Proposition 86 went down to defeat because the initiative process has been run amuck by special interest groups that are out for themselves and not what’s best for all Californians.

California became the tenth state in the union 95 years ago to adopt the initiative process to provide California citizens with a tool to adopt laws and constitutional amendments without the support of the Governor or Legislature. The final package that the California Legislature passed included the ability to recall elected officials, the right to repeal law, and the ability to enact state laws by initiative.

The proposition process has become as complex, misguided and corrupt as legislation itself. While intended to enable the voice of the populace, it has in fact legalized a process to entrap people in arguments not of their own making or design and too intricate to be easily understood (except by lawyers).

A survey of California voters taken in 2000 by the Public Policy Institute of California indicated that Californians like the idea of using initiatives to make public policy, but are frustrated by the large number of initiatives on the ballot and confusing ballot language. Eighty percent of Californians supported increased public disclosure about financial backers and 60 percent favored a proposal to ban the use of paid signature gatherers to qualify initiatives for the ballot.

Another survey taken in 2001, by a private research firm, revealed a strong belief among voters of the unfairness in the initiative process when one side has vastly superior financial resources over the other side.  This poll also indicated strong bipartisan support for the idea of public funding of ballot initiatives.

In 2002, The Speaker’s Commission on the California Initiative Process, chaired by California Speaker of the Assembly Robert M. Hertzberg, published its report. “Many people believe that initiatives are almost exclusively controlled by the same economic and political interests that engage in the legislative process. Rather than simply providing a citizen vehicle to enact laws, it has become an alternative method for special interests to advance their causes. A specialized industry has grown up around the initiative process,” according to the executive summery.

Among the recommendations made by that commission were requirements for increased disclosure about sponsorship and financing of ballot initiatives. Additionally and perhaps most importantly, was a recommendation for a single subject rule.

Proponents of Proposition 86 have suffered a humiliating defeat, no doubt at least in part because of the absurdities of the proposition process. But there are other reasons, as well. It was wrong for the Coalition for a Healthy California to sleep in the same bed with the California Hospitals Association who clearly had its own selfish agenda, including an exemption from anti-trust regulation. It was wrong to be greedy and to impose $2.60 of taxes on each package of cigarettes, which many regarded as unfair and regressive taxation. It was wrong to try to cure many social and legislative issues with tax money (remember what happened to Prop 99?) and it was most disingenuous to believe (as will probably be alleged) that it was only the spending of Big Tobacco that caused its failure. We suspect that in many cases voters were as suspicious of hospitals and social reformists as they are of tobacco companies.

It is unfortunate that a grand notion of curbing tobacco use was sabotaged by a proposition that was too complex and loaded with unrelated provisions. It is unfortunate that the enormous time and goodwill of so many volunteers who worked for Prop 86 was wasted on this effort. We can’t help but think that the $102 million spent on this campaign by both sides could have done more for health and cancer control if spent on mammograms, colonoscopies, PSA tests and patient assistance programs instead. We are in no way defending cigarettes or the tobacco industry. It’s the special interests and the proposition process that is at fault.

Let’s hope that the next time a tobacco tax initiative is proposed (and it’s probably a safe bet that there will be at some point in the future) that its proponents will take a simpler and more sensible approach to achieve success.

Posted on December 4, 2006 06:25 AM