Perspective

YES, BUT THEY NEED SOME REPAIR

Do Initiatives Still Work?

Every election year provokes a round of hand-wringing and whining about the
initiative process. Foes of that process, a group that includes many
legislators who wish to maintain their power, repeat the familiar refrain
that citizens have been tricked into voting for schemes backed by moneyed
political interests. This year, as in the past, there is a bit of truth to
the charge. Voters sometimes do stupid things. Of course, so do
legislatures. Mostly, however, voters get things right. This year, for
example: Universal health care was rejected in Oregon; looser marijuana
laws were rejected in several states; expensive transportation measures
were defeated in California, Washington and Northern Virginia; and in
Colorado and in California, voters rejected same-day voting proposals.

The big news out of Colorado this year was that the infusion of about $3.5
million to defeat the English Language Education Amendment was more than
enough. That was no real surprise. Historically, a half million dollars was
enough to defeat any ballot measure in Colorado. What that means is that
the opponents of Amendment 31 probably wasted about $3 million.

Supporters of the initiative process simply have to live with the fact that
big money can kill a ballot measure. But the corresponding good news is
that big money can't always buy a "yes" vote.

Millions were spent on some election-related issues this year, such as
same-day voting and the mail-in ballot proposal, but those initiatives were
defeated easily.

There is no sane method by which the influence of money can be taken out of
the initiative process, so the issue becomes what can be done to improve it
around the margins. Here's a modest, four-part proposal.

Repeal the single-subject rule, which was adopted by the voters several
years ago to limit amendments to a single subject. Proponents assured the
public that it would simply make initiatives subject to the same
limitations imposed on the legislature. That was a lie. Ever since then,
the Colorado Supreme Court has been pawing around in the text of
controversial initiatives to find a second subject. Meanwhile, the state
legislature continues to pass bills that arguably cover several subjects.

When a measure was submitted to refashion the way judges are selected, the
court ruled it out, saying it contained multiple subjects. The point is,
the single-subject rule invites manipulation and favoritism and reeks of
conflict of interest. We should get rid of it.

Do something about the title-setting process, which summarizes the text.
Some ballot titles are longer than a William Faulkner sentence and just as
difficult to follow. The process is an invitation to selective
manipulation. For example, the campaign-finance measure this year got a
wonderful break from the title-setting board, which included a favorable
description in the title. Some other issues, like the amendment to
eliminate the caucus system, were very nearly impenetrable and virtually
invited a "no" vote.

Why is this important? Because people go into the voting booth highly
skeptical of all ballot measures. If the title is unclear or if it has been
filled with loaded language, the voter may well decide to vote "no" without
reading beyond the first few lines. A comparison of title length and
language this year shows that when the legislature refers a measure to the
ballot, it is short and to the point, giving it a huge advantage. Only the
initiatives have exhaustive titles.

Do a better job with the Blue Book, which is published by the Legislative
Council and goes to every voter. There was a time when it was more
objective and more useful than it is now. The description of the arguments
for and against a measure ought to be clear and complete. There is plenty
of room for improvement.

If the aim is to reduce ballot clutter, the legislature could do its part
by adopting a higher standard for referring a measure to the voters. This
year they passed the buck on exempting term limits for district attorneys
(easily defeated) and the proposal to add a new state holiday honoring the
late labor leader, Cesar Chavez. If the lawmakers had paid $75 to a
political consultant, they would have been told that both of these were
losers (the holiday proposal lost by about a 5-1 margin) and they could
have saved their energy, state expense and the voters' time.