To the Editor:

The elections of fall 2010 have long been over, and the new members of Congress have been in their seats since January. Nevertheless, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole. This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

We must remember that a functional democracy, at least in the USA, must invite everyone to join in the process of domestic governmental decision making, and at least initially, will require a transition from a representative democracy to a direct democracy. This kind of governmental evolution would end, or at least substantially impede, the bureaucratic paralysis and voter anger/apathy that has been present in our society for the past few decades.

High level politicians must remember that an elected and divided government whose members are constantly bickering amongst themselves, while ignoring the will of the people, cannot forever last.

Ray Gattavara

Auburn, Wash.

Should California’s initiative process be improved? Sure. There are plenty of good ideas worth considering. Financial backers of proposed measures could be identified more quickly and thoroughly. More thorough vetting of proposals might lead to fewer surprises or legal reversals after adoption. Safeguards that guarantee a more neutral approach to the crafting of ballot language make sense.

However, much of what’s going on now in Sacramento under the guise of reforming the initiative process isn’t about fixing a flawed system. It’s about revising a flawed system in a way that insulates lawmakers from voter-mandated change.

One proposed bill would allow the Legislature to amend or repeal winning initiatives four years after their passage. Another bill would allow lawmakers to ask voters to consider changes in initiatives as they are voting on them.

These ideas are depicted as sensible measures to give the state government ways to get relief from excessively onerous or poorly thought-out ballot initiatives. Yet recent history suggests the proposals aren’t driven by a reform impulse but by the frustration felt by state Democratic lawmakers and their allies that California voters disagree with major parts of their agenda – especially their frequent call for higher taxes – and use direct democracy to make that clear.

The claim that a desire for reform is what’s fueling the push for altering the initiative process is further undermined by the latest proposed change: keeping all measures off the primary election ballot, starting next year. The result would often be a general election ballot with 15 to 20 ballot measures for voters to consider; so much for any hopes the legislation would be carefully considered. This can’t remotely be billed as reform.

This is why some supporters of the change openly acknowledge that the idea is driven by the assumption that in 2012, general election voters will be more favorable to the Democratic point of view on ballot measures than primary election voters.

There’s likely to be a great deal at stake in these measures. Epic fights over state spending limits, pension benefits for public employees and allowing union members to keep their dues from being used for political purposes all appear to be in the works. Perhaps Democratic lawmakers think too much is at risk to not try to shape the battle in their favor as much as possible. But please, let’s end the pretense that initiative changes are being pushed for noble purposes.

Instead, in this centennial of California’s adoption of direct democracy, this extreme maneuvering is a reminder of why Gov. Hiram Johnson pushed so hard in 1911 for voters to be given veto power over the Legislature via initiative, referendum and recall.

We hope Gov. Jerry Brown agrees and does his part to stop the multifront power play now unfolding in Sacramento.

Dear Editor

The elections of fall 2010 have long been over, and the new members of Congress have been in their seats since January. Nevertheless, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole. This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

We must remember that a functional democracy, at least in the U.S.A., must invite everyone to join in the process of domestic governmental decision making, and at least initially, will require a transition from a representative democracy to a direct democracy. This kind of governmental evolution would end, or at least substantially impede, the bureaucratic paralysis and voter anger/apathy that has been present in our society for the past few decades.

High level politicians must remember that an elected and divided government whose members are constantly bickering amongst themselves, while ignoring the will of the people, cannot forever last.

Ray Gattavara
Auburn, Wash.

As the 2011 election cycle heats up, there are renewed calls to rein in the initiative process. Now 100 years old in some states, citizen initiatives have had enormous impact across the United States. This form of direct democracy has tackled everything from tax cuts to prohibition, the eight-hour work day and abortion rights. But critics contend it’s been hijacked by big-money special interest groups.

Only three initiatives gathered the required signatures to qualify for the ballot this year in Washington State. All are heavily funded by deep-pocketed interest groups. 

“It’s kind of turned out the opposite, rather than a voluntary grassroots thing,” says Washington’s Secretary of State Sam Reed, “it is special interests being able to get themselves on the ballot and get these things passed.”

Reed’s office qualified one initiative backed by the powerful Service Employees International Union which would force the state to spend millions of dollars training home health care workers. The SEIU spent $1.4 million paying people to gather signatures. Another initiative is aimed at restricting highway tolls. Its campaign received more than $1 million from Kemper Freeman, a big real estate developer whose properties may suffer if widespread tolling were enacted.

And then there’s Costco. The Kirkland, Washington based retailer has spent $2.3 million on an initiative that would privatize liquor sales in the state. Since prohibition was lifted, only state government has been allowed to sell booze. Costco’s initiative would expand that to include large retailers. A similar ballot measure failed last election, but Costco is back for another try.

Amazon has also gotten into the initiative business this year. It has poured money into an initiative campaign that would undo a law passed by the California Legislature. If passed, it would scrap the law requiring online retailers to collect sales taxes in California even if they don’t have a brick and mortar presence there.

Initiative supporters say getting to the ballot is only half of the battle. They still have to get a majority of the votes on election day. 

“The decision makers are ultimately the people in the initiative process,” says initiative guru Tim Eyman. “With the legislative process, it’s always the politicians.”

A growing number of politicians are now speaking out against initiatives. The California Legislature passed a bill that prohibited the paying of signature gatherers per signature. It was supported by a national group called the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center which supports progressive causes and has been a sharp critic of the initiative process.

Ken Jacobsen, a retired state senator from Washington State, is for doing away with initiatives altogether. Currently 24 states allow them. “There’s societies that failed because they had too much democracy,” says Jacobsen, “And it’s getting increasingly difficult to run the state with the initiative and referendum system.”

But initiative opponents are fighting an uphill battle. Courts have ruled against them including the Washington State Supreme Court, which ruled paying people to gather signatures for a ballot measure is a form of protected free speech. Also, governors are often hesitant to chip away at the process, fearful they’ll be viewed as taking power away from the people. California Governor Jerry Brown recently vetoed a bill that would have prevented payment per signature.

Even as special interest groups flex more muscle, the process is still viewed by most of the public as their chance to have a voice.

(By Dan Springer)

A former U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate says the U.S. Congress is dysfunctional. Mike Gravel says the dysfunctionality is something that has been with the American people for a long long time.

In an exclusive interview with Press TV’s U.S. Desk on Monday, Gravel said, "People on election day give their power away, their sovereign power to politicians who tell them what they want to hear."

"So what needs to be done is obviously to devise a method to empower the people so they can set policy."

Gravel concluded that a way to do that was by "enacting the national initiative for democracy which would empower the people to make laws in partnership with their elected officials."

Direct democracy online

This is in reference to “Voter ID laws hurting our democracy.” In ancient Greece there was direct democracy. All the people of Athens gathered into the great hall and voted on issues before them. As countries grew from small city-states into massive entities this sort of direct democracy became impossible.

The Internet has now brought us full circle.

The web makes universal multi-way communication easy and inexpensive. It may be time to reconsider the "representative" aspects of our democracy.

We have had too much partisanship and too many egos standing in the way of effective government. We can melt deadlock and change the system to allow the people to vote en-masse on important issues.

As we all become increasingly aware of current communication technologies, this issue will become more central to our politics. We could still keep the legislatures for the mundane everyday work of legislating mundane things. As to the contentious issues, be they social or fiscal, let the people have their say!

JUDE REICHENTHAL
Former Chairman
Communications Advisory Board
City of Bonita Springs
(Disbanded by Mayor Nelson and his council gang who want to minimize democracy)

California’s experiment in direct democracy – where citizens pass laws by voting on initiatives and referendums, sidestepping the legislature entirely – is facing three new reforms.

To get on a ballot, measures must be supported by petitions with more than 500,000 signatures. This has led to the practice of paying people for each signature they collect, which critics say promotes "signature fraud."

Others say the whole process needs more transparency, as big-money contributors can remain largely unknown.

California’s initiative process was designed to give serious, political voice to the average citizen, says state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, but over the years has become "hijacked by monied interests on the right and left." Special interests spent over $1.3 billion on proposition battles between 2000 and 2006, according to the Center for Governmental Studies (CGS), a Los Angeles-based political reform organization.

He adds, “what is wrong in California is abuse of the initiative system."

Opponents of the reform bills say legislators are hoarding power by making citizen legislation more difficult. “They’re trying to make it harder for plain folks,” Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, told California Watch.

The three bills moving forward are:

• SB 334 requires the Secretary of State to list in the ballot pamphlet the five largest contributors supporting or opposing each measure, along with their total contributions. The bill has passed the Senate. “Voters need more information about who is behind these initiatives,” says state Senator DeSaulnier
• SB 448 says that anyone circulating an initiative, referendum, or recall petition must wear a badge. If they are being compensated, the badge must say so. If not, it must say “volunteer.” Different versions of this bill have passed in the Senate and the Assembly.
• SB 168 makes it a misdemeanor to pay or be paid per signature, when circulating a petition for a state or local initiative. This has passed both houses and is awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.

“These are real, significant reforms to a process in desperate need of massive changes,” says Jessica Levinson, former political reform director for CGS.

“We have the most generous ballot initiative process in the country," she says. "It has gotten us into trouble, because a lot of stuff passes without due deliberation.” California citizens have tried 344 times, over the past 100 years, to go around their elected legislators. Some blame the process for California’s perennial difficulties in passing a balanced budget on time, since some 60 percent of the state’s general fund is locked into place by citizen-made laws.

The new reforms are well-intentioned, but the measures may not do enough, says John Matsusaka, president of the Referendum and Initiative Institute at the University of Southern California.

“I have never seen evidence that signature fraud is enough of a problem – and if it was, this wouldn’t change that,” he says.

“It will become more costly to get signatures” under the new reforms, Professor Matsusaka adds, since signature-collectors will have to be paid by the hour. “It’s ironic that the reformers are unhappy that the process is dominated by rich groups,” he says, because “this will require that initiative backers be even more rich.”

Past efforts to reform the process have gotten little traction, in part due to strong opposition from former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Reformers hope that the “fix this state” attitude of Governor Brown will create a more reform-friendly environment.

Reform efforts have also floundered because “legislators hate the process and don’t want to improve it – and voters don’t trust the legislature to do the right thing,” says Robert Stern, CGS president. He thinks the proposed reform measures merely chip away at the edge of the problem, which is that voters are faced with too many ballot measures – including many that are poorly drafted.

Adds Mr. Stern, “It may take an initiative to reform the initiative process.”