The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court recently declared the state's government "dysfunctional," and specifically dissed Golden State voters. Chief Justice Ronald M. George identified the state's ballot initiative process as the enabling institution for the voters' vast folly.

Judge George took up this theme for his speech given upon induction into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

"Initiatives," he intoned, "have enshrined a myriad of provisions into California's constitutional charter." He then cited 2008's Proposition 2 . . . which, inconveniently, was not a constitutional amendment at all, but rather a simple statute.

Further muddying the nature and history of California law, the judge rested much of his attack on the initiative process upon the assertion that California's 1879 Constitution has been amended too frequently. Somehow, the judge failed to acknowledge that less than 10 percent of the over 500 amendments in question have come through voter initiatives.

The overwhelming majority were placed on the ballot by legislators.

George also complains that "in no other state is the practice [of initiative] as extreme as in California," even though six states have initiative rules and requirements that are the same or less stringent than California's.

Though academic studies demonstrate the obvious -- that voters like the way they vote on ballot measures -- George maintains that special interests can trick poor, ignorant voters and thus control the initiative.

"One thing is fairly certain," George told his audience. "If a proposal, whatever its nature, is sufficiently funded by its backers, it most likely will obtain the requisite number of signatures to qualify for the ballot, and -- if it does qualify -- there is a good chance the measure will pass. The converse certainly is true -- poorly funded efforts, without sufficient backing to mount an expensive television campaign -- are highly unlikely to succeed, whatever their merit."

Funny, most ballot measures initiated by citizens are actually defeated at the polls. Yet, important issues like Proposition 13, which cut and capped property tax increases back in 1978, have been heavily outspent by established political lobbies and still won. Prop 140, which limited the terms of state legislators in 1990, was pummeled by television ads funded through the fundraising skills of then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. Initiative proponents couldn't afford to purchase a single TV spot, but prevailed at the polls.

Democracy isn't perfect. But, if anything's the case, the people have proven themselves more immune to special interest influence than have their representatives.

Of course, in tough economic times, fear seems more powerful than ever. Now, Proposition 13 and other initiatives receive blame from politicians and other insiders for tying the hands of legislators, preventing them from solving tough budget problems.

True, Prop 13 requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature to raise taxes. Another initiative mandates a two-thirds vote to pass a budget. One can freely question the merits of these super-majorities. Do they force consensus-building and compromise? Or gridlock and partisanship? The legislature remains fully empowered to place a repeal of these provisions before voters as well. Or to accept the constitutional process and work within it.

But belly-aching about the requirements is not any part of actual governing.

Another voter initiative often blamed for creating a hole in the budget is Proposition 98, passed back in 1988. Prop 98 sets a floor on K-12 education spending. Two aspects of the measure not often noted in the rush to judgment against the voters is that (1) few legislators are championing big cuts in education (so why all the whining about a minimum level of spending?), and (2) the proposition specifically authorizes the legislature to suspend the minimum spending requirement with a two-thirds vote. In fact, legislators have twice voted to do just that.

As Shikha Dalmia, Adrian Moore and Adam B. Summers of the Reason Foundation wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, "Whatever the wisdom of ballot initiatives that protect some programs from cuts, they are not the root cause of California's fiscal disaster. That cause is the government's spending addiction. From 1990 to 2008, California's revenues increased 167 percent, but total spending soared 181 percent."

Even Judge George acknowledges that legislators demonstrate "a lack of political will" to deal with budgets, taxes and spending. Still, somehow, divorcing the people further from direct democratic input is his proposed solution.

Justice George, instead of speaking directly to the people of California, chose to excoriate them from across the continent, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This is not surprising. It fits into a pattern. Politicians and judges and lobbyists and other political professionals tend to see the people as the enemy.

They certainly don't care to blame themselves.

~

Paul Jacob is the President of Citizens in Charge Foundation, http://www.citizensincharge.org/