written assignment

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/opinion/california-ballot-initiatives-direct- democracy.html

California Ballot Initiatives Are Powerful. The Powerful Have

Noticed. Wealth and stealth have often subverted the goals of measures that have impacted nearly

every facet of life in the state.

Nov. 5, 2018

By Miriam Pawel Ms. Pawel, a contributing opinion writer, is the author of “The Browns of California: The Family Dynasty That Transformed a State and Shaped a Nation.”

The grass-roots organizers delivering petitions to San Francisco City Hall in the spring of 2016 wore their message on their chests: “The People vs. Big Soda.” Six months later, The People won; voters overwhelmingly passed a penny-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks, designed to combat rising rates of diabetes and obesity.

For years, California state legislators had killed attempts to tax sugary beverages, beholden to an industry that donated millions to political campaigns. The success of the San Francisco soda tax, along with similar ballot measures in three other Bay Area cities, energized a national movement and spurred new drives to tax soda in municipalities around California.

The campaigns drew on the legacy and spirit of Hiram Johnson, the governor who championed direct democracy and led California to adopt the initiative, referendum and recall. Just as Governor Johnson had delivered in 1911 on his promise to give people tools to break free from the monopoly of the Southern Pacific Railroad, a century later the people would circumvent the State Legislature by taking their fight against the soda industry directly to the voters.

Then the soda industry fought back — using Hiram Johnson’s favorite weapon.

Early this year, the beverage industry spent more than $7 million gathering enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would require a two-thirds vote to pass any local tax. Such a change would wreak havoc with municipal finances, and the specter gave the industry leverage to get what it really wanted: In June, the initiative was withdrawn, in exchange for a state law that bars local governments from imposing any new soda taxes through 2030.

T H E H I G H - S TA K E S T R A D E WA S T H E L AT E S T E S C A L AT I O N I N C A L I F O R N I A’ S I N I T I AT I V E - I N D U S T R I A L C O M P L E X , I N W H I C H W E A LT H A N D S T E A LT H O F T E N S U B V E RT T H E G O A L S O F H I R A M J O H N S O N ’ S R E F O R M S . W I T H E N O U G H M O N E Y, A L M O S T A N Y T H I N G C A N G E T O N T H E C A L I F O R N I A B A L L O T. O V E R T H E L A S T

C E N T U RY, PA RT I C U L A R L Y T H E L A S T F O U R D E C A D E S , I N I T I AT I V E S H AV E S H A P E D N E A R L Y E V E RY FA C E T O F L I F E I N C A L I F O R N I A . B A L L O T P R O P O S I T I O N S , W H I C H C A N B E A M E N D E D O N L Y B Y A N O T H E R P O P U L A R V O T E , H AV E D E T E R M I N E D H O W P R O P E RT Y TA X E S A R E L E V I E D , T H E FAT E O F B I L I N G U A L E D U C AT I O N

A N D E V E N T H E S I Z E O F C H I C K E N S ’ C A G E S ( A N D T H U S T H E P R I C E O F E G G S ) .

Hiram Johnson, circa 1920. Getty Images

In the early decades, only a handful of initiatives reached the ballot. By the 1930s, the nation’s first political consultants, Clem Whitaker and Leone Baxter, began to carve out a niche business, handling 65 initiative campaigns over 15 years.

Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Baxter, and the political-consultant industry they spawned, fueled a rapid growth in initiatives by the 1970s. Paid signature gatherers driven by financial incentive rather than moral conviction replaced volunteers who had once circulated petitions for their causes. The initiative “is very rapidly becoming a tool of the special interests,” Jerry Brown, then the secretary of state, testified at a 1972 state hearing where signature gatherers detailed a range of deceptive practices.

The last initiative that got on the ballot through the effort of volunteers was a 1990 measure to protect mountain lions. Since then, petition gatherers wielding multiple clipboards have become ubiquitous at shopping malls, outside retail stores and at farmers’ markets. They are paid per signature, rates that fluctuate as high as $6 per name, depending on how many initiatives are in circulation, how soon the petitions must be turned in and how difficult the sell. Signature gatherers who handle multiple initiatives have an incentive to push the ones that pay the most. The bidding wars and campaign high jinks can be fierce. They have included attempts to sabotage petitions by flooding them with false or duplicate names.

As governor, Mr. Brown has vetoed several recent attempts to amend the process, principally by outlawing a fee-per-signature payment. While he acknowledged the propensity for manipulation, he argued that the per-signature system remains the cheapest. “Eliminating this option will drive up the cost of circulating ballot measures, thereby further favoring the wealthiest interests,” he wrote in a veto message.

Mr. Brown has had more experience with initiatives than most. In his first campaign for governor in 1974, he piggybacked on a popular initiative he had crafted, the Political Reform Act, which established a commission to to regulate campaign finances, lobbying and ethics. Four years later, he was caught in the swirl of Proposition 13, the tax cut measure that remains the most far- reaching initiative in modern times. Like most elected officials, Mr. Brown opposed Prop 13, but then embraced it enthusiastically when it passed.

Since his return to the governor’s office in 2011, he has mastered the art of using initiatives to further his priorities. He devised and campaigned for measures that raised taxes, created a rainy- day fund and made major changes to the criminal-justice system. He has also amassed funds to fight off attempts to undo policies or hamper his objectives, learning from the experience of Prop 13, when such tactics were not yet in vogue. He has helped fend off ballot challenges to criminal- justice reforms and efforts to block his plans for high-speed rail. This year, he has helped fight a proposition on the November ballot that would repeal a recently enacted gas tax that funds highway repairs. S U C H C A M PA I G N S A R E C O S T L Y, I N PA RT B E C A U S E T H E R E A R E N O L I M I T S O N C O N T R I B U T I O N S . T H I S N O V E M B E R , I N A D D I T I O N T O T H E G A S TA X , V O T E R S W I L L

D E C I D E M E A S U R E S T H AT A F F E C T I S S U E S I N C L U D I N G R E N T C O N T R O L , B O N D S F O R WAT E R P R O J E C T S A N D H O M E L E S S H O U S I N G , T H E S I Z E O F C A G E S F O R FA R M A N I M A L S A N D T H E F U T U R E O F D AY L I G H T S AV I N G T I M E . A S O F T H E E N D O F O C T O B E R , T H E A M O U N T R A I S E D T O PA S S O R D E F E AT T H E 1 1

P R O P O S I T I O N S WA S A L M O S T $ 3 6 8 M I L L I O N , A B O U T F I V E T I M E S T H E A M O U N T R A I S E D B Y T H I S Y E A R ' S T W O G U B E R N AT O R I A L C A N D I D AT E S .

For vs. Against: Spending on the Top 10 Initiatives Figures in millions, as of Saturday.

TOTAL SPENT IN SUPPORT SPENT IN OPPOSITION

California Proposition 8 $130 $19 $111 Limits on dialysis clinics' revenue

California Proposition 10 $100 25 75 Local rent control

Nevada Question 3 $97 33 64 Changes to energy market

Arizona Proposition 127 $55 24 31 Renewable energy standards

California Proposition 6 $50 5 45 Future gas and vehicle taxes

Florida Amendment 3 $48 46 2 Casino gambling

Washington Initiative 1631 $47 16 31 Carbon emissions fee

Florida Amendment 6 $37 37 0 Marsy's law crime victims rights

Colorado Proposition 112 $33 2 32 New oil, gas and fracking projects

Massachusetts Question 1 $30 11 19 Nurse-patient assignment limits

By The New York Times | Source: Ballotpedia; Colorado Proposition 112 figures do not add up to the total because of rounding.

The most expensive campaign is about one of the most obscure issues: regulating the profits of dialysis clinics. Placed on the ballot by the Service Employees International Union, which has been trying to unionize workers at the clinics, the initiative would require that profits above a certain amount be spent on patient care or refunded. To defeat the measure, the major dialysis providers have so far contributed than $111 million, a record for spending by one side on a single initiative.

Politics, Marijuana, Medicaid … Notable ballot initiatives up for a vote in states on Nov. 6.

By The New York Times | Source: Ballotpedia

N O N PA R T I S A N R E D I S T R I C T I N G V O T E R R E Q U I R E M E N T S , B A L L O T A C C E S Expand access Restrict access

MICH. MICH.MONT. N.D.

NEV. MD.UTAH COLO. MO. N.C. ARK. LA.

FLA.

Arkansas and North Carolina initiatives would require voter IDs. North Dakota would explicitly restrict voting rights to United States citizens.

Colorado has two proposals: Creating independent commissions to design districts for its congressional delegation and the State Legislature.

M A R I J U A N A L E G A L I Z AT I O NC A M PA I G N S P E N D I N G Recreational Medical

MASS. MICH.N.D. N.D.

S.D. UTAHCOLO. MO.MO.

OKLA.

Missouri has three initiatives on the ballot to legalize medical marijuana. Each would tax marijuana sales at different rates, with that revenue being dedicated to either veterans’ care or biomedical research.

South Dakota has two initiatives: One would revise spending, lobbying and referendum laws; the other would ban outsiders from making contributions to ballot question committees. R E S T R I C T I O N S O N TA X E S M E D I C A I D , H E A LT H C A R E

Medicaid expansion MASS.WASH.

MONT.ORE. IDAHO

NEV. NEB.UTAHCALIF. CALIF.N.C. ARIZ.

FLA.

Health care questions: Oregon and Washington would ban taxes on groceries. Oregon would require three-fifths votes in the State Legislature to increase revenue; Florida would require two-thirds majorities.

CALIF. QUESTION 4 MASS. QUESTION 1 Approve bonds for children’s hospitals expansion.

Set limits on the number of patients per nurse.

CALIF. QUESTION 8 NEVADA QUESTION 4 Limit profits at dialysis clinics

Exempt some medical equipment