CCEP Ballot Initiative Transparency Act Research Team

Jennifer Puza, CCEP Research Associate

Joseph Barry, CCEP Research Assistant

Mindy Romero, Ph.D., CCEP Director

1

What is BITA?

September 2014

Ballot Initiative Transparency Act (Senate Bill 1253)

Introduced the first major reforms to California's ballot initiative process in recent decades

30-day online public comment period

New guidelines regarding the timing of joint legislative public hearings

Initiative proponents can withdraw their measure at any time before the measure qualifies for the ballot

2

Methodology

Three main data sources:

Online public comments received by the State of California Department of Justice during the 30-day public comment period

An analysis of joint legislative public hearings on proposed initiatives

In-depth confidential interviews with key players in California’s ballot initiative process

3

BITA Research Publications

1) The Ballot Initiative Transparency Act:Impact on Public Involvement in California’s Initiative Process

2) The Ballot Initiative Transparency Act: Examining its Impact on Legislative Compromise in California

3) The Ballot Initiative Transparency Act: Ballot Measure Finance in the 2016 General Election

4

Today’s Presentation

1. To what extent and how is the public utilizing the 30-day public comment period under BITA?

2. What was the level of public engagement?

3. What opportunities are there to improve public involvement under BITA?

To what extent and how is the public utilizing the 30-day public

comment period under BITA?

Public Comment Period

Early opportunity to review proposed ballot initiatives and offer suggestions on them

Allows initiative proponents time to submit amendments informed by these suggestions

= to improve the initiatives before they appear on the November ballot

7

Overview of Public Comments Submitted

Total of 1,010 public comments on the 125 initiatives submitted for consideration in the November 2016 election

Of the 125 proposed initiatives:

26% received no public comments

74% received at least one comment

34% received four or more comments

10% received 10 or more comments

4% received 25 or more comments

8

Three Initiatives Dominated Comments3 initiatives collectively received 58% of all the comments submitted

1. Sodomite Suppression Act

2. Voter Empowerment Act of 2016

3. Safety for All Act

Of the 15 initiatives that qualified for the ballot:

10 received only one to four public comments2 received more than four public comments

9

5 Types of Public Comments

Positions

Arguments

Suggestions

Comment system critiques

Initiative process critiques

10

Types of positions taken

2/3 of public comments expressed opposition to an initiative

15% expressed support

Some controversial initiatives tipped the numbers in a negative direction

The Sodomite Suppression Act contributed to a high percentage of oppositional comments - 66% (54.5%)

12

Types of arguments madeMost common type of argument was an emotional appeal - one-third of all comments

Example of an emotional type of response to the proposed initiative:

Public employees. Pension and Retiree Healthcare Benefits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Sought to eliminate the constitutional protections for current public employees’ vested pension and retiree healthcare benefits

14

Types of arguments

Example:

When I first pinned on a badge and went to work to protect all the citizen [sic] of California from all the bad guys both foreign and domestic, I was promised a fair retirement for putting my life on the line on a daily basis. Unlike some good friends who died in the line of duty I was able to retire but I paid the price for it with a bad back two heart attacks and a whole slew of other health problems.

Now in my twilight years you want to even complicate my life even more and move me from my home to a card board box at 5th and Central in downtown Los Angles next to the Fred Jordan Mission. Gee thanks a lot.

15

Suggestions

Proposition 64 - The California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, also referred to as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA)

Several concerns remain and the following suggestions are intended to provide constructive improvements to AUMA and provide wording that could still be integrated into the initiative: 1. Penalties for providing marijuana to those under 21, Section 11360 (p. 53) A. Clarification is needed re: ‘Unlawful transportation, importation, sale, or gift .’ It appears that providing marijuana to someone under 21 falls under ‘unlawful sales or gift s’ that can be punished by up to a $500 fi ne and/or 6 months in jail. Providing marijuana to those under 21 should be separated our [sic] as more egregious than unlawful sales to an adult or unlawfully transporting marijuana.

17

Factors limiting the impact of public comments

No direct link to it on the Attorney General’s website

Attorney General’s office is not required by BITA to promote the online public comment system to the public

Members of the general public must make a public records request with the Attorney General’s Office for viewing

Complex legal language used to write ballot initiatives

18

Skepticism Regarding Public Comment Process

Not mandated to make any changes to their initiatives following the public comment period

Proponents might not even care what commenters have to say

Public knowledge/quality of feedback questioned

BUT, in some cases - public comments may in fact have influenced initiative proponents

19

What was the level of public engagement in the joint

legislative hearings?

What was the level of public engagement in the joint legislative hearings?

BITA allows:

Legislature to hold joint legislative public hearings earlier in the initiative process

Provides the legislature an earlier opportunity, and more time, to consider seeking a legislative compromise with initiative proponents

21

Joint legislative public hearings on proposed ballot initiatives garnered little attention from the public or media

Public commenters at the hearings were paid advocates representing organizations or advocacy group volunteers

22

What opportunities are there to improve public involvement

under BITA?

Impact on the citizen’s initiative process

Timing of hearings

Hearings scheduled earlier in the process - but may still not have been scheduled early enough

Hearings were held after the final amendments to the initiatives had already been submitted –difficult to amend

Timing change could have more impact on controversial initiatives, granting citizens’ groups and other groups an earlier opportunity to organize

24

Differences in interpretation

Conflicting interpretations

Whether joint legislative public hearings are required to be held for every measure that reaches the 25% signature threshold, regardless of whether that measure will ultimately qualify for the ballot

25

Differences in interpretation Initiative should receive a joint hearing once it reached

the 25% signature threshold, regardless of its chance at qualifying for the ballot

OR

Only initiatives that seemed likely to appear on the ballot required a hearing

The joint legislative public hearings under BITA during this first election cycle were not held consistently

7 citizens’ initiatives that reached the 25% signature threshold actually did not receive a joint legislative public hearing

26

Recommendations

Make the public comment platform easier to find

Prompt and guide commenters using the online public comment system

Make joint informational hearings more accessible

Make the format of the hearings more inclusive

Clarify BITA’s requirements for joint legislative public hearings

27

Summary

Two major changes impacting public engagement have been:

1. Creation of an online public comment system

2. Opportunity for people to participate in joint legislative public hearings on proposed initiatives before these initiatives qualify for the ballot

= will have a valuable impact on future initiatives

28

Summary

The public did make use of the new online public comment opportunities provided by BITA

BUT three initiatives accounted for the largest share of comments

Improvements could lead to more constructive public feedback, and policies that better address public needs

29

Examining its Impact on Legislative Compromise in California

30

Examine the extent of BITA’s influence on legislative compromise during the 2016 election cycle

Assess whether BITA’s changes to the ballot initiative process influenced the final version of the measures placed on the ballot

Provide recommendations on how to improve BITA’s impact on future elections

Examining its Impact on Legislative Compromise in California

31

Initial research shows that BITA did bring about some improvements that may render it increasingly effective in future election cycles

However, there were some concerns raised around aspects of BITA that could hinder BITA’s overall effectiveness

Recommendations

32

There are some adjustments that could increase BITA’s effectiveness in positively impacting the ballot initiative process for future elections

Three recommendations supported by our findings

Recommendations

33

1. Hold earlier joint legislative public hearings

BITA mandates that once proponents receive 25% of the signatures required to qualify their measure for the ballot, the hearings will be triggered.

BUT sometimes the hearings are scheduled late in the initiative process, at a time when proponents have become too financially invested in their measure - less likely to want to reach a compromise with the legislature

Likely be impacted by the timing of the legislature’s other duties

Recommendations

34

2. Implement strategies to make hearings more impactful and meaningful, and less pro forma.

Hearings were largely a formality, and that the real compromises and conversations happened privately, behind the scenes

Could make the hearings more valuable for both the initiative proponents and the legislative committees

Recommendations

35

3. Grant additional opportunities for proponents to amend their measures during the initiative process

One option:

Consider allowing proponents to make amendments to their initiatives after they receive their joint legislative public hearing

Under BITA, proponents are now given the 30-day public comment period, plus five days after the end of the period, to submit amendments to their initiative

Consider providing proponents an opportunity after their hearing to make amendments to their initiative based on the feedback

Conclusion

36

The effectiveness of BITA will depend on how receptive the state legislature and the initiative proponents are to working towards compromise

AND

How proactively and efficiently they utilize the new allowances provided under BITA

Thank you

Mindy Romero, Ph.D.Director, California Civic Engagement Project

UC Davismsromero@ucdavis.edu

@mindysromero

View my Tedx Talk on the Power of the Youth Vote!