The Problems with Propositions
Election Day is this coming Tuesday, November 8. I know how I'm voting for most of the statewide offices, Congress, and state legislature. As I noted a few weeks ago, those choices are pretty easy; nearly every race pits a credible Democrat against an anti-government, election denying Republican. But one part of the ballot I need to do more research on is ballot propositions.
Ballot propositions take more effort to research before voting on because they can be tricky. It's already tricky because there are different types of propositions, as I outlined recently. But even more than that, propositions can be problematic in a number of ways. Here are 5 common problems:
1) They're written by amateurs, and contain illegal, impractical, or contradictory language. It's both a strength and a weakness of the initiative process that anyone can write one and, if they pay for signature-gatherers to collect enough signatures, get it on the ballot sent to California's 22 million registered voters. The good is that it's a mechanism for citizens to bypass a legislature that is unresponsive to the majority of the electorate. The bad is that the props go through minimal review, and there's no deliberative process to improve them. Whatever's submitted is what's on the ballot, and we voters can only make an up-or-down choice.
2) A laudable goal with a deeply flawed implementation. The implementation of an otherwise worthy goal doesn't have to be illegal or infeasible to be a problem. Sometimes it's just plain bad. For example, years ago I supported the goal of funding stem cell research in California. But the initiatives to encourage it funded 10 years of research grants with 30 year bonds. Things like research grants should be funded out of current-year accounts. Leave long-term bonds for genuinely long-term things like building schools, roads, and bridges. Part of the problem with initiatives like this is that an up-or-down vote doesn't send a clear message. If I want to support stem cell research, do I vote Yes despite the problems? Or do I vote No knowing that if the measure fails many politicians will take it as, "Californians have spoken, and they've don't like stem cell research"?
3) Spending requirements tie the hands of the legislature. Many of the initiatives over the years have been of the form, "At least X% or $Y of the budget must go to this worthy goal." In addition to the problem of how up-or-down votes could be interpreted (see previous point) this also has the problem that, when successful, these measures put more and more constraints on managing the state budget. In years when tax revenues are tight the state government finds that 90% of its spending is locked in by law. This means that other popular programs must be cut because there just isn't enough fungible budget to go around.
4) Special interests disguise the initiative's impact. Given that anyone can write an initiative and there's no deliberative review, when moneyed special interests write them they generally try to conceal the true intent or impact of the measure. A prop could talk about "consumer choice" when really it's about removing important health regulations, or levy a "sin tax" on something like smoking or gambling people broadly want to see more regulated- but the tax proceeds go to help some other big business (i.e., the one that wrote the measure). At least once in the past 20+ years I've been fooled by a sneakily written ballot prop that I didn't spend more than a few minutes researching, and I voted wrong.
5) Complex, granular issues that are beyond the ability of 99% of voters to properly evaluate. Props can be big or small, simple or complex. Some of them are very complex, or have very wide-reaching consequences, which the vast majority of voters are unable to sort through properly. Many props I look at and I'm like, "I really wish this could go through the legislature." The legislature has not only a deliberative process to improve bills but numerous professional policy experts and lawyers involved in said process to understand its impact and feasibility.
After reading this list of problems with propositions it's tempting to take the stance, "Vote No on all!" Or at least, "If in doubt, vote No." But this is a problem, too!
The problem is not all ballot props are the same. While some are voter-written measures subject to any or all of the problems I've described so far, there are other types of props. In particular, referendum props- which are voter veto measures on legislation passed by the state assembly- really should be a case of "If you're not sure, vote yes." And bond measures proposed by the assembly go on the ballot because they have to. The legislature's not trying to hoodwink you by putting funding for schools, roads, and bridges there- though political opponents routinely claim they are, BTW. They're doing it because the state constitution requires it.
Bottom line, California's initiative process brings the good with the bad. Conscientious voters must read all ballot measure carefully to understand what they're voting for- or failing to vote for.
Ballot propositions take more effort to research before voting on because they can be tricky. It's already tricky because there are different types of propositions, as I outlined recently. But even more than that, propositions can be problematic in a number of ways. Here are 5 common problems:
1) They're written by amateurs, and contain illegal, impractical, or contradictory language. It's both a strength and a weakness of the initiative process that anyone can write one and, if they pay for signature-gatherers to collect enough signatures, get it on the ballot sent to California's 22 million registered voters. The good is that it's a mechanism for citizens to bypass a legislature that is unresponsive to the majority of the electorate. The bad is that the props go through minimal review, and there's no deliberative process to improve them. Whatever's submitted is what's on the ballot, and we voters can only make an up-or-down choice.
2) A laudable goal with a deeply flawed implementation. The implementation of an otherwise worthy goal doesn't have to be illegal or infeasible to be a problem. Sometimes it's just plain bad. For example, years ago I supported the goal of funding stem cell research in California. But the initiatives to encourage it funded 10 years of research grants with 30 year bonds. Things like research grants should be funded out of current-year accounts. Leave long-term bonds for genuinely long-term things like building schools, roads, and bridges. Part of the problem with initiatives like this is that an up-or-down vote doesn't send a clear message. If I want to support stem cell research, do I vote Yes despite the problems? Or do I vote No knowing that if the measure fails many politicians will take it as, "Californians have spoken, and they've don't like stem cell research"?
3) Spending requirements tie the hands of the legislature. Many of the initiatives over the years have been of the form, "At least X% or $Y of the budget must go to this worthy goal." In addition to the problem of how up-or-down votes could be interpreted (see previous point) this also has the problem that, when successful, these measures put more and more constraints on managing the state budget. In years when tax revenues are tight the state government finds that 90% of its spending is locked in by law. This means that other popular programs must be cut because there just isn't enough fungible budget to go around.
4) Special interests disguise the initiative's impact. Given that anyone can write an initiative and there's no deliberative review, when moneyed special interests write them they generally try to conceal the true intent or impact of the measure. A prop could talk about "consumer choice" when really it's about removing important health regulations, or levy a "sin tax" on something like smoking or gambling people broadly want to see more regulated- but the tax proceeds go to help some other big business (i.e., the one that wrote the measure). At least once in the past 20+ years I've been fooled by a sneakily written ballot prop that I didn't spend more than a few minutes researching, and I voted wrong.
5) Complex, granular issues that are beyond the ability of 99% of voters to properly evaluate. Props can be big or small, simple or complex. Some of them are very complex, or have very wide-reaching consequences, which the vast majority of voters are unable to sort through properly. Many props I look at and I'm like, "I really wish this could go through the legislature." The legislature has not only a deliberative process to improve bills but numerous professional policy experts and lawyers involved in said process to understand its impact and feasibility.
After reading this list of problems with propositions it's tempting to take the stance, "Vote No on all!" Or at least, "If in doubt, vote No." But this is a problem, too!
The problem is not all ballot props are the same. While some are voter-written measures subject to any or all of the problems I've described so far, there are other types of props. In particular, referendum props- which are voter veto measures on legislation passed by the state assembly- really should be a case of "If you're not sure, vote yes." And bond measures proposed by the assembly go on the ballot because they have to. The legislature's not trying to hoodwink you by putting funding for schools, roads, and bridges there- though political opponents routinely claim they are, BTW. They're doing it because the state constitution requires it.
Bottom line, California's initiative process brings the good with the bad. Conscientious voters must read all ballot measure carefully to understand what they're voting for- or failing to vote for.