CA initiative reform: Lawmakers ignore the elephant in the room

CA initiative reform: Lawmakers ignore the elephant in the room

ballotThe San Francisco Chronicle recently reported on initiative reforms that take effect today.

After more than a century in California’s political spotlight, the state’s initiative process will be getting a major revise next year. Even more surprising, both Democrats and Republicans in the famously partisan Legislature are happy to see it happen.

While Republicans made up most of the limited opposition when SB1253 made its way through the Legislature, the two GOP leaders, state Sen. Bob Huff of Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County) and Assembly member Kristin Olsen of Modesto, both voted “aye.”

“It was a bipartisan effort,” said former state Sen. Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, the Democrat who authored the bill. “People like the initiative process but believe it can be improved.”

The measure opens the way for increased collaboration between lawmakers and backers of initiatives by requiring the Legislature to hold a joint public hearing on a proposed initiative as soon as 25 percent of the required signatures are collected. It also calls for the attorney general to open a 30-day public review before approving an initiative for circulation and lets supporters amend the initiative during that time.

A much-bigger problem: Slanted ballot language

These reforms make sense and should lean to cleaner ballot measures.  But if one looks back over the past 15 years, all of the biggest outrages in the initiative process involved another problem that the Legislature declined to try to fix: the extraordinary way that the last three attorneys general — Bill Lockyer, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris — have slanted ballot language to achieve the outcome that Democratic special interests prefer.

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s bid to use a 2005 special election to force through major reforms was hurt badly by Lockyer’s ballot titles and language. Proposition 76 would have created a rainy-day fund and a less chaotic budget process. Lockyer made it sound like an attempt to hurt school kids, titling it “State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”

In one week alone in 2010, then-Attorney General Jerry Brown had his ballot language thrown out by judges who agreed that Brown wasn’t playing fair on a ballot measure challenging AB 32 and one making it easier to pass a state budget without Republican votes. (He tried to sabotage the first one, Prop. 23, and promote the second one, Prop. 25.)

Kamala Harris has continued this unfortunate tradition. This CalWatchdog post looks at her attempt to help trial lawyers with their misleading 2014 ballot measure.

Lockyer, Brown and Harris all say they don’t draft the language; instead, they depict it as a chore that they leave to their “professional staffs.” But if that were the case, then why have all three AGs opposed reforms transferring ballot-language responsibilities to the FPPC, the LAO or a panel of retired judges?

Because they know being able to compose ballot language on measures digging with the biggest issues of the day gives the California attorney general extraordinary power.

The worst ballot-language abuser of all

bullet.train.trustBut the twist to all this is that the single worst abuser of the privilege of writing ballot descriptions was the Legislature itself. In 2008, Democrats in the Assembly and Senate directly wrote the highly misleading title and summary for Proposition 1A, the measure which provided $9.95 billion in bond seed money for the bullet-train project. Here’s the summary:

SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT. To provide Californians a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices; to provide good-paying jobs and improve California’s economy while reducing air pollution, global warming greenhouse gases, and our dependence on foreign oil, shall $9.95 billion in bonds be issued to establish a clean, efficient high-speed train service linking Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area, with at least 90 percent of bond funds spent for specific projects, with federal and private matching funds required, and all bond funds subject to independent audits?'”

This prompted a Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association lawsuit. That suit led a state appellate court to issue a jaw-dropping decision that forever banned the Legislature from writing ballot language.

2 comments

Write a comment
  1. Rachel Meyer
    Rachel Meyer 1 January, 2015, 14:09

    So, does SB1253 mean that once I, (we) have secured 25% of the required signatures I have to travel to Sacramento at a time and date that suits the Legislators at my own expense? Excuse me but that’s a stick in the eye to the promoters of an initiative.

    Reply this comment
  2. ricky65
    ricky65 2 January, 2015, 16:21

    Think of it as an opportunity. It will be a chance to kiss the rings of the high priests of corruption in Excremento. You may be persuaded (no doubt with the offer of taxpayer money) to drop your initiative if it doesn’t suit the wishes of the oligarchy and their elitist puppet masters in the PE unions, enviros, and coastal elites.
    Be mindful, of course, that if you become stubbornly reluctant to change or abandon your proposal you could wind up with a horse’s head in your bed courtesy of the SEIU goons.
    You need to think positively. It’s entirely possible they may cut you in on the action like they did the grocers group with the 10 cent per bag giveaway of hard pressed consumers cash at the grocery store.
    And if there is even remotely any possible connection to climate change they might even fold your idea in the carbon trading program just like they did gasoline. This one is an absolute potential gold mine if if you can swing it. There is one catch however. They get to keep the majority of the extortion money stolen from the car driving neanderthal rubes for themselves. It works best for them since they can spread around the cash most efficiently and directly to their enviro friends (who BTW, are the biggest donors to their campaigns) for various and dubious ‘gang green’ subsidies.
    And no idea for an initiative is too crazy either. I just bought a dozen eggs today and the price is up over a dollar from last week. Asked my grocer what was going on an he said a new law passed by initiative mandates more space in chicken cages so the little fellas don’t feel crowded and stressed. Who knew chickens felt stressed? But that gets me thinking- OK, who got to our kleptocratic legisrats this time? I’m not sure but maybe Darrell (Bugsy) Steinberg’s brother-in-law builds chicken condominiums and is making a killing unstressing chickens.
    So get cracking on those signatures. The good news is so many of our fellow citizens have decided to give up voting altogether because of nonsense like this that it doesn’t take many signatures to get your proposal on the ballot.
    And don’t be afraid to meet in a pot-smoke filled room with these fine folks. (I know, I know, it used to be cigar smoke filled room but no tobacco smoke please–EVER) Be optimistic and remember:
    We have the best legislature money can buy.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee attacks Chick-fil-A

July 30, 2012 By John Seiler San Francisco has a reputation as a “tolerant” city, the capital of the 1967

Prediction: CTA, CFT will kill Brown push to help English learners

Feb. 27, 2013 By Chris Reed On the Fox & Hounds website, veteran Sacramento watcher John Wildermuth has a sharp

Ammiano bill would regulate nannies, babysitters

June 27, 2013 By Katy Grimes SACRAMENTO — The “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights,” AB 241, may have a certain civil