'Vote No on Everything' Urges Changes to California Proposition System

In the special election held last week in California, five ballot initiatives designed to temporarily fix the state's crippling budget crisis failed by an overwhelming 2:1 margin. The voters of California sent yet another unequivocal message to Sacramento that they want their leaders and legislators to do the jobs they were elected and paid $116,000 a year to do. The problem is, they can't. The very system used to send this resounding electoral message is at least partially to blame for the state's problems; but a budding grassroots movement seeks to change that.

The California initiative process began in 1911 as a way for ordinary citizens to expropriate control of corrupt state government from the undue influence of special interests -- namely, the Southern Pacific Railroad. Sadly, however, the system has since become something its creators never intended: an unwieldy, untenable wolf that has subverted the deliberative nature of representative democracy; tied the hands of elected officials charged with controlling the state's purse strings; and undermined traditional court protections of minorities by eliminating fundamental civil rights -- and all via mostly narrow majorities in popular votes.

Enter Los Angeles-based physician Reed Levine, who recently started the web-based grassroots movement VoteNoOnEverything (VNOE). According to the organization's newly launched website www.VoteNoOnEverything.org, the goal is to educate voters about the California proposition system in order to encourage more informed voting choices and, ultimately, to revise or eliminate the system altogether.

In an interview with this author, Levine explained, "The system as it stands now in California is a broken system that is in desperate need of change." While conceding the initiative process probably has some role to play in government, he cautions that "in its current form, it's wasteful of taxpayer money, it's wasteful of campaign money and it's threatening civil liberties." It appears he's right.

The unnecessary special election last week cost the financially strapped state nearly $24 million and political donors spent almost that much to influence voters. Moreover, as I've written about before, California became the first state in American history to rescind a civil right of a minority by popular vote when voters narrowly passed Prop 8, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Of course, in a constitutional republic, the civil rights of a minority should never be subjected to a popular vote because the minority will lose almost every time. And the ruling today by the state Supreme Court upholding Prop 8 while allowing existing same-sex marriages to stand only further muddies the constitutional waters and begs the question: "if civil rights can be eliminated by a simple majority vote, why even have a constitution at all?"

"The history of California's Constitution is interesting because it's been changed so much," Levine explains. Indeed, a little historical perspective demonstrates its cumbersome complexity. The US Constitution has been amended only 27 times in its entire 222-year history. By contrast, California's Constitution has been changed -- either by referendum or initiative -- over 540 times in 130 years, making it the third longest constitution in the world and an unmanageable behemoth that one writer called "the perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be."

Arguably the most infamous and influential change to the document came in the form of Prop 13, a 1978 people's initiative that capped property taxes while limiting the legislature's ability to raise revenue even in a time of fiscal crisis -- the very precipice upon which the state now finds itself. Because of the strictures in Prop 13 put in place by the people, tax increases of even one penny must earn a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of the legislature, while the people themselves can pass a spending measure of any amount by merely a simple majority plus one. "It's messy. Very messy," Levine says. And it gets messier.

It's no secret California's economy is so large that if the state were an independent nation, it would rank among the ten largest economies in the entire world. And yet the current initiative process allows ordinary citizens to bypass two deliberative bodies of elected officials by enacting compulsory spending measures with only a simple majority vote -- despite little to no education or understanding of the implications of the vote. As recently as 2004, a study confirmed that nearly one-third of all money spent by the state legislature was mandatory spending put in place by voter-approved initiatives.

In a state as populated as California with as large an economy, Levine points out, "the details of the issues become so complicated that you cannot reasonably expect an electorate that has many other concerns, and often doesn't take the time to look into it, to adequately understand the issues to make an intelligent decision." And he's right. A state that repeatedly faces financial crisis can ill-afford to continue turning over control of tens of billions of dollars to election-weary voters with only the most cursory grasp of the spending's consequences.

As a result, VNOE urges voters on its website to take action:

We encourage you to raise your internal standard and make your default to VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING. Make sure that you understand that a given proposition is very important and fair and that you understand exactly how the money is being spent before you are willing to even consider voting yes.

VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING by default. Make them work for your "yes". Don't vote YES unless you understand fully the cost and implications of that proposition. Don't pay attention to the 30-second ads on TV....

SPREAD THE WORD

Talk to your friends and family this. Talk to everyone you know about this. In many ways, propositions are more important than who you vote to send to Washington. Your vote directly creates law. Your vote directly spends taxpayer money. Your vote defines the rights of your fellow citizens

Hoping that voters will ignore 30-second advertising designed to appeal to voters' emotions over their reason, Levine wants individuals to "reset their baseline vote to NO" and encourage others to do the same while discussing the need to fix or eliminate the proposition system. Although the organization is only in its infancy, word is spreading. The group's Facebook page already has nearly 900 members, there are chapter presidents in eight other states and Levine has been asked to speak about the organization's focus at campuses across the country. "I've had so many people respond well and send me emails... and say 'you know, I've never really thought about it like that, but it really had an impact on me.'"

Given that an overwhelming majority of initiatives pass or fail by narrow margins, the task of effecting change may not be as daunting as it seems at first blush. VNOE has to reach just enough reasonably minded voters and convince them to vote in a more informed way. "It's not a complicated idea," Levine says. "It's basically a willingness to admit that you don't know enough about the topic. I can do that and I hope other people can."

I hope so too.

Comments

[DetailOriented]

Interestingly, the majority of the negative comments here are from people who apparently just read the title and set up straw-man arguments (Search for "straw man " on wikipedia if you're unfamiliar with the term).

This sort of uninformed negative commentary actually bolsters the idea of VNOE. Those who simply read the title and blast off a negative response are proving that people tend to simple look at issues superficially before "casting a vote" (or voicing an uninformed opinion).

If they read the material, they would discover that many of the things they support are supported by the author of this article! "Vote No On Everything" is a catchy title apparently designed to get people to engage in discussion about the proposition process; the group seeks "to educate voters about the California proposition system in order to encourage more informed voting choices".

The website itself very clearly states a goal that its hard to imagine many intelligent people would disagree with: "Voters should only consider voting "yes" on propositions if first they fully inform themselves about the true costs and implications of their vote --Civil rights should never be restricted by a popular vote and deserve a higher level of scrutiny and honesty than the proposition system allows."

"Vote No On Everything" Urges Changes to California Proposition System... who could say that the CA proposition system doesn"t need reform?

[KenTao]

After I voted for my first California proposition that actually passed back in the mid-70's or so, and I saw the result, I had a default VNOE attitude for many years. That proposition made it mandatory for every motorist to purchase auto insurance. The idea seemed reasonable to me up front, with the added promise (from the TV commercials) that having every driver covered in the state would push insurance prices down. Seemed like a win / win.

As it stands today 1 in 5 Californians is still driving without insurance because they can't afford it, and the insurance companies, who foisted this proposition on us for their own profit, have never pushed their prices anywhere but up. That's fascism plain and simple; government in collusion with big corporations.

Now I make every effort to find out as much about these tricky deals as possible and it takes a ton of convincing to get me to vote for any of them. Even on the ones I vote yes for now I cringe inside wondering what horrible opposite of intention effect will I have helped create.

Special interest groups is one thing but we need to get all for profit business groups banned from being able to use propositions for their own interest$.

Earthlings Unite!

[Overd0g2]

I've been doing that for years. Especially for the moronic spending measures and bonds they continually sell.

[1sparrow]

i started to read the first prop. when i realized it may be about tax payers bailing out the state i voted no on everything without reading anything. later i heard the last of the props was to deny pay raises-- I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT -- I DIDN'T CARE.

[hoosier96]

While I agree that pure democracy in passing laws and making policy is neither the best nor most efficient way of running a government, I think in the case of California it is actually a good check against a state government that has become so bloated with overspending and repressive taxation that it is now billions of dollars in debt.

What can the citizenry do when its representatives have become so out of touch with the people?

[PunKinPai]

California's billions of dollars of debt aren't just from overspending and repressive taxation. Over -the last few years, myriad special-interest propositions have mandated allocation of funds and required voter approval (simple majority or two-thirds) for increases in or reallocation of funds. This has restricted the legislature's flexibility in spending and hampered the state's ability to survive this economic downturn without onerous cuts to health, safety, and law enforcement. It will be interesting to see how people who have continually voted against "repressive taxation" feel about a reduction in firefighters when a raging wildfire is charging up the hill toward their home.

[ThePeacemakers]

When I first came to Cali, I voted for all kinds of funding for schools, hospitals, etc.
All the money seemed to be misappropriated or going to some hole somewhere because EVERY YEAR THERE WERE THE SAME PROBLEMS.

The last ten years I've been voting NO across the board. Didn't even bother reading half the mess.

One other thing that needs to be addressed:
This is also a sign that something may have to give with the SIZE of the population of California.

[san619]

What a great article! While I agree that 'voting no on everything' may be a little extreme, I agree with the spirit of Mr. Levine's organization. Is anyone else concerned that the state's constitution can be changed by a simple voter majority?? And, the fact that the state spent 24M on an election that about 20% of registered voters turned out for is insane. (Yes I live in CA and yes I voted in this last election). Yes, many aspects of our legislative process need changing, but as it stands now, the state is ungovernable and revamping the Prop system is a good place to start.

[Overd0g2]

Only minor changes can be made with a simple majority.

[DetailOriented]

Well limitless spending can be mandated by a simple majority and any right can be taken away from any minority so long as it doesn't alter the structure of government or violate the US Constitution. Hardly minor affairs.

[RedondoBeach]

I've been fed up with the California initiative process for decades, and routinely vote no on every one of them unless I'm absolutely certain I understand it and agree with it.

What began as a populist instrument has become a featherbedding tool for big money. These propositions are written either in the sneakiest, most misleading manner by lawyers, or by hotheads who have an ax to grind. Many of them are poorly written and overturned in court. They are often one-sided with no attempt to balance competing interests. This is no way to legislate.

[EquesLignite]

No one seems to be talking about the 1998 medical marijuana proposition. If it was not passed, the ending drug war movement wouldn't have the momentum it has today. Just think about it! I believe most readers of Huffington Post would like to end the drug war, and the California initiative system is a helper in that cause.

[goldcoastsailor]

Do not touch prop 13 or the proposition process, this is direct democracy in action. Something that serves Switzerland well and could work here, now that we have the technology. We could send all the representatives home tomorrow, think what that would save, not just on their salaries, but the lobbyists who corrupt them.

[Polly]

do not touch Prop 13 are you kidding - that is the one that really needs to be addressed!! It is just not right that neighbors on the same street in the same type of house can pay as little as 1,200 a year compared to 12,000 a year in taxes. If the taxes were spread more equally everyone would be fairly contributing to their community & state. You are thinking small.

[ddblue]

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that management of a state the size of California by the general public would be cheaper than the cost of a full-time legislature. I'm open to changing that belief, however, if you can show everyone your math.

[studioh!]

Sometimes-in this state-NO means YES. The problem with initiatives is that ballots are written by sharp, always crafty, lawyers, who distort the true meaning to confuse the populace.
Vote No to everything takes the guesswork-and the responsibility-out of the process. Voters must do the thinking, and the deciding. Initiatives should be done away with, but not by another initiative.

[DetailOriented]

Perhaps you didnt read the article and just read the headline? They are asking people to vote responsibly and to never vote yes on spending taxpayer money unless they first do their homework and understand the details of the prop they are voting for.

VNOE says you CAN vote yes, but...Vote­rs should only consider voting "yes" on propositions if first they fully inform themselves about the true costs and implications of their vote.

Civil rights should never be restricted by a popular vote and deserve a higher level of scrutiny and honesty than the proposition system allows.

They seek to educate people about the proposition system to encourage more intelligent voting choices and to revise the broken California proposition system.

[Sundialsvc4]

You lost.

Deal with it.

You LOST.

This does not mean "vote NO on everything," because the history of the proposition system in the State of California quite-clearly shows that the votes that have been taken have been a general mixture of Yea and Nay.

That history also shows that the issues that have been dealt with by propositions would never have been dealt with by the Legislature.

The genius of the Proposition system is that it basically is a Parliamentary system: a "vote of no-confidence" type. The majority of the people (if there be one) can take whatever-they-like directly to themselves, vote on it, and make it law. You can never bribe the People.

The People of the State of California apparently do not agree with you, that you represent a "wronged minority" whose "civil rights" have been besmirched. In fact, I don't see how they could possibly have made it MORE clear to you that they do not.

[chaya]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid "The People of the State of California" have actually quite clearly demonstrated that they can't manage to run a state.

[hoosier96]

No, I think it just shows that their elected officials don't care about the will of the people.

[ddblue]

Seeing as how racial minorities are now the majority in California, you might want to be careful what you wish for (assuming you're not a member of one of the "wronged minorities" you decry). Californians seem not to be able to learn from the invaluable leadership offered to Americans by the Founding Fathers. The US Constitution is pretty difficult to amend for a purpose. When "the majority of the people... can take whatever-they-like directly to themselves" you end up with little more than anarchy. Sure, the LGBT community lost the campaign against Prop 8, but it was by a smaller margin than previous ballot measures. And it will be even smaller (or non-existent) the next time around. Time is lethal to bigotry.

[hoosier96]

Actually, your argument doesn't hold water for one reason. Those racial minorities voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8.

[PunKinPai]

Your rant clearly demonstrates that the tyranny of the majority is to be feared. That's why the framers of the Constitution created a republic, not a democracy.

[AlexFTW]

One of the reasons Cali has such a terrible school system and their libraries are in such a mess is that voters consistently strike down funding initiatives.

[goldcoastsailor]

Our school bond votes needed to pass was cut to a 50% majority vote rather than prop 13's 2/3 majority recently. Our schools are bad because we have to educate the illegals let in by the federal government's failure to act.

[chaya]

Californians' schools are bad because they are self-centered and couldn't care less about education.

[PunKinPai]

Not all of California's schools are bad. Some are excellent, but those are mostly in affluent areas--areas where the residents happily employ illegals to mow their lawns, clean their homes, and watch their children, as long as the poor blighters live in another school district, which they don't want to fund. One of my affluent friends opposes public education on the grounds that her money shouldn't pay to educate someone else's child. With voters like this, you can see why Prop. 13 was so populer.

[mergina]

Wherever Republicans take over, (and arnold is a mild one at best), everything good turns to total crap. To dictate and then reinforce that dictate how or who a person can love is sickening.

[calirighty]

Get a grip. Arnold being a Republican has nothing to do with anything. The Democrats have controlled the state legislature for years. THEY are the ones that pass legislation. Arnold can only sign what is in front of him. No one is dictating who anyone can love. What we are dictating is that gays do not have the right to redefine marriage. Prop 8 made no mention whatsoever who you were allowed or not not allowed to love. But hey, I guess facts don't matter do they?

[Lorianne]

Are the majority of people in California Republicans?

[anyoneoutthere]

I will only vote yes for the following proposition:

That every new proposition will be limited to less than 200 words.

It's impossible to vote yes or no on any proposition that you cannot understand because it runs several pages and has unpteen clauses. People do not read them Therefore, they do not know what they are voting for.

200 words are plenty to express a basic principle and basic principles are the only things that should be put before the people directly. The rest should be up to the legislature and the Governor (they are elected, after all).

California is ungovernable thanks to the present system.