Initiative Shape-Up

The California Supreme Court has a unique opportunity to bring some common sense and clarity to the state’s often-confusing initiative process for enacting citizen-sponsored ballot measures.

On Dec. 8 the court will hear a challenge to Proposition 24--which is scheduled for the March 7 primary election ballot--on grounds that it violates a constitutional provision limiting ballot initiatives to a single subject. The rule is often evaded by initiative sponsors, and state officials and the courts have been extremely liberal in interpreting it. For instance, Proposition 13 in 1978 not only cut the local property tax but enacted a variety of other state tax provisions.

Now, the court has wisely agreed in a 6-0 vote to hear a suit brought by state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton and Supt. of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin challenging Proposition 24, which would take the power to redraw legislative districts away from the state Legislature and give it to the Supreme Court. Similar initiatives have been rejected by voters in recent years. To make this one more alluring, its sponsors added a provision cutting state legislators’ salaries from the current $99,000 a year to $75,000 and rolling back their daily expenses from $121 to $75.

This will be the first time the court has agreed to hear any preelection challenge to a ballot issue since it removed an initiative from the ballot in 1984 as unconstitutional.

The decision is encouraging; the court should take a hard look at the measure in considering whether it has a responsibility to establish a stricter test for the single-subject rule.

Proposition 24 is promoted by California Republicans in the U.S. House and sponsored by People’s Advocate, which is led by antitax activist Ted Costa. The legislative pay issue is a distinctly separate matter from redistricting, which will be done on the basis of the 2000 census. Injecting the pay issue into Proposition 24 is pure political hucksterism. The court should take the measure off the ballot or at least remove the extraneous pay-cut provision.

True, Democrats don’t want reapportionment handed over to the courts because the party stands to gain seats if the Legislature decides redistricting. But the Proposition 24 authors are wrong when they argue that the challenge seeks to deny voters their right to make a choice at the ballot box.

If the lawsuit succeeds and the court holds firm in future cases, California might at last gain needed reform in the initiative process, giving voters a clearer idea of what they are voting on.