Even a Tiny Initiative Reform Can't Make It Past the Governor

By Joe Mathews |  Friday, Oct 5, 2012  |  Updated 9:13 AM PDT

Initiative reform is an unpopular cause, and an uphill battle.

Assemblyman Mike Gatto, a Burbank Democrat, has been one of the few lawmakers foolhardy enough to attempt it. And this session he appeared to have achieved some success with AB 2220.

This was modest with a capital "M." But useful. The legislation tried to grab the attention of voters by letting them know something very important about their votes on initiatives: that when they do something by initiative, it can't be changed. This permanence -- you could call it inflexibility -- distinguishes California's initiative process from how the initiative is used around the country and the world.

Gatto specifically would have instructed the non-partisan legislative analyst to add one paragraph to the ballot pamphlet warning that the measure would provide an increase in revenues to fund new or existing programs, create a new fund, or create or change a funding formula for programs. In essence, this is a warning label that fiscal decisions are being made that will be hard to undo. An example of one of the possible warnings:

"Unless changed by a future voter-approved ballot measure, this initiative would permanently dedicate state funding to the program(s) identified, and these funds would not be available to meet other responsibilities of the state."

This legislation made it through the legislature. But it couldn't make it through Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been a political reform skeptic and has seen the initiative process as a means to the end. He vetoed it.

His explanation? He wrote in a veto message that, while he shared Gatto's concern that voters should understand what their vote on an initiative means, he wasn't sure if additional warning was all that helpful, since the legislative analysis already provides information in the ballot pamphlet.

Let's hope Gatto tries again.

Lead Prop Zero blogger Joe Mathews is California editor at Zocalo Public Square, a fellow at Arizona State University’s Center for Social Cohesion, and co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (University of California, 2010).

# # #

Read this article and more at NBC Bay Area by clicking HERE

Mike Gatto is the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the California State Assembly.  He represents the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Los Feliz and Silver Lake.  E-mail Mike at: assemblymember.gatto@assembly.ca.gov, or call (818) 558-3043.

Website of Assemblyman Mike Gatto: www.asm.ca.gov/gatto

Press-Enterprise Editorial: Favors Mike Gatto's Ballot-Box Reform

The Press-Enterprise becomes another in a growing chorus of major publications to editorialize in favor of my ballot-box budgeting fixes.

THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
Published: 02 July 2012 05:20 PM

"Haphazard budgeting at the ballot box only ensures that the state’s fiscal turmoil will continue. California needs to use available resources wisely. Voters should help advance that effort by rejecting ballot measures that create arbitrary spending formulas and new earmarks.

Ballot-box budgeting is the issue behind AB 2220, by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles. The bill would mandate a ballot pamphlet reminder to voters about proposed initiatives that would raise new revenue and dedicate it to specific programs. The official analysis of such measures would have to include language specifying that the money raised by the initiative would go only to the intended programs, and would not be available for other state needs unless voters approved changes later. The requirement would not apply to tax measures that directed the resulting money into the general fund without restriction.

The fate of AB 2220, now in the Senate, is unclear. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed nearly identical legislation last year, saying that a rote disclaimer in initiative analyses “won’t provide voters greater clarity.” Well-informed voters, of course, already know that legislators have little power to alter initiatives — which is one reason ballot measures are popular with an electorate that distrusts the Legislature.

Regardless of how the bill fares, however, Gatto has a legitimate point: Voters too often decide budget-related ballot measures with little insight into the state’s larger financial picture — or the consequences that result from such disjointed fiscal choices.

California has many voter-approved propositions that limit budgeting flexibility. The most sweeping is Prop. 98, the 1988 measure that requires about 40 percent of the budget to go to education. Prop. 99, also from 1988, raised the cigarette tax and earmarked the money for health programs. Prop. 172 in 1993 raised the sales tax to fund law enforcement. Prop. 10 in 1998 raised the cigarette tax again, directing the money toward early childhood development programs. Prop. 64, in 2004, taxed wealthy Californians to pay for mental health services.

Such tinkering blocks any attempt to set sensible priorities for public spending, and helps make state budgeting more opaque and convoluted. The Legislature should be directing available funds to sustain the most crucial programs first. Instead, the state wrestles with ways to pay for priority services while tax money flows unchecked to less critical programs. Thus Prop. 49, from 2002, requires the state to spend nearly $550 million a year on after-school programs when districts struggle to fund classroom instruction.

Yes, the Legislature has an abysmal record of making shortsighted, reckless financial decisions. But voters will not encourage greater fiscal responsibility by approving arbitrary spending dictates based on whatever cause happens to gain sufficient popular support.

Randomly disrupting sensible allocation of public money is not a strategy for fixing the state’s chronic fiscal woes. Good intentions do not justify ballot measures that make the state’s budget more intractable."

Read more HERE

# # #

Mike Gatto is the Assistant Speaker Pro Tempore of the California State Assembly.  He represents the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and parts of Los Angeles, including Los Feliz, North Hollywood, Silver Lake, Toluca Lake, Valley Glen, and Van Nuys.  He has served in the Assembly since June 2010.  E-mail Mike at: assemblymember.gatto@assembly.ca.gov, or call (818) 558-3043.

Website of Assemblyman Mike Gatto: www.asm.ca.gov/gatto