California Family Council Offers More Truth Project Group Leader Training Seminars  >  Local links  >  Perry v Schwarzenegger Trial Approaches  >  See You at the Pole!  >  The Initiative Process under assault, but remains the people’s vehicle for change

The Initiative Process under assault, but remains the people’s vehicle for change

The Initiative Process under assault, but remains the people’s vehicle for change
In 1911, progressive California Governor Hiram Johnson pushed through reform legislation that included the ability of voters to amend the state constitution and statutes through the initiative process. Providing voters the opportunity to bypass the California State Legislature and Governor was in response to the excessive corruption of the state legislature, the courts, and the press. Prior to the progressive movement, political power was wielded by a few leaders, who too often controlled the aforementioned entities. Since 1978, when California voters approved Proposition 13 (the property-tax relief initiative), voters have used the initiative process to make many policy and constitutional changes. The initiative process has been used to overturn court decisions, guarantee funding for public schools and after-school programs, for libraries, drug treatment and use, to increase prison terms, change farming practices, limit social services for illegal immigrants, transform transportation and police services, and restore and strengthen traditional marriage in law.
California has experienced a gradual rise in the use of the initiative process in recent decades because special interest groups and political leaders have become increasingly frustrated in the ability of the Legislature and Governor to address critical state issues. Adding to the people’s frustration is the activist nature of our courts – oftentimes creating law rather than limiting their duties to interpreting law - bringing the citizenry to accomplish legislation at the ballot-box. The passage of Proposition 8 – the constitutional amendment defining marriage according to its traditional understanding – is one example of voters utilizing the initiative process to overturn the state Supreme Court decision and inhibit the Legislature from making laws that do not reflect the people’s interests.
Increased use of the initiative process is now bringing critics out of the woodwork. Believing that the initiative process undermines the legislative process, these critics denounce the practice, claiming that it has created democracy-by-initiative and ballot-box budgeting. They argue that voters are ultimately ill-served by the initiative process because initiatives by the people completely bypass the legislative process of deliberation and modification, safety buffers necessary for good, long-term results. 
The passage of Proposition 8 has reinvigorated efforts to inhibit use of the people’s initiative. In 2009, legislators introduced over 40 bills that attempted to modify the initiative process, limit voter participation, or change the vote requirements on previously approved, citizen-generated initiatives. While most egregious legislative efforts stalled this year, following are measures currently awaiting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature or veto, authored by Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) and Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro):
  • AB 6 – This bill requires initiative petition firms to register with the Secretary of State and pay a registration fee.
  • AB 436 – This bill requires a new fee to be placed on draft initiative language submitted to the Attorney General before petitions are approved for circulation.
  • AB 1068 – This bill would prohibit initiative proponents from utilizing contracts for circulating petitions and gathering signatures for a measure that make payment contingent on the initiative measure qualifying for the ballot.
  • SB 34 – This bill would make it a misdemeanor crime for a person to pay or receive money or any other thing of value based on the number of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum or recall petition.
In spite of legislative efforts, voters, special interest groups, and political leaders continue to submit initiative language to the Attorney General and Secretary of State. This is just the beginning of the extensive and costly process of placing an issue onto the ballot. Once title and summary of an initiative is returned from the Attorney General, nearly one million signatures must be obtained from registered voters who agree with the cause. Currently, there have been 39 measures filed with the hope of placing them on the ballot. Historically, the vast majority of measures filed with the Secretary of State do not qualify. However, several measures should interest California families. 
List of Potential 2010 Initiatives
  • 09-0007 – Statutorily prohibits citizens from voting at the polls without government-issued photo identification.
  • 09-0010 – Statutorily denies benefits to individuals that can not verify their lawful citizenship and denies birth certificates to illegal immigrant parents.
  • 09-0013 – Constitutional Amendment returning the Legislature to a part-time legislative body.
  • 09-0016 – Lowers the constitutional vote requirement from two-thirds to three-fifths to approve the state budget and raise taxes.
  • 09-0019 – Constitutional Amendment authorizing a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution.
  • 09-0025 – Statutory initiative that legalizes and regulates,marijuana use, and taxes its sale.
  • 09-0036 – Removes the constitutional protection of traditional marriage and redefines it to include any two persons.
  • 09-0043 – Constitutional Amendment which classifies all living human organisms as “persons.”
  • Printer-friendly version