PERSPECTIVE ON SCHOOL VOUCHERS : A ‘Kick in the Pants’ With Dangerous Ramifications : School voucher system. : An experiment this bold will of necessity create problems, but Prop. 174 also prohibits correctives.

The most seductive argument for the school voucher initiative, Proposition 174, is that it is an opportunity to give a good swift kick in the pants to “the system.”

Californians frequently use the initiative process as a battering ram to deliver a message. Our frustration with the property-tax system gave us Proposition 13; with the criminal justice system, Propositions 8 and 115; with the auto insurance system, Proposition 103. Now, we’re told, it’s the public schools’ turn to receive the message: Californians want change and are fed up with the inability of the system to deliver.

Each of these previous measures was met with the argument that it would institutionalize a radical experiment that might not work, with little opportunity to correct the damage once it was in place. Each included a protective clause that prevented any amendments or changes without a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

The protective device has generally worked, as an increasingly larger sector of public policy has been declared off-limits for the process of political dialogue in California. This is the chief reason California has become ungovernable. Without really thinking about it, we’ve renounced majority principles and given a one-third minority the right to veto any corrective measures.

The effect would not be so dramatic if initiative measures were the carefully drafted result of a process of open and rational debate. But they’re not, and frequently their unanticipated results surprise even their sponsors. Nevertheless, initiative proponents become ever bolder and more confident that they have the “final solution” that should be cast in concrete and permanently protected from corrective surgery.

The proponents of Proposition 174 have carried this confidence to new heights. The measure provides that all private schools, whether they redeem vouchers or not, will hereafter be immune from any new public regulation unless approved by a three-fourths vote of the Legislature. Even local regulation will require both a two-thirds vote of the governing body and a majority vote of qualified electors. That means a majority of the registered voters, whether they vote or not. Thus, no election with a turnout of less than 50% could validate a regulation, even if the voters were unanimous. If we turn out the 75% of registered voters who voted in the last presidential election, a regulation of private schools would require approval by 67% of those voting.

The argument offered by voucher proponents for renouncing majority government is that the California Teachers Assn. is too powerful and controls the Legislature through its contributions. That’s an ironic argument in the wake of the success of Proposition 140, which promised to give the Legislature back to the people. We are asked to turn over the regulation of education to any group that can muster the political clout to control 25% of the Legislature, because another group has enough clout to control 50%.

The protective clause may make the initiative vulnerable to a challenge on the ground that its 75% requirement is a revision of the state Constitution, beyond the power of initiatives. The California Supreme Court rejected this argument in the context of Proposition 13’s two-thirds requirement to approve “special taxes.” But that rejection was based on finding lots of other examples of two-thirds majority requirements. The requirement of 75% is unprecedented.

As tempting as it may be to deliver a kick in the pants to our failing public-school system, vouchers are still an experiment that no state has undertaken to the extent sought by this measure. An experiment this bold will involve lots of trial and error. There may be a parallel in all of the problems created by the fly-by-night rip-off “schools” that tried to cash in on the G.I. Bill after World War II. We can hardly anticipate all of the problems we might encounter in shifting a major portion of our school population to institutions that don’t yet exist.

In looking back over California’s experience with initiatives, one is reminded of the annual attempt by Charlie Brown to place-kick the football held by Lucy. The satisfaction of a good swift kick may be illusory, and our effort may simply leave us flat on our backs, immobilized to rectify a bigger mess. There are better ways to send messages.