Confused by Initiative Ruling?

Voters should be forgiven Tuesday if they end up feeling that the entrance to the voting booth would be better delineated by a mirror than a curtain. After all, surveying California’s electoral landscape these days, it’s hard not to feel as if you’ve stepped through the looking glass.

This week, however, the state Supreme Court seemed to signal that it would rather not attend the next political tea party being prepared by those Mad Hatters of direct democracy, the initiative sponsors. Initiatives, particularly the omnibus variety, inevitably create litigation because they are the poorly drafted products of passion rather than deliberation. This situation has been exacerbated by the proliferation of competing ballot propositions on the same topic.

The state Constitution requires that when two such measures pass, the one with the higher number of votes takes precedence. It is silent on whether provisions of the other measure may be enacted, if they can be reconciled with the winner. Thursday, in a case involving two campaign finance measures, Propositions 68 and 73, the court said no--or mostly no.

The majority held that when initiatives are proposed as “all-or-nothing” alternatives or create “a comprehensive regulatory scheme,” only the provisions of the winning measure may become law.

The alternative to this common-sense approach was clear in Justice Joyce L. Kennard’s dissent, which recommended that judges examine competing measures point by point and reconcile them “to the greatest possible extent.” Thus, does government by initiative become government by judges. Alas, the majority also allowed an exception to its ruling, when the differences between two measures are “minor.” What that may mean can only be settled by, yes, litigation.

Still, the relevance of the ruling to Tuesday’s ballot is clear: Voters committed to campaign finance reform and term limits should vote for 131 and not 140; people who believe in responsible environmental protection will vote only for 130 and not 128, 135 or 138, and supporters of sound government finance will vote against 136, which would automatically negate other measures on the ballot.