June 4, 1998
 

The California Initiative process is both a blessing and a curse.  Frequently, we have needed to use the Initiative as a tool to create law which our elected/alleged representatives don't have the courage, insight, or character to introduce.  DeGaulle was really correct when he observed that "Politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians."  Issues of import (from Three Strikes, to Term Limits, to Bi-Lingual education) should be addressed and implemented in the legislative process.  However, petty partisan b.s., unbridled egos, and turf battles all serve to obstruct what should happen from happening.  Frankly, that is one of the foundation issues which has caused me to call for a return to the Part Time Legislature.  These jokers not only cost us hundreds of millions of dollars.....they don't do their job.

The obfuscation, dissembling, and lies which tainted at least four of the nine recent Propositions could gag a maggot. Prop 223 imposes an arbitrary and capricious 5% cap on administrative costs (failing to acknowledge that large districts already operate at or below that level, and smaller districts are the ones to be hurt).  Prop 224 was presented as a need for "competitive bidding" (rather than a boondoggle to shift all contract approval to the Controller and then create a humongous gaggle of bureaucrats to discriminate against "the little guys" and force more government).  Prop 225 was sold to us as an affirmation of Term Limits (which Secretary of State Bill Jones already successfully defended in the Supreme Court).  It never addressed the potential dangers of a Constitutional Convention.  Prop 227 was successfully sold to us a plan to "abolish bilingual education" despite the reverse being true.  Before the passage of Prop 227 there was NO law requiring bilingual education.  WITH 227, bilingual education becomes codified (the camels nose is in the tent).  The list goes on ad nauseam.

The reality is that Propositions pass or fail based on MONEY.  I previously wrote a rant about the prospect of big unions spending some $8-million of OUR money to fight the Initiative which would require THEM to ask US for our permission to spend OUR money on politics.  How many of you received phone calls from some east coast phone bank regurgitating lies about the impact of Prop 226?  By the way, the big unions didn't spent $8-million of our money...they spent closer to $20-million or more.  How many of you were told "union members already have the right to opt out of political contributions"?  So why spend tens of millions of dollars fighting something they claim we already have?  The Department of Labor continues to refuse (despite the Supreme Court ruling in Communications Workers v Beck [487 U.S. 735] ) to provide union members with data they need to make informed decisions.  In addition to those union members who don't even know what their rights are....many workers report if, or when, they try to exercise their legal rights, they are threatened, intimidated, and stonewalled.

The Initiative process is a valuable tool.  However, like any tool (automobiles, guns, hammers and screwdrivers), it can (and is) abused.

Too many legislators lack the courage and principle to tackle difficult issues.  The Initiative is an expedited solution.  However, the process will continue to be abused unless or until someone, somewhere, somehow, requires at last three necessary corrective measures:

• Either the Attorney General, a panel of Judges, or the Secretary of State should be compelled to do a far more complete due diligence of the cause and effects, before an Initiative can be put before the voters.  Such due diligence should include a detailed Constitutional review be made to guarantee that what is voted on by the people is not inherently tragically flawed, and can sustain any constitutional challenge BEFORE it is voted on by the state.
• A detailed analysis of the language should be required and germainess should be applied to prevent tacking on elements (the devil IS in the details) which result in "unintended consequences". 
• Responsibility for adverse effects should be a requirement for authorship.  Supporters and critics should not be permitted to lie with impunity.  Organizations and individuals must be held accountable for what they do and don't do, AND or what they do and don't say.  There should be some punitive checks and balances to prevent flat out lying.