A Nasty Duo: Props. 136 and 137 : Phony reforms that won’t double your pleasure

By now many voters have received their official California ballot pamphlets, describing in 144 pages the raft of measures before the electorate Nov. 6. And more “good” news: A supplemental pamphlet of 80 pages will arrive soon.

Want more of the same? Propositions 136 and 137 offer just that. If voters make the mistake of approving them, they can look forward to new jobs--as part-time, unpaid legislators. Both measures would dump more of the decision-making about government, even the most mundane details, on voters. These are absurd measures masquerading as reforms.

NO ON 136: Be forewarned: This measure--advertised as anti-tax--is a straitjacket that would cripple government at many levels.

A simple majority of voters can now approve tax increases through initiative. That majority vote requirement holds for both general taxes and so-called special taxes, those earmarked for specific purposes. This measure would require a two-thirds vote for special taxes. Proposition 136 also would extend to all local governments, including those now exempted for good reason, the requirement of majority voter approval for general tax increases, except in a disaster.

What’s more, the Legislature currently needs a two-thirds vote in order to increase or impose new taxes, but changes in the tax laws that don’t increase the net state revenue need only a majority. That’s sensible, but this measure would apply the two-thirds rule to any change.

It is the special tax that is the main target of Proposition 136. The measure would require that special taxes imposed on personal items, such as cigarettes or alcohol, be restricted to a tiny fraction of their value.

In addition, if passed, Proposition 136 could be interpeted as voiding other measures on the ballot--those that would impose special taxes on alcohol, or that would earmark taxes for anti-crime purposes--even if a voting majority chooses to approve them.

NO ON 137: At a time when California’s initiative process is in need of reform, this constitutional amendment would require that any changes in the initiative or referendum procedure--no matter how minor--be submitted to the voters. Getting the voters involved in many minor procedural decisions is not productive.

The initiative process is a crucial tool for citizen-sponsored reform, but in recent years it has been abused by special interests. Proposition 137’s supporters fear that the Legislature will place unfair restrictions on the use of the initiative process.

But taking to the voters every procedure that affects initiatives and referendums, however minor, is no answer, either.

These two measures, in effect, are an attempt to follow in the tradition of Proposition 13, passed in an anti-tax revolt in 1978. But they are an abuse of that tradition and seek to exploit voter frustrations with measures that would prove counterproductive and maliciously restrictive. They wouldn’t curb spending as much as they’d straitjacket the public.