Initiative process put us in this jam
The budget-deficit ball is back in the Legislature's court. California voters, having rejected an extension of the emergency taxes proferred in Proposition 1A, passed it back to legislators with the none-too-specific demand, "Here, you fix it." Which, of course, is what the Legislature was supposed to have done in the first place. But California lawmakers failed to do so, and we are not optimistic about their ability to rise to the occasion now.
California's initiative process, which allows for a direct vote of the people, sounds like a democratic idealist's fondest aspiration, but too often it fails to work with any sort of realistic effectiveness. The only available responses on the ballot are "yes," "no" and "abstain" (by deliberately choosing neither of the first two options). But the nuanced job of government requires responses like "what if ...?," "not yet" and "only under these circumstances."
The only voters who can render those decisions are the ones we elect. Theoretically speaking, of course.
Voters have used the initiative process to guarantee tax revenue to specific groups and causes, including education, preschool children and the mentally ill. All are deserving -- but in crisis situations like the one we face now, giving the force of law to one need above so many others (including some clearly more essential) endangers the balance of government services, social needs and public safety.
The initiative system's limited choices of "yes," "no" and "abstain" leaves the job of interpreting voter intent to some of the very political forces direct democracy was meant to circumvent -- i.e., special interests. That should have been abundantly clear in the SEIU's recent response to a Californian editorial: The Service Employees International Union polled Californians and concluded that voters didn't reject new taxes on May 19, even though that was the primary question put before them. Voters were merely fed up with the governor and the Legislature. They pulled that "no" lever in overwhelming numbers based on their anger and frustration, the SEIU says.
Judging by some of the responses to Sacramento's ongoing wrangling over cuts, they'll continue to be angry. We've been hearing it all month: "But we didn't mean for you to cut that."
But when "yes," no" and "abstain" are the only words voters can utter, we run the risk of leaving the work of interpretation to the lawmakers and lobbyists -- precisely the people who would be crafting policy and balancing budgets had voters never joined the equation at all. As California remakes itself under the terms of this harsh, new reality, we'd be wise to ponder the limitations of the initiative process.
