Dueling Ballot Measures Vie for Most Votes

The move toward rival ballot initiatives that took off in 1988 with five insurance measures is back with a vengeance this election year.

Besides initiative measures loaded up against each other on a number of issues, voters also can go for “poison pill” Proposition 136--which on its own could wipe out key parts of at least three other propositions.

Where new revenues are called for in these measures--including a steep hike in alcohol taxes and new funds for law enforcement--Proposition 136 would require that they pass by a two-thirds margin. It would also require a two-thirds popular vote before certain other taxes could be raised by elective bodies.

With these and other stiff requirements, Proposition 136 presents one of the newest wrinkles on the initiative front, but certainly not the only one.

New ground is being broken in a variety of areas as initiative sponsors show they are not too proud to borrow old ideas, add a twist here, a turn there, put some zeros behind a dollar sign, and then drop it all in the laps of the voters.

Take the issue of dueling ballot measures. For many years, business associations or public-interest groups that were opposed to ballot measures were content to mount vigorous “no” campaigns when they wanted to defeat a proposition. Now they not only mount a “no” campaign, they also put up a rival measure, usually with a kicker that their initiative takes precedence if it passes with more votes than its competitor.

As a result, among the 28 measures on the Nov. 6 ballot, voters are not only being asked to consider Proposition 136, the king of all countermeasures, but they must sort through rival or overlapping initiatives on five separate issues.

Proposition 128, a tough, new regulatory measure known as “Big Green” by supporters, clashes with Proposition 135, drafted as a countermeasure by agricultural and chemical company interests.

Proposition 130, the so-called “Forests Forever” initiative that would severely restrict timber harvesting, triggered Proposition 138, the timber industry’s countermeasure that opponents say was drafted solely to confuse voters and deflect the effort to limit tree-cutting.

Two alcohol tax increase measures are vying against each other. There is Proposition 134, the so-called “nickel-a-drink” initiative that health groups, experts on alcoholism and law enforcement groups are backing. Proposition 126 is the alcohol industry’s countermeasure that was put on the ballot by its allies in the Legislature and calls for a much smaller tax increase.

There also are two overlapping law enforcement measures and two measures in conflict over how much to limit the terms of elected officials.

If that were all there was to the general election ballot, it would probably be enough to keep things interesting. But there is more.

Voters are being asked to approve a record $5.7 billion in new borrowing under a variety of bond proposals--after the June primary in which voters approved $5 billion in bond measures. There is bond money contained in four of the initiatives plus $3.7 billion in bond proposals put on the ballot by the Legislature.

This year also marks an acceleration in the trend of officeholders who get involved with initiatives. Initiatives were designed to be the last resort of citizens unable to get satisfaction from their elected officials. Indeed, sponsors of nearly all the initiatives on the November ballot say they only began their campaigns after Gov. George Deukmejian and the Legislature repeatedly rejected their proposals.

Now, it seems, citizens are being overshadowed by special interests and elected officials.

Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp made three initiatives part of his platform in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for governor. Van de Kamp lost in the primary to Dianne Feinstein, but the three initiatives will appear on the November ballot: Proposition 128, the so-called “Big Green” measure; Proposition 129, a law enforcement measure to combat drug abuse, and Proposition 131, an officeholder term-limitation measure.

“Van de Kamp may have a bigger impact on policy in California than the next governor if these three pass,” said Robert M. Stern, co-director of the California Commission on Campaign Financing.

But Van de Kamp is not alone. Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy is sponsoring a separate law enforcement initiative (Proposition 133), Assemblyman Lloyd G. Connelly (D-Sacramento) is a force behind the “nickel-a-drink” alcohol tax measure (Proposition 134), and the list goes on.

Of the 13 voter-originated initiatives on the ballot, Stern said that eight are sponsored by officeholders. The remaining 15 propositions were placed there by the Legislature.

Stern’s commission, which studies voting trends, found several other noteworthy developments on the general election ballot. Two years ago, it cost about $800,000 for initiative supporters to gather enough signatures to place a measure on the ballot; this year, the cost was close to $1 million.

This year will also have a record number of constitutional amendments--initiatives that amend or add sections to the California Constitution--as opposed to statutory initiatives, which simply change a state law.

Counting the June primary ballot, voters will have faced 11 constitutional amendments this year, five of them in November. In contrast, between 1976 and 1988, the highest number of constitutional amendments to reach the ballot in any election year was four. Constitutional amendments are growing in popularity. Sponsors prefer them to statutory initiatives because the Legislature and courts have a more difficult time amending or changing them once they pass. Additionally, voters have to approve any amendments.

As for spending to pass and defeat the various measures, the November campaigns still have a long way to go to match the amount spent on the November, 1988, election by insurance companies, which contributed more than $63 million on the various “yes” and “no” campaigns that developed around five industry measures.

But already the alcohol industry has spent at least $25 million this year on three initiatives.

All of this makes for one of the most complex and longest ballots in history. Experts say voters need a minimum of a high school education just to understand the discussion of the measures in the ballot pamphlet prepared by the secretary of state’s office. Some say college graduates will even have a tough time.

This year’s summary of the ballot measures comes in two parts and runs 224 pages--the longest in state history.

Even so, historically the 28 measures on the November ballot rank this election only fourth in sheer bulk. In November, 1912, 48 propositions were put before voters; in November, 1922, voters faced 30 measures and two years ago, there were 29 proposals for voters to decide.

With California enjoying such a long, colorful and contentious history, then, it would seem that somewhere along the line there would have been a precedent for Proposition 136, a measure conceived of by those allied with Howard Jarvis-Paul Gann anti-tax groups and their financial backers in the alcohol industry.

But modern-day observers of the initiative process say there has never been a measure quite like Proposition 136.

On the surface, it is sweeping enough. It would make it tougher for initiative sponsors, local governments and the state Legislature to pass tax increases, in some cases requiring a two-thirds vote of the people in place of, for example, a majority vote on a City Council.

Such a requirement would apply to special taxes--those raised for single purposes.

Even if supporters of a special tax could get a two-thirds vote, Proposition 136 would limit the size of the increase to 1% of the value of the item.

Thus, the 25-cents-a-pack hike in cigarette taxes approved in 1988 would have been prohibited under the proposed Proposition 136 rules; any increase could have been no more than a couple of pennies a pack.

For the Legislature, laws requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes would be toughened, closing loopholes opened since the original tax restrictions imposed by Proposition 13 were enacted in 1978.

But Proposition 136 goes further by proposing to apply its provisions to other measures on the November ballot. Its authors wrote it so that it will take effect Election Day, and since the day starts right after midnight, it would instantly void any tax measure on the ballot with it that failed to get at least a two-thirds vote. Opponents say their lawyers maintain it is patently unconstitutional because it would basically disenfranchise voters.

Tax provisions of measures on the ballot that Proposition 136 could nullify, assuming it survived court challenges, include Proposition 134, the “nickel-a-drink” alcohol tax increase, as well as Propositions 129 and 133, the two law enforcement measures, according to the state legislative analyst’s office. Some say the measure could even stretch far enough to void fee increase proposals in Proposition 128, should both measures pass.

All of that is by design. Proposition 136, though sponsored by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and Paul Gann’s Citizens Committee, is being supported financially by the alcohol industry, which so far has contributed more than $2 million to the campaign.

Opponents view this as a back-door effort by the industry to defeat the “nickel-a-drink” measure.

Joel Fox, one of the drafters of Proposition 136, said the measure began as a follow-up to loopholes in Proposition 13, but the “poison pill” or “ballot virus” provision was added later with the encouragement of business groups.

“We are obviously getting a lot of money from the liquor industry to promote this thing. But it is almost natural that they want to protect themselves. This will help them,” Fox said.