Panel: California's Direct Democracy Process Needs Changes
Three former leaders of California’s three branches of government disagree about whether the state’s direct democracy process is serving voters well – but they all agree on a potential way to improve it. Ben Adler has more from Sacramento on today’s Public Policy Institute of California panel.
Capitol insiders packed a hotel ballroom to hear from three big names in California politics: former Governor Gray Davis, former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and former California Chief Justice Ronald George. Davis had his governorship cut short by direct democracy when voters recalled him less than a year into his second term. But he credits the initiative process for the creation of the state’s new independent redistricting commission.
Davis: “If you don’t like the people’s ability to make laws, to change laws and to kick you out of office, then you should find another line of work!”
Willie Brown, on the other hand, can’t stand the initiative process. He says he’s never voted for any initiative. And he points out a majority of voters can impose a two-thirds requirement on the legislature.
Brown: “We can get 61, 62 percent, maybe even 65 percent of the members of the legislature to vote one way, but because of this dumb thing done by the voters through the initiative process, we are stymied. We are stalled.”
But all three panelists agree there ought to be a way to review initiatives before they reach the ballot. Chief Justice George says that could be done through the legislature, a citizens’ commission or a panel of retired judges…
George: “And with the proponents’ consent, have an amendment to the language of the proposed initiative before it passes – because it’s in their interest to avoid that costly exercise of going through and then having courts have to invalidate it.”
Other suggestions from the panel include requiring a two-thirds vote of the people to impose a two-thirds requirement on the legislature; lengthening the time allowed to gather signatures; and more clearly disclosing the financial supporters and opponents of ballot measures.