In this morning's LA Times, Bob Stern and Tracy Westen of the Center for Governmental Studies offer some suggestions for reforming California's initiative process. These ideas are drawn from CGS's excellent report on the process. They include providing voters with better information on initiative, expanding the amount of time needed to get measures on the ballot, requiring any measure that establishes a super-majority for something to pass by the same super-majority, and making it possible for initiative sponsors to withdraw an initiative, even after signatures are filed, if a compromise is reached with the legislature. Those are fine ideas, but they are, at root, half-measures that only make minor changes in a deeply flawed process. And they don't respond to the main problem that Stern and Westen identify, particularly the over-use of ballot initiatives as a tool of policy making. In fact, by making it easier to qualify measures for the ballot with a time limit, and making withdrawal easier, Stern and Westen's plan would likely increase the number of initiatives on the ballot. (That number is already going up).

For all the complaints about California's initiative process, there have been few serious proposals for improving it. New America is hosting an event Tuesday (October 14) in Sacramento, Blockbuster Democracy (a familiar and catchy name, don't you think?), to give several folks -- your blogger among them -- a chance to offer possible solutions. Full details of the event are here. (That link also includes space to sign up to attend the event). u

The event kicks off at 9:30 a.m. at the California State Association of Counties conference center, 1020 11th Street, 2nd floor. I'll be speaking first, offering a detailed proposal I'm calling, "More Referenda, Fewer Initiatives." After that, you'll hear from Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies, which earlier this year released an exhaustive study of direct democracy in California. Other panelists are Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign; Anthony Rubenstein, managing partner of SinoTransPacific Ventures and chairman of Californians for Clean Energy, sponsor of Proposition 87 in 2006; and my New America colleague Mark Paul, senior scholar, who will discuss the impact of initiatives on California's troubled finances. Lunch is provided, and there will be time during lunch for lots of questions from the audience. Hope you'll be able to join us. It should be worth your while.

At the California Progress Report, Stern offers a brief description of some of his recommendations for the initiative process. This is well researched, and well thought out report. Of these recommendations, all of these make sense, and the idea of expanding the time limit to qualify a measure from 150 days to 365 days is a great idea that would allow more grass roots participaton in signature gathering. The only idea that doesn't make sense is the idea of a $100,000 contribution limit, which is almost certainly unconstitutional.

Here's a link to the major new report on the initiative process in California from Bob Stern and the Center for Governmental Studies. I'm still reading and digesting. I have some problems with the history, but otherwise, it's very well-done. Updated, 5/8: Steve Wiegand of the Sacramento Bee weighs in on Stern's proposals and is skeptical. I'm less skeptical, but still reading.