do not think the indirect initiative is a necessary or an effective “reform” of the initiative process. My reasons are as follows:

1--Any way you slice it, the indirect initiative gets the Legislature involved in the initiative process. The original purpose of the initiative was to get around a Legislature not acting in accordance with the people’s wishes.

2--If initiative proponents accept amendments made by the Legislature, what becomes law or goes on the ballot would not be the same language that people signed petitions to support. If initiative proponents do not accept legislative changes, there could be two competing measures on the same subject on the same ballot--one promoted by the initiative sponsors and one by the Legislature. That does nothing to make the initiative process less confusing.

3--The reduced signature-gathering requirement with use of the indirect initiative is no incentive to initiative circulators who use direct mail and other sophisticated methods to gather signatures. They can get 100% of the signatures needed as easily as they can get 80%.

4--Those who support the indirect initiative say it is needed to assure a full hearing and to provide an opportunity to correct flaws. But Section 3506 of the Elections Code already requires the attorney general to transmit copies to the Legislature of the text of any initiative he gives title and summary to. Appropriate committees of each house of the Legislature may hold hearings on the subject. If more public hearings and input are the objective here, provisions to accomplish that are already in the law. We don’t need the indirect initiative to make it happen.

The indirect initiative is not the great reform it is purported ot be. I submit that the people of California will be better off without it.

JIM NIELSEN

Woodland

Republican Floor Leader

California Senate