Hijacking the Ballot: The Problem with California’s Ballot Initiative System

Photo by Rahul Lal, CalMatters

When I went to vote for the first time in the fall of 2022, I received a ballot I wasn’t quite expecting. As I looked forward to, I had the opportunity to vote for my representative, state legislative assemblymember, and local city council members. However, as I kept going down the ballot, I encountered something that surprised me. After voting for federal, state, and local candidates, I was faced with seven ballot initiatives on a wide range of issues. I was aware of Proposition 1, or the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, which prohibited the state from interfering with an individual’s reproductive freedom. However, after that, I was faced with propositions that I was not expecting. I was asked whether I would vote yes or no on Proposition 26 and Proposition 27, which both had to do with…casino and online sports betting? After spending so much time researching candidates and issues to figure out which ones were the most aligned with my positions, I was faced with two initiatives that didn’t affect me at all and confused me as to why they were even on the ballot. As I went down, there were propositions on school arts funding, how dialysis clinics should be run, and tax rates on individuals making above 2 million. Safe to say, I was at a loss on whether to vote yes or no on these issues, as well as even what a yes or a no vote would mean. This led me to ask, why are these issues on the ballot? Aside from Proposition 1, why aren’t these issues instead being considered by the legislature? How can issues like how dialysis clinics should be run, be put on three ballots in five years? In light of all these questions, the answer becomes clear: California’s ballot initiative requirements are too low and need to be reformed. 

The origins of the ballot initiative process are fascinating, portraying the state's evolution towards a more democratic system. Dr. John Haynes moved to Los Angeles in 1887, and practiced medicine in LA on his way to become a millionaire. Haynes founded California’s branch of the Direct Legislation League, an organization that fought for the right for initiatives and ballot measures. In 1900, he was elected to the “board of freeholders”, which sought to create a charter for the city of Los Angeles. He made sure to include the right to initiatives and referendums, and after it was thrown out for technical reasons it was reintroduced in 1903. Following this success, Haynes sought to bring these rights to the statewide level. However, he had a very difficult path ahead of him as the California legislature at that time was controlled by the Southern Pacific Railroad, where bribery ran rampant. Haynes accepted the fact he would never pass the initiative and referendum system with the current officeholders, leading him to team up with other reformers to elect several candidates to office, pass a bill instituting the primary system, and in 1910 put progressives in the governor’s office and a majority in the legislature. This new majority helped California pass a large number of progressive victories, one of which was the initiative and referendum system. The ballot initiative system began in California in 1911 when the California Constitution was amended to introduce the ballot initiative system, becoming the 10th state to do so. Two of the significant statewide ballot initiatives that passed after the system was created was a measure that abolished the poll tax in 1914 and a measure that created the University of California system. 

Following these successes, it is easy to see that ballot initiatives, in theory, are great. They are the closest thing we have in the American democratic system to a direct democracy where citizens directly vote for issues that affect them. Occasionally, the legislature may not be able to pass popular policies because of a strong minority opposition, and ballot initiatives can allow these policies to be passed. As we have seen in the 2022 election, Californians were able to use the ballot initiative process to add a constitutional protection of reproductive rights such as abortion. Looking beyond California, states such as Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Kansas all voted to keep abortion rights constitutional in their respective states. These states all have strong Republican opposition or majorities, thus there would have been no way to protect reproductive rights without this process. Essentially, ballot initiatives seem to be democracy working great when there is an engaged electorate who cares about the issues at stake. Voters get to decide the fate of an issue, and when they care deeply about it, they must get a say. It seems that these ballot measures in a perfect world with an engaged electorate could be a perfect way to resolve hot-button issues like reproductive rights.

Unfortunately, this ‘perfect world’ is not the one we live in today; we do not live in a world with a perfectly engaged electorate that has strong opinions on every issue they encounter as an initiative on their ballot. Instead, most voters rely on informational shortcuts, or cues, while making decisions while voting. These cues, such as the D or R next to a candidate’s name to tell the voter which party the candidate is affiliated with, allow the voter to pick the candidate they believe is most likely to advance their interests. They may not have to do deep research into an election to still be able to vote in their best interests. However, many initiatives do not have these same sort of cues as other ballot questions. They ask a question that is, at the end of the day, only advancing a special interest. Thus, most endorsements are on either side of that issue and are not useful cues for the voter. For example, during the 2022 midterm elections, I received hundreds of ads on various Youtube videos on both sides of Prop 26 and 27. In these ads, both sides used videos of some indigenous person or tribe explaining why you should vote yes or no on the measure to help support them. For someone who may not fully understand what the measures say but still want to support indigenous people, they would be lost, vote randomly, and possibly vote against their interests. These special interests have weaponized the ballot initiative process to get their priorities through, and take advantage of people’s lack of understanding to get them passed. 

Some propositions, such as Proposition 1 from 2022, are on such an important issue that key party officials endorse them which allows the voter to be able to use such a cue. For example, Proposition 1 was endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Senator Alex Padilla, which allowed people who were affiliated with the Democratic party to know that this issue was one that their party supported, and thus they should support it as well. Yet, these cases are few and far between and are mixed up in the many others of special interest ballot initiatives that elected officials rarely take stances on. Therefore, the question must be raised of how it is that special interest groups are so easily and reliably able to get these questions onto the ballot. To answer this question, we must turn to a democracy’s worst enemy: low voter turnout. 

It is a case as old as time—well, as old as 1836— that midterm elections have a smaller turnout than presidential elections. The turnout rate for a midterm election is 17 points lower compared to a presidential election due to reasons such as a lack of enthusiasm from a non-presidential election. These statistics matter, as in California initiatives can be put onto the ballot if they amass just 5% of the vote for the gubernatorial race, held during the midterm elections, in signatures. This means that they have to get enough signatures to reach a lowly 5% in non-presidential election cycles, a limit so low that it allows so many special interest ballot propositions. Relating back to the history of the system, it became less effective as population rose and volunteer groups struggled to gain the signatures necessary to get measures on the ballot. Instead, these ballot measures were co-opted by special interest groups who could afford to pay individuals to collect signatures to get their policies on the ballot. Special interest groups can hire people to attempt to get signatures, by either canvassing neighborhoods or by asking people on the street. As a college student, I have been solicited many times by people trying to get my signature for whatever issue they believe must be resolved by the voters. The grossest aspect of this is that some of the people working on those signature campaigns will manipulate the information about what exactly they are supporting to get students to support it. California permits this pay-per-signature system, which encourages these people to attempt to get people to sign, whatever means necessary. While I mentioned 2022 having 7 ballot measures above, this is not the worst it has been. For example, in 2016 there were a whopping 17 ballot initiatives, costing the taxpayers around $15 million in costs of printing out state-issued voter guides. Other states use percentages of votes in a presidential election, or at least a higher percentage of votes in gubernatorial elections, which sets a higher bar for initiatives to reach which causes less of them to be on the final ballot. California’s experiment of allowing such easy access to the ballot in pursuit of a greater form of democracy has instead caused an influx of special interest propositions, causing ballots to be longer, more confusing, and less accessible to the average voter. Thus, work must be done to reform this system to help clean up ballots from the countless initiatives placed upon it every election cycle.

California must raise the threshold for the number of signatures required to get a proposition on the ballot, as well as outlaw paying individuals to get signatures for such petitions. For example, California could raise the amount of signatures required to 10% of a gubernatorial election or to 5% of a general election. Outlawing paid signature gathering would help stop special interests from lying to uninformed individuals to get their interests on the ballot, which would help clean up the ballot and make it more accessible. These two solutions would close a massive loophole in our system of a republican democracy. We vote for individuals who are then supposed to represent us, listen to special interest groups advocate for policies, and then vote on it depending on what they think is best for their constituents. We have lawmakers in place to stop elites from being able to bypass democratic systems and do whatever they want. However, the ballot initiative program in California allows elites to put whatever issue they want on the ballot, and then spam voters with ads in support of the issue in hopes of getting them to pass it. Further, to appeal such initiatives takes an act of the public to pass a ballot measure to repeal it. This threshold proves that if a measure can be passed, it is near-impossible to repeal it. This does not always succeed, but sometimes it does, and that is the problem. Many of these issues on the ballot should be considered and voted on by the government, who we elect to do such things. The California ballot initiative program isn’t an example of good democracy but rather a gross violation of democratic norms. California must raise the ballot requirements to protect voters, protect democracy, and make the tool of ballot initiatives more significant and consequential.