City Club: Fix our broken initiative system

Charlie Burr

As initiative season heats up with the first citizen measure cleared for the November ballot, The City Club of Portland has released an extensive analysis of our initiative system including proposed changes to modernize and reform our ballot measure process.

Read the full report here. [Warning: Large file] Recommendations from The City Club of Portland:

1. Limit constitutional amendment initiatives to structural government power or the rights of people with respect to our government.

2. For constitutional amendments initiatives and referrals, require a three-fifths majority of votes cast.

3. Require a three-fifths majority in the Legislature for referral of constitutional amendment revenue measures.

4. Implement an indirect initiative system. To enhance public debate, require public hearings for all citizen initiatives after they qualify for the ballot. The Legislature would enact statutory measures or refer them to voters. For constitutional amendments, the Legislature would be required to refer measures to voters after accepting the proposed changes. Any initiative rejected by the Legislature would be submitted to voters in the next general election, regardless of subject.

5. Strike Or.Rev.Stat.250.035(6) to require the Attorney General to assign the same ballot title to substantively identical measures.

6. Assign senior judges to review challenges to ballot measure titles. Decisions should be binding.

7. Proposed ballot measures should be submitted to Legislative Counsel for clarification and drafting purposes.

8. Direct additional funding for vigorous enforcement of the rules and protections that govern signature gathering.

9. Increase transparency for chief petitioner committees by requiring them to meet the same financial disclosure requirements as political action committees.

Discuss.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks for posting this, Charlie. At first blush, I have to say I've come to expect much, much better than this from the City Club.

    From this list, it appears they operated in ignorance of the Citizen's Initiative Review being developed/proposed by Healthy Democracy Oregon -- a very disappointing oversight.

    And their endorsement of expanding, rather than eliminating, supermajorities, is pretty shocking.

    Don't think I'll be reading much deeper, this doesn't look like a very worthwhile exploration of the issue. But the issue is an important one.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Some of this sounds like the suggestions of the Public Comm. on the Legislature (a body which had public meetings of well known experienced people--just what is the background of the Healthy Democracy folks?

    Never has the City Club released a "so let it be written, so let it be done" report which no one should debate. This sounds like a good framework for debate and if people like some of the proposals but not others they are free to say so.

  • (Show?)

    Peter, I can't really speak to the first point, but to your second point re: expanding, rather than eliminating, supermajorities: what the City Club specifically recommended is that for revenue measures, require the Legislature to obtain a three-fifths majority for constitutional revenue measures as long as a three-fifths majority is required for statutory measures.

    Call this the Measure 50 provision: Under the current system, fewer votes are required to refer a constitutional amendment -- i.e. raising Oregon's cigarette tax to fund health care -- than a statutory measure. The status quo doesn't make a lot of sense. Amending our state's constitution should be more difficult, or at least as difficult, as raising revenue by statute.

  • (Show?)

    Peter, I just took a look at the link you included and would encourage you to dig into the City Club report still. Both the City Club and the Citizen's Initiative Review appear to share a common goal: providing voters with better access to initiative information (see public hearing requirements from City Club).

  • (Show?)

    Yes, of course Measure 50 illustrates the problem well. But the idea that expanding rather than eliminating supermajorities is the appropriate fix is just preposterous.

    If LT is correct, and the City Club's intent is to frame debate rather than drive policy, then I'd rather see them describing the problem then prescribing specific solutions.

    As to the Citizen's Initiative Review, glad you took a look. They're doing good work. I may dig deeper at some point into the City Club's work, but as I said, the initial recommendations listed above don't give me much hope about their approach.

  • (Show?)

    City Club made a few good recommendations, such as speeding up the timetable for judicial review of ballot title challenges and limiting the scope and raising the bar for constitutional reforms via the initiative process.

    Unfortunately, this report was drafted in January and many of the recommendations appear to have been made in near-total ignorance about statutory and administrative rule changes put into effect this year that have dramatically raised the bar with regard to disclosure and liability for individuals and organizations that use the Oregon System.

    Chief Petitioner Committees have legal and financial liabilities and transparency requirements that are an order of magnitude higher than is the case for candidate committees.

    As just one example...

    A time card outlining the time and location where signatures are gathered must be attached to every signature sheet that is turned in to the secretary of state. The SOS and AG engage in a mandatory audit of those records.

    Can anyone think of a comparable disclosure requirement for any other political committee or political non-profit operating in Oregon? In fact, how many business entities are required to make payroll and timesheet documents available to government agencies part of their standard business practises?

    Bear in mind, this is not in response to a complaint -- for which chief petitioners are individually and severally liable to the tune of $100,000 per violation -- but just part of the standard operating procedure.

    A few other points...

    • Having leg counsel review initiative petitions is a good idea, but they should not be the final arbiter of what goes into a petition. Some petitions are written explicitly to challenge the constitutionality of existing statutes. Also, leg Counsel is not infallible with regard to the legality of issues. As one example, significant portions of the ethic reform bill that was vetted by leg counsel and passed in 2007 are likely to be struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court.
    • The AG's office, as a matter of policy, already assigns the same ballot title to substantively identical measures, which is why Initiative Petition #4, on which I am the Chief Petitioner, has been assigned the same ballot title it was given in 2006 when the idea was first floated by Ken Allen and Tim Nesbitt.

    Ballot title shopping was effectively halted when the 2007 legislature raised the threshold for the number of signatures needed to have a ballot title assigned from 25 to 1000.

    One area where transparency has been totally neglected in the iniative system is on campaign spending by groups that oppose ballot initiatives.

    Democrats will not always control the reins of government. Someday soon, it is highly likely that some of the strongest opponents of the initiative system will regret the current attempts to erode the right of citizens to use this system.

  • Larry McD (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks, Charlie.

    This is a debate that needs desperately to be joined in a high profile fashion.

    It is obscene that it's easier to amend the State Constitution than it is to pass a local school funding proposition.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sal, all due respect, but about this...

    "Someday soon, it is highly likely that some of the strongest opponents of the initiative system will regret the current attempts to erode the right of citizens to use this system."

    It wasn't that long ago that "the right of citizens to use the initiative system" was given as the reason stores couldn't shoo petitioners off their property if they were blocking the entrance and shoppers had to run the gauntlet. (Shoppers were going to be thrilled at that experience, and store clerks weren't thrilled when the court ruled that such activity could be restricted? )

    "Right of citizens" was used as an excuse to ballot title shop, to have petitioners say "don't ask any questions, just sign it!". There were those who support the initiative process who didn't think there were too many measures in 2000 and we should be proud to do our civic duty and read about all of them because there couldn't possibly be a higher priority in our lives.

    The initiativemeisters overplayed their hand (yes, Marbet as bad as McIntire on this issue) and have no one but themselves to blame---lots of people in 2000 just voted the default position of NO unless they had a reason to vote otherwise.

    Measure sponsors will have to clean up their act if they want to be respected. And there has to be more accounting on the money and on paid petitioners than there has been---the sort of "you owe us your signature" attitude from those who admit they are only collecting signatures because they need a job does not make ballot measures attractive.

  • (Show?)

    I'm with Peter on the 3/5 majority in the Legislature. That's a stupid rule when all they're doing is referring something to the people for their vote. There doesn't need to be a high bar for that (and frankly, a low bar for referrals and a high bar for initiatives would encourage folks to work through the legislative process.)

    As for this, however:

    For constitutional amendments initiatives and referrals, require a three-fifths majority of votes cast.

    I like the idea in concept, but I'm concerned that it would essentially lock in today's constitution. If it took a majority vote to enact something, it should take a majority vote to repeal it. Especially if it's something recent; say the last 25-30 years.

    Personally, I like the idea of a wholesale constitutional rewrite. Clean it up, scrap most of the junk, and put it before the people anew. It's radical surgery, but sometimes that's what's required to save the patient.

    Montana did that some 30 years ago, and everything was fine.

  • (Show?)

    Chief Petitioner Committees have legal and financial liabilities and transparency requirements that are an order of magnitude higher than is the case for candidate committees.

    And that is as it should be. Chief Petitioner Committees are making law. Candidate committees are merely electing candidates.

  • What? (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari seems to have his helmet on backwards, once again in typical clueless Blue Oregon fashion:

    Chief Petitioner Committees have legal and financial liabilities and transparency requirements that are an order of magnitude higher than is the case for candidate committees.

    And that is as it should be. Chief Petitioner Committees are making law. Candidate committees are merely electing candidates.

    Chief Petitioner Committees are not making law with an initiative: The voters are. Although most of them don't have the vaguest idea what they're voting "YES" or "NO" on, regardless of whether it is an issue from the left or the right.

    On the other hand, Candidate committees are working to put someone in a position who will make law. Although most of the lame brains on the left and right we elect in Oregon let interest groups actually write the law, and don't have any more of a clue than the voters about the foreseeable "unintended" consequences of the bills they vote into law.

    The persons making the law are the people casting the votes. In the first case it's the people, in the second case it's the elected official. Man, our high schools and colleges apparently are really falling down on the job when it comes to civics if Kari actually thought he could put this over on his own readers.

  • (Show?)

    No, it's you that doesn't get it.

    I understand that it's the voters that technically "make" the law, but they don't get to write the initiatives. It's the chief petitioner committees that do that - without any public process, without any legislative review, without any legal counsel required.

    Once approved, an initiative is the law. It's done. If it's a constitutional amendment, it's really, really stuck.

    An elected official, however, will only be one player in Salem - in order to make law, they'll have to get a bill drafted, through at least two committees, through the Senate and the House, and a Governor's signature.

  • (Show?)

    I agree that a constitutional rewrite is an exciting idea, and it's interesting to hear that Montana did it so recently. Kari, how do you envision such a thing happening? Who would lead the process, and how? Would it be a constitutional convention like they did in 1857, or would it be a process in which all members of the public get to participate on an even footing?

    Also, what would the risks be? Article 1, sec. 8 gives us some of the strongest free speech protections in the country. Would that survive? What other problems could be introduced? We've all seen the voters approve bad ideas when special interests from across the country dump millions into local campaigns. What would prevent local figures from manipulating the process, in collusion with powerful national interests?

    I like the idea in principle, but would want to hear more specifics.

  • What? (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I get it and your argument is a hodge-podge of more of the kind of nonsense that too often passes for critical thinking on this blog.

    The fact is a law that goes through the legislature actually requires convincing far fewer people who are all in the same "club", and have their own self-serving political interests at heart even more than the voters. The petitioner for an initiative is no different than the interest groups most of the corrupt Democrats and Republicans in our citizen legislator allow to influence the laws and that other folks you mention. Those are the same interest groups, of course, those elected leaders depend on to actually or de facto bundle contributions for their own campaigns, to get their constituency out to vote, and in some cases help them find career opportunities. The leaders of those interest groups have few personal public disclosure requirements when they participate in the process of drafting legislation and influencing the outcome.

    Blue Oregonians love to talk about the tradition of the progressive populists here. The reason we have the initiative system is because the system you tout so we know that supposed reverence for the process doesn't square with the sentiments of some. Now if it's direct democracy and the hoi polloi you don't like, something the genuinely elitist guys who wrote our Constitution shared, that's another matter. But that's not what you argued here.

    Finally, just because an initiative or amendment passes, it can be reversed by another vote of the people. What the City Club and you actually appear to want, let's be frank, is the ability to make ad hominem arguments ("this initiative is bad because the petitioner is connected with ...."), rather than arguments on the merits against bad legislation. A lot of Blue Oregon and PDX City Club "we're leaders because we say we are" types are notoriously bad at making arguments on the merits for or against much of anything.

  • (Show?)

    And that is as it should be. Chief Petitioner Committees are making law. Candidate committees are merely electing candidates.

    Well sure, Kari. But the City Club recommendation quoted by Charlie implied that petitioner committees are somehow operating under a lower bar than candidate committees -- which clearly is not the case. Both the disclosure requirements and the liabilities are much, much higher for petitioner committees, but you wouldn't know it by reading the city club report.

  • (Show?)

    One other point...

    I'm surprised that Kari would hold up the Montana system as a direction for Oregon to go since the Montana system is modeled after the Oregon system and has a much lower threshold for getting a ballot title assigned (0 signatures versus 1000 signatures) and for total signatures needed is comparable.

    The reason why there was a rush of initiatives in 2008 is the rules changed to make getting a ballot title assigned increased and the rules around signature-gathering were strengthened.

    The changes that were made by the 2007 legislature were historic. We would do well to give those changes an election cycle to see what the impact is.

  • (Show?)

    Sal, I think Kari was talking about Montana's effort 30 years ago to clean their state's constitution, not their initiative system as a whole.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The changes I would like to see is: If an intiative was defeated, the voters can not vote again on that issue for two election cycles. When the public says "NO", they mean it. Conversely, if a measure passes, it can not be repealed or atleterd in any way for the same amount of time. This means if we make a mistake in passing such an initiative, we have to live with it. These changes will make the voter think twice before marking the ballot and have those who sponsor or write initiatives think twice also (though we know they won't - presumedly through arrogance).

  • (Show?)

    Sal, I think Kari was talking about Montana's effort 30 years ago to clean their state's constitution, not their initiative system as a whole.

    Got it. Good idea, but the devil is in the details. Taking the seismic retrofitting of government buildings out of the constitution will probably be easy. Dealing with the kicker or the double-majority? Not so much.

  • djk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Amending the constitution shouldn't be easy. There needs to be a supermajority in the process someplace. For a simple amendment, we should need 3/5ths majority vote. Yes, that would lock in the dumb stuff that's already in there, but would prevent the document from being any further damaged by ill-considered amendments. If we can't get 3/5th of the people to agree something is important enough to change the constitution, we probably shouldn't mess with it.

    On the other hand, it should still be possible to "revise" the constitution with a simple majority vote. Reason: a revision (Art XVII Sec 2) requires that 2/3rds of both houses of the legislature must agree to the revision, and then send it to the voters for majority approval. That would make it possible to repair some of the damage that's been done to the constitution over the years, as long as there is enough bipartisan legislative support for any particular fix.

  • (Show?)

    djk, let's examine the nuts and bolts a little more closely.

    There are two ways to initiate a change to the constitution: initiative and referral.

    Constitution-amending initiatives already require 33% more signatures to qualify for the ballot than statutory initiatives. Which is an incentive to make changes in statute, rather than in the constitution, where possible. Would you have a supermajority on top of that incentive? If so, why is the higher threshold for signatures not enough?

    All things being equal, I would guess that referrals from the legislature would universally be statutory, where that's an option. That's because voters don't look fondly on the Legislature messing with the constitution. If you want to get something passed, eliminating that negative is a good first step.

    Right now, all things are not equal: we have this weird supermajority thing for revenue-raising bills. So the legislature, full of reps who have taken a ridiculous "no new taxes" pledge, was unable to adjust the tobacco tax; referring a constitutional amendment was their only option.

    So if we didn't have the statutory supermajority, I don't see any scenario where a supermajority of voters on constitutional amendments would be necessary or desirable.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with Pete Forsyth on the desirability of voter super-majorities. I agree with Sal Peralta about problems with the latest legislative changes to the initiative process. We should support more democracy, not less, in our laws.

    I do, however, look to our very difficult to change US Constitution for guarantee of basic rights, which should not be alienated by temporary whim of the voters.

  • (Show?)

    I agree that a constitutional rewrite is an exciting idea, and it's interesting to hear that Montana did it so recently. Kari, how do you envision such a thing happening?

    Sounds like a fascinating mid-summer BlueOregon topic. I'll ponder that.

  • djk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Constitution-amending initiatives already require 33% more signatures to qualify for the ballot than statutory initiatives. Which is an incentive to make changes in statute, rather than in the constitution, where possible. Would you have a supermajority on top of that incentive? If so, why is the higher threshold for signatures not enough?

    The signature threshold should be even higher than it is, as well as a supermajority vote required. The point is, the constitution should be difficult to change. As it stands, all you need to do is gather more signatures and you can get whatever stupid idea you can put on the ballot locked into the constitution with 50%+1 votes. The higher signature threshold isn't much of a deterrent in an era when well-financed proponents of a measure can hire signature collectors to gather all the signatures they need. Want 33% more signatures? Just throw in a little more money at the beginning.

    On the other hand, statutory measures should pass with a simple majority of the vote. Statutes should be easy to change. The state constitution should not be.

  • (Show?)

    djk, I'm not sure I agree with you. Not sure I disagree, either.

    I think that we both see all kinds of nutty Constitutional changes getting passed in recent years, and would both like to do something about it. We're in agreement on that much.

    But I'm hopeful there's a better way to address the issue, than simply bumping up the requirements. I don't generally think that Oregonians are bad at making important decisions, so much as I think that information outlets (elected officials, newspapers, TV, blogs...) have done a poor job of framing the debate.

    If Oregonians were simply bad at making important decisions, it seems to me we're in for a world of hurt no matter what we do. I'd rather focus on the way we all approach the initiative system, than on making changes to it.

    <h2>Anyway -- I think I understand and respect where you're coming from, but I don't have a firm opinion on this right now.</h2>

connect with blueoregon