Attack of the Propositions!!!

Friday, October 22, 2004

Page 7

IN MY OPINION (Column)

Attack of the Propositions!!!

By RAY HAYNES

(The writer represents the 66th Assembly District which includes portions of western Riverside County and northern San Diego County.)

Are you ready to do your homework, California?

You are probably aware that next month you are being asked again to play some small role in helping to choose the leader of the free world for the next four years.

But many of you still may not realize that you are also going to have to make decisions on 16 different ballot initiatives, which will have a major impact for years to come on our state’s budget, business climate, and even our electoral system, to name just a few areas covered in this election. The list this year is as confusing and complicated as ever, and includes issues as diverse as bonds for stem cell research, tort reform, higher income taxes for mental health programs, and a referendum on a law that would mandate employer-provided health insurance that was passed by the legislature and signed by our recently recalled Governor. It also features two dueling casino initiatives, two very similar local government measures, and two competing propositions dealing with California’s elections.

I’m very conflicted by this whole system. On the one hand, our Founding Fathers were rightfully concerned by the concept of direct democracy, which they felt would inevitably devolve to mob rule and “tyranny of the majority”. The checks and balances in our system were specifically established to make it more difficult for laws to be passed in haste or based on the passions of the moment. Our elected representatives are supposed to be in place to examine legislative proposals carefully, consider testimony from all sides, worry about unintended consequences, and to identify and fix problems in legislation in a way that just isn’t possible when an issue is put directly before the voters. In fact, one of the biggest concerns with the initiative process is that once an initiative is passed, the only way to correct errors we discover later is to go back to the voters with it again.

Unfortunately, our legislative representatives have not been very representative lately. If you look at the results of the recall last year and at how the voters of our state have voted on initiatives over the past decade, it is clear that the legislative majority is not pursuing an agenda consistent with what the voters want. On issues like gay marriage, affirmative action, bilingual education and illegal immigration, the legislature has continued to pursue policies at odds with the voters even after they have spoken en masse through the initiative process. It is clear that the people can’t wait for the legislature to do their bidding and must occasionally take matters into their own hand.

That is what they did last fall when the recall was qualified-they took the process back from the politicians. Furthermore, in the face of a referendum that was going to qualify to repeal the new illegal alien drivers’ license bill, the legislature itself stampeded back into session to kill it themselves. The workers’ compensation reforms we got passed in the legislature this Spring were also in direct response to an initiative that our state’s employers had gathered signatures for. Without that threat, there would not have been the progress we made on that issue.

But when the threats don’t work, we wind up with sometimes complicated, sometimes poorly written, sometimes overly broad, sometimes unconstitutional measures put directly before the voters. And the voters are faced with an all-or-nothing choice. Do they support a flawed initiative in order to make some progress on an issue the legislature refuses to address? Or do they vote “no” and come away with nothing?

This November’s slate is as complicated as any I can remember, and the dueling initiatives are sure to sow confusion amongst the voters. Which local government initiative is the right one? Which Indian gaming initiative is the right one? Which election reform initiative is the right one? What if the correct answer is “none of the above”? My philosophy on the floor of the legislature tends to be “when in doubt, vote no,” and I recommend it on the ballot, too. The damage of doing nothing is usually less than the damage caused by doing something wrong. Usually.

There are a few initiatives I think are worthwhile, such as Proposition 64, that is trying to eliminate some of the frivolous lawsuits against our state’s employers. But the purpose of this editorial is not to tell you how to vote on all the initiatives. My point is that all of these initiatives can have serious long-term impacts on our state, and all will require actual thought and effort from our state’s voters. If we rely on misleading and dishonest 30-second political commercials from either side of the debate for our information, we will all be very poorly served. So I ask again — are you ready to do your homework, California?