Bob Stern, who leads the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, gave the last major speech of the 2009 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy here in Seoul.

In his speech, Stern suggested two intriguing alternatives to the state's existing process for gathering signatures on initiative petitions.

1. Substitute a poll for signature gathering. Instead of going through the costly qualification process, why not simply conduct some sort of honest survey asking voters if they want a particular initiative on the ballot? If enough voters say yes, the measure goes on the ballot.

2. Permit Internet signature gathering with a twist. Assuming we can develop some sort of secure, verifiable way for people to sign their names on line, put each initiative on line and then let voters go on the net and add their name to one of two lists. They either could sign that they want the initiative to go on the ballot. Or they could sign to express their view they don't want the initiative on the ballot. If the initiative reached some standard of net-positive support, it would go on the ballot.

Here's the full text of Stern's official paper at the conference:

California's ballot initiative process has become a major catalyst of reform in the
state and the leading example of direct democracy in the nation. Ballot initiatives bypass
the normal institutions of representative government and place legislative power directly
in the hands of the people. Although the idea of direct democracy by vote of the people is
ancient, predating even the Greek city states, nowhere has it been applied as rigorously
and with such sweeping results as in California.
During the past three decades, Californians have used ballot initiatives to write,
circulate, debate and adopt many of the state's most important laws. Insurance, education,
income tax indexing, rail transportation, the environment, toxic chemicals, term limits,
lottery, property tax relief, handguns, reapportionment, rent control, crime prevention,
cigarette taxes, wildlife protection, tribal gaming, children's hospitals, mental health
services, felony sentencing, stem cell research and campaign financing-all have been
addressed by the electorate through the initiative process. On many of these pressing
issues, the elected state legislature and governor failed to act or respond in a manner that
would satisfy interested parties.
The number of initiatives circulated, qualified and adopted in this state has
reached record proportions in recent decades-jumping more than sixfold since the 1960s.
Adjusted for inflation, spending on initiative campaigns has also risen by 750% in the
past 30 years-peaking in the 2006 general election, which saw $154 million spent for
and against a single measure (Proposition 87, alternative energy) and $330 million spent
on all the measures in the election. As the state confronts a growing list of problems and
as public confidence in state government continues to wane, more and more individuals,  business groups, special interests and even officeholders are choosing to advance policy
proposals through the initiative process instead of the legislative process.
When early 20th-century Progressives designed California's ballot initiative
process, they envisioned that it would act as a safety valve, enabling citizens to
supplement the work of the legislature when it failed or refused to act.
Today's initiative process, however, has outstripped this vision. An emerging culture of
democracy by initiative is transforming the electorate into a fourth and new branch of
state government. Voters now exercise many of the powers traditionally reserved for the
legislative branch of government.
Some critics have expressed concern that ballot initiatives undermine party
responsibility and the traditional forms of representative government in this state,
discarding its checks and balances and its deliberateness in favor of ill-conceived, rash
and poorly drafted schemes. Initiatives, they fear, shift the policy-making burden to the
voters, leaving them overwhelmed by the growing number of measures on the ballot,
confused by poor drafting, deceived by misleading campaigns, bewildered by counter-
initiatives and frustrated by court rulings that declare provisions unconstitutional.
At the same time, ballot initiative supporters argue that the public remains firmly
committed to the process. The ballot initiative, they contend, represents a rare and
precious flowering of democracy, a remedy of last resort for a public frustrated by an
unresponsive government. Ballot initiatives allow the people to circumvent a legislature
blockaded by special interests, to enact needed reforms ignored by the government and
even to limit the basic powers of government itself.
 
California's Initiative Process Has a Number of Critical Problems
 
Effective initiative reform must begin with accurate identification of key
problems. The following critical problems confront California's ballot initiative process:

• Initiative language is too inflexible. Proponents cannot correct errors or

omissions once circulation begins; legislators often cannot make amendments, enact
improvements or eliminate oversights once an initiative is adopted.

• The legislature plays an insignificant role in the process. The current process

discourages the legislature from negotiating with proponents for compromises or
improvements that might reduce the number of expensive election campaigns.

• Initiatives are frequently too long and complex. Many voters lack the capacity,

education, reading skills or time to understand them.

• The qualification process has become outmoded. Initiatives are too easy to

qualify with paid circulators and too difficult to qualify with volunteers in the limited
time available.

• Initiatives are too easily used to amend the state constitution. Once enacted,

constitutional amendments are extremely difficult to repeal and impair legislative
flexibility.

• Counter-initiatives that conflict with and supersede each other are used as a

tactic to confuse voters. A 1990 California Supreme Court decision has encouraged the
use of such measures.

• Media campaigns disseminate deceptive information. Misleading television

advertising is widespread.

• Voters frequently struggle to make informed decisions. Official voter

information sources are outdated.

• Money plays too important a role in initiative qualification and campaigns.

Heavy-spending, one-sided campaigns dominate and distort the electoral process.

• The courts have not yet struck the proper balance in initiative review. Court

decisions have invalidated some popularly enacted initiatives but left other equally
complex initiatives in place.
Many proposed solutions have been advanced to remedy perceived problems with
the initiative process. Initiative opponents-often those who have been initiative
targets-have called for abolition of the process. Initiative defenders-often those who
regularly circulate initiatives to support a cause or generate funding support-have
strenuously argued for its retention.
The Center concludes that the initiative process should be retained but improved
to transform the electorate into a more responsible branch of government.
 
California's Initiative Process Needs to Be Improved
 
Some Californians argue that the initiative process should be preserved as an
essential part of California's democratic tradition and a necessary check against
legislative inaction. Others are concerned that the initiative process causes the state
considerable harm and damages the more representative branches of government.
The Center recommends an innovative, balanced, comprehensive and interrelated
set of reforms that will enable the electorate, acting through the initiative process, to
function as a more effective and mature partner in state governance.
It concludes that California's initiative process should be retained but
significantly modernized. Although the ballot initiative system has become significantly
outmoded, its elimination is neither feasible nor desirable. The public would quickly
reject the elimination of a right that it views as fundamental. Moreover, the initiative's
check on potential abuses of governmental power should not be eliminated while the
need for that safeguard remains. Rather than being discarded, the initiative process should
be integrated into California's legislative branch.
Ninety-seven years have passed since California first adopted the initiative
process. During this time, Californians have seen the emergence of radio and television
advertising, paid petition circulators, demographically targeted slate mailers, computers,
the Internet, websites, blogs, video-on-demand, professional campaign managers, modern
fund-raising techniques and a growing industry of specialists who will write, circulate,
qualify and campaign for any initiative-if paid a suitably high price. Comprehensive
reforms are necessary to update the initiative process and enable it to deal with the
political exigencies of a more complex age.
 
Recommendations to Improve the Process
 
1.   The Legislature Should Hold a Mandatory Public Hearing on Each
Initiative that Gathers Sufficient Signatures to Qualify.
 
 5
A 30-day public comment period should begin the day after the secretary of state
determines that the raw count (before certification) of signatures submitted exceeds 100
percent of the required threshold. The legislature should be required to conduct a public
hearing on each initiative during this period within 20 days after the secretary of state
certifies the raw count. The hearing will take place a little less than a month after
proponents submit petition signatures to the county officials, giving the legislature ample
time to prepare for the hearing. Hearings can be conducted by each house separately or
by a joint senate-assembly committee.
A mandatory public hearing will air issues that proponents might wish to address
through legislative negotiations or subsequent amendments (see below). It will involve
the legislature in the initiative process, encourage it to consider compromises and allow it
to adopt original or amended initiative proposals as legislation. It will alert the public and
the press that an initiative is likely to appear on the ballot, giving them the opportunity to
begin early discussions of the initiative. This potential for amendability or legislative
enactment will make the legislative hearing a critical component in an improved initiative
process.
 
2.   The Proponents Should Be Allowed to Negotiate with the Legislature and
Withdraw Their Initiative If the Legislature Adopts It or an Acceptable
Compromise Legislation.
 
Proponents should be allowed to withdraw their initiative from the ballot if the
legislature enacts an acceptable version of their proposal. They should also be allowed to
make limited modifications to their initiative immediately after the legislative hearing if
they do place their measure on the ballot.
During the public comment period, proponents will thus have the opportunity to negotiate
changes with the legislature and take one of three actions: (1) withdraw the initiative
from the ballot if the legislature enacts and the governor signs the original or an amended
version acceptable to proponents; (2) condition withdrawal of the initiative on the
provision in new law that future legislative amendments must be approved by up to a
two-thirds majority, be consistent with the law's purposes and intent and be printed and
 6
circulated three days before the legislative vote; or (3) place the original or a proponent-
amended (see below) version of the initiative on the ballot if the legislature does not
enact an acceptable version, so long as the changes are consistent with the initiative's
original purposes and intent.
This process would encourage proponents to engage the legislature in shaping
initiatives, take advantage of legislative expertise and experience, improve ill-considered
proposals, simplify the ballot and, most importantly, tie the legislative and initiative
processes together to produce more constructive political compromises.
 
3.   The Proponents Should Be Allowed to Amend Their Initiative Before It
Goes on the Ballot.
 
If a legislative compromise is unobtainable, proponents should be able to place
either their original initiative or an amended version of that initiative on the ballot after
the 30-day public comment period. Any amendments to their original proposal must be
submitted in writing to the attorney general within seven days after the 30-day period.
The attorney general must then issue a written determination within seven days of receipt
stating whether the amendments comply with the initiative's original purposes and intent.
Proponents should then have seven days to modify their amendments to comply
with the attorney general's ruling or seek final review in the Sacramento County Superior
Court. The court should have seven days to complete any further reviews. 
Proponent amendability is important to any reform effort. It will allow proponents
to correct errors or omissions in the texts of their initiatives before they appear on the
ballot. It will encourage the legislature to take its hearings seriously. Most importantly, it
will allow proponents to remove defects from initiatives that might otherwise become
enshrined into law. Proponent amendability is thus another way to help the initiative
process become a more responsible branch of government.
Proponent amendability will leave proponents with complete control over their
initiatives. If proponents accept substitute legislation, that legislation will still have to
meet the purposes and intent of the original initiative. Proponent amendments or
legislative compromises will thus remain loyal to the general intent of ballot measure
 7
signatories, who rarely read initiative texts but, in signing, endorse the general purposes
of initiatives and view proponents as representing these interests. Review by the attorney
general and the court will provide safeguards to ensure that amendments serve the
initiative's original purposes and intent.  
 
4.   The Legislature Should Be Allowed to Amend Any Initiative by a 
Two-Thirds Majority Vote.
 
California is the only state that prevents its legislature from amending an initiative
after enactment unless a measure specifically permits it. The legislature should be able to
amend initiatives to correct errors, resolve ambiguities and address unforeseen
contingencies. At the same time, the legislature should not be given carte blanche to
repeal or drastically alter initiatives.
This report recommends that the legislature be allowed to amend any initiative
after its enactment, so long as the change is approved by a two-thirds vote of both
legislative houses and is consistent with the measure's original purposes and intent. Any
proposed amendment must be in print at least ten days before final passage to permit
public inspection.
This recommendation adds flexibility to the law and permits elected
representatives to respond to changing conditions. The principal objection comes from
proponents who worry that the legislature will gut or undermine their initiatives. The
three safeguards attached to this proposal-the two-thirds supermajority, the purposes
and intent requirement and the requirement that legislation be in print for ten days-will
adequately prevent legislative abuse.
 
5.   Some Circulation and Qualification Procedures Should Be Eased, Others
Tightened.
 
The principal problem plaguing the initiative circulation and qualification process is that
any proponent with a million or more dollars can qualify virtually any initiative by hiring
paid circulators. This allows well-financed proponents to circumvent the screening
mechanisms designed by the drafters of the initiative process to ensure that initiatives
reach the ballot with broad public support.
The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated restrictions on the use of paid circulators on
First Amendment grounds, but other improvements can and should be made to the
circulation process:

• Internet Petition Access. The secretary of state's office should make all initiative

petitions in circulation available online and allow voters to download and print them for
signature and submission by mail.

• Disclosures. Signature petitions should list the secretary of state's Website

address and include a prominent notice at the top and in bold type that voters can find
information about the measure's major contributors on that website. Publicizing where
financial disclosures can be found will increase the likelihood that voters will use this
important information.

• Additional Statements. Within 30 days after the attorney general titles and

summarizes an initiative, proponents should be required to file an additional disclosure
statement listing contributions received and expenditures made up to seven days before
the filing.

• Notice of Later Amendments. Signature petitions should disclose that the

proponent may later amend the initiative so long as the amendments are consistent with
the initiative's original purposes and intent.

• Signature Verification. Random sample signature verification procedures by the

counties should be simplified. Initiatives should qualify if the random sample verification
of signatures indicates that proponents have gathered at least 105% (currently 110%) of
the valid signatures needed for qualification. No county should be required to verify more
than 1,500 signatures. This sample size is more than adequate to provide accuracy and
will ease the financial burden on counties and speed up the verification process.

• Online Circulation and Other Alternative Methods. Alternatives to the current

signature gathering method for qualifying initiatives should be carefully studied and
debated. Methods less dependent on financial resources should be considered,
particularly using the Internet to gather signatures and either supplementing or
supplanting circulation with public opinion polls.
 
6.   The California Secretary of State Should Improve the Design and
Content of Its Website.
 
The secretary of state's Website, a key source of independent voter information,
should be made more user-friendly. Its navigation and search capabilities should be
simplified. Proponents and opponents should be allowed to submit video statements
for and against initiatives, and these should appear on the website. The Website should
also offer video and audio versions of official voter information; links to organizational
supporters, opponents and outside sources of information; and forums for voters to
discuss and share information about ballot initiatives.
 
7. The Presentation of Information in the Existing Ballot Pamphlet 
Should Be Improved.
 
This report recommends a number of changes to the ballot pamphlet. Conflicting
initiatives should be grouped together in the pamphlet and on the ballot to allow voters to
compare them more easily, and the attorney general should place an advisory notice in
ballot pamphlets and on ballots indicating that only the measure receiving the most votes
may go into effect. Proponents and opponents of each measure should be given up to one-
half of a page to list the individuals and organizations endorsing their cause. Proponents
and opponents should be encouraged to include charts and graphs in their ballot pamphlet
arguments. The cover of the official voter information guide should notify voters that the
information in the pamphlet can also be found online in seven different languages. All
content should adhere to a 12th-grade readability standard.
 
 
 
Implementing the Reforms
 
Enacting any reforms to California's ballot initiative process will not be easy.
After 97 often turbulent years, the initiative process has acquired semi-sacrosanct status.
Many of its defenders argue that it is inviolate and should not be touched. Even some
opponents resist suggesting reforms for fear they will be branded as "enemies of the
people." Yet most observers recognize that the initiative process can and must be
improved, even though they differ over the improvements they believe necessary. The
voters still strongly support the initiative process, but they acknowledge at the same time
that it has gotten out of control and needs significant changes.
Piecemeal reforms have been suggested, and some have been introduced in the
legislature. Such reforms are politically tempting because they create the impression that
a single solution can resolve a complex problem. However, the complexity and diversity
of the current problems confronting the initiative process require a broader set of reforms.
Those with a vested interest in the status quo, those who feel the recommendations in this
report go too far and those who feel they do not go far enough-all may resist change.
To anticipate these concerns, this report has carefully devised a comprehensive
package of reforms. Presented individually, this report's recommendations might be
perceived as one sided or divisive. Taken as a whole, however, they can be implemented
without tilting significantly in favor of either supporters or opponents of the initiative
process.
For example, proponents must submit their initiative to scrutiny at a legislative
hearing before their measure is placed on the ballot, but they maintain control at all times
over the final language of the initiative that appears on the ballot. Proponents will have a
significantly longer period to circulate initiative petitions for signatures, but they must
provide increased campaign financing disclosure, both during and after the circulation
period.
The entire package of recommendations could be adopted by a single, integrated
ballot measure, placed on the ballot by the legislature or by an initiative, which would
combine both constitutional and statutory amendments. Most of the report's
recommendations could be adopted immediately by the legislature or, after circulation of
signature petitions, by a direct vote of the people on a statutory ballot initiative. 
The comprehensiveness of these reforms addresses criticisms of the initiative
process from both its opponents and supporters. Adopting them as a package will
enhance the political feasibility of reform. Implementing all the reforms proposed in this
report will help the initiative process become a responsible and effective part of
California's governance well into the future.