Ballot Initiative

Gov. Jerry Brown's budget proposals to realign local services and redevelopment are a great public service. Not because they represent deep change – they don't – but because they expose the broad and bipartisan consensus against any meaningful overhaul of California's broken governing system.

The broad opposition to Brown's redevelopment and realignment arguments illustrates the extent to which our state has acclimated itself to the afterworld of Proposition 13, even though it robs us of our ability to govern ourselves democratically and condemns our children to a shabbier life.

As bad as things are with state government in California, remember this: There's plenty of opportunity to make things worse.

For evidence, look no further than the nine initiatives on November's ballot. Each measure illustrates some aspect of the state's crisis of governance. And many of the initiatives threaten to deepen it.

This is the peculiar hell of California now: The establishment of even worthwhile policy ideas is risky because they must be constructed on the toxic sand that is the state's governing system.

Are you tired of California's dysfunctional government? Sick of worrying about our perennial money woes? Has your trust in government reached rock bottom?

Well, then, there's only one thing to do: Join a movement to give elected officials more power.

That's right. You read that correctly. You may have a burning desire to throw the bums out or, at the very least, to take away as much of their power as you can, but the only way to fix the system is to do exactly the opposite: Empower elected officials, let them do their jobs, and then hold them accountable.

Is the new European initiative process going to change what you eat and invest in? Has Oregon figured out a better way to find errors in ballot measures? Will robots solicit your signature on referendum petitions? Should California's initiative process be expanded, reformed or eliminated? How does Hong Kong conduct direct democracy in the shadow of the People's Republic of China? Why is tiny Uruguay so good at soccer and direct democracy?

Answers to these and other questions were discussed at this international forum.

California is hardly the only place where voters, through initiative and referendum, make important decisions about government. As the state struggles with persistent budgetary and political problems, the world has been watching, with a combination of wonder and horror. What do direct democrats around the world think as they look at California? What might California learn from the world about its direct democratic system? And what might the rest of the world learn from us?

Somebody named Lee Olson of Huntington Beach, Calif., filed four ballot initiatives with the state attorney general Tuesday. The most interesting one is entitled the "California Freedom From Slavery Act." What does Olson mean by slavery, given that slavery was formally abolished with the 13th Amendment? Why, taxation of course.

That state is Washington, where the veteran initiative activist Tim Eyman has succeeded in qualifying a tax limitation measure for the ballot. Eyman's proposes to put caps on general fund spending at the state and local level, and require that any extra money be used to reduce property taxes.

Ballot Access News has a handy overview of several proposed constitutional amendments, now in the California legislature, to reinstitute the indirect initiative. Before a constitutional revision in the 1960s, California permitted voters to gather signatures as a method of putting an idea before the legislature.

Those who think next year's California elections are going to be about constitutional reform should think again. In addition to facing divisive initiatives on same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana, voters will confront an initiative assault on legal immigrants.

At long last, fresh meat for petition circulators in California. An initiative to make the legislature part-time has just been approved for circulation. If the measure were to be approved, the legislature would meet for 30 days starting in January and another 60 days beginning in May. The legislature also could meet for another 5 days to reconsider legislation vetoed by the governor.