Pounding Out Change in California

California's ballot propositions are the nation's most captivating political system. The attention given to these measures by The New York Times, The Crimson and on network news underline their importance and genuine popularity. Propositions, or "initiatives," in the formal wording of the state constitution, confront headline issues like health care and immigration in soundbite packages that make them easy to explain and entertaining to watch. However, this landmark system has been weakened in recent years, and it is time for California and those who watch its politics to change the proposition process in order to maintain its power.

The proposition system, allowing for the direct passage of law by majority vote, was originally envisioned as a check on legislative power. Yet the initiative system has become more than a check; in the last generation, the voting public has done more than anyone in the state capital to enact innovative legislation. While the governorship is still a vaunted position--if only as a potential springboard to the Presidency--the State House and Senate have done little more than keep the books balanced and administer existing programs.

The growth of the proposition system has been fueled by its successes, most notably Proposition 13, the 1978 measure that restructured California's property taxes, and dramatically changed the shape of the suburbs and the funding for public education. Perhaps one of the most important pieces of citizen-led legislation ever, Prop. 13 was followed by similar reforms in many other states and altered the status of public schools throughout the country. No matter what its political ramifications, Prop. 13 was a success as an initiative, a proposal that garnered true grass-roots support and quickly became law.

Propositions have remained popular; they have made politics matter in California. They are debated over all the channels of communication: they have spawned flashy billboards and commercials in prime time, slogans on buttons and biting bumper stickers on the endless stream of cars on the freeway. Taking numbers alone as an indicator, the proposition has grown in importance, as the last two elections have brought 23 measures for voters to consider. In 1996 alone, proposition votes have legalized the medical use of marijuana (Prop. 215), and ended affirmative action (Prop. 209), while the 1994 end of basic education and health rights for illegal immigrants (Prop. 187), has worked it way through the courts. In the same election two different proposals for state-supported health care, Props. 214 and 216, were rejected.

As this election season heats up, California's propositions, this time on term limits for U.S. Representatives and bilingual education, are again in the news. Yet despite all this seeming success, these chances for Californians to directly affect state law and national attitudes at the ballot box, I am pessimistic about the current state of propositions and urge the need for all those who follow the propositions to consider the need for their reform. Before taking sides on the propositions, political analysts and Californians like me should reflect on how the initiative system has been abused and needs our help to be reformed.

First, propositions have become the play-thing of interest groups. It is amazing to think that lobbying groups feel they can convince more of the populace than the state representatives to get their law passed, but this is precisely what has happened. The recent advertising boom in proposition politics can be traced to the huge infusion of money from outside groups, who use California as a battleground for their national concerns. Tobacco giants and conservative think tanks as well as drug-legalization activists have acted around spending limits and disclosure laws to affect the outcome. National media attention has often only exacerbated the problem, presenting a clip of a rally or debate and never considering the issues at hand.

Yet even more alarming has been the fate of most recent initiatives: court date after court date. Being tied up in court makes propositions an ineffective form of government and places undue power in the state judiciary. Two recent examples--from opposite ends of the spectrum--are Props. 209 and 215, passed in November 1996, which have been tied up in court since passing. This week, the state Supreme Court issued orders to close cannibis clubs for operating in violation of Prop. 215, declaring its definition too vague on what constitutes medical use. Similarly, Prop. 209, as well as the earlier Prop 187, have been delayed in their implementation due to numerous pending state and federal suits challenging the measures on civil-rights grounds. These bills are only the most prominent examples of the problem: California's propositions cannot be effective if they are not are tied up in court.

Most controversial and important legislation is challenged in court, but recent initiatives have increasingly been subjected to that fate. One important reason is that initiatives have become vague and have been worded more and more deceptively. Lobbyists now put their dream wording onto these bills. Though this freedom might have once supported direct democratic action, California now decides major issues based on poorly worded questions, where the answer may lay outside the boundaries of a simple yes or no.

The initiative system now approaches the delicate balance of politics with the popular but dangerously destructive power of a sledgehammer. More often than not, both sides in the state's Voter Information packet agree the measure does not exactly address the state's political and fiscal reality, and so it is no surprise these measures meant to act out the direct will of the people instead become court cases.

Ironically, the instrument of government meant to bring the most power to the people now drops decisions into the laps of state Supreme Court judges and prevents either side from being satisfied. When court appeals and amicae briefs are the most important locus for lawmaking, the initiative system has been hopelessly debased. Lacking in legislative finesse, ineffective propositions lead voters to despair and stop voting, or, more wisely, vote "no" on bills regardless of their content. Then, the status quo is safe--and any chance for reform is on the ropes.

Initiatives are brought by both liberal and conservative groups, and I am not advocating a position on any specific initiative in order to plead for the process: help save this important institution. This year, don't cheer the heavily financed and poorly conceived proposals as models for national reform; first they need to be responsible pieces of legislation and not just whim writ large. California voters should have enough sense to turn down these types of proposals for more serious methods to govern their state--the officials in Sacramento should be called upon to do more for their constituencies. As this election season heats up and the bold positions of the Californian propositions again make headlines, the nation should focus on the real question of California politics: whether or not the initiative system can survive to prosper again.

Adam I. Arenson '00 is a history and literature concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.