Ballot Initiatives

cross posted at Fox & Hounds Daily.

Criticize Prop 1A if you like, but opponents of the measures (and heck, even some supporters) should stop saying that it's long. It's not.

By comparison to other California ballot measures, 1A is short and compact. And the legislative and gubernatorial staffers (not to mention the interest group folks) who drafted 1A have done a much better job of being concise than sponsors of ballot initiatives.

Prop 1A is a little less than 3,000 words. If that seems like a lot, consider this: between 2000 and 2006, 15 of the 46 voter-sponsored initiatives on the ballot were over 5,000 words long, according to a 2008 report from the Center for Governmental Studies. Eight of those 46 initiatives were longer than 10,000 words.

The trend, the CGS report found, is at least 20 years old. Between 1980 and 1987, only two initiatives were longer than 5,000 words. (Irony: One of those initiatives, Prop 37, the lottery initiative, would be changed under Prop 1C on next Tuesday's ballot). Most initiatives in this era - and previous eras - were about the same length as Prop 1A, between 1,000 and 3,000 words. But in the 1988 and 1990 elections, all 13 initiatives exceeded 5,000 words.

A Nebraska businessman says that if the legislature won't reduce the number of signatures required to qualify a ballot initiative, he'll put an initiative on the ballot to do that.

Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke is in a world of trouble because he signed a ballot initiative petition. Specifically, the petition to put on the ballot an Arkansas initiative to ban adoption by gays or other unmarried adults. His signature got noticed after gay rights activists published the full list of signers of the initiative petition at KnowThyNeighbor.org.

The Arkansas measure is easily the most odious of the dozens of anti-gay initiatives to have qualified for the ballot in any state This initiative wasn't about marriage vs. domestic partnerships. This measure leaves kids languishing in foster care, and prohibits adoptions even within families. (The classic case: the kid with a junkie mother can't be adopted by his gay uncle under this measure).  While it may seem far-fetched to some (Arkansas voters approved the measure, after all), I believe this story puts Duke's job in jeopardy. It will make news globally and become an enormous problem for his company until he addresses it. According to this on Huffington Post, he hasn't yet. Duke should apologize quickly and reverse himself. Or look for another job.

Exhibit A is Nevada, where a bill would create a distribution requirement for signature gathering. That is, an initiative sponsor would have to get signatures equal to 10 percent of the vote in each of the state's 42 Assembly districts. That would effectively end ballot initiatives in the state. Such a process would be far too expensive and time-consuming for anyone but the wealthiest of the wealthy.

The initiative process badly needs reform. But a "reform" that merely adds unreasonable signature gathering requirements isn't worthy of the name. Yes, it perhaps should be harder to pass initiatives. But the focus should be on giving voters better choices, bringing the legislature into the process (in a way that improves voter choice but doesn't block voter preference), and fighting fraud in signature gathering. Nevada should look at adding the legislative counter proposal to its initiative process, making initiative petitions public as a fraud prevention measure, and improving the information it provides voters. That's real reform.

Ballot initiatives don't implement themselves. People must do the implementing. So what happens to successful ballot initiatives after they pass? 

Kenneth Miller, a government professor at Claremont McKenna, is building a database of successful initiatives. It's available here. Miller is focusing in particular on court challenges. This is a valuable tool. One lesson: many initiatives that pass never take full effect. (Hat tip: Bruno Kaufmann, president of IRI Europe)

Your blogger's expression of support for Props 1D and 1E -- two of the six measures on California's May 19 special election -- was so back-handed that the headline writer on the Internet version of my piece in today's LA Times seemed to think I'm against both propositions.

I'm not. Given the state's budget problems, the repurposing of money from early childhood and mental health programs makes a ton of sense. But the unintended consequences worry me. These two measures effectively take away -- temporarily -- tax money that was raised by voters through two ballot initiatives, Prop 10 and Prop 63. Such fiscal responsibility in ballot initiatives is rare. By making targets of those measures (albeit for the good reason of a budget crisis), lawmakers have eliminated whatever incentive there was fiscal responsibility among initiative sponsors.

The good news; there's an opportunity to fix the problem. State Sen. Denise Ducheny, a San Diego Democrat, and Sen. Roy Ashburn, a Bakersfield Republican, have drafted a constitutional amendment that would require future initiatives to be self-funding -- that is, to provide revenues to cover the costs of whatever programs or mandates they create. 

The Secretary of State in Washington wants to save some cash -- by limiting the descriptions and financial analyses of initiative and referendum to just one page in state ballot pamphlets. That means even the most complicated measures will have to be explained in 500 words or less. The Everett (Wash.) Herald explains why that's penny-wise, pound-foolish.

Several tribes, incluuld ding the Navajo nation, have ballot initiatives and referenda. Here's an interesting report on two ballot initiatives that have circulated for signatures. One would reduce the number of lawmakers in Navajo government and the other would give the elected president a line-item veto.

An Oregon judge has set down a set of rules to govern the conduct of Bill Sizemore, the activist who can't seem to stop himself from sponsoring ballot initiatives. Chief among them: Sizemore can no longer help run or be paid by any nonprofit organization without first receiving a judge's approval.

Sizemore has been accused by newspapers and his chief political opponent, the Oregon teachers' union, of creating and operating sham non-profits to disguise political donations and enrich himself. The county circuit judge who imposed the rule said that handcuffing Sizemore is essential to keeping elections honest in the state of Oregon. Details via the Oregonian.

The two measures have merely advanced out of committee to the full state senate. The changes are modest. One would set a slightly less onerous standard for qualifying measures--a number of signatures equal to 15 percent of the votes cast in the most recent governor's race. The other would move up the process of appealing a title and summary earlier in the cycle of qualifying an initiative. Under current law, such appeals can be filed and heard only after signature gathering is completed. If an appeal results in a change in the title and summary, then the signature gathering is void and sponsors must start over. Under the proposed legislation, that appeal would be possible before signature gathering begins, saving time and effort.