Blockbuster Democracy

Ballot Access News has a handy overview of several proposed constitutional amendments, now in the California legislature, to reinstitute the indirect initiative. Before a constitutional revision in the 1960s, California permitted voters to gather signatures as a method of putting an idea before the legislature.

I tend to think the indirect initiative is a waste of time. The process was almost never used before the 1960s, and it would not be used much even if any of these amendments were to be approved by the legislature and voters (All face uphill battles). Why would an initiative sponsor submit to a process that permitted the legislature to change her proposed statute or constitutional amendment?

That said, involving the legislature in the initiative process is a worthy goal. But the better way to do that is the counter proposal. That is, the legislature should have the power -- by majority vote -- to place its own counter proposal on the ballot next to any initiative that qualifies. This would give voters a choice, and create comparative campaigns that focus on the details of the initiative. The natural question when confronted with a choice is: what's different between these two measures? Those would be healthier campaigns. Voters would be asked three questions; 1. yes or no on the initiative. 2. yes or no on the legislative counter-proposal. and 3. if both pass, which do you prefer? That combination of questions would also produce a result that matches the overall preferences of the electorate far more closely than the current system, in which voters are asked to consider an initiative in isolation.