Cure for Initiative Process Ills? Another Initiative

The initiative process, the San Diego Taxpayers Assn. says, is a good political idea rapidly going bad.

From the group’s perspective, too many initiatives on too many complex local and state subjects typically clutter the ballot--an argument for which ample evidence could be found in this month’s election.

“The situation’s getting more and more out of hand,” Taxpayers Assn. President Barry Newman said. “There just are too many initiatives on the ballot.”

Ironically, the group’s solution involves putting an initiative on the ballot.

“I guess there’s some humor in that,” admits Mark Nelson, executive director of the 500-member Taxpayers Assn. “But that’s politics for you.”

Hoping to avoid a repeat of the kind of overcrowded ballot that confronted voters this year, the Taxpayers Assn. has begun debating possible revisions in the initiative process that could make it more difficult to get measures on the ballot. The changes envisioned by the group also could prod elected officials into acting on politically sensitive issues, a goal stemming from the belief that legislative paralysis is largely to blame for the bulging number of initiatives.

Many Remain Skeptical

Many local politicians, however, remain skeptical of the possible changes, saying they are reluctant to tamper with a cherished public right. Advocates of the proposals, though, contend that revamping the initiative process would return it to its original intent and eliminate what they see as abuses of the system.

“The initiative is supposed to be a backstop to the legislative process, something that provides an alternative . . . under unusual circumstances,” Newman said. “But the way it’s been used lately, the initiative has almost become a replacement for legislative action. Our elected officials are not doing their jobs, and that’s why we have these heavyweight, confusing ballots.”

While some public officials differ with that premise, they sympathize with the Taxpayers Assn.’s lament over the increasing number of initiatives and propositions that have appeared on recent ballots. Setting a modern-day record, the Nov. 8 ballot included 29 statewide propositions--detailed in a mind-numbing 159-page voters’ guide--and 37 local measures, 11 of them in the City of San Diego.

Noting that many of those ballot measures dealt with a variety of arcane and complex subjects, Newman argues that what he terms the “excessive overuse” of the initiative process is actually undermining its democratic purpose by confusing voters--in the process, turning many of them into frustrated non-voters.

“I find it ironic that the ultimate democratic vehicle, the initiative process, might be driving people away from the polls,” Newman said.

Although the group’s debate still is in a preliminary stage, Taxpayers Assn. leaders are studying possible amendments designed to reduce the number of measures that appear on the ballot while forcing local and state legislators to tackle complex, controversial issues, rather than deferring those decisions to voters.

Higher Number of Signatures

Under one plan being discussed, the public could petition an elected body to address an issue within a certain time period. If the officials’ response was unsatisfactory, citizens still could turn to the initiative process, though they would need a higher number of signatures than is now required to qualify the matter for the ballot.

Currently, persons seeking to place an initiative on the city ballot must collect the signatures of 10% of the number of registered voters at the time of the last municipal general election. Based on November, 1987, registration figures, that formula now equals 51,186 names.

Newman suggests that in the future, when initiative-backers collect that same number of signatures, the issue would automatically be placed on the City Council’s agenda. If the council did not act by a specified deadline, the measure would go on the ballot. The length of that deadline, like many other specific details, remains to be decided, with Newman favoring a duration of no longer than six months.

Up to that point, Newman’s proposal is essentially identical to the initiative process now used. Where it differs is in what would happen if the council acted on the problem, but not in a way that satisfied the initiative’s supporters.

In that event, the sponsors then would have to circulate new petitions, with a higher signature requirement of perhaps 15% or more, in order to get the initiative on the ballot. The sterner requirement, Newman argues, would discourage frivolous initiatives, as well as insure that ballot measures do not unnecessarily second-guess legislative action.

“It may be that some part of those 10% who signed the petitions the first time would be comfortable with what’s been done by the council,” Newman explained. “If there’s widespread discontent, then the recourse of the initiative would still be available. But you don’t want initiatives going forward just because a few people might quibble over some details.”

Alice McCauley, president of the San Diego branch of the League of Women Voters, said that her group has unsuccessfully sought similar state legislation, including a so-called “indirect initiative” under which legislative action on an issue could preclude its appearance on the ballot.

However, like other political activists and some local elected officials, McCauley expressed concern about raising the signature requirement or making it more difficult to place measures on the ballot.

“I’m not sure that making it tougher is the answer,” she said. “But there should be an alternative to kick these issues back to the legislators who are supposed to deal with them, instead of having legal problems caused by people trying to make law on the ballot.”

Similarly, City Councilman Bob Filner attributes the growing number of ballot measures more to elected officials’ failure to grapple with difficult issues than to the public’s abuse of the initiative process. For that reason, he would be unwilling to alter the existing process, Filner said.

“The initiative process is too valuable, too important of a protection for the people to be messed with,” Filner said. “It looks like an attempt to somehow stifle the prerogative of the people. The reason we’ve had so many initiatives lately is that elected officials aren’t doing their jobs properly. That’s where the focus should be, not on limiting a basic right.”

Taxpayers Assn. President Newman, however, argues that his group is “not trying to destroy a democratic tool, but to make that tool more effective.”

“The system we have now is ineffective, inefficient and just plain wrong,” Newman said. “Elected officials aren’t addressing the problems, the people usually don’t speak with any clarity and the problems aren’t solved.

Elected officials, Newman noted, have the staffs, resources and time needed to properly review complex proposals--as well as the legal responsibility to do so. Even given the obvious political overtones of any elected body’s decision-making process, that forum generally provides a more dispassionate, thoughtful method of dealing with complicated issues than does a campaign, he contends.

“When you have multiple initiatives on subjects like insurance, AIDS and growth on the same ballot, it serves no one’s purpose to deal with them in an unthoughtful, unclear campaign in which $30 million is spent to confuse people,” Newman said. “In an awful lot of instances, the initiative process has simply allowed elected officials to abdicate their responsibility or the public to abrogate that responsibility.”

Skeptics of the Taxpayers Assn.’s suggestions, however, warn that some of the changes being contemplated could simply worsen existing problems or produce new ones.

Some argue, for example, that the group’s plans could complicate citizens’ initial contact with elected officials and, thereby, further slow down legislative action. Now, people concerned about an issue often can obtain council attention--if not always satisfactory action--simply by calling or writing council members. There is no need to formally “petition” the council as envisioned in the first step of Newman’s tentative proposal.

In response, Taxpayers Assn. leaders emphasize that altering the initiative process would not prevent the public from gaining redress through any means now available. If telephone calls or letters would suffice to get a problem solved, so much the better, they say. However, such informal contacts do not oblige the council to consider an issue, while the signature-gathering would do so, they note.

Another overriding objection was expressed by Assemblyman and state Sen.-elect Larry Stirling (R-San Diego), who draws this analogy: “This reminds me of a basketball team losing and then saying, ‘Well, the other side beat us, so we’re going to change the game.’ ”

“I opt for less regulation when it comes to basic freedoms,” Stirling said. “Any of these changes would tinker with the public’s right to override the legislature when necessary. I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

With Taxpayers Assn. members still formulating their own thoughts on the subject, there still are many unanswered questions about the specific changes--if any--that ultimately may be recommended by the group. In addition to the length of time that the council would have to act on potential initiatives and the precise signature requirements, there also is indecision within the Taxpayers Assn. over whether the changes should deal with local initiatives, state ballot measures, or both.

“The problem clearly is worse on the state level,” said executive director Nelson, noting that, since 1980, more than 200 statewide initiatives have been circulated, four dozen of which ultimately appeared on the ballot.

However, the Taxpayers Assn. lacks the financial resources and manpower needed to mount a statewide campaign, and could not do so without considerable assistance from other groups.