For Immediate Release - May 2, 2008
For further information contact: Tracy Westen at CGS (310.470.6590)
or Bob Stern via cell (310.382.0904).

Click here to download a Word .doc version of this press release.

Click here to download the book from the CGS website.

Ballot initiatives have reshaped the lives of California citizens for almost 100 years, yet the initiative process itself has become outmoded, inflexible, confusing, complex, difficult for citizens to use and excessively dominated by money, concludes a new report, Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government, issued by the Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) today.

California must update its system of "direct democracy" to bring it into the 21st Century. Reforms are needed to help citizens draft, circulate and vote more effectively and responsibly on initiatives that can dramatically affect the future of the state, the report added.

Tracy Westen, CEO of CGS, said: "Californians now function like a super-legislature, writing, voting on and enacting legislation directly, and circumventing any participation by the state legislature. If citizens are going to act like legislators, they should be given some of the same tools available to legislators: expert analysis to guide policy decisions, the ability to negotiate and approve compromise legislation, and the power to amend or withdraw proposals before adoption. This will correct errors in California’s ballot initiatives and reduce the number of initiatives appearing on the ballot."

Democracy by Initiative proposes giving initiative proponents and legislators an opportunity to work together to improve state policy. The recommendations would encourage initiative proponents and legislators to negotiate compromise legislative solutions, thus avoiding costly initiative elections and reducing the overall number of initiatives on the ballot. If proponents and the legislature agree to legislation covering the same subject, the initiative will be taken off the ballot so that the voters don’t have to consider it. If the proponents and the legislature don’t agree, the initiative automatically goes on the ballot, but in amended form as proposed by the proponent.

Democracy by Initiative proposes several other critical improvements to the current process. These range from allowing constitutional revisions by initiative, to improving voter information, to limiting very large contributions to ballot measure committees. (A summary of the report’s recommendations appears at the end of this Press Release.)

Bob Stern, President of the Center, noted: "Initiatives have appeared on the ballot in great numbers in the last few decades, and they have touched nearly all aspects of California life, from law enforcement to taxation to education, but the process is almost the same as it was when Hiram Johnson proposed it in 1911. California’s initiative process should be updated, and it should be done by 2011, the 100th Anniversity of California’s adoption of the initiative process."

The number of initiatives peaked during the 1990s, when 61 initiatives qualified for the ballot. Voters approved 39 percent of those measures. The absolute number of initiatives on the ballot has fallen relative to the 1990s, but initiatives continue to be a popular mode of policymaking in the state. From 2000–2006, 48 initiatives qualified for the ballot—30 percent of which voters approved. For the November 2008 election, 57 initiatives are currently in circulation, although only a small percentage is expected to qualify.

Bob Stern also noted, "Initiatives have also become extraordinarily costly, often allowing only the wealthiest individuals and organizations to compete. Large contributions too often dominate the initiative process."

In 2006, two-thirds of all contributions to ballot measure committees came in amounts of $1 million or more. One contributor gave over $48 million to support one initiative. Effective campaigns can cost tens of millions of dollars, and some have reached $100 million on one side alone.

The recommendations in Democracy by Initiative address a number of key problems with the initiative process in California today:

• Poorly drafted initiatives reap confusion among voters and courts.
• Initiative texts are too long and too complex.
• The initiative process is inflexible and prevents proponents from correcting errors once circulation begins.
• The legislature is discouraged from participating in the initiative process.
• Even after enactment, California law prevents legislative amendments.
• Qualification by signature petition is too easy with money and too difficult without.
• Initiatives amend the state constitution too often.
• Ballot pamphlets and the secretary of state’s Web site are important sources of voter information but could communicate that information more effectively.
• One-sided and deceptive media campaigns distort election outcomes.
• Large contributions and high spending dominate elections.
• Court decisions invalidate popularly enacted initiatives.

Other Democracy by Initiative highlights include:

• A complete model law that details all of the changes to California law that the report recommends.
• A timeline of the initiative process under the proposed recommendations.
• Charts and graphs showing key ballot initiative trends from 1911–2006.

This second edition of the report updates the findings and recommendations in its original edition, which CGS and the blue ribbon California Commission on Campaign Financing published in 1992.

CGS is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that creates innovative political and media solutions to help individuals participate more effectively in their communities and governments. Via research, advocacy, information technology and education, CGS strives to improve the fairness of governmental policies and processes, empower the underserved to participate more effectively in their communities, improve communication between voters and candidates for office, and help implement effective public policy reforms.

Funding by the James Irvine Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York made this report possible, although they bear no responsibility for its findings or recommendations.

(1) Inflexibility

Problem: Ballot initiatives are too inflexible. Proponents cannot correct mistakes once circulation begins, and they cannot withdraw initiatives before the election even though the legislature may have enacted an acceptable compromise. The legislature cannot make amendments to fix problems after an initiative’s enactment. As a result, many initiatives are poorly drafted, sow confusion among voters and require years of additional initiatives to amendment them. The legislature is blocked from effectively participating in the process.

Recommendation: CGS recommends that initiative proponents be empowered to negotiate compromises with the legislature. If the legislature enacts acceptable legislation to address the problem, proponents may then withdraw their initiative from the ballot—thereby simplifying the ballot, avoiding a waste of voters’ time and engaging the legislature in the process. If the legislature fails to enact acceptable legislation, proponents may place their initiative on the ballot, together with any amendments that are consistent with the purposes and intent of the initiative CGS also recommends that the legislature be allowed amend, by a two-thirds vote (or less if the initiative so specifies), any statutory initiative (but not constitutional amendment) after passage, so long as the amendments are consistent with the initiative’s purposes and intent, and the amendments are in print ten days before the final vote. Legislators and initiative proponents should be given a meaningful opportunity to work together to improve state policymaking. The amendability provisions recommended in the report would encourage initiative proponents and legislators to negotiate compromise legislative solutions, thus avoiding costly initiative elections and reducing the overall number of initiatives on the ballot.

(2) Money

Problem: Large contributions, wealthy individuals and high spending organizations dominate elections, stripping initiatives of their grassroots origins. One recent California election cost over $330 million, and wealthy contributors of $1 million or more gave two-thirds of all monies received by initiative committees. . Escalating campaign costs squeeze out citizen initiatives and allow large financial interests to dominate the initiative circulation, qualification and campaign processes.

Recommendation: CGS recommends that a high $100,000 limit be placed on all contributions to ballot measure committees, thereby substantially reducing the impact of large, often multi-million dollar contributors. CGS also recommends that ballot initiative committees controlled by candidates or elected officials not be able to raise contributions in excess of the limits for those specific candidates or elected officials.

(3) Voter Information

Problem: Ballot pamphlets and the Secretary of State’s website are important sources of voter information, but they do not communicate that information effectively. Voters find current sources of voter information misleading and confusing. The Internet and video-on-demand are not used effectively.

Recommendation: CGS recommends that the Secretary of State’s Office "bring voter information into the YouTube Age." It should allow proponents and opponents of ballot measures to record short video statements and place them on the Secretary of State’s website. The Secretary of State should also improve the readability and graphics of the voter’s pamphlet.

(4) Circulation

Problem: Ballot initiatives are too easy to qualify with money and too difficult to quality by grassroots and volunteer organizations. Anyone with $1 to $2 million can qualify virtually any initiative, yet grassroots organizations find qualification within the required 150 days—among the shortest circulation period of any state—too difficult.

Recommendation: CGS recommends that California’s circulation process be extended from 150 to 365 days, bringing it in line with many other states. This would give grassroots organizations more time to circulate initiatives, yet it would not affect wealthier interests, since they can qualify measures in virtually any period.

*** Note: Appendix A to the report provides a full summary list of the recommendations.

CGS Mission

The Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) creates innovative political and media solutions to help individuals participate more effectively in their communities and governments. CGS uses research, advocacy, information technology and education to improve the fairness of governmental policies and processes, empower the underserved to participate more effectively in their communities, improve communication between voters and candidates for office, and help implement effective public policy reforms.

To learn more about CGS, visit our website at http://www.cgs.org.