Initiative Reform: Two Modest Proposals

Steve Novick

Legislators like State Senator Frank Morse (R – Albany) and State Representative Larry Galizio (D – Tigard) Larry are talking about reforming the initiative process. For one thing, both want to give the Legislature a chance to review and react to any proposed initiative before it goes to the ballot; once signatures were gathered, the measure would not go directly to the voters, but would go to the Legislature first.

In addition, according to the Register-Guard:

"Morse would also like each measure's ballot title to indicate whether the proposal has an identifiable source of revenue. If it does not, the ballot title would inform voters that approval might result in program cuts or tax increases. Morse says that voters obtain 80 percent of their information about initiatives from the ballot title — and it's essential that they understand which choices would impose unfunded obligations on state government."

Having spent much of the past twelve years in initiative battles, I agree with Morse, Galizio et al. on the need for some reforms. But I have slightly different takes on the concepts of changing the ballot titles and having a screening process for initiatives. I'll take up the second issue first. I generally agree with Morse on ballot title reform. Today, for the most part, ballot titles for initiatives that cost money, either by cutting taxes or imposing unfunded mandates, don't give voters much sense of the trade-offs involved. This means, basically, that Sizemore and Mannix can offer the voters free candy. Mandatory minimums! Tax cuts! No money down!

But I don't think that "might result in program cuts or tax increases" would be very helpful. It's too vague. Polls show that voters don't have very good information on what 'programs' the State funds. In 2005, Adam Davis of Davis and Hibbitts found that when voters were asked what percentage of income taxes were spent on services less important than education, health care and public safety, those who had any opinion at al estimated – on average – over 30%. In fact, over 90% of the State General Fund, income-tax-funded budget goes to education, health care (of one kind or another) and public safety.

By the way, I blame politicians of BOTH parties for failing to adequately explain these trade-offs to voters. I myself once carried literature for a Democratic House candidate that said he would "put education first without raising taxes." What the heck does that mean? Education is already the biggest item in the State budget. What that candidate's literature implied – misleadingly – was that we could give a big boost to education by 'prioritizing' it. That we just need to get rid of the fancy extras. With politicians of both parties using such misleading language, it's no wonder voters aren't aware that the State really only does three things with its General Fund revenues: as economist John Mitchell once said, it "educates, medicates and incarcerates."

Anyway, given the state of public information on the State budget, I don't think "might result in program cuts or tax increases" would cut it. I think many voters would assume that could just mean "they have to cut the fancy extras." As I noted in my last post, a recent poll of New York voters showed that they wanted to balance their budget by cutting economic development – there, as here, a small fraction of the budget. I think ballot title reform using Morse's phrasing (or the R-G's characterization of that phrasing) would not really address that kind of confusion.

In my view, meaningful ballot title reform would give voters the same kind of hard information that legislators have. It would identify the trade-offs between proposed initiatives and SPECIFIC, IDENTIFIED services, not just unidentified "programs."

In 2001, a number of distinguished legislators lined up behind just such an approach. SB 464 and HB 2969 were supported by Kate Brown, Ben Westlund, Susan Castillo, Lane Shetterly and Max Williams. (In 2003, Ryan Deckert sponsored a different version of the same bill.) They provided that if a measure cut taxes or mandated new spending, the ballot title would have to identify the three services that currently get the most money from the affected revenue source, and state that the measure would "reduce funding available for" those services.

We chose that language very carefully. (Yes, "we"; I was one of the authors of the legislation.) We did not say "cuts funding for," which would be speculative. We said "reduces revenue available for," which would be literally, unavoidably true of any such measure. If a measure cuts income taxes, for example, it reduces funding available for education, health care and public safety. (And yes, I think it's fair to focus on those three services – the big-ticket items – rather than listing every tiny thing that some small fraction of income tax revenues fund. You're giving critical information without making the ballot 100 pages long.)

I think that an approach that was endorsed by the current Secretary of State, the current Treasurer, the current Superintendent of Public Instruction, the current head of the Oregon Business Association, and two such unimpeachably moderate Republicans as Lane Shetterly and Max Williams is worth revisiting. I trust the voters, given the same kind of information that legislators have, to make reasonable decisions. That was the idea of SB 464 / HB 2969: to give the voters information approximating that which the legislators have.

An important thing to remember about changes to the ballot title process is that the whole process is statutory – no Constitutional amendments required.

Now, what about this "screening" process idea? It sounds OK to me, but I worry about its political appeal (or lack thereof). I'd like to see a poll. I think voters' reaction might be, the while idea of the initiative process is that it's not about the Legislature – why give the Legislature any hand in it?

A "screening" idea I'd like to try out was offered up about a decade ago by my friend Martin Taylor. Martin said that having an unlimited number of measures on the ballot, many on obscure issues that are darned hard to figure out, is inherently goofy. Special interests use the process to address incredibly narrow topics that the general public doesn't really care about -- and it's asking a lot to expect voters to spend a lot of time coming to a careful decision on such issues. So if you have 25 measures or so (as in 2000), you might have bizarre things passing pretty much by accident.

Martin's idea was the limit the number of initiatives, but to have the VOTERS THEMSELVES do the winnowing. Reduce the number of signatures you need to get on the ballot – but the first ballot you get on is the May ballot, for an "initiative primary." What the voters do in the initiative primary is list the top three (or five, or whatever) initiatives that they think are really worth voting on in November. Based on that vote, you determine which measures are in fact on the November ballot for a yes / no vote. I like Martin's idea, and I think it's worth at least having someone do a poll to see if the voters would be up for it. (It would require a Constitutional amendment.) And it kind of vaguely mirrors the legislative process. The Legislature uses the committee process to narrow down the number of bills they all have to vote on; this would be a variant on that process.

If you combine these two ideas, they would go a long way to putting the voters on a more equal footing with the Legislature. Instead of having an unlimited number of proposals thrown at them with a minimal amount of information, the voters would consider a limited number of proposals with (at least for fiscal issues) significantly more information.

Oh – one more thing. Although the Legislature should approach changes to the initiative process with care, it should not think that every feature of the process is a 'third rail.' In 2000, Sizemore had a measure on the ballot (Measure 96) to prohibit making the initiative process "harder." There was hardly any campaign against it. It lost. Voters prize the initiative process – but they don't think it's so perfect that it can't ever be changed.

By Steve Novick Feb. 06, 2009