California Politics - Initiatives and Special Interest Groups

California practices direct democracy. Californians have had the ability to write, amend and appeal laws bypassing the legislator. This is known as the initiative process, or as you might recognize it propositions.

It is one of many reasons our state is so dysfunctional. Anyone with the resources can get their measure on a ballot. As a result of the initiative process the Constitution of the State of California is constantly amended and rewritten; it is 95 pages long. The US Constitution in the same format is only 14 pages long.

The initiative process permits any one to write a law. The process is simple, it just requires money. The process to get your measure on a ballot is as follows:

1. Obtain an official title and summary of the initiative from the Attorney General.
2. Once you have an official initiative you have 150 days to get the required number of signatures from registered voters to sign your petition. For a statue, you need signatures equal to 5% of all the votes cast for Govenor in the last election (433,971 or 1.85% of eligible voters) . For a constitutional amendment, that percentage bumps up to 8% or 694,354 signatures or 2.96% of eligible voters.
   
3. You turn in your signed petition. It will placed on a ballot that occurs at least 131 days after the measure has qualified.

The requirement for 433,971 signatures within 150 days forces potential law makers to turn to professional services. Petition management services like National Petition Management pay petitioners to collect signatures for any particular measure. Effectively, petition management companies buy your signature by placing petitioners in public spaces.

Recall Prop 17, the Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act, Mercury Insurance paid $2,273,745 to NPM to collect signatures to get Prop 17 on the ballot. After making the a ballot an even larger amount of money is required to advocate your law. Mercury Insurance in total paid $14.6 million on their campaign to save you money on car insurance. Prop 17 was defeated at the polls by 3% of the total vote.

The money needed to move the initiative process makes propositions available only to well-funded special interest.Special interest need only worry about passing their legislation. They only need to appeal to citizens.

Citizens who may not fully understand the impact of proposed legislation. In the ten years that I have been a voter 66 different citizen initiated propositions have appeared on 14 different ballots. The proposed laws and constitutional amendments on subjects like education, term limits, abortion, health care, crime, the environment, animal rights, eminent domain, campaign finance reform, parental consent, cigarette taxes, education taxes, transportation, law enforcement, bond issues, medical marijuana and gay marriage. I do not have the time or expertise to make informed decisions about these issues. I, like other voters, must therefore rely on 30 second television ads, newspapers and other media to make a decisions on complex legal and social issues.

Special interest using the initiative process are not accountable for the consequences of their legislation. It is the reason why so many politicians have called California "ungovernable". Any group with enough money can write a law. They are not required to have any legislative experience, nor do they need to worry about the unintended consequence.

The initiative process was created to eliminate the corruption of the political machines. Today, it has given special interest groups a method to pass laws without the accountability of the California State Legislature.

Free Speech - Snyder vs. Phelps

The Westboro Baptist Church is a small independent church lead by Fred Phelps. The congregation is made up of mostly Phelps family, based in Topeka, Kansas the church is known mostly for its very conservative values and anti-gay protesting.

Prolific anti-gay protesting. WBC travel around the country to protest at funerals with any connection real or imagined to homosexuality, including funerals of gays and AIDS victims. WBC have claimed that 9/11 is a result of God's anger with America's "acceptance" of gays.

Albert Snyder is the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, a marine killed in Iraq. WBC protested at near this funeral and posted on their website that Snyder raised his son "to defy the Creator" and "serve the devil." Snyder has sued Phelps for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million, but this was overturned on appeal and is now coming up before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court must decide if limits can be placed on free-speech against people who target ordinary citizens with hateful personal attacks. Should Snyder be permitted to sue Phelps for their political attacks against his son?

The government has to protect political speech. Phelps' congregation has the right to spew their anti-homosexual agenda in public forums (i.e. pop concerts, other churches , street corners and the Rally to Restore Sanity). However, in picketing soldiers funerals the government should protect the victims of WBC.

Lance Cpl. Snyder and his family are private citizens are offered more protections than public figures. The first amendment protects free speech against government.

WBC is protesting the government's complacency in homosexuality. WBC see Snyder as part of the military/government open to their protest. Lance Cpl. Snyder protects the government and its interest, but has no direct involvement in setting government policy. If Phelps' congregation was interested in changing policy they would focus their efforts on policy makers. The protests are provocative statements intended to only attract attention to a fringe group.

WBC are infringing on ordinary citizens rights to peaceably assemble during an important social ritual. Funeral are a rituals as old as civilization. They are emotional events that help us deal with grief of a loss. Funerals of private citizens should be protected from hateful political speech from a group of outsiders.

Snyder v Phelps is forcing the Supreme Court to weigh two groups freedoms. The right of Lance Cpl. Snyder family and friends to assemble for his funeral without provocation and WBC's freedom of speech. WBC has the right to express their views, but does so by infringing on Snyder's family. Alfred Snyder should have the right to sue Fred Phelps for their protesting his son's funeral.