The Commission discussed three specific issues and subject areas at the April meeting:

1. Creating an indirect initiative process.
2. Issues related to campaigns and campaign disclosure.
3. Post election review.

Chairman Abel re-iterated the charge that Speaker Emeritus Hertzberg issued to the Commission back in October. The Speaker has asked the Commission to answer the following questions:

1. Can the manner of drafting and reviewing initiatives be improved to avoid unintended consequences and minimize constitutional challenges?

2. Do voters understand the implications when they sign a petition to place an initiative on the ballot?

3. Are voters concerned with who is financing the qualification of an initiative and the campaign for and against it?

4. How can voters receive accurate, impartial information about the impacts of initiatives?

Indirect Initiative

Gary Hart led the discussion of a proposed indirect initiative process.

1. Proposal: An indirect initiative process should be established as an option at the discretion of the proponent.

Discussion: General consensus.

2. Proposal: The indirect initiative process should be available for statutory and constitutional amendment initiatives.

Discussion: General consensus

3. Proposal: A notice should be included on petitions for an indirect initiative that if sufficient signatures are received the measure will be submitted to the Legislature for review and possible amendment so long as the proponents agree that the amendments are consistent with the purposes and intent of the proposal.

Discussion: General consensus

4. Proposal: The signature-gathering period for indirect initiatives should be 30 days longer than the direct initiative, from 150 to 180 days.

Discussion: Most of the discussion centered on the degree to which extending the current 150 days for the direct initiative to 180 days for the indirect process would be a sufficient incentive for proponents to use the indirect initiative process. Commissioner Arno suggested that the Florida system is noteworthy. They allow 2 years to collect signatures and proponents can submit signatures during the collection period. Commissioners Tipps and Foster felt that the 30-day extension was not enough additional time to assist volunteer groups and therefore was an insufficient incentive. Commissioner Arno suggested that more periodic reviews of signatures by county and state elections officials would have the practical effect of requiring fewer signatures and thus would be an incentive.

5. Proposal: The Legislature, after an indirect initiative petition has been certified as qualified for the ballot by the Secretary of State, must conduct a public hearing and complete its consideration of the measure within thirty calendar days of the certification. If passed by the Legislature, the Governor shall have ten days to sign or veto the measure.

Discussion: Several members felt the length of time for legislative consideration was too short. Commissioner Tipps suggested that this would provide an opportunity by partisans to intimidate the Legislature thereby forcing them to act on an issue that may not be ready for action. He prefers a longer deliberative period. Commissioner Hauck suggested providing "legislative days" rather than calendar days so that legislative recesses would be taken into account. Commissioner Foster suggested that allowing the proponents to extend the amount of time might allow for an increased opportunity to settle the matter. Commissioner Stern suggested that as a practical matter the Legislature would have a longer lead-time since they would likely know during the qualification period whether a measure was going to qualify. Commissioner Hein recommended an earlier legislative review, after four percent of the signatures are gathered.

6. Proposal: Indirect initiative proponents may adopt any legislative amendments or any other amendments within fourteen days following the thirty-day legislative deadline. The proponents must approve all amendments for them to be valid.

Discussion: There was general consensus that the proponents should be able to amend a qualified initiative. Several commissioners opined that proponents are not likely to use this process.

7. Proposal: Any amendments adopted or approved by the proponents must be consistent with the "purposes and intent" of the initiative and must be submitted to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The Attorney General must examine the amendments within seven days to determine if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the proposal. This determination could be appealed by the proponents to the Sacramento Superior Court.

Discussion: Commissioner Hoch indicated that the 7-day period for the review was too short, that the standards for determining "purposes and intent" were unclear, and that the Attorney General was less than enthusiastic about the role. Commissioner Arno noted that the fiscal analysis would also need to be changed.

8. Proposal: If the indirect initiative proposal is amended and adopted by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor, or put onto the ballot in a form acceptable to the proponents, the originally submitted indirect initiative proposal will be withdrawn from the ballot.
Discussion: General consensus.

General Discussion on the Indirect Initiative

Commissioner Hart indicated that his objective in proposing the alternative to the direct initiative was to allow time for a deliberative and thorough public review in a public forum. This would allow all of the implications of a qualified initiative to be reviewed and, if necessary, redrafted prior to being placed before the voters. It would also permit the Legislature to enact qualified statutory measures and avoid the ballot all together.

Commissioner McAndrews noted that the proposal was a worthy experiment but did not contain sufficient incentives for proponents to use the alternative process. Others agreed indicating that it will be difficult to predict the incentive value. Commissioner Hein did not find much value in the proposal and indicated that it would help to have additional pre-screening for measures. An additional option would be to lower the signature requirement for a pre-screening and once the measure has been reviewed the proponents would return for additional signature gathering.

Election Process Issues

Commissioner Stern offered the following proposals:

1. Proposal: Grouping of measures on the ballot. The Secretary of State would be allowed to group conflicting measures together on the ballot. This would provide voters with better sense of the conflicting choices. As an alternative, measures could be grouped by subject matter.

Discussion: Commissioner Hein suggested that more than one constitutional officer should make the determination. Commissioner Foster supported the proposal, given that the current legal standard is that if two measures conflict, the one with the most votes prevails. Voters are generally not aware of this provision of law.

2. Proposal: Require the Secretary of State to select arguments against measures put on the ballot by the legislature.

Discussion: Commissioners discussed whether this proposal would actually solve the problem of identifying bona fide opponents. A statewide elected official might be as prone to bias as the Legislature.

3. Proposal: Include a statement in the ballot pamphlet that initiatives are often subject to Court challenge and the voters should be aware that such challenges are possible.
Discussion: Commissioner Tipps stated that the language is misleading, as an initiative is not subject to legal review unless passed by the voters. Commissioner Remcho noted that legislation passed by the Legislature is also subject to challenge and judicial review.

Disclosure (Transparency) Issues

Commissioner Tipps offered the following proposals. The goal of these proposals is to increase disclosure or transparency of sponsorship and financial backing of initiatives during the circulation period and provide potential signers access to this information.

1. Proposal: Increase pre-campaign disclosure prior to petition circulation. Specifically:

• Any person or committee that receives or spends more than $1,000 on planning, drafting or supporting an initiative shall file a campaign report within 10 days of filing for title and summary. The report will disclose all contributions and expenditures during the prior year for planning, drafting and supporting an initiative.
• Once an initiative has filed for title and summary, any committee that supports or opposes the measure and has received or spent $1,000 or more shall file quarterly campaign reports.
• Once an initiative has been filed for title and summary, any contribution of $5,000 or more must be filed electronically within 24 hours.
• The Secretary of State shall post all electronic filings required within 24 hours.

2. Proposal: Increase disclosure during petition circulation. Specifically:

• All petitions shall contain a disclosure informing potential signers that financial disclosure information concerning the initiative can be obtained on the Secretary of State web site.
• Require disclosure of the top five contributors and the amount of their contributions reported on the committee's most recent campaign report in any mailing attempting to obtain signatures.
• Require any employee or contractor of a committee circulating a petition to make available the names, and amounts contributed, of the top five contributors reported on the committee's last campaign report when soliciting signatures. Committees also should be required to ask volunteers to provide the same information.

Discussion: Commissioner McAndrews noted that although the objective of the proposals was good, financial disclosures are always out of date given the time lag between the filing and the publication of the report. It would be useful to include information about where to go to get information. Commissioner Getman was concerned that the $5,000 disclosure threshold is too low, as it's possible to disclose so much information that it becomes meaningless (in contrast, Commissioner Hein finds $5,000 a useful threshold for tracking purposes). Commissioner Getman also suggested using an 800-phone number and website instead of a list since major contributor rankings change during the initiative process.

Post Election Issues:

Commission Remcho suggested that the single subject rule be revised to reflect the standards by which the Supreme Court has reviewed initiatives in the past.

1. Proposal: Strengthen the single subject rule by requiring the contents of an initiative be reasonably germane and functionally related. The Attorney General would review and make a determination as to the consistency with the single subject rule at the time the measure is submitted for title and summary.

Discussion: Commissioner Hoch indicated that the Attorney General did not support the proposed role for the Attorney General.

Final overview comments

Following the discussion of each of the proposals, the following comments were made.

Commissioner Hein indicated that to completely implement the concept of the indirect initiative it should in some way restrict paid signature gatherers. The greater need was to balance the resources of special interests with more support for volunteer signature gatherers. There is a compelling need to distinguish between paid and non-paid signature gatherers.

Commissioner Arno suggested using different color petitions for volunteer and paid circulators. His company already does this for internal purposes.

Commissioner Remcho indicated that although the Legislative Counsel opinion is generally negative about restrictions on paid vs. non-paid circulators, it is conservative and it should be possible to construct some form of disclosure.

Commissioner Schafer would like to have the Secretary of State explain the meaning of a "yes" or "no" vote clearly in the ballot pamphlet.

Commissioner Remcho would like to allow for legislative amendment of initiatives five years after approval by the voters, but is concerned that this might encourage more Constitutional amendments.