|
|
| (19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | '''Initiatives, Referenda and Recall''' | | '''Initiatives, Referenda and Recall''' |
| | | | |
| − | The Green Party supports initiative, referendum and recall as tools of direct democracy; and seek to retain and enhance these important institutions. | + | The Green Party supports initiative, referendum and recall as essential tools of direct democracy; and the Green Party seeks to retain and enhance these important institutions. |
| | | | |
| − | Greens support amending the initiative process to make it easier for regular citizens to qualify a ballot measure through volunteer-based efforts. At the same time, Greens support requiring increased financial disclosure for all ballot measures, in particular identifying major contributors up front.
| + | The strength of the initiative process is that it gives citizens the ability to by-pass the legislature and act directly as legislators. Through the initiative process, citizens can propose statutes and amendments to the California Constitution -- a critical option, especially when elected officials are deemed un-responsive by their constituents. |
| | | | |
| − | The strength of the initiative process is that it gives citizens the ability to by-pass the legislature and act directly as legislators themselves, in proposing statutes and amendments to the California Constitution -- an important capacity when elected officials are deemed non-responsive to public concerns. | + | The weakness of the initiative process is the degree to which its components can be determined by big money -- from qualifying for the ballot, to waging statewide election campaigns. Too often the initiative process has become a large-scale commercial and fundraising enterprise. It can cost millions of dollars and require a great deal of organization just to gather the necessary signatures to qualify for the ballot. Then there is the private, for-profit role that signature-gathering companies play in determining the cost of access to our democracy. |
| | | | |
| − | The weakness of the initiative process is the degree to which all phases are determined by big money, from qualifying for the ballot, to waging a statewide election campaign. It can cost between $1 million and $2 million (or more) just to gather the necessary 500,000 and 700,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot (depending on whether the measure is statutory or amends the state Constitution.) Signatures must to be gathered over a relatively short time period, making the signature-gathering task even more costly. Then there is the influential role that for-profit, market-driven private signature-gathering companies play in determining the cost of the initiative process, and hence the functioning of our democracy.
| + | In response, Greens support making it easier for volunteer-based efforts to qualify initiatives, referendum and recall, and propose different ways this could occur. During the election season, Greens support ensuring television and radio time for informational programming; pro/con debates for each statewide ballot measure; and contribution and spending limits for pro/con campaigns. At the same time, Greens support increasing financial disclosure for all ballot measures. |
| − | | |
| − | Greens seek to redress this imbalance while retaining the opportunity presented by the initiative process.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Greens also see an increased role for referenda, which is the power for voters to approve or reject statutes enacted by the Legislature. The Green Party would lower the number of signatures needed to qualify a referendum.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Currently its far more difficult to qualify a referendum than an initiative because, because of the referendum qualification period of 90 days, and the number of initiatives filed drawfs that of referenda. Whereas initiatives by-pass the legislature, referenda engage it, letting the legislature do its work, but giving citizens the ability to approve or reject it afterwards. This sets up the potential for a more interactive process, where major legislation may go the people multiple times before receiving public approval.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Greens also support a system of review and revision for proposed initiatives to try to avoid legal issues and drafting errors. support flexibility in the initiative process to allow for improving initiative proposals during the drafting phase, and even after measures have been circulated. California currently has the least flexible initiative process in the United States regarding improving initiatives during the process. | |
| − | | |
| − | he legislature over a law when you can make your own law just as cheaply and take it to the people?
| |
| − | | |
| − | is over 100 years old in California.
| |
| − | seeks to retain and improve th
| |
| − | | |
| − | These reforms came about because the voters were tired of the Southern Pacific Railroad dominating the California Legislature and blocking any legislation that hurt the train company.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It was established in 1911—along with referenda and recall—as part of the Progressive Movement. There have been over 1,900 initiatives submitted over the past century, with roughly one-fifth qualifying for the ballot.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Past elections have seen an abundance of initiatives that have been variously received by the voters.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Make process more accessible by signat
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Referenda on the ballot are not as common as initiative measures. The signature requirements are the same for a referendum as an initiative statute; however, the referendum circulation calendar, verification, timing, and form of the petition have different requirements. For example on the timing, a proponent only has 90 days from the date of the enactment of a bill (or in the case of a redistricting map, the date a final map is certified to the Secretary of State) to request and receive a circulating title and summary from the Attorney General (Elections Code § 9006(a) allows 10 days for the preparation of the circulating title and summary), print petitions, gather the required number of valid signatures, and file the petitions with the county elections officials.
| |
| − | | |
| − |
| |
| − | Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Recall differs from another method for removing officials from office – impeachment – in that it is a political device while impeachment is a legal process. Impeachment requires the House to bring specific charges and the Senate to act as a jury. In most of the recall states, specific grounds are not required, and the recall of a state official is by an election. Eighteen states permit the recall of state officials. A recent, high-profile example of the recall process was the recall of California Governor Gray Davis and his replacement with Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003.
| |
| − | | |
| − | As in the case of the initiative and referendum, the recall process gives citizens a chance to practice grassroots democracy by removing elected officials who are disapproved of by a majority of voters.
| |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| | ---- | | ---- |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| | '''The Green Party proposes:''' | | '''The Green Party proposes:''' |
| Line 49: |
Line 15: |
| | '''Signature Gathering''' | | '''Signature Gathering''' |
| | | | |
| − | - Extend the number of days that an initiative proposal could be circulated from 180 days to a full year, and/or give initiative sponsors more time if they are using volunteers to gather signatures, rather than paid workers. | + | - Make it easier to qualify an initiative or referendum proposal using volunteers, by extending the number of days to qualify for the ballot for signature-gathering efforts that utilize large percentages of volunteers and stay within spending limits, and/or weigh more highly the signatures obtained utilizing volunteers |
| − | | |
| − | - Lower the number of signatures required to qualify a referendum for the ballot from five percent to three percent of the votes cast for the governor in the last election.
| |
| − | | |
| − | - Establish a system of registration and training for signature gatherers. | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Drafting'''
| |
| | | | |
| − | - Initiative proposals should be written in language that is precise, clear, and understandable and meets standards of readability. | + | - Where is is possible to truly safeguard security, identity and privacy, allow signature gathering for initiative and referendum via the Internet and/or other electronic technology. |
| | | | |
| − | - Establish a mandatory pre-circulation review where initiative sponsors are required to submit draft proposals to an impartial and nonpartisan, official authority, such as the Legislative Analyst’s Office (for statewide measures), for a pre-circulation review of clarity/language, constitutionality/legality, and single subject. The opinion resulting from this pre-circulation review should be made public.
| + | '''Drafting, 'Title and Summary''' |
| | | | |
| | - Initiative proposals should be limited to a single subject. The definition of “single subject” should ensure clear interpretation and strict enforcement. | | - Initiative proposals should be limited to a single subject. The definition of “single subject” should ensure clear interpretation and strict enforcement. |
| | | | |
| | - Initiatives with provisions that would require funding should specify the sources or method(s) of providing the funding. | | - Initiatives with provisions that would require funding should specify the sources or method(s) of providing the funding. |
| − |
| |
| − | - Initiatives should include a provision providing for an automatic review/revote or expiration of the measure, as appropriate.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Title and Summary'''
| |
| | | | |
| | - The title and summary should be written by an impartial and non-partisan official authority, such as the Legislative Analyst's Office (for statewide measures). | | - The title and summary should be written by an impartial and non-partisan official authority, such as the Legislative Analyst's Office (for statewide measures). |
| | | | |
| − | | + | '''Voting and Approval Thresholds''' |
| − | '''Approval Thresholds''' | |
| | | | |
| | - An initiative statute, or a legislative statute appearing on the ballot as a referendum, should be approved by a simple majority of those voting on the measure. | | - An initiative statute, or a legislative statute appearing on the ballot as a referendum, should be approved by a simple majority of those voting on the measure. |
| − |
| |
| − | - The approval threshold to pass an initiative constitutional amendment should be higher than a simple majority vote; and initiatives amending the constitution must be approved in two consecutive general elections.
| |
| | | | |
| | - An initiative statute or constitutional amendment that imposes a new requirement for passage of future initiatives should meet the same requirement. | | - An initiative statute or constitutional amendment that imposes a new requirement for passage of future initiatives should meet the same requirement. |
| Line 85: |
Line 37: |
| | - An initiative should not be allowed to provide for different outcomes depending upon the percentage of votes cast in its favor. | | - An initiative should not be allowed to provide for different outcomes depending upon the percentage of votes cast in its favor. |
| | | | |
| − | - Voting on constitutional amendments should only occur at general elections. | + | - The approval threshold to approve an initiative constitutional amendment should be higher than a simple majority vote, but only after a cleaning up of the state constitution to separate what belongs in a constitution and what is an initiative statute |
| | | | |
| | + | '''Elections''' |
| | | | |
| − | '''Indirect Initiative'''
| + | - Provide free time for informational television and radio information about the initiative and referendum proposals on the ballot, and broadcast any public hearings the Legislature holds on the initiative proposals. |
| | | | |
| − | - Establish an indirect initiative process option, where a proposed initiative is referred to the legislature after proponents have gathered the required number of signatures; then the legislature has the option to enact, reject or amend the measure; if not enacted by the legislature, proponents may still pursue placement on the ballot for a popular vote. | + | - Impose contribution and expenditure limits by individuals and groups in initiative and referendum campaigns - mandatory limits where possible by law, and voluntary when not. |
| | | | |
| − | Require the Legislature to hold a hearing on the measure before it qualifies for the ballot. If the Legislature passes the measure in a form suitable to the drafters of the initiative, it would be taken off the ballot.
| + | - Conduct a series of televised debates featuring the yes and no sides of initiative and referendum proposals, similar to the pro/con arguments in the voter information guide - but only for campaigns accepting and operating within voluntary spending limits. |
| | | | |
| − | Allow the Legislature to amend any statutory initiative that is approved by the voters by a two-thirds vote provided the legislative amendments further the purposes of the initiative. Most initiatives today allow such amendments, but some do not. This would reduce the need for another measure to clean up the original initiative
| + | '''Disclosure''' |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Election
| |
| − | | |
| − | - Conduct a series of televised debates featuring the yes and no sides of initiative campaigns, just as there are pro/con arguments in the voter information guide
| |
| − | 6. Campaign
| |
| − | | |
| − | a. Realistic limits should be imposed on contributions by individuals and groups to initiative and referendum campaigns.
| |
| − | b. Realistic limits should be imposed on expenditures by individuals and groups in initiative and referendum campaigns.
| |
| − | c. There should be provision for free time for radio and TV information programs for initiative campaigns.
| |
| − | | |
| − | d. No public financing should be provided for initiative and referendum campaigns.
| |
| − | e. The legislature should conduct public hearings on initiative and referendum proposals around the state, with adequate public notice.
| |
| − | f. Ballot pamphlet analyses of initiative and referendum measures should be written for the reading level of the average citizen.
| |
| − | g. The ballot label and ballot pamphlet should clearly indicate the effect of a yes vote and a no vote.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| | | | |
| − | '''Disclosure'''
| + | - Require that disclosure requirements that already apply to mailings and advertisements in support or opposition to an initiative or referendum, also apply to disclosure in the ballot pamphlet and voter information guide for those ballot measures |
| | | | |
| − | Increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns, including
| + | - Require that that at least the top three sponsors of an initiative or referendum and organizations that form a committee to support or oppose a measure be listed by name in the ballot pamphlet, in mailings, and in advertisements. |
| | | | |
| − | - Require that sponsors of an initiative or referendum and organizations that form a committee to support or oppose a measure be listed by name in the ballot pamphlet, in mailings, and in advertisements. | + | - Require that at least the top three principal contributors to an initiative or referendum campaign be listed by name in the ballot pamphlet, in mailings, and in advertisements. |
| | | | |
| − | - Require that principal contributors to an initiative or referendum campaign be listed by name in the ballot pamphlet, in mailings, and in advertisements. | + | - Where an initiative or referendum campaign has substantially qualified for the ballot through signature-gathering by volunteers, include this with other disclosure information. |
| | | | |
| | - Require that initiative and referendum committees use names that reflect their true economic or special interest. | | - Require that initiative and referendum committees use names that reflect their true economic or special interest. |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| | ---- | | ---- |
| − |
| |
| − | Recall
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If appropriate security safeguards are in place, Internet and/or other electronic technology should be allowed for signature gathering.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 9. Post-Election
| |
| − |
| |
| − | a. Under limited circumstances, the legislature, without approval by the voters, should be allowed to amend a statute adopted by initiative. Circumstances could include that the amendments are consistent with the original intent of the initiative or are made after a waiting period.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | b. Approval by the voters should be required to amend constitutional amendments adopted by initiative
| |
| − | c. If two or more initiatives with conflicting provisions pass at the same election, the initiative receiving the greatest number of votes should be enacted.
| |
| − | d. Initiative proposals that do not win voter approval should be allowed to appear on subsequent ballots without restriction, if they again meet qualification requirements.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Two elections for a constitutional change.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | b. Constitutional challenges to voter-approved initiatives being reviewed in t
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | After the legislative hearing, allow the proponents to amend their measure without having to recirculate it, provided the amendments are approved by the Attorney General’s Office as being consistent with the purposes and goals of the original initiative. This proposal would make for better drafted measures.
| |
| − | http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/how-qualify-initiative/initiative-guide/
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 5. Qualification
| |
| − |
| |
| − | a. Requirements should be retained for:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1) direct initiative statute--valid signatures numbering 5 percent of the total vote for all candidates for governor in the gubernatorial election, 150 days to collect signatures;
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 2) direct initiatie constitutional amendment--valid signatures numbering 8 percent of the total vote for all candidates for governor in the gubernatorial election, 150 days to collect signatures;
| |
| − |
| |
| − | b. The filing fee should reflect costs of processing initiative and referendum proposals.
| |
| − | c. No requirement for geographic distribution should be imposed.
| |
| − | d. Solicitation of signatures and campaign funds in the same mailing should be allowed.
| |
| − | e.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Referenda'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Californian politicians and interests groups are now so well-armed that the state is like a shooting range that never closes. Initiatives are as common as sunshine, with dozens filed each year (including a record 152 in 2005). Since Johnson’s time, more than 105 initiatives have been approved by voters. In contrast, referenda -- a ballot measure that allows citizens to reverse an act of the legislature -- are rare. Only 60 have been filed since 1914, and only 14 have been successful. Why the disparity? c
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Swiss system is set up differently. At its center is not the initiative but the referendum. Switzerland makes initiatives twice as hard to qualify as referendum (100,000 signatures vs. 50,000 signatures) and much harder to pass. A referendum needs only a simple majority, but an initiative must achieve a “double majority” to succeed -- a majority of the popular vote, and a majority approval in the country’s 23 cantons, or provinces. Initiatives are thus much rarer than referenda because they so often fail -- the success rate is just 9 percent. (In California this decade, a historically difficult time for passing initiatives, voters have approved 30 percent of initiatives). Over the last century, Switzerland and California have had almost the exact same number of signature-qualified ballot measures, but most of the Swiss measures are referenda.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Green Party recommends that we reactivate the referendum process:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Require companies doing business in the California initiative industry to set aside a portion of their revenues and facilities for use by groups unable to pay full fare for such services.
| |
The Green Party supports initiative, referendum and recall as essential tools of direct democracy; and the Green Party seeks to retain and enhance these important institutions.
The strength of the initiative process is that it gives citizens the ability to by-pass the legislature and act directly as legislators. Through the initiative process, citizens can propose statutes and amendments to the California Constitution -- a critical option, especially when elected officials are deemed un-responsive by their constituents.
The weakness of the initiative process is the degree to which its components can be determined by big money -- from qualifying for the ballot, to waging statewide election campaigns. Too often the initiative process has become a large-scale commercial and fundraising enterprise. It can cost millions of dollars and require a great deal of organization just to gather the necessary signatures to qualify for the ballot. Then there is the private, for-profit role that signature-gathering companies play in determining the cost of access to our democracy.
In response, Greens support making it easier for volunteer-based efforts to qualify initiatives, referendum and recall, and propose different ways this could occur. During the election season, Greens support ensuring television and radio time for informational programming; pro/con debates for each statewide ballot measure; and contribution and spending limits for pro/con campaigns. At the same time, Greens support increasing financial disclosure for all ballot measures.
- Make it easier to qualify an initiative or referendum proposal using volunteers, by extending the number of days to qualify for the ballot for signature-gathering efforts that utilize large percentages of volunteers and stay within spending limits, and/or weigh more highly the signatures obtained utilizing volunteers
- Where is is possible to truly safeguard security, identity and privacy, allow signature gathering for initiative and referendum via the Internet and/or other electronic technology.
- Initiative proposals should be limited to a single subject. The definition of “single subject” should ensure clear interpretation and strict enforcement.
- Initiatives with provisions that would require funding should specify the sources or method(s) of providing the funding.
- The title and summary should be written by an impartial and non-partisan official authority, such as the Legislative Analyst's Office (for statewide measures).
- An initiative statute, or a legislative statute appearing on the ballot as a referendum, should be approved by a simple majority of those voting on the measure.
- An initiative statute or constitutional amendment that imposes a new requirement for passage of future initiatives should meet the same requirement.
- An initiative statute or constitutional amendment that requires a super-majority vote for passage of future related issues should be required to receive the same super-majority vote approval for its passage.
- An initiative should not be allowed to provide for different outcomes depending upon the percentage of votes cast in its favor.
- The approval threshold to approve an initiative constitutional amendment should be higher than a simple majority vote, but only after a cleaning up of the state constitution to separate what belongs in a constitution and what is an initiative statute
- Provide free time for informational television and radio information about the initiative and referendum proposals on the ballot, and broadcast any public hearings the Legislature holds on the initiative proposals.
- Impose contribution and expenditure limits by individuals and groups in initiative and referendum campaigns - mandatory limits where possible by law, and voluntary when not.
- Conduct a series of televised debates featuring the yes and no sides of initiative and referendum proposals, similar to the pro/con arguments in the voter information guide - but only for campaigns accepting and operating within voluntary spending limits.
- Require that disclosure requirements that already apply to mailings and advertisements in support or opposition to an initiative or referendum, also apply to disclosure in the ballot pamphlet and voter information guide for those ballot measures
- Require that that at least the top three sponsors of an initiative or referendum and organizations that form a committee to support or oppose a measure be listed by name in the ballot pamphlet, in mailings, and in advertisements.
- Require that at least the top three principal contributors to an initiative or referendum campaign be listed by name in the ballot pamphlet, in mailings, and in advertisements.
- Where an initiative or referendum campaign has substantially qualified for the ballot through signature-gathering by volunteers, include this with other disclosure information.
- Require that initiative and referendum committees use names that reflect their true economic or special interest.
