A Novel Proposition

It seems that the one thing that Californians can’t seem to get enough of these days is not sun or waves, but ballot initiatives. Since the infamous Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, California went all the way through to Proposition 227, started back at a “new” Proposition 1 in 1998, and is now again up to Proposition 80 on the Nov. 8 ballot, with 33 more initiatives circulating or pending at the Attorney General’s Office.

The blazing pace of initiatives is a clear indicator that something is gravely wrong. California politics are so backward that the only way many pieces of legislation become law is by avoiding the legislature and the governor altogether. So special interests decide to go directly to the people with a ballot initiative. This system of “governance” is tremendously flawed, top to bottom.

For one, the deluge of ballot initiatives burns out and confuses voters. This will be the sixth referendum ballot in just over two years. With 10 long and complicated ballot measures thrown at me at a time, I have trouble sorting through the mess that is my sample ballot. So I usually look to the Los Angeles Times and state party endorsements and then decide based on little information in a rather arbitrary manner. And I’m certainly not alone; the typical Californian hasn’t the time to stay up on every issue, leading to frustration with the referendum process.

The premise of representative government is that professional politicians—who understand the nuances of each piece of legislation—will make the legislation decisions, not ill-informed voters. If carefully considered legislation is the goal, politicians need to take the reins again.

Further, ballot initiatives are often poorly written, as they are designed to pass, not to be effective laws. Take, for example, Proposition 74 on Tuesday’s ballot, regarding public school teacher tenure. The Los Angeles Times calls it “sloppy work” and a “failure to write a true reform package.” A bill written by legislators, on the other hand, isn’t under pressure to pass on a single shot. It can be refined and amended with input and become a more effective piece of legislation.

Despite its harsh criticisms, The Times still endorsed Proposition 74, saying that—despite its poor form—it would do more good than harm. This opinion is the result of a sort of catch-22. Even when the ballot initiatives are flawed, sometimes there is simply nowhere else for Californians to look for effective government. Totally controlled by Democrats and devoid of any competition, the legislature is solidified, bordering on corrupt. So, if the legislature does not want to address an issue, it doesn’t have to; there’s no pressure from within, and so special interests turn to referenda.

Quite simply, something must be done. One solution is Proposition 77, a ballot measure which will have retired judges draw district lines in an effort to end gerrymandering and reintroduce competition. But while its premise has a lot of promise, Proposition 77 could be a logistical nightmare. It calls for the redistricting to occur before the next congressional election. Those in charge of running state elections say that this is practically unfeasible and that the narrow timeframe is reason enough to reject the proposition (a Los Angeles Times poll has predicted its rejection as well). However, it seems that some sort of redistricting reform, be it in the form of Proposition 77 or not, would improve the situation.

Another idea is to make it much more difficult to get propositions on the ballot, forcing special interests to go to the bargaining table with legislators. Truth be told, this is a gamble. It is unclear whether such bargaining would result in actual legislation or just leave California gridlocked. Given the potential reward, however, it is worth the risk: if getting an initiative on the ballot was more difficult, but not impossible, initiatives would still be available as a safety valve to fix problems that cannot be fixed in any other way.

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to fix the referenda problem, which is not California’s alone. But something must be done. Redistricting and limiting initiatives are a start.



Adam M. Guren ’08, a Crimson editorial editor, is an economics concentrator in Eliot House.