California’s Vanishing Ballot Measures

One of the state’s biggest tools to curb special interests has instead further empowered them. Here’s how the people can reclaim it.

Niki Usagi for Noema Magazine
Credits

Mark Baldassare holds the Arjay and Frances Miller Chair in Public Policy and is the statewide survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. He is a senior fellow for the Bedrosian Center on Governance in the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California and is the coauthor of “The Coming Age of Direct Democracy: California’s Recall and Beyond.”

Cheryl Katz is an award-winning journalist writing on science and the environment for Yale Environment 360, Smithsonian, National Geographic and other publications, and is the coauthor of “The Coming Age of Direct Democracy: California’s Recall and Beyond.”

In mid-June 2024, Jane Fonda took to the airwaves to deliver a million-dollar message. In a television ad titled, “Women vs Big Oil,” Fonda stood flanked by philanthropist Wendy Schmidt, Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell and childhood cancer survivor/activist Nalleli Cobo, and implored Californians to stand with her against a referendum backed by the oil industry.

The referendum aimed to repeal a 2022 law restricting oil drilling near residential areas. That law, SB 1137,  was critical for protecting public health, according to Fonda. “The most important thing is that voters across California vote to KEEP the law in November to protect public health,” she said in a news release.

Just one week later, the oil industry-backed referendum was abruptly withdrawn from the November ballot. California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded: “Big oil saw what they were up against — and they folded, again.”

State Assemblymember Isaac Bryan claimed that his backroom negotiations with the referendum’s backers provided “counter-leverage” that helped sink the measure. Meanwhile, state Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez, who had authored the bill creating a 3,200-foot buffer zone around homes, schools and other “sensitive” areas, pointed to public support as the decisive factor in the referendum’s demise. 

“Californians have made their voices heard loud and clear: we do not want oil drilling polluting our homes and neighborhoods,” Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat, announced on her website.

But the reality is that Californians were never given the chance to formally express their voices at the ballot box. While opinion polls showed strong public support for the oil well law, the referendum was pulled before voters could pass judgment. This incident, where a qualified measure abruptly vanishes from the ballot, is no isolated event — it’s part of a record-breaking trend leading up to this November election.

In all, four citizens’ initiatives and two referendums — all of which had garnered enough signatures to earn a spot on the November ballot — were withdrawn by their proponents before the election, while the state’s Supreme Court rejected a seventh proposition at the governor’s behest.

This unprecedented number of measures ending up in what political strategist Tom Ross calls the “initiative graveyard,” has cut the November proposition roster from 17 to 10. 

The erasure of nearly half the measures slated for voter consideration marks a significant shift in California’s 113-year-old system of direct democracy — and raises profound questions about the future of what many consider the state’s most important policy-making tool.

As California voters are now contemplating a ballot that’s as significant for what isn’t on it as what is, we examine the forces behind this new trend, and the implications for the future of citizen-driven policymaking in what has long been the nation’s largest direct democracy.

A Work In Progress

California’s system of direct democracy was born a century ago in the Progressive Era as a reform aimed at curbing the power of special interest groups on the Legislature. A hundred years later, the direct democracy reforms of that era have largely become tools of the special interests they were meant to control. The California experience reveals the upsides and downsides, the impact and unintended consequences, of such reform. 

In 1911, California voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution that gave them the power to propose and enact new laws (via initiatives), reject laws passed by the Legislature (via referendums), and remove elected officials from office (via recalls). Since then, direct democracy has been a defining feature of California politics. Between 1912 and January 2024, Californians placed 391 initiatives, 52 referendums and 11 recalls on the ballot.

Survey results show that California’s likely voters — registered voters who report frequent voting, interest in politics, attention to election news and intentions to vote  — strongly support the initiative, referendum and recall provisions that enable them to bypass the Governor and Legislature, giving them a direct hand in the lawmaking process. However, polling reveals that many also recognize that the system has glaring flaws.

Critics point to the outsized bankroll needed to qualify ballot measures and mount campaigns. With little transparency about initiatives’ supporters and opponents, there is a broadly held perception by the public that the process is dominated by special interests — the very forces it was designed to counteract.

Voters complain that there are too many propositions on the ballot, and that the measures are often too complicated and confusing to understand. While most Californians see direct democracy as the means to improving governance, there is also widespread agreement of its mixed record, and that the system needs reform.

“The erasure of nearly half the measures slated for voter consideration marks a significant shift in California’s 113-year-old system of direct democracy.”

Fixing these systemic problems is a work in progress. Reform efforts have occurred in fits and starts over the past 50 years, beginning with Proposition 9 in 1974, which required the Legislative Analyst to conduct independent reviews of ballot measures, summarize their fiscal impacts and provide a simple description in the voter pamphlet.

Forty years later, state legislators — along with the Berggruen Institute and a coalition of civic groups — passed the 2014 “Ballot Initiative Transparency Act.” That reform required the Secretary of State to provide more information about initiatives (measures proposing new laws) and their funders, and it also created an off-ramp allowing sponsors of qualified initiatives to withdraw them up to 130 days before the election.

Last year, that action was expanded with a law that required the descriptions of referendums (measures intended to repeal laws) to clarify the outcome of a yes or no vote and to list their top funders. The 2023 law also enabled referendums to use the off-ramp provision to withdraw them, an option that had previously only been allowed for initiatives. 

Unintended Consequences?

These reforms were designed to reflect the progressive ideal of limiting the influence of special interests and to enhance transparency in a citizens’ legislation process that has become little more than a spectator sport for most Californians today. The off-ramp, in particular, is aimed to temper the clout of deep-pocketed special interest groups sponsoring well-funded propositions by encouraging proponents to negotiate with legislators and reach compromise solutions. 

Part of the purpose of the 2014 law, former state Sen. President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, who introduced and coauthored the bill, said to one of us in a recent interview, “was to allow the initiative proponent to get representative government’s attention … It’s worked exactly as I intended.” Expanding the provision to also include referendums “speaks to the change that’s needed,” Assemblymember Bryan, a Los Angeles County Democrat who introduced and coauthored the 2023 bill, stated on its passage.

However, the reforms may also have had the unintended consequences of further sidelining voters by enabling special interests to use ballot measures as bargaining chips with the Legislature. Pulling measures from ballots after opaque, back-room negotiations, amplifies the role of both special interests and legislators at the expense of voters in California’s supposed direct democracy.

The Graveyard Expands

The initiative graveyard nearly doubled in size this year. Since 2014, 16 measures that had qualified for the ballot were pulled before the election — with seven of those expurgations taking place in 2024. Most of the vanished measures, which dealt with issues ranging from minimum wages for fast food workers to children’s services, resulted in compromise laws with no citizen input.

While most likely voters said in a 2013 statewide survey that they want to see legislators work out compromises with proposition supporters, a survey last month shows that they also want the opportunity to vote on the outcome. Yet only once did the Legislature send a negotiated measure to the ballot: a constitutional amendment on property tax regulations, which voters passed in 2020, according to data from Balletopedia.

On top of leaving voters out of the law-making process, this year saw some new moves by state lawmakers that stand to further affect the future of direct democracy in the state. One of the most significant occurrences was the blocking of a citizens’ initiative funded by the California Business Roundtable and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The initiative sought to amend the state constitution to require voter approval for new taxes and fee increases; a move that could have dramatically curtailed state and local revenues. The initiative’s proponents argued that it was necessary to protect Californians from some of the nation’s highest taxes, which they claimed were driving up the cost of living in the state. Opponents, including the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and public employee unions, warned that the initiative posed an “existential threat” to California public services.

The initiative was eventually removed from the ballot not by its proponents, but by the California Supreme Court. In response to a lawsuit filed by Gov. Newsom and the Legislature, judges ruled that the measure was unconstitutional — marking a rare instance of the state’s high court intervening before voters had a chance to weigh in. 

This move has raised concerns about the court’s role in the direct democracy process. Some see it as a sign that the court is becoming less “initiative-friendly,” while others say it reflects a necessary evolution in the face of increasingly complex and potentially harmful propositions.

“Reforms may also have had the unintended consequences of further sidelining voters by enabling special interests to use ballot measures as bargaining chips with the Legislature.”

The recent evidence is mixed. In the same term, the court also decided not to overturn a citizens’ initiative that had been passed by the voters and not to remove a citizens’ initiative at the request of the proponents of another initiative on the November ballot. Still, this year’s events have increased recognition of the court’s critical role in setting boundaries when representative government and direct democracy are at odds.  

Meanwhile, the California Independent Oil Producers Association — the oil industry sponsors who withdrew their referendum on the drilling buffer zone law — have vowed to continue their fight against the legislation in court. While no legal actions have been filed by the association yet, litigation could further delay the 2022 law from going into effect in 2027, as was originally intended.

Indeed, the last Legislative session ended with the governor signing a bill that will delay the implementation of the stipulated oil well regulations until 2030. And a just-ended special session called by the governor to “prevent gas price spikes at the pump,” has resulted in the imposition of new inventory requirements on state refineries. Instead of voting on a referendum this fall, a flurry of actions is occurring without input from Californians who are affected by these decisions.   

Toward A “Hybrid” Democracy

The heightened involvement of the three branches of state government in the direct democracy system may foreshadow the creation of a “hybrid” direct democracy. Since 2011, initiatives and referendums can only appear on general election ballots. The rationale was that a primary has a lower voter turnout, so a “tyranny of the minority” may occur if ballot initiatives put forth by special interests pass with a majority vote.

In a famous example, the Proposition 13 property tax limit initiative was passed by voters in the June 1978 primary. However, ballot measures proposed by the Legislature can be placed on either primary or general election ballots. As a result, this year voters faced more legislative ballot measures than citizen’s initiatives.

The state constitution requires the Legislature to place its own initiatives on the state ballot for majority approval on matters such as changing state laws passed by the voters, issuing new state bonds, and amending the state constitution. And with one party, the Democratic party, holding a supermajority and solidly in control of California’s legislative process, the trend that surfaced this year — state ballots dominated by legislative initiatives — could diminish the role of citizen policymaking. 

The recent developments in California’s direct democracy system are part of a broader movement playing out across the United States and around the world. In many nations, direct democracy is seen as a way to increase accountability, legitimacy and political consensus. However, it can also be a source of conflict and division, particularly when used by special interests or authoritarian leaders to bypass or undermine representative government.

Despite the challenges facing California’s direct democracy system, there are steps that can be taken toward renovating democracy for the future. One key area for reform is the process for reviewing and approving compromise bills that result from pre-election negotiations.

Currently, there is a lack of transparency and little opportunity for citizen input during these negotiations which are not held in public, and the resulting compromise bills have rarely been subject to a public vote. To address this, the Legislature could hold hearings to seek citizen input on compromise bills and consider sending some of these bills to the ballot for a public vote.

Another area for reform is around how accessible the initiative and referendum process is for citizen groups. Right now it’s difficult for grassroots organizations to gather enough signatures in the 180-day time period allowed to qualify measures for the ballot without significant financial resources.

To address this, the state could consider allowing more time for volunteer signature-gathering efforts or permitting signatures to be collected online. State Sen. Josh Newman, an Orange County Democrat and the author of SCA1 which reforms the state’s recall system, told one of us in a recent interview that “signature gathering is a structural problem” caused by “old provisions created by the framers who didn’t do politics like we do.”  

The state could convene a citizens’ assembly to develop legislative ballot measures on key issues, such as climate change, to try to increase citizen engagement and ensure that the resulting policies reflect the people’s will. There are many examples from around the world of successful models for selecting individuals who are representative of the public and engaging the citizens’ assemblies in policy discussions.

“Californians know their direct democracy system is an essential tool that is not up to current challenges.”

Finally, we need greater transparency and public education on ballot measures. Despite the Legislature’s laudable efforts to improve ballot transparency, Californians still believe the slate of propositions on the ballot is too long, and also feel that the wording is often too complicated and confusing to understand what happens if a measure passes.

To date, the Legislature’s efforts have focused primarily on the Secretary of State providing more information on ballot measures. Californians favor having a series of debates and town halls so that voters can hear directly from supporters and opponents of ballot measures and learn more about each one’s pros and cons.

In 2026, California’s Secretary of State should convene a citizens’ initiative review commission made up of residents to hold hearings and publish their recommendations on key measures that the commission selects based on their policy impacts. The independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission, approved by voters through a citizens’ initiative in 2008, offers a template for selecting qualified residents who can reflect the state’s political diversity and reach consensus on difficult issues. Public polling shows that these proposals have the strong support of voters.

Other efforts to modernize and improve our representative government and direct democracy system may go beyond constitutional amendments and require constitutional revisions. According to court rulings over the years, a “revision” is a major change in government structure while an “amendment” is a more modest change. The California Constitution has more than 500 amendments and has not been revised since 1879. Changing it would require the state Legislature to call a constitutional convention to bring any recommendations to voters. This is long overdue, and a most appropriate way to move forward given the upcoming 50th anniversary of Prop. 13 in 2028.

Direct democracy has taken center stage since the U.S. Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade in June 2022, making abortion rights a state’s rights issue. Many states have abortion rights on the ballot this year because their gerrymandered legislatures are at odds with their voters’ preferences on this issue. In some states, the Legislature and courts are seeking to counter efforts to use the direct democracy system by making it harder to qualify and pass ballot initiatives.

California was a trailblazer when the Legislature placed a constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution on the ballot in November 2022. California should lead by example to ensure that other states are prepared for a political time fraught with hyper-partisanship, disinformation and unlimited campaign spending capable of overriding the will of the people.

The abortion rights issue is a reminder of how important state ballot measures are for the future of U.S. democracy. Californians know their direct democracy system is an essential tool that is not up to current challenges. Vanishing ballot measures are just the latest evidence of its shortcomings. But direct democracy has the potential to be a bright spot in a year when the U.S. electoral system is being tested. With some fundamental changes, California’s direct democracy could lead the way and amplify the voice of the people.