THE STATE INITIATIVE PROCESS

Issue Summary

California’s Initiative Process (along with the referendum and the recall) was established in 1911 by reformers in the Progressive movement (many of whom were founders and early activists of the Commonwealth Club). While the initiative process is extremely popular with Californians, 72% of them also believe that changes in the current system are needed (PPIC Poll, November 2005).

On Election Day voters encounter initiatives that are complicated, and in some cases expressly intended to deceive. Because initiative language can’t be modified after it qualifies for the ballot, flawed language can become law or result in the courts (millions of dollars later) ruling new law unconstitutional. And qualifying a measure for the ballot in the first place cost millions of dollars – something the average Californian does not have nor has the means to raise. This issue was studied in depth in 2000 by the Commission on the California Initiative Process, convened by former Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg, although the Legislature did not ever consider the Commission’s recommendations.

Supporters of initiative process reform generally express interest in updating the initiative process so that it can be more responsive to the public and produce sound public policy. Budget reformers also support steps to control spending through initiatives that subsequently constrains the state budget.

Current Status

In the '05-'06 legislative session, California Secretary of State McPherson sponsored three bills that would reform the initiative process: AB 2460 (Evans D-7) would have required all petitions used for signature collection to have the same language as the text approved by the Attorney General. SB 1715 (Margett R-29) would have increased the time proponents have to collect signatures from 150 days to 365 days. ACA 18 (Nation D-6) would have reinstated the indirect initiative as a means of incenting the Legislature and initiative proponents to engage in public discourse on an issue before putting it on the ballot. In addition to this activity, The Center for Governmental Studies is updating its comprehensive 1992 Report, “Democracy By Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government,” and they plan to have revised reform recommendations complete by fall 2006.

Finally, a recent PPIC poll (Nov. 2005) showed strong public support for changing the initiative process:

• 83% feel strongly or somewhat strongly that too much money is spent on initiative campaigns
• 72% think major or minor changes to the initiative process are needed
• 77% support steps to avoid drafting errors and legal issues
• 83% support allowing time for initiative compromises
• 53% support the idea of limiting initiatives to November general ballots
• 85% support increasing public disclosure of funding sources for initiative campaigns and signature-gathering efforts
• 77% support requiring televised debates on initiative measures

UPCOMING EVENTS

None scheduled on this topic at this time.

BACKGROUND

Past VoR Programs

VoR Post Election Series: "Taking Stock of California's Initiative Process: Opportunities for Reform" (01/17/07, Sacramento) | DOWNLOAD MP3 | California Channel Video

Panel Discussion: Does California's Initiative Process Need to be Reformed? (Spring Conference: "If It’s Broke, Fix It: Making California Government Work for Californians" 6/10/05) | DOWNLOAD MP3

Editorial Board Roundtable: Initiative Process Reform (hosted by the San Francisco Chronicle, 4/20/05) | PDF TRANSCRIPT

Legislation ('05-'06 legislative session)

ACA 18. Introduced by Assemblyman Nation (D-6). This bill allows for the public discourse and potential modification of initiatives prior to being placed on the ballot.

AB 2460. Introduced by Assemblywoman Evans (D-7). This bill will insure that the text of an initiative submitted to the Attorney General matches the text used on petitions while gathering signatures.

SB 1715. Introduced by Senator Margett (R-29). This bill would extend the initiative signature collection period from 150 to 365 days.

California Secretary of State Initiative Information. The California Secretary of State’s Elections and Voter Information section provides a History of California Initiatives, instructions for qualifying an initiative, and provides updates about initiatives currently on the ballot or in circulation.

Speakers Commission on the California Initiative Process. The Speakers Commission on the California Initiative Process was formed by California State Assembly Speaker Emeritus Robert Hertzberg to recommend ways to improve the initiative process. The site includes links to articles on this topic.

Institute of Government Studies. This bibliography was compiled in 1998 for a conference at the Institute of Government Studies at UC Berkeley entitled “Proposition 13 and its Progeny: Is California Suffering from an Excess of Democracy?” It lists books, articles, and web resources.

University of California Hastings College of the Law. The Library at UC Hastings College of the Law has compiled this database of information on all California ballot propositions and initiatives from 1911 to the present.

California Constitution Article 2. These are the articles in the California Constitution that deal with initiative, referendum, and recall.

The Initiative and Referendum Institute. The Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California (USC) provides a comprehensive clearinghouse of information on the initiative process, from reports to news to election reports.

The National Conference on State Legislatures. This National Conference on State Legislatures provides links to sites dealing with Initiatives and Referenda around the country.

Califoria Forward. California Forward is a nonprofit organization charting a new path to more effective state governance through nonpartisan policy analysis, public dialogue throughout the state on key issues, and pursuit of sensible reforms.

Reports and Papers

‘Priority of Recommendations for Reform of California’s Ballot Initiative Process’ (pdf) (CGS working document by Center for Governmental Studies, 2006)

‘Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative Process’ (PPIC Report by Mark Baldassare, November 2005)

‘The Henry Lecture: The Promise and Perils of Hybrid Democracy” (pdf) (Working paper by Elizabeth Garrett, USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics, 2006)

‘On an historical scale, this ballot carries weight’ (newspaper article by John Marelius, San Diego Union Tribune, October 3, 2005)

‘The Speaker’s Commission on the California Initiative: Final Report’ (pdf) (Report by The Speaker’s Commission on the California Initiative, 2002)

‘The California Initiative Process: Background and Perspective’ (PPIC Report by J. Fred Silva, November 2000)

‘California’s Statewide Initiative Process’ (pdf) (California Research Bureau Report by Charlene Wear Simmons, May 1997)

‘Democracy By Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government’ (pdf) (Report by Center for Governmental Studies, 1992)

‘Interest Group Influence in the California Initiative Process’ (pdf) (Public Policy Institute of California Report by Elizabeth Gerber, November 1998)

‘How Interest Groups Use the Initiative Process in California’ (pdf) (PPIC Research Brief, September 1998)

‘Are There Winners and Losers? Race, Ethnicity, and California’s Initiative Process’ (pdf) (PPIC Report by Zoltan Hajnal and Hugh Louch, October 2001)

‘Is the Initiative Process Fair to Nonwhite Voters?’ (pdf) (PPIC Research Brief, October 2001)