Taking the Initiative

A lot of folks believe that California is a great place to live, ourselves included. Not that we wouldn’t change a few things, if we were writing the laws.
And it seems a lot of folks believe that “there oughta be a law.” That slogan was the name and catchphrase of a cartoon panel that ran in newspapers from 1944 to 1983. Over the years, its authors poked fun at many a social misstep, imagining for each a law that, supposedly, would prevent it.
All that takes in California is a small fee, some fancy language that the state Attorney General finds acceptable, and a passion strong enough to get half a million signatures from other voters. With those three elements in place, a new voter initiative will be placed on the state ballot, to see if a majority of California voters agree that the proposed change is worthwhile.
Readers know we believe that public participation in government is a good thing, by definition. We find the initiative process to be one of the attractive things about living in California, something that keeps California on the leading edge of social change.
Weekday News reported last week (video clip on www.sonomasun.com) about two proposed initiatives regarding taxation – one a “wealth tax,” which did not get enough signatures, and the other abolishing the state income tax. And there are more, many more. The November 6, 2007, ballot coming soon will have only Measure E, the school parcel tax measure submitted by the local school district, but our ballots in 2008, a presidential election year, may be full.
Three initiatives are already approved for the February presidential primary, another has its signatures being counted (not many of us have half a million close friends), and some 29 others are currently having signatures gathered, with still another 19 being reviewed by the attorney general’s office, prior to having petitions released for “circulation.”
So what would other Californians change, if they could? What motivates some of us enough to undertake this challenge? Some are concerned with relative minutiae; perhaps big-dollar items, they seem technical, not setting policy on fundamental issues. Of those that would establish policy, we can consider in February a measure to limit legislators’ terms in office to 12 years total; many now switch between the State Assembly and the State Senate to prolong their political careers, though this measure would reduce by only a little the total of 14 years anyone could stay in those offices now.
Another proposed policy change is the pre-emption of state restrictions on construction of new nuclear power facilities, deferring to federal safety and disposal standards. There are several proposals regarding the definition of marriage, seeking to establish that of hetero couples as the only approved variety. Farm animals are included – their humane treatment while, for example, being raised for slaughter (veal) or laying eggs (chicken) would be protected by state law. Other policy issues include redistricting (again), prisons and prisoners’ rights, and affordable health care, which would become a right guaranteed by the state.
An interesting one would change how presidential electors are chosen (remember, it’s the Electoral College that actually selects the president); instead of California’s entire 55 electors being committed to one candidate, the numbers would match the popular vote in the state. If all states did that, the end result wouldn’t be much different, but if California alone does it that way, the state might lose its relative influence.
Keep in mind that the full text of these measures will, should they ever reach our ballots, need a full analysis, in order to determine just what these changes in the laws will really do. But aren’t you glad you get to influence such issues? We’re glad you do.