The Center for Government Studies has released a new report calling for significant reforms to California’s nearly 100-year-old ballot initiative system.

Adopted by voters in 1911, the ballot initiative process allowed citizens to bypass the influence of special interest money on state legislators and place new laws on the ballot for voter consideration. But in the past decade, more money has been spent to promote or oppose ballot measures than on lobbying, say Center for Governmental Studies public policy experts Tracy Westen and Bob Stern.

Recommendations include provisions that would allow initiative proponents to bring proposed laws first to the Legislature and establish a more flexible system for amendments both before and after passage. The center also calls for any initiative that establishes a two-thirds vote requirement for passage of future policies to also pass by a two-thirds margin rather than a majority.

“We believe these reforms would result in a 15 to 20 percent drop in the number of initiatives and result in better drafted initiatives for voters,” Stern said in a meeting this afternoon with the Contra Times Times editorial board.

Stern and Westen say they will seek more input and eventually boil down the roughly 40 recommendations into … what else? … a ballot initiative for 2010.

Click here to read the report and the full set of recommendations.

Venerable Sacramento Bee columnist and author Peter Schrag wrote a spot-on piece today tying together the numerous initiatives headed to the Nov. 4 ballot and the Legislature’s failure to do the people’s business.

It’s well worth a read. Click here for a link to the column.

Voters will have another crack at political boundary redistricting in the November general election.

The state has certified an initiative for the Nov. 4 election sponsored by California Common Cause and supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former state controller Steve Westly that would strip state legislators of the authority to draw their own district lines and turn it over to an independent commission.

It’s the 11th initiative approved for the upcoming general election ballot and another 21 are either in circulation or awaiting signature verification. (Shall we start a betting pool on how many pages the ballot statement will consume before we’re all done?)

Here’s the Secretary of State’s press release issued a few minutes ago: Read the rest of this entry »

Assemblyman Guy Houston, R-San Ramon, announced his support Monday morning for legislation and a ballot initiative that would guarantee public safety funding, create a new agency and expand sentences for drug and gang-rated crimes.

The two parallel efforts, Assembly Bill 2417 and the “Safe Neighborhoods Act,” calls for the creation of a commission to evaluate and disclose the effectiveness of crime prevention measures and a new Office of Public Safety Education and Information.

Houston, who is also running in the June 3 election for Contra Costa County supervisor against incumbent Mary Nejedly Piepho, held a press conference in Alamo with county Sheriff Warren Rupf to announce his endorsement.

The assemblyman’s public show of support is more likely to boost his supervisor campaign than help pass the legislation.

GOP Assemblywoman Sharon Runner of Lancaster introduced the bill in early March but the Democratic-controlled Legislature has little appetite for a high-priced “tough on crime” measure at a time when lawmakers face an $8 billion deficit.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today’s Field Poll reveals that support for Proposition 93, the ballot measure on the Feb. 5 ballot that would modify California’s term limit law, has dropped to 39 percent, a decline of 11 percentage points since December.

Here’s an excerpt of the poll memo written by Field Poll pollsters Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field:

Last December just 25% of likely voters were aware of Proposition 93, the initiative seeking to modify the state’s existing term limits law. Now, two-thirds (65%) report having seen or heard something about the initiative.

A month ago the division of sentiment was 50% to 32% in favor of the proposition. Now, preferences are evenly split - 39% Yes and 39% No, with 22% undecided.

Click here to read the full poll.

Click here to read the full story in the San Jose Mercury News.

Voters looking for pro- and con- arguments on the four gambling propositions on the Feb. 5 ballot (Props. 94-97) will hunt in vain in the ballot pamphlet that arrived in their mailboxes recently.

As it turns out, the deadline for referenda is later than it is for initiatives, and the four gambling propositions qualified too late for inclusion in the ballot pamphlet.

But not to worry. Election officials will mail out a supplemental ballot pamphlet starting Jan. 12.

Voting by mail starts Jan. 7 but residents may want to hold off until they have a chance to read the supplemental edition. Or click here to read it on-line.

In a press conference just concluded in Sacramento minutes ago, GOP California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is pledging to fund and lead a campaign against Proposition 93, a term limits measure headed for the February ballot.

Poizner’s statewide pulpit and his money guarantees that voters will see a well-funded opposition campaign, something that proponents of the measure had hoped would not materialize. California voters generally love term limits, despite some of its unintended consequences, and political experts have been saying for months that Prop. 93’s survival at the polls would depend on both an apathetic opposition and a strong advocacy campaign.

Prop. 93 would allow lawmakers to serve up to 12 years in either the state Assembly or the Senate. Current law limits members to 14 years of total service, specifically six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate.

It’s most controversial provision, however, is a transition period which allows incumbents who would otherwise term out in 2008 to seek re-election. That includes Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and President Pro Tem Don Perata.

“This is very deceptive initiative,” Poizner told reporters. “For the vast majority of the people in the Legislature, it will double the length of their terms in the Assembly and increase their time in the Senate by 50 percent … If this wasn’t enough, they put in a sweetheart transition period.”

Poizner said he has already written a $1.5 million to his new, No On Prop. 93 campaign committee, called Alliance for California Renewal, and will raise more funds. But he admits that finding donors will be difficult because many of the state’s biggest contributors, both individuals and businesses, won’t risk angering legislative leaders who wrote and support Prop. 93.

Proponents argue that term limits have promoted constant turnover in the Legislature and reduced members’ effectiveness.

UPDATE: Here’s what the Yes On Prop. 93 spokesman Richard Stapler has to say about Poizner’s entry into the campaign:

“Anonymous, out-of-state campaign contributions are just plain wrong. US Term Limits is clearly trying to deceive voters. In their last publicly disclosed tax return, US Term Limits was about $300,000 in debt. Now, they’re making a $1.5 million political contribution. This raises serious questions about disclosure.

Poizner should remember that if you lie down with dogs, you’ll get fleas. Poizner is jumping into a campaign camp whose national leader just got indicted for campaign fraud.

Proposition 93 is about reforming term limits to make the State Legislature more efficient and effective. We are going to run a strong campaign to help educate California voters about the need for reform.”

For a web site dedicated to passage of Prop. 93, click here.

For a web site dedicated to defeating Prop. 93, click here.

Photo of Steve Poizner obtained from Free Republic’s web site.

Don’t assume that every Republican in California favors a proposed ballot initiative that would alter the way the state allocates its Electoral College votes in the 2008 presidential election.

California GOP Vice Chairman Tom Del Beccaro, also the chairman of the Contra Costa GOP, has posted an article on his web site, Political Vanguard, that urges Republicans to resist the lure of instant gratification.

By way of background, the proposed ballot measure calls for California to scrap its winner-take-all method and award its 55 Electoral College votes based on the winner of each congressional district.

Backed by several former aides to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it has attracted nationwide attention among critics who say it could hand the presidency in 2008 to a Republican. If this system had been in place in 2004, President George Bush would have received 22 of California’s Electoral College votes.

But Del Beccaro warns that a short-term political gain could severely undermine one of the nation’s key protections against the tyranny of the majority.

“As a practical matter today, the Electoral College prevents the Democrats from winning the presidency by the popular vote of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, etc. – all to the exclusion of the red, fly-over states,” Del Beccaro wrote. “…. We may well be better off practicing philosophic toleration lest we lose not only the Electoral College but the stability of our traditions, a prospect which cannot be what our Founders had in mind when they crafted such a measured Constitution.”

The author of a transportation initiative that will appear on California’s February presidential primary ballot says he’ll will recommend voters reject it.

Yep, you read that right: The guy who wrote the measure wants you to vote no.

Jim Earp, director of the California Alliance for Jobs, a pro-construction lobbying coalition, wrote the initiative. His organization began gathering signatures back before legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hashed out a series of infrastructure bonds and put them on the November 2006 ballot. The state’s package included Proposition 1A, which restricted the state’s use of the gas tax on fuel to transportation and limited the amount and duration of loans from the fund. Everything passed.

In return for the bond measures, the alliance agreed to trash 300,000 signatures gathered for its initiative, an amount considered sufficient to keep it from qualifying for the ballot.

But that’s not what happened.

In Los Angeles County, 70 percent of the signatures qualified as valid, an extraordinarily high percentage. It was enough to push the total over the number of signatures required with 7,000 to spare.

Interestingly, Earp’s measure would have more severely tightened rules governing loans from the road fund than Prop 1A but the alliance will not campaign in favor of the measure.(Click here to read the measure.)

“There are people in my industry who wouldn’t be upset (if the alliance’s) measure passed, but in my view, a deal is a deal and we have kept our agreement with the Legislature,” Earp said. “We don’t need it to pass.”

As the initiative proponent, Earp says he will write an explanation of what transpired for the ballot statement, and he will recommend voters check the “no” box.