The Primary Issue: Not the Candidates, but Government by Plebiscite

Here it is, finally--the last weekend before the California primary. By now, voters should be aware of the candidates for governor and their programs. Right? So, class, pencils out. It’s time for a pop quiz:

Match the statements below with the Democratic or Republican candidate for governor who made them -- A) Dianne Feinstein; B) John K. Van de Kamp; C) Pete Wilson:

1) “I’ve always said education would be my first priority as governor.”

2) “(Education will be) a visible and active priority in my administration.”

3) “We will bring great and lasting change to California’s educational environment.”

Pencils down, please. The correct answers are: 1,B; 2,A; 3,C.

This exercise illustrates how difficult it is to differentiate among the candidates’ stands on major issues. Democratic Party opponents Feinstein and Van de Kamp and Republican Wilson are all pro-education, pro-environment, pro-abortion rights (to one degree or another). They’ve all refused to take the “no-new-taxes” pledge.

The message is clear. The direction of state policy probably won’t differ dramatically, whoever wins. Other decisions on Tuesday’s ballot will have a greater impact on the state’s political and economic future.

Voters will face 17 ballot propositions; they will decide on policies ranging from amending the Gann state spending limit to increasing fines for violating the state’s Chiropractic Act.

Continuing the state’s “ballot box budgeting,” Californians will vote on about $22.6 billion in state spending; $18.5 billion of that would fund transportation projects that would be triggered by the passage of Propositions 108 and 111. The rest is largely bonding authority--which is not subject to the Gann limit--for other growth areas such as housing, prisons and school construction.

That presents a great irony. Direct democracy has turned California elections into enormous town meetings. And the chief executive of the most populous state in the union seems little more than the administrator of policies set by California’s real governors--the small number of people and groups (including governors and legislators themselves) who qualify initiatives for the ballot and the voters who determine their fate.

Four proposals on Tuesday’s ballot may chart the political and economic course of the state. They are Propositions 111 and 112, placed on the ballot by the Legislature, and Propositions 118 and 119, voter-qualified initiatives that would change the way legislative and congressional districts are drawn after each decennial census.

The power of the electorate over state policy is clearly shown in the impact that voter action on Proposition 111 will have on the state budget process.

Proposition 111’s provision to amend the state expenditure limit provides a major test of the public’s willingness to give back to their elected representatives greater control over government spending. It will allow the governor more flexibility in budgeting--something George Deukmejian complains he has been denied by “laws, mandates and court orders that have tied our hands and threaten the fiscal health of the state.”

Proposition 111’s provision for an increase in the state gas tax is being viewed nationwide as a bellwether of public opinion.

Roam the halls of California’s state Capitol these days. It is like being in the eye of a hurricane. The state faces a projected $3.6-billion deficit, yet there is little movement toward solving the escalating crisis. Government is in a state of suspended animation. “Politicians,” one legislative insider predicted, “will wait until after the election to gauge the psychology of the voters, to see how far they can go.”

If 111 passes, the word will go forth all the way to Washington--where President George Bush and Congress, like their nervous counterparts in Sacramento, eagerly await a sign--that the post-Proposition 13 era has truly ended and people are once again willing to be taxed--some--to improve the quality of their life.

If 111 fails, politicians may once again duck and run. Democrats, in particular, will have to face hard choices on spending cuts. Regardless of 111’s fate, Deukmejian has ruled out a general tax increase to fund underbudgeted health and welfare programs--all areas of concern for traditional Democratic constituencies.

Van de Kamp has vowed not to balance the budget on the backs of “the poor, the blind and disabled.” Feinstein at first agreed with Deukmejian’s position that all state spending--including cost-of-living adjustments for recipients of state social-services programs--should be placed “on the table.” She quickly backtracked--this is a Democratic primary, after all.

If Proposition 111 fails, whoever governs may not have a choice.

There is a second legislative constitutional amendment on the ballot that can have a significant impact. Born out of public indignation over the FBI Capitol sting and its political fallout, Proposition 112 is the Legislature’s long-overdue response to the perception that Sacramento is a “swamp” corrupted by special-interest money. It would provide for the implementation of a comprehensive code of ethics for state elected officials--a necessary first step toward restoring public confidence in a system gone sour.

It also provides for the creation of an independent “California citizens compensation commission” with the authority to set salaries of legislators and other state officers (current law allows the Legislature to raise its own salary--but not more than 5% a year).

Proposition 112 is not, as opponents argue, a legislative pay raise disguised as ethics reform. But it does place the question of adequate compensation for government officials squarely on the table. And that can set the stage for a healthy discourse on how Californians view their representatives and the worth of the legislative process. What kind of Legislature do we want? How should it function? What are we willing to pay for it?

The debate over what the Legislature will look like is also central to Propositions 118 and 119. Both address fundamental political change.

Reapportionment, say the initiative’s opponents in their ubiquitous television spots, is really about power. They are right. Both proposals would favor Republicans by stripping the majority party of its control over the political and demographic makeup of California’s Legislature and congressional delegation. Both would also change the governor’s role.

Republicans rallied around Pete Wilson because, under the current reapportionment system, they knew they needed the strongest possible candidate to keep the governor’s seat. In redistricting negotiations, a Republican governor provides leverage against a Democratic legislative majority.

On the Democratic side, the powerful Waxman-Berman political organization anointed Feinstein their candidate when it looked like she’d be the stronger choice against Wilson in November. A Democratic victory could shut Republicans out of redistricting as Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown and legislative Democrats did in 1982.

Ironically, if the voters pass either initiative, all this slick strategizing may be moot. Under Proposition 118, for a reapportionment plan to take effect, the voters will have the final say. And under Proposition 119, the governor and the Legislature will be cut almost completely out of the process.

The complex issues facing voters on the June ballot are just the tip of the iceberg. Thirty-eight initiatives, running the gamut from more auto-insurance reform to pest eradication, are currently making the rounds for the November ballot.

With California beleaguered by “government by plebiscite,” why are seemingly rational individuals running around the state spewing proposals and press releases, attacking each other and spending millions of dollars to win a governorship that continues to atrophy?

To illustrate how ludicrous the process has become, think about this: Even if Van de Kamp, who trails in the polls, doesn’t make it to the finals, he could end up having a greater impact on state policy than the ultimate winner. Why?

If Van de Kamp should lose Tuesday’s Democratic primary, but any or all of his three major initiatives--on environment, government ethics and crime--make it to the November ballot and pass, the next governor may take office hamstrung by policies that he or she had no hand in formulating--and may not even have supported. (The same could hold true if Proposition 115, Wilson’s crime initiative, passes Tuesday and Van de Kamp is the victor in November.)

The state’s chief executive could be in the bizarre position of administering programs whose author he or she defeated.

Look carefully at what’s happening in the trend-setting state of California. If you think its politics supply any semblance of representative democracy, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.