Ballot Measures

(originally published at Fox & Hounds Daily)
It's late September, and Californians across the political spectrum, from the labor left to the good government center to the Tea Party right, are still cooking up ideas for initiatives for the November 2012 ballot.

Here's some good, if unsolicited advice: they should knock it off. Because when it comes to 2012, it's already too late.

In the fall of 1911, the new governor, a lawyer from San Francisco, convinced California voters to add the recall, referendum, and initiative to the constitution as a way to stop the political machines. These days, the initiative process is itself a machine, accessible mainly by interests and people with big money. After a century, can California's experiment with direct democracy be saved? And if so, how?

We face historic challenges at a time when our state is increasingly thought to be ungovernable. Our outmoded system of government is crippling our ability to deliver basic services to the Californians who create our extraordinary productivity and prosperity – and undercutting our ability to plan and invest for the future. There are plenty of proposals for reform, but the public is often distrustful of those who offer them. It's time to change the process.

On Election Day, I intend to stand reluctantly with the majority of my fellow Californians — on the sidelines and as far as from the voting booth as possible.

I’d like to apologize for the $6 billion hole that’s already opened up in this year’s state budget.

I made the hole.

But I didn’t do it alone. I had help from a few friends. You may know them as the voters of California.

We made this hole together last year. Remember it? The hole was created back in May 2009, so long ago that Meg Whitman and Nicky Diaz Santillan were still family.

California is mired in perpetual budget crisis and its government is paralyzed by partisan gridlock. Groups across the political spectrum are pushing reforms, with some even calling for a constitutional convention. Frustrated Californians know something is wrong, but not what's broken and how it can be fixed.

Conservatives say they like judges who follow the law and the original intent behind it. Liberals say they like judges who understand the world and have empathy.

I like judges who agree with me.

In that vein, there were two very agreeable court decisions on the initiative process in the past week.

One opinion that unites my family - a family of newspaper people - is that you can't trust anything you read in the New York Times. My dad writes for the Washington Post. My mom's an editor at USA Today. My wife is a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. I was a staffer at the LA Times before joining the think tank. The NYT is a competitor for all of us.

PG&E owes an apology to virtually everyone in the state - save the broadcasters that made out on all the advertising it bought - for sponsoring the monstrosity that was Prop 16.

A couple weeks back, I moderated a couple different events comparing the initiative process in Switzerland (where it originated) and in California. What makes these two systems different? And why should it matter?

Here is the answer, in essence: