Queer Fresno

California voters have almost unlimited power in changing state policy, enacting budgetary reforms, re-writing the state constitution as well as instituting many other reforms, all without legislative or executive oversight. California is one of the few states in the Union that gives voters such a broad range of legislative discretion. Although the initiative process has become an embodiment of California politics it also has been one of the most costly and sometimes damaging processes that voters utilize.

The genesis of the concept of voter approved initiative originated in California. It was implemented in the early 1900′s to give voters the ability to circumvent the legislature which was dominated and influence heavily by special interests of various kinds including: railroad companies and mega-industrial powers. The original intent of the initiative was innocent to say the least. However, since its inception it has become one of the primary factors that have contributed to California’s governmental dysfuntionalism.

Over the decades the initiative process has subjected the state to numerous laws and regulations that bind legislators and the executive when it comes to drafting legislation and implementing reforms to fix state government. This is especially the case regarding the state budget. For the past twenty years the state has suffered from chronic budget deficits. Although there are various reasons as to why California goes into the red every year, one specific reason that can be accredited to the chronic budget problem is the passage of specific initiatives, such as Prop 13. Prop 13 re-directed the collection of the state’s income from property taxes to individuals personal incomes. The initial intent of Prop 13 was well intended, to assist low-income and the elderly from skyrocketing property taxes, thus allowing them to keep their property as well as their homes.

Prop 13 passed with an overwhelming majority of voter support, however, as with most voter approved initiatives, no one bothered to research the consequences of what this initiative would have on the state budget, or neglected to emphasize specific troubles that the state would encounter in the proceeding decades. In short, the state is bound by very few individuals who make up well over half of the states intake of taxes. According to the Legislative Analysts Office These individuals account for less than three percent of returns but almost 50 percent of liabilities. In contrast, tax payers with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of less than $50,000 accounted for over 70 percent of returns but less than 10 percent of liabilities. The higher the incomes of individuals, the higher their incomes are taxed making AGI’s progressive meaning: that the personal income taxes rates rise with income causing taxpayers with higher taxable incomes to pay proportionately larger share of their incomes in taxes than those with lower incomes.

This is problematic in terms of having a stable source of revenue. As the income of these individuals drop, so does state revenues. In economic hardship, the state must acclimate itself to find ways of filling budget gaps and finding new revenues sources, raise taxes, or cut programs. If the state ever wants to alleviate itself from this problem it not only must change its antiquated system of collecting taxes, as well as, overhauling voter discretion regarding the initiative process. Undoubtedly voters did not realize the full extent of the budgetary consequences while passing Prop 13 and what it would do to lawmakers ability to implement reforms.

The process itself has gotten so problematic that California’s Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald George, has advocated its reform, “no where is the practice of government by voter initiative as extreme as it is in California.” According to him California is the only state to bar legislators from changing most voter-approved initiatives, and one of the few that permit constitutional amendments by a majority of public vote, with no legislative oversight. He suggests that California limit the process that other states have implemented and require extensive oversight such as requiring more than a simple majority for constitutional amendments, require legislative review before or after initiatives reach the ballot or ban initiative backers from using paid signature-collectors. I would have to concur with Chief Justice George, however, getting the rest of the state to acknowledge such amendments to the initiative process, let alone approving them seems at most challenging in every respect.

Note: you can read the rest of Chief Justice Ronald George in the Sunday edition of the Fresno Bee, February 21, 2010 “Initiative process blasted again: Chief justice says props favor special interest.”