RE: Initiative Process/Reform suggestions

[Ken Diamond <kenken5001@yahoo.com>]

Ellen-   

Sorry about not responding sooner to your query about my initiative reform ideas. 

I see many possibilities. The basics would be to encourage a voluntary vetting process where proponents would solicit input from many sources on the various implications, legal, fiscal, practical etc., that the measure could lead to. They could both respond by clarifying their intentions and perhaps altering the substance or language to achieve the ends they seek with fewer unintended consequences or to mitigate the concerns of others. This should be done in a formal way and published on the web creating a source for voters to better understand what they're voting on as well as judge the ubiquitous outlandish claims that accompany campaigns. Basically I'm suggesting they enter into some sort of deliberative process with those with interests or concerns before they place laws before the voters. It could also be used create the equivalent of a legislative record for the inevitable court challenges. It would be good if these challenges were handled by randomly-selected judicial panels in an expedited manner rather than the current practice of judge shopping. 

Like I said this could all be voluntary and hence hopefully wouldn't be seen as that onerous by the initiative industry. But I also hope that voters would come to expect it and initiative backers that didn't participate would be viewed unfavorably. 

One problem is that I don't know how much participation would happen before qualification. Many people file their intentions to circulate but never get the signatures required so there would have to be some judgement by participants that this was a viable initiative. Even though most signers don't read the text of petitions before they sign, that text is what gets qualified. So making alterations would disqualify signature already gathered. If that effort and expense is to be lost by making changes that would improve an initiative or make it more palatable to some interests it is unlikely that would happen. The state could encourage backers to engage in the process by making some provision not to have to re-gather signatures. This might not be such a problem if the current effort to allow online signature gathering succeeds and there is an easy way to contact those who had signed. Of course if a good vetting process occurs prior to going for signatures, that removes this problem. It might even be noticed and taken up by the legislature removing the need for an initiative at all.

While this would be an improvement over the current situation, it still falls short of my ideals and your expressed concerns for how we should craft laws. I have ideas that address those but that's too much to go into now.