ccep ballot initiative transparency actccep ballot initiative transparency act research team...
TRANSCRIPT
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
@mindysromero
View my Tedx Talk on the Power of the Youth Vote!