July 4, 2025 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

The Need For Initiative Volunteers:

There is little doubt about the historical veracity of one statement in the text of a recently vetoed California law that would have required at least some signatures for ballot initiatives to be gathered by volunteers instead of paid workers:

“The voters amended the California Constitution to reserve for themselves the power of the initiative because financially powerful interests, including railroad companies, exercised a corrupting influence over state politics.”

In fact, the initiative process did work that way for quite awhile. The best example might have been the so-called Clean Environment Initiative of 1972, a measure that lost – but whose goals have almost all been achieved: a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in California, taking lead out of gasoline and many more provisions now taken for granted.

That initiative, organized by the populist People’s Lobby group headed by the legendary (among initiative aficionados) Ed and Joyce Koupal, is considered the start of the modern initiative era because it opened up shopping malls to petition carriers.

That came after San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies kicked volunteers out of a mall, and a lawsuit ensued, upholding their right to be there.

Soon after, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan ironically invited the Koupals to meet with him and explain the initiative process. Their meeting bore strong irony because Koupal once led a drive to recall Reagan. But Reagan listened, and soon qualified a tax-cutting initiative for a special election ballot in 1973. That one also lost, but its goal was realized five years later via the Proposition 13 property tax limits.

Reagan’s ballot drive was the first to use significant numbers of paid petition carriers, with corporations, labor unions and big money interests of all types realizing they also could play the initiative game.

Within just a few years, tobacco companies, oil companies, electronics companies, labor unions and many other types of organizations had small armies of petition carriers pushing many different types of causes.

At first, paid carriers got about 25 cents per signature; more recently, some have been paid upwards of $5 per valid name. Initiative petition drives now often cost millions of dollars. It’s become a political truism that anyone with the money to run a petition campaign can qualify just about anything for the ballot, with virtually no need for popular ideas that can draw volunteers.

So much for the original purpose of taking power away from “financially powerful interests.”

Enter the vetoed bill, which passed the Legislature as AB 857. It demanded that least 10 percent of petition signatures be gathered by unpaid workers. That would have been a start toward ensuring that all future ballot measures enjoy at least a modicum of popular support before going to the voters.

The problem Gov. Jerry Brown zeroed in on when vetoing it: labor union members working for an initiative would have been classified as volunteers. That, he felt, gave unions too much of an advantage over other interests.

Some Republicans contended the definition would give a lasting advantage to labor. But there was also nothing to prevent groups on the right from sending their own members out to gather significant numbers of signatures. You can be sure the various Tea Party organizations would have taken heed.

The bill summed up its goal this way: “Improving the measure of public support for a proposed initiative will increase the public confidence and protect the integrity of the initiative process…this is more consistent with the intent of the voters in reserving (to themselves) the power of the initiative.”

This would not have been a panacea for ballot measures. Big money could still have had plenty of influence in the process. The need now is for sponsoring Assemblyman Paul Fong, a Concord Democrat, and others not to give up, but to make their definition of who is a volunteer a bit more pure. Then this needed improvement will probably pass muster with Brown and make a start toward returning initiatives to the populist purpose for which they were always intended.

in Opinion
<>Related Posts

SM.a.r.t.Column: Happy Fourth of July 

July 2, 2025

July 2, 2025

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) hopes you are enjoying a great 3-day weekend as part of your...

SM.a.r.t Column: Cities That Never Shut Up – The Roaring Cost of Urban Noise

June 26, 2025

June 26, 2025

In today’s cities, silence isn’t golden—it’s extinct. From sunrise to insomnia, we’re trapped in a nonstop symphony of shrieking car...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Needs to See the Light

June 19, 2025

June 19, 2025

How Santa Monica’s Growing Light Pollution Is Eroding Human Health, Safety, and Sanity There was a time when our coastal...

SM.a.r.t Column: California’s Transit Death Spiral: How Housing Mandates Are Backfiring

June 15, 2025

June 15, 2025

California’s ambitious housing mandates were supposed to solve the affordability crisis. Instead, they’re creating a vicious cycle that’s killing public...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A City Dying by a Thousand Cuts

June 5, 2025

June 5, 2025

Santa Monica, once celebrated for its blend of coastal charm and progressive ideals, is slowly bleeding out — not from...

SM.a.r.t Column: Oops!! What Happened? And What Are You Going to Do About It?

May 29, 2025

May 29, 2025

Our Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow (SMa.r.t) articles have, over the past 12 years, collectively presented a critical...

SM.a.r.t Column: Why Santa Monica Might Need a Desalination Plant, and Maybe Even Nuclear Power

May 22, 2025

May 22, 2025

Santa Monica is known for its ocean views, sunny skies, and strong environmental values. But there’s a challenge on the...

SM.a.r.t Column: SMO (So Many Options) Part 3: “Pie in the Sky”

May 17, 2025

May 17, 2025

SMO: Fantasy, Fact, and the Fog of Wishful ThinkingBy someone who read the fine print Every few months, a headline...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Owner Occupancy Protects Against Corporate Over-Development

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

This week SMa.r.t. will have as guest columnist Mark Borenstein. Mark is a long-time Santa Monica resident, a retired attorney,...

Opinion: Declaration of Economic State of Emergency in Malibu & Pacific Palisades: A Direct Result of the Devastating Impact of the Palisades Fire

April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

Malibu and Pacific Palisades Request Emergency Financial Measures By Ramis Sadrieh, Chairperson, Malibu Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce    On behalf...

SM.a.r.t Column: The World’s Happiest Cities

April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

Almost every year, we see new cities, regions, and countries that make the list(s) of our planet’s happiest and healthiest...

SM.a.r.t Column: A City for Everyone

April 20, 2025

April 20, 2025

Santa Monica dazzles with its ocean views, sunshine, and laid-back charm. But beyond the postcard image lies a more complicated...

SM.a.r.t Column: Part II: Rebuilding Resilient Communities: Policy and Planning After the Fires

April 13, 2025

April 13, 2025

The January 2025 wildfires that devastated Pacific Palisades and Altadena left an indelible mark on Los Angeles County. Beyond the...

SM.a.r.t Column: Innovative Materials for Fire-Resistant Rebuilding After the LA Fires

April 6, 2025

April 6, 2025

In the aftermath of the devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, homeowners face the daunting task of rebuilding their lives and...

Opinion: Supervisor Lindsey P. Horvath Community Column Regarding a More Accountable Homeless Services System

April 3, 2025

April 3, 2025

By Lindsay Horvath, Los Angeles Board of Supervisors This week marks a significant milestone in our fight to end homelessness...