Today’s Topic : Has the initiative process, which was intended to let the people be heard, gone amok?

With Election Day a week away, there is fever-pitch campaigning not only by the candidates but for the five initiatives as well. The stakes in this election are high as these measures will likely be around long after any of the politicians leave office.

Consider the tax-slashing Proposition 13, which the voters approved in 1978 at a time of budgetary surplus in Sacramento. “Proposition 13 is emblematic of what the initiative process is about,” says H. Eric Schockman, a political science professor at USC.

“It ultimately represented the will of the people at that time and they determined the future of California and how it developed,” Schockman says. “Proposition 13 was a Draconian piece of legislation that started the decline of California. We’re paying now for the greed of the past.”

Some worry that, if passed, the initiatives will have a negative effect on the prison system, immigration and local control over limiting smoking.

“There are not an overwhelming number of initiatives on the ballot this year but those that do appear are very hot-button political issues,” says Ruth Holton, executive director of Common Cause. “The public is frustrated. They’re angry. They feel they haven’t seen the Legislature take action, particularly with immigration and crime.”

Ironically, the Legislature did act on one issue: crime. Earlier this year, the state passed a “three strikes” law that requires mandatory sentences for repeat offenders.

In today’s Community Essay, former Glendale fire Capt. John L. Orr, who is serving a prison term for arson, argues that the “three strikes” law is having a chilling effect on inmates. With a “three-strikes” law already on the books, why have another, especially one that would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to change?

The answer most likely lies with understanding the initiative process. Begun at the turn of the century by a former governor, Hiram Johnson, initiatives were designed to overcome legislative gridlock by allowing any citizen to propose a law and take it directly to the voters.

“Lately, we have seen special interests usurping the political process and we’ve seen craven politicians back initiatives for political advantage,” says Harvey Rosenfeld, a public interest lawyer.

“Rather than initiatives being an exercise in democracy, we are using the process to bring out the worst in people,” adds Rosenfeld, who was the force behind Proposition 103 in 1988, which was aimed at controlling automobile insurance rates.

The result of next week’s election may not be greater restrictions on immigration or a massive prison system for the growing inmate population. The long-term effect may be whether ordinary citizens still believe that initiatives speak for them.

“This country has never been able to function as a direct democracy,” Schockman says. “This particular anomaly is a Frankenstein creation that has come back to haunt us.”