I’m not a big fan of direct democracy or the California voter initiatives that show up on the ballot. I have voiced my complaints before that as pieces of legislation, they are much too strong, exist outside the normal investigation and hearing process, and they often tie the bugetary hands of our legislators in such a way that, in my opinion, exacerbates our state’s inability to pass timely and balanced budgets. Also, some of the initiatives over the years have changed the state’s constitution and I think we need a much more deliberative method of amending our state constitution, like how the United States Constitution is changed through a lengthy and difficult amendment process. As I read the current slate of initiatives, I realized I’m being asked to be an expert on or at least have a working knowledge of corrections, addictions, rehabilitation, courts, policing, sentencing, and what these things should reasonably cost. And that’s just for Proposition 5, whose text takes 20 pages of double-column type in the voter’s guide. I really have little idea if this is a good or bad law, or if it could be made better as many bills are in the normal legislative process. I just get to vote yes or no on it. The initiative process does not make much sense to me. Without paying attention to the propositions on the November ballot, I want to suggest three propositions for a future vote. I want to reiterate that my proposals are not in response to any of the current propositions up for vote.

Voters for a Stable Constitution Amendment: Amendment to California’s Constitution that changes the process for amending the California constitution so that ratification of any new amendment requires 2/3 support in both houses of the state legislature and approval by 3/4 of voters via a state-wide ballot.
Reasoning: Changing the state constitution should receive input from average voters, but I do not believe that only average voters should have a say. We need checks and balances in the system and we should adopt a process like the federal government uses that requires 2/3 support in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. The legislature should act as a check.
Voters for Honest Costs and Good Budgets Act: This act requires that all future ballot proposals are pay-as-you-go. No ballot proposal that increases or mandates spending requirements can be paid for by bonds or other means of borrowing. All spending increases and mandates must have equal taxation increases. These revenues to cover costs must come 60% from sales taxes, 20% from state income taxes, 10% from property taxes, and 10% from business taxes.
Reasoning: So many propositions mandate certain requirements for spending as a percentage in the state budget or call for new spending projects. Many of the proponents promise that these propositions “will not cost taxpayers a dime” because they receive most of their funding by borrowing against the future, often in the form of bonds, which send our state further into debt. Right, as if debts never have to be paid. I imagine such an initiative would kill most ballot initiatives if everyone knew they had to pay for them immediately, which is why I put the burden of the costs on sales taxes.

The next is my favorite proposal and covers some of the first proposal and would make the second proposal moot.

Voters for a Representative Democracy Amendment:
Section 1: Amendment the state constitution, banning all future California ballot initiatives, excepting in cases of amendments to the constitution.

Section 2: Those amendments may only reach the voters for a state-wide election after passing by at least 2/3 margins in the both houses of the state legislature. A proposed amendment must then receive support from 3/4 voters in order to be ratified.

Reasoning: We have representatives—let them represent us. The ballot initiatives process was meant to offer a means for Californian citizens to directly bypass the government in enacting laws because, over a century ago, citizens feared that the Southern Pacific Railroad had much too control in the state’s affairs. We have a means of checking and balancing our elected officials: elections. If our elected officials do not do the will of the people, we have ample opportunity to vote them out and vote into office someone who will follow the voters’ demands. I cannot sit through hearings about the fiscal, environmental, legal, and social impacts of proposed laws, and so I elect someone as my representative to do that for me in Sacramento. I do not relegate my responsibility to be as informed as possible about the issues, but I cannot nor should not be expected to act as a legislator when I have two in Sacramento already representing me and my neighbors. I do not want to be a redundancy.

Anyone willing to stand outside the grocery store and gather signatures?