Do California's Statewide Propositions Represent Grassroots People Power?

November 10, 2020

When I reviewed the approximately 12 statewide propositions, I wondered if these measures truly represent "grassroots initiatives," or shameless corporate goodies, or special interests masquerading as 'people power' movements?  As Californians voted on November 3rd, we should also ask if these propositions are really effective, and does it constitute the best ways to get Sacramento to legislative and spend on behalf of the voters?  What is the best alternative to passing measures that will benefit the residents of the state of California?

_________________________________

There was a brief write-up that I found interesting in a publication called Calnews.com by Chris Micheli when I was researching this issue that talks about some of the ideas that I was thinking about. I wanted to incorporate some of the talking points into this piece. According to the author, the initiative process has been part of the legislative methods relating to law and policy methods available to the voters of California. It requires people of the state vote on propositions during every major election cycle (two years), and determines if an initiative becomes law, or allows the legislature the breathing room to pass measures that will affect the people within the state. Mr. Micheli states that the initiatives, in order to get on the ballot, must get signatures for at least 5% of the votes cast for Governor for a past election cycle, and any California Constitutional amendment must receive around 8% from the same set of voters.  The Calnews article goes on to point out that roughly 1,767 measures have been attempted to make the ballot, some were withdrawn didn't qualify.  Of the 360 that qualified for a vote, only 122 were approved by the people of the state, which is roughly .06%, which is a very small amount indeed.

That being said, should voters in California have to vote on ballot initiatives every two years, or on a frequent timeline?  Most of the voters do not really do any research, from what I gather, and I feel that some of these propositions are written in such a way to get as much support or opposition as possible without too much discussion.  Many are attempted to be put on the voting calendar by special interest groups, or as a marketing concept by corporate lobbyists.  A good number of the current propositions for 2020 have immense amounts of money behind them. I tend to notice the flooding of the radio and television airwaves with instructions to vote "yea" or "nay" quite frequently, especially on the radio.  Some of the commercials I have seen on television have compelling characters describing their own hardship, and why voters should reject the proposition on the ballot (Prop 23-additional government and medical oversight of dialysis centers). Others tend to present an emotional response to the idea of removing cash bail for those arrested (Prop 25) or the ability for residents to earn additional money as a gig driver, such as those citizens who are not considered full-time employees of rideshare or food delivery companies like Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, Postmates, etc. (Prop 22).   Prop 22 was a counter initiative to a bill that was passed in both houses in California (AB 5) in 2019 that would have forced the rideshare or meal delivery companies to make their drivers full-time employees, not independent contractors, and who would be required to receive benefits and retirement options.  Since Prop 22 had passed, current and future drivers for these companies will be classified as independent contractors, and the tech companies will be spared from increased encumbrances in the form of stock options, retirement plans, and healthcare costs.

The Calnews article does make some salient points about the difficulties all around for those involved, from voters to those who want issues to be on the ballot, etc.  Some of these include the language of the initiatives, which can be difficult to understand to the average voter.  As the author notes, ballot measures are not reviewed by Legislative Counsel in Sacramento, which means there is no formal drafting of the language, and most are written by those who are sponsoring it. Most voters also do not understand the language and are not familiar with certain terms and the budgetary process, specifically to revenue for said measures. These statewide measures also in most cases require only a simple majority, no serious threshold that would force the measures to have significant statewide support. The ballot measures require serious financial investment, and for the most part, most of them that get on the ballot have large, powerful financial backers, such as tech companies, medical, or pharmaceutical companies, and individual mega-donors.  Few propositions are brought forth by grassroots movements,  or "people" power.

While reviewing the various propositions post-Election Day, I saw that voters rejected affirmative action proposals (Prop 16), changing voter age to 17 (Prop 18), and against replacing cash bail (Prop 25) but state residents who want to make money in the gig economy (Prop 22) passed.  While I had faith in the voter after seeing some of the fringe proposals fail (Prop 18 & 25), I am not a fan of the ballot measure process for the state as it currently is.

Mr. Micheli did make some suggestions in his Calnews article which he believes would make the process better, some of which include (1) requiring legislators to consider a proposed ballot measure for one year in legislative session before it can go on the ballot, (2) higher vote threshold, which would insist on a higher approval threshold for any spending or budgetary measure, (3) increased fees to get a measure to the Attorney General for title and summary, which allows for signatures to be gathered, (4) drafting of propositions by Legislative Counsel in Sacramento.  This would ensure that clear language and specifics are put forth so that voters have a better idea of what is being proposed.

I feel that some of his suggestions make sense, especially to a layman like myself.  Propositions that require an increase in spending or budgetary requests should have a higher vote threshold, such as two-thirds approval, rather than a simple majority vote for significant changes involving taxpayer money.  The Legislative Counsel's office should be considered part of any draft proposal so that what is at the heart of every ballot measure can be comprehended and understood easier by voters who do not spend their time researching legislative issues affecting the state.  That is their job and what that office is for, to do due diligence, and see if any proposition or proposed law does have merit. Additionally, will any proposed bill survive any legal challenges once it passes for state legislatures when they bring forth ideas and new laws? This will eliminate any frivolous measures that were promoted by special interest groups or large well-funded corporate measures.

Statewide ballot measures can be effective, provided they are used right.  I do feel that Mr. Micheli made some good arguments in favor of his recommendations. It would be better if there was a special committee, which worked with the Legislative Counsel in Sacramento. The purpose of this committee would be to review any ballot measures and determine if it could proceed to being assigned a number and put before the voters (after the requisite signatures are met). In other words, weed out any prospective propositions that do not meet muster, or have ambiguous claims or goals.

I did go back and forth about whether I was for or against these measures.  On the one hand, they are prepared, funded, and promoted by wealthy donors and organizations whose living it is to get these propositions on the ballot.  On the other hand, sometimes good things can come out of it, such as Prop 22, which allowed those who want to make additional money for Uber, Lyft, and GrubHub, and not forcing those companies the burden of adding additional full-time employees, unless it was of their own initiative.  This proposition countered AB 5, which was passed by the California legislature and signed by Governor Newsom.  Essentially, what the legislature wanted to be done was on behalf of unions (who give generously to Democrats), and was defeated by the voters of the state based on their own free will to make a choice.  In one sense, veto power was given back to citizens.  How can one not like that?