By
Andrew Crutchfield on Oct 11, 2012
Ballot initiatives play an important role in California’s government. The initiative process allows California’s voters to bypass their elected officials and directly make permanent changes to the State Constitution and state law. In the past, propositions have made extensive changes to California’s laws, from limiting property taxes to instituting mandatory monitoring of sex offenders. When the initiative process functions well, it allows citizens to make structurally sound improvements over the objections of entrenched political interests that exercise undue influence over elected officials. When it functions poorly, citizens make misguided structurally unsound changes to the State Constitution that require passing another initiative to correct. For better or worse, Californians have increasingly relied on the initiative process to effect policy change in modern times.
California Common Sense (CACS) has prepared a voters’ guide for the propositions on the November 2012 ballot, focusing on the propositions that will have major fiscal and structural impacts on the State: Propositions 30, 31, 32, 36, 38, and 39. While many organizations offer voter guides and commentary, CACS’s guide adds depth and context to the issues. It strives to present extensive and fair analysis informed by secondary research. Throughout, the guide provides “common sense” that simplifies these complex issues and cuts through the rhetoric without omitting crucial detail. It arms voters with facts and meaningful analysis so that they can go to the polls with confidence.
Predictions about effects of propositions are inherently speculative. Following a proposition’s passage, courts may strike down a portion of it as unconstitutional or interpret its provision in an unexpected way. Similarly, the state legislature can influence the implementation of a proposition through additional legislation (particularly, measures controlling the allocation of funding), radically altering the proposition’s outcome. Prop 13 (1978) unexpectedly led to a centralization of control of local finances at the state level.
Finally, most of the revenue and expenditure projections in our analysis are provided by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). The real world has a way of confounding such projections. For example, the LAO estimated that Proposition 184 (1994), the Three Strikes initiative, would result in over 80,000 additional inmates by the year 2000, and would require 15 new prisons. The predicted precipitous increase in prison populations never materialized. However, these estimates constitute the best information available for making these necessary choices.
Additional Resources
