Reform of Initiative Rules Urged : Laws: Private panel says process is too complex and costly. Proposals include ways to amend measures after they are put on ballot.

California’s ballot initiative process needs major repair because it has become a complex, confusing and expensive battleground for special-interest groups trying to work around the Legislature, a private, bipartisan commission said Tuesday.

Initiatives need to be simpler for voters to understand and easier for their drafters and the Legislature to amend, both before and after they go on the ballot, the California Commission on Campaign Financing concluded after a two-year study that produced 18 recommendations.

The panel called for the creation of a 45-day “cooling off period” after an initiative qualifies for the ballot. During that time, the initiative’s drafters could negotiate a compromise with the Legislature or amend their measure to fix potential problems.

The commission also suggested limiting the number of words in any ballot initiative, extending the time given to collect signatures and requiring disclosure of financial contributors on petitions, in advertisements and in a newly designed ballot pamphlet.

“These proposals would give California the most flexible, innovative and responsive initiative process of any state in the nation,” said Rocco C. Siciliano, co-chairman of the 24-member commission.

The commission, a privately funded group of lawyers, academics, business executives and retired lawmakers, said its 464-page study was the most comprehensive examination of the initiative process ever undertaken. The panel studied the laws of 23 states and created a computer database to examine more than $500 million contributed to 34 separate ballot measure campaigns.

The commission’s members hope that the Legislature and the governor will adopt many of the recommendations and place those that would require a constitutional amendment on the ballot. An earlier report by the same commission was the basis for Proposition 68, a campaign finance measure that was approved by the voters but nullified when a competing initiative got more votes.

Democratic Assemblyman Jim Costa of Fresno, author of a resolution creating a legislative commission to study the same subject, said his panel would review the private commission’s findings. Costa said he expects the Legislature to consider changes in the initiative process next year.

“The initiative process has run amok and is sorely in need of reform,” Costa said. “It’s a multimillion-dollar cottage industry largely controlled by the special interests.”

California’s initiative process was created in 1911 as part of Gov. Hiram Johnson’s reform movement. Since 1978, when voters passed Proposition 13 to reduce their property taxes, use of the initiative has become increasingly common. Since 1986, for example, voters have created the lottery, raised tobacco taxes, protected school funding, regulated toxic materials, rolled back automobile insurance rates and, in 1990, limited the terms of elected officials.

The commission found that the number of ballot initiatives has more than doubled in each decade since the 1960s, with 18 measures appearing on the ballot in 1990.

With the increasing number of issues has come more money spent to influence the voters.

Between 1976 and 1990, the commission said, spending on initiative campaigns climbed from $9 million to $110 million. The largest share of that campaign cash has come from business groups, which have contributed more than 83% of the money received by the 18 highest-spending initiatives since 1956.

Much of that money has been spent to defeat initiatives. With the notable exception of Proposition 99, the tobacco tax measure, and Proposition 103, on insurance regulation, the well-funded opposition campaigns have been very successful, the commission said.

“Money has become too dominant in initiative campaigns,” said Francis Wheat, a co-chairman of the commission.

But the U.S. Supreme Court, by ruling that initiative campaign spending is a form of speech protected by the 1st Amendment, has made it almost impossible for states to regulate such spending. For that reason, the commission focused its attention on another issue: making the California system more flexible.

Critics of recent initiatives have suggested that many measures were poorly drafted or produced unintended consequences that could not be corrected either before or after they went before the voters. The law prohibits changes to initiatives after their sponsors begin collecting signatures and does not allow the Legislature to amend a law passed by initiative unless the measure itself allows for changes.

“Today’s initiative process puts a person who wants to prepare an initiative into a straitjacket,” said Tracy Westen, the commission’s executive director.

Allowing initiative sponsors to correct errors or remove their measures from the ballot in response to Legislative action would improve the quality of laws enacted or prompted by direct democracy, Westen said. Allowing the Legislature, with a vote of 60% of each house, to amend laws passed by initiative would make it easier to overcome problems unforeseen by the drafters, he said.

Key Points

Highlights of overhaul of the state’s ballot initiative process proposed by the California Commission on Campaign Financing:

* Create a 45-day “cooling off period” after an initiative has qualified for the ballot. During this period, the initiative’s drafters could pull the measure from the ballot if satisfied with action by the Legislature or amend the measure to address potential problems before it goes on the ballot.

* Limit initiatives to no more than 5,000 words.

* Extend by one month the time allowed to collect signatures, from 150 to 180 days.

* Require disclosure of financial contributors on petitions, in advertisements and in a newly designed summary ballot pamphlet.

* Require constitutional amendments to pass by a 60% majority in one election or by a simple majority in two successive elections. Allow voters to repeal parts of the Constitution by a simple majority in one election.

* Allow the Legislature, with a 60% vote in each house, to amend laws enacted by initiative.