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.

...how can they be so easily explained in these brief videos on the Center for Governmental Studies web site? (The above video is the first of six, explaining 1A). The videos run less than 2 minutes.

We're now in a panel discussion with the goo goos (Common Cause, Center for Governmental Studies, League of Women Voters). My New America colleague Mark Paul just had a good line that would be a good principle to guide a constitutional convention. "The Golden Rule of Representation," as Paul put it, is that we should "give unto others the representation you would have them give unto you."

He then launched into a call for proportional representation.

The consensus of the panel is that the legislature itself--and fixing how it works--is at the heart of the state's problems. There's been almost nothing about changing the executive and judicial branches.

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.

Fundraising for ballot initiatives is a rich man's game. In 2006 in California, some two-thirds of all donations to ballot measures came in the amount of $1 million or more, according to a recent report from the Center for Governmental Studies. Yes, two-thirds of all donations.

So the latest big cash dumps in California are business as usual. Peter Sperling just gave $2.5 million to Prop 7, an alternative fuels measure. And George Soros found some spare change with the lint in his pants -- about $400,000 -- and threw it to Prop 5, which would expand drug rehabilitation and loosen some penalties for drug offenders. Soros' total donations to the measure? $1.4 million. So far. The Sacramento Bee has details.

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.