“Undue burden on reform-minded Californians”

Governor vetoes four bills that would have restricted initiative process in California

In his veto message on AB 6, the governor said, “The People of California often exercise their important role in government oversight through the initiative, referendum and recall process. I cannot support a measure that places an undue burden on reform-minded Californians.”

SB 34 would have outlawed a common technique used by petition circulators – paying circulators by the number of signatures they gather. The bill would have made it a misdemeanor to gather signatures in that fashion, permitting only payments on an hourly or daily basis.

In rejecting SB 34, Schwarzenegger said, “As I have stated when vetoing similar legislation, prohibitions on per-signature payments will make it more difficult for grassroots organizations to gather the necessary signatures and qualify measures for the ballot. Therefore, I am unable to sign this bill.”

The vetoes of AB 6 and SB 34 represent a rare setback for Planned Parenthood, which exercises considerable clout in California’s halls of power. Critics say the abortion provider had an ulterior motive in trying to stymie the initiative process: saving itself millions of dollars in political battles. Since 2005, Planned Parenthood has spent more than $20 million to defeat three propositions that would have required parental notification before a minor undergoes an abortion.

Planned Parenthood spent about $5.5 million to defeat Proposition 73 in 2005, $6.5 million to defeat Proposition 85 in 2006, and about $10 million to defeat Proposition 4 last year. Each measure failed by a narrow margin following massive television ad campaigns by Planned Parenthood.

Saldaña’s AB 1068 would have prohibited making payment to signature gatherers contingent on the measure qualifying for the ballot, to which the governor responded, “While I appreciate the proponents' concerns with how the initiative process is sometimes used, this bill targets companies that use a business strategy based on their guarantee of success. I cannot support limiting how proponents of a measure negotiate a contract for gathering signatures.”

AB 436, also a Saldaña bill, would have incrementally increased between 2010 and 2016 the fee required to submit a proposed ballot initiative to the Attorney General’s Office. The current fee of $200 would have gone to $500 next year, and, ultimately to $2000 in 2016.

In vetoing AB 436, Schwarzenegger said, “The original fee was established to deter frivolous filings; this bill would fundamentally alter the purpose of the fees to instead be used to pay the administrative costs borne by the AG. Using the fees to reimburse the AG for actual costs sets a precedent of allowing the fees to increase to the point that it would significantly deter grassroots and volunteer efforts to qualify a measure.”

The just-ended session of the state legislature was a tough one for the initiative process, though, because of the governor’s vetoes, the process made it through unscathed. At one point during the legislative session, there were 13 different measures under consideration aimed at restricting or altering California’s initiative process.

One observer directly attributes the legislature’s hostility to the initiative process to the passage of Proposition 8. “California’s initiative process is officially passé, at least according to the media and those who have recently lost critical battles at the ballot box,” wrote columnist Meredith Turney in a June 2 article on Townhall.com. “Since last week’s California Supreme Court ruling upholding the people’s ability to amend the state’s constitution via the initiative process, there has been a steady drumbeat -- which will certainly increase in its intensity -- that the initiative process makes it ‘too easy’ to amend such an important governing document.”