|
CALIFORNIA needs to modernize its initiative process, but if we're going to wander into such delicate political territory, we should take a comprehensive, not piecemeal, approach.
As reform of the process, which dates back to Gov. Hiram Johnson early in the last century, inches toward submitting something to voters, we need a coordinated look at how the Golden State practices the peoples' democracy. This year several proposals address some of the shortcomings.
Republican Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and the League of Women Voters have thrown bipartisan support behind a package of bills that would:
- Let the Legislature review and amend qualified initiatives, with the approval of the measure's supporters. If accepted by proponents, the initiative would become law. If they disagree, the idea can always qualify for a ballot.
- Extend signature gathering from 150 to 365 days, giving grass-roots groups a better chance of qualifying measures.
- Have McPherson's office correct drafting errors in initiative petitions, helping avoid such problems as that with Proposition 77, the 2005 redistricting initiative of which one version was circulated for signatures and another given to the attorney general's office.
Each proposal has merits and shortcomings. The first of the above bills, ACA18 by Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, may set well with some voters, but not with purists who see initiatives as "the people's process." Having McPherson's office correct "drafting errors" also may help eliminate "poorly written" reforms that run afoul of the law or bear unanticipated, negative impacts.
But it's not a complete package, as Sen. Debra Bowen,
D-Redondo Beach, chair of the Senate Elections Committee, points out. She wants petitioners to go public with who's behind initiatives by banning the practice of paying signature gatherers on a per-signature basis and making those circulating initiative petitions name the largest contributors. Such reforms could add much-needed transparency to the process.
But the current approach is fractured and undisciplined. Rather than approve some pet reforms one year and others the next, with little thought given to whether they conflict or mesh, we need a more studied and comprehensive approach — one in which all improvements are considered and included in a coordinated bill with minimal contradictions. Only then would the proposal be put before voters.
It behooves Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — or his successor — and leaders in the Legislature to jointly appoint a task force to formulate such a proposal, eliminating partisan pitfalls.
We would also prefer that the Legislature act on more tough issues itself rather than rely on the initiative process to get them off the hook. That would in and of itself limit the number of measures on our ballots.
If we're going to truly reform the initiative process, we need a more comprehensive, rather than a scattered, hit-and-miss approach to the problem.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_3692918
|
Latest News 
