By June California’s Supreme Court will render a decision on the constitutional nature of Proposition 8. Was it a revision or was it an amendment? The ruling will establish a legal precedent impacting all future initiatives. But regardless of whether the court finds Proposition 8 a legal amendment or an improperly approved revision, some state legislators want to ensure the people never have the ability to approve another Proposition 8.
This legislative session there are no less than thirteen bills that seek to alter the initiative process. The Republican-sponsored bills mostly deal with the attorney general’s ability to tinker with ballot and title summaries—probably in response to Attorney General Brown’s blatantly biased rewriting of the Proposition 8 title and summary just months before it appeared on the ballot. But the other, Democrat-sponsored bills are shameless attempts to wrest control of the initiative process away from voters.
Assemblywoman Lori Saldana alone has authored three bills placing restrictions on the initiative process. AB 6 would require all paid petition circulators to register as lobbyists. If you’re the employee of a company that is paid to help collect voter signatures, you’ll have to go through the whole process of submitting your photo, paying fees, etc., like any other lobbyist. AB 436 will raise the current initiative filing fee from $200 to $2,000 dollars. AB 1068 would outlaw contracts for gathering petition signatures if the payment is contingent upon the measure qualifying for the ballot.
Senator Ellen Corbett’s SB 34 would make it a misdemeanor for a person to be paid based upon the number of signatures they collect for an initiative, referendum, or recall petition.
These bills are just increased government regulation meant to soak more money from the political process and create a chilling effect on signature gathering. Increasing the initiative filing fee from $200 to $2,000 stacks the deck in favor of large, well-funded companies able to afford filing, leaving out small non-profits or individual citizens.
Senator Mark DeSaulnier wants the legislature to insert itself into the initiative process. His SCA 16 would initially lessen the voter signature percentage required to qualify for the ballot (from 5% of all the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to 3% for a statute, 8% to 6% for a constitutional amendment). But a qualified initiative could go to the legislature first—before voters—so lawmakers can “amend” the language. If the legislature approves the initiative, it will become law immediately, but if the legislature rejects it, it would be placed on the ballot if its proponents submit additional voter signatures equaling 2% of the votes in the last gubernatorial election.
The most egregious legislative power grabs come courtesy of Assemblyman Ed Hernandez.
Hernandez’s ACA 13 requires qualified initiatives go to the legislature for approval before appearing on a ballot. An initiative would only go to voters for approval if both houses approve a concurrent resolution (simple majority vote) if it’s a statute, or it can get 2/3 approval from both houses if it’s a constitutional amendment. If lawmakers lollygag, the initiative will be placed on the ballot, but the voter signature threshold is doubled from 5% of all the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to 10% for a statute and from 8% to 16% for a constitutional amendment. Attaining a 2/3 vote in the legislature or doubling the number of voter signatures needed will undoubtedly prevent measures like Proposition 8 from ever making it to the ballot.
Hernandez’s ACA 14 would actually limit the number of initiatives allowed on the ballot. Only five initiatives would be permitted, prioritized according to the date of qualification. Even worse, any initiatives that qualify after the first five would be prohibited from being placed on the ballot at a subsequent election. This means that if Proposition 8 supporters had qualified their measure, but it was the sixth initiative to qualify, all the work put into the qualification would be in vain and supporters would be forced to start over again from scratch.
Obviously ACA 14 is designed to put non-profits and citizens at a distinct disadvantage in qualifying their initiatives. Only initiatives financed by well-funded companies or organizations would get their initiatives qualified first, leaving off the lesser funded but grassroot supported measures such as Proposition 8.
As I noted in a previous blog, the initiative process is imperfect. But in a state where gerrymandered districts and union money determine the outcome of elections and fate of legislation, the initiative process has proven a valuable tool for the people to pass laws the majority party in the state legislature won’t even consider. Californians should be outraged at this blatant end-run by arrogant lawmakers determined to remove even more power from the people and keep it in Sacramento.
March 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Some positive news: similar legislation to hamstring petition gatherers was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger in the last session.
The unfettered petitioning process
made it possible for him to become
Governor by the Recall of 2003.
It is to be hoped he would wield the Veto pen again if these bad
bills reach his desk.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I may not agree with you on Prop 8 or social issues, but having more road blocks would be a good thing even on fiscal issues.
Make it harder for the CTA to make the 1% sales tax increase permanent, 16% of the voters of the state having to amend the constitution is a good thing.
Make it harder for the Courage Campaign to advocate for the repeal of proposition 13.
Make it harder for groups to use “tyranny of the majority” to use majoritarianism to govern.
Our state constitution should not be taken lightly.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:00 am
We have legislative Term Limits, the successful 3 Strikes crime Law, AND Proposition
13’s tax limits, solely owing to the Initiative Process, and the wisdom of California voters.
NOT ONE of those signal Reforms would have been possible without the Initiative law
which Governor Hiram Johnson proposed, and voters ratified, way back in 1911.
Why is this the case? The answer can be found by re-reading William F. Buckley Jr’s
single most famous insight:
“I would rather live in a society governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone
book, than one ruled by the faculty of Harvard college.”
William Buckley and Hiram Johnson were right. Trust the good people of this nation.