Reforming a Wayward Initiative Process

A week ago today we made our case that California’s initiative process, while it empowers citizens, is extremely flawed and is in urgent need of reform. Today we spell out the details of a reform we like.

It’s in the shape of a future ballot initiative that addresses reform of the initiative law itself, and it may be presented to the voters as soon as 1996 if legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno) is successful. The Costa reform, which incorporates recommendations contained in the very valuable work of the Citizens’ Commission on Ballot Initiatives, attempts to make lawmaking by the Legislature and by initiative a new kind of cooperative process, rather than an adversarial one.

Proposed are a variety of changes, including several that affect financial disclosure and improve presentation of competing initiatives in the ballot pamphlet. When several such measures appear on the ballot at once, as happened with the controversial automobile insurance initiatives of 1990, this part of the reform could help the beleaguered voter wade through it all with greater ease.

Here are the other key changes: One would permit initiative proponents to correct drafting errors in an initiative even after it had qualified, so long as the corrections were consistent with the initiative’s intent. Another would encourage the Legislature to cooperate with the proponents of an initiative by meeting with them and, wherever possible, quickly passing laws that achieved the same purpose, thus obviating the need for yet another statewide ballot measure. A third would permit initiative proponents, under such circumstances, to withdraw an initiative. And the fourth would permit the Legislature to modify an approved initiative through a two-thirds vote, so long as, again, the modification was consistent with the initiative’s original intent.

The aim of Costa’s reform is to spur the Legislature to take actions the voters want. Now, no matter how poorly written or unwieldy an initiative is, once the measure is qualified for the ballot it cannot be corrected or modified. The voters often vote for, in effect, “the bottom line” as they did when they overwhelmingly supported Proposition 13. Voters wanted lower property taxes, period. Problem was, that law was and remains unfair to anyone who purchased property after 1975. It would have been good if that flaw could have been corrected. But the current laws don’t provide any flexibility. Once an initiative has qualified, its words are in stone. Unless, of course, you can come up with yet another initiative to fix the one already passed.

There’s got to be a better way. The proposal by Costa is a start. Voters want their voices heard through the initiative process. But if there’s a way for them to be heard without cluttering the ballot with incomprehensible measures, so much the better. The proposals of the Citizens’ Commission on Ballot Initiatives and of Costa are extraordinarily valuable and should be pursued.