Admirable. Strong. Gracious.

These are just three of many positive words that describe the local leaders honored at the League of Women Voters of San Francisco’s “Women Who Could Be President” Gala on May 2.

Bonnie J. Addario, Nancy Hellman Bechtle, Naomi M. Kelly, Christine Pelosi and Nancy E. Pfund were celebrated at the League’s 18th annual gala because they could hold their own in the company of any national leader.

Check out photos from the gala here, courtesy of photographer Robert Foster (rfosterphotography@mac.com).

Take a quick look at the honorees’ bios to learn about their impact on our community:

Bonnie J. Addario is the Founder and Chair of the Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation (BJALCF), a San Francisco-based, international nonprofit organization, the Founder of the Addario Lung Cancer Medical Institute (ALCMI), and a nine-year lung cancer survivor.

Nancy Hellman Bechtle is the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Presidio Trust. Previously, she was Chief Financial Officer and Director for J.R. Bechtle & Company from 1979 to 1998. From 1987 to 2001, she was president and Chief Executive Officer of the San Francisco Symphony.

Naomi M. Kelly is the City Administrator for the City and County of San Francisco. As City Administrator, Ms. Kelly oversees the city’s General Services Agency consisting of 20 departments, divisions. The General Services Agency has an annual budget of over $450 million and approximately 2,100 employees.

Christine Pelosi has been volunteering in politics since the stroller, and currently conducts leadership boot camps based on her books Campaign Boot Camp: Basic Training for Future Leaders and Campaign Boot Camp 2.0.

Nancy E. Pfund is Founder and Managing Partner of DBL Investors, a San Francisco-based women-owned venture capital firm, whose goal is to combine top-tier financial returns with meaningful social, economic and environmental returns in the regions in which it invests.

We look forward to seeing you all next year!

Big changes are coming soon to the Internet near you!  Building on last fall’s successful test of Smart Voter’s new “Next Generation” web technology, the state League is poised to launch a brand new way of engaging and informing California voters online later this year.  Detailed plans are currently being finalized and are expected to be announced at the state League Convention in San Jose on May 16-19.

The new approach is expected to incorporate the most current techniques from both online journalism and interactive web technology to create a completely new experience for the 24 million Californians who will be eligible to vote in 2014.  Regular updates and news stories based on some of the best coverage and analysis of election-related subjects in the Golden State will be featured at the completely-redesigned Smart Voter® website, along with the award-winning personal ballot lookup that California voters have used for more than fifteen years.  Visitors will be able to enjoy a robust range of streaming videos, audio clips, interactive graphics and carefully-selected stories about upcoming election issues and contests, ballot measures and changes to the voting process.

Importantly, the new Smart Voter® will allow the League at all levels to partner more extensively with other leading civic groups and news media outlets around the state, and to provide information tools and content that can be easily shared on the websites, mobile apps and social media of those organizations to greatly expand our impact.  The Next Generation design will make all of this valuable information just as easy to explore on the touch screens of smartphones and tablet computers as the biggest flat panel monitor.

By spearheading these capabilities to expand and innovate in how we will provide voter service, the leadership of Smart Voter® hopes to ensure that local Leagues throughout California will have the tools to be a vital source for voters well into the 21st century.  A campaign to raise additional support to complete this important transition to the League’s future in online voter information is currently underway.  Right now, thanks to a $25,000 challenge offered by a group of longtime Smart Voter® supporters, every new or increased donation to Smart Voter for the Next Generation project by June 30, 2013 will be matched until the challenge goal is met. Checks should be sent to LWVC Education Fund, 1107 9th Street, Suite 300, Sacramento CA 95814-3608, with a notation that you wish to designate your gift to Smart Voter. We appreciate your support!

In considering the League’s Initiative & Referendum position, the state study group has done something not done before—it’s attempting to tap into the things that are more timeless—the principles, values and general concepts that will allow the League to address issues we haven’t seen before or technologies we can’t foresee. Consensus Question 12 is that vehicle. The idea is to use the results from Consensus Question 12 to craft language into the League’s position to allow broad use going into the future.

It’s not an easy question because it has multiple parts. From a list of principles from A (accessibility) to T (transparency), you’ll rate a principle from critical to unimportant, decide which stage of the process it applies to, and whether it applies to an initiative or a referendum. Then, you’ll prioritize the list. Whew. The result of all this work will be a gold mine of information to the study committee.

Here are the principles members will weigh in on at the San Francisco Consensus Meetings on March 11th and March 23rd:

1. Accessibility

2. Accountability

3. Amendability

4. Authenticity

5. Comprehensibility

6. Availability of compromise at some point or points in process

7. Concentration of power (avoid)

8. Deliberation

9. Expertise

10. Flexibility

11. Impartiality

12. Integrity

13. Respect for stakeholder rights

14. Transparency

15. Other

Reflecting on the principles and values which should guide reform is an important step to take before considering and prioritizing reform ideas. Next week, we will look at Consensus Question 6, ranking some of the reform ideas.

See the previous posts on the Initiative & Referendum Study:

1. An Initiative and Referendum Primer

2. LWVC Current Position on I&R

3. Historic Summary

4. Current Context

5. I & R Reforms – Back to Original Intent?

6. Failures of the I&R Process

LWVSF thanks LWV North County San Diego for this post.

Reminder: the Vote By Mail Study Consensus Meetings are this week and next! We hope you can attend for a great discussion!

Vote by Mail: Voters love it! Does it comply with the League position that voting systems be Secure, Accurate, Recountable, Accessible and Transparent? (p. 12, Impact on Issues, 2010-2012) Are there procedures that voters can follow to ensure the security of their vote? that it will be accurately counted? Join other League members as we discuss the points on Voting by Mail made by the Pew Charitable Trusts, President Jimmy Carter and James Baker III, CalTech/MIT, and the LWV New York, and others, and whether or not they are relevant to San Francisco. This is a formal study that has been underway since membership approval in June of 2011, and we hope to come to some conclusions and possibly consensus this League year.

Dates: Both meetings have the same content, you can attend one or the other:

Saturday, Feb 23, 10-12. 9:30 coffee! Downtown location upon RSVP by noon Friday to chandra.friese@gmail.com AND lwvsf@lwvsf.org.

Tuesday, Feb 26, 6-8. Downtown location upon RSVP by noon Monday to chandra.friese@gmail.com AND lwvsf@lwvsf.org.

Important: Please prepare by reading the research summaries available on our Study website.

See you soon!

-Elections Education Committee

People usually think of failures of the initiative process when the courts intervene.

Litigation is often a final yet critical stage in the initiative process. Although courts generally defer to ballot initiatives as expressions of the public’s will, they periodically invalidate initiatives either altogether or in part. (See link to study materials.) Opponents of a successful measure often ask the courts to invalidate initiatives on constitutional or statutory grounds.

California courts have been understandably respectful of the initiative process and reluctant
to overturn successful measures that have received a popular mandate. However, California
courts have invalidated initiatives on four grounds:

1. The initiative violated the state’s single subject rule.

2. Federal law preempted the initiative in question.

3. The initiative violated the First Amendment.

4. A competing initiative receiving more votes superseded the initiative.

The courts are the principal check on the initiative process—not surprising due to initiatives’ typical lack of legislative review and scrutiny. When this happens, voters become disillusioned and initiative proponents frustrated.

Did unintended consequences make these initiatives failures?

Proposition 184 in 1994 doubled the penalty for a second felony and imposed a mandatory prison sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony.

(Proposition 36 in In November 2012 (passed with 69% of the vote) said that offenders who have committed no serious and violent crime will no longer go to prison for life.)

Proposition 13 in 1978 put a cap on the annual increase in property-tax rates, resulting in localities having huge budget shortfalls that must be backfilled by the state.
Proposition 98 in 1988 required a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-12 education, tying legislators’ hands.
Proposition 140 in 1990 created term limits on legislators, forcing them to leave just as many are beginning to understand how lawmaking works.

Learn more about the Initiative and Referendum Study, as well as gain access to the Study Guide and Consensus Questions, here.

See the previous posts on the Initiative & Referendum Study:

1. An Initiative and Referendum Primer

2. LWVC Current Position on I&R

3. Historic Summary

4. Current Context

5. I & R Reforms – Back to Original Intent?

LWVSF thanks LWV North County San Diego for this post.

By now, you are probably convinced that the I & R process needs reform, and you’re not alone. Suggestions for reform are many; and, they are quick to circulate come election time. Legislators, journalists, pundits and the voters themselves speculate about ways to make the process fairer, more user-friendly and more transparent for an electorate becoming apathetic because of its overwhelming complexity.

Questions abound as to whether it should be made easier or harder for propositions to qualify; whether it should take fewer or more signatures to qualify; whether the signature-gathering process should be extended or shortened; whether or not the internet should be used for signature-gathering; whether the Legislature should play a role in the process before a proposition goes on the ballot, and what role should that be; whether an amendment to the constitution should be allowed at all through the citizens’ initiative process, and if so, should it be held to a higher standard for not only qualifying but passage as well?

These are just a few of the many questions, for the issues regarding transparency and disclosure of information about proponents and opponents who fund initiative campaigns could prove a centerpiece for discussion by itself. We invite your participation at the February Unit presentations and our consensus meeting on March 2nd as we explore what might be done to equalize the playing field for the average voter in the initiative process, which some say has become a plaything of the wealthy.

But, the winds of change are blowing…
For all the details, read the Proposals for Change chapter of the Study Guide (link below).

Reform Study Materials here.

See the previous posts on the Initiative & Referendum Study:

1. An Initiative and Referendum Primer

2. LWVC Current Position on I&R

3. Historic Summary

4. Current Context

LWVSF thanks LWV North County San Diego for this post.

The initiative is the most popular part of California government today, according to researchers. Pity the legislature, the governor and the many state agencies! However, the dream of direct democracy as delineated in 1911 has shifted (some would say “twisted”) into the current costly, complex and tumultuous propositions we see on every statewide ballot.

The list of major influences for a modern California initiative may be summarized as follows:

Money matters – it now costs about $2 million to develop, collect signatures, pay fees, etc. and bring an initiative to the voters. Well-funded special interests can and do bring their issues directly to the voters and bypass the analysis inherent in the legislative process.

Campaign laws now permit unlimited contributions and campaign spending with minimum disclosure requirements.

Judicial Review. Since 1974, eighteen propositions have been either totally or partially annulled by the courts.

Legislative reform has been weak and rare at best.

For more depth on these and other issues, read the “Issues” chapter of The Initiative and Referendum in California: A Legacy Lost? Study Guide (link below).

Some of the ideas now being discussed around the state to “fix” the initiative process and return it to the original concept will be discussed in next week’s note from the Initiative and Referendum Study group.

Link to Study Guide here.

See the previous posts on the Initiative & Referendum Study:

An Initiative and Referendum Primer

LWVC Current Position on I&R

Historic Summary

LWVSF thanks LWV North County San Diego for this post.

Initiatives and Referendums (I & R) got people’s attention in 1978, when voters approved Prop 13 to limit property taxes after the Legislature failed to act. But the idea of direct democracy, where citizens vote on public questions rather than through elected representatives, has a rich history dating back to the city-states of Athens. The Framers of the Constitution were wary of direct democracy, however, fearing the voice of the majority would drown out the minority.

In the 19th century, I & R citizen-lawmaking spread because state legislatures were unresponsive in protecting citizens from powerful interests. South Dakota was the first state to adopt the I & R in 1898. In California, the emergence of direct democracy in 1911 is tied to the progressive movement and citizens’ response to the corruption in state government influenced by the Southern Pacific Railroad.

At the time, the intent of California’s direct democracy was not meant to serve as a primary tool of legislation, but rather to keep elected officials in line with public sentiment. It was rarely used from 1912-1969, averaging 2.5 qualified initiatives per year.

It was thought the indirect initiative, a measure proposed by the people to the legislature for action, would be the most used method. In effect from 1912, it was dropped for lack of use as part of the Constitution Revision Act in 1966. Concurrently, restrictions were eased on signature gathering along with other refinements to the basic law.

The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 changed the political landscape, and gave rise to a full-fledged, lucrative industry, where spending on initiative campaigns has risen by 750 percent in the last 34 years. Special interests have found that pursuing the initiative process, rather than lobbying, is the most effective way to influence public policy.

See the previous posts on the Initiative & Referendum Study:

An Initiative and Referendum Primer

LWVC Current Position on I&R

LWVSF thanks LWV North County San Diego for this post.

Despite having a study adopted in 1984 and an update in 1999, the LWVC is unable to speak to various Initiative and Referendum-related issues that have been suggested in recent years. These include limiting paid signature gatherers, changing the time or number of signatures required to qualify an initiative for the ballot and considering various ideas which define how the content of an initiative should be limited. League could not speak on the concept of the pay-go initiative (an initiative that requires money to be spent must also detail where the money comes from) because we have nothing in our positions that gives clear guidance about where we stand.

Sections of the current LWVC position have been identified for update as a result of the consensus we’ll undertake in March. On our website (link below) see the LWVC Position with sections for possible update in bold-faced type and Consensus Questions, which also include the LWVC Position aligned with the questions.

But look at the consensus questions! They deal with drafting, pre-review, titling and summary before signatures are gathered, what it takes to qualify for the ballot, how much the Legislature should be integrated in the process, whether the constitution should be allowed to be amended by the initiative, and how reform ideas should be prioritized by principles and attitudes.

Our meetings for the Initiative and Referendum study will illuminate some of the most interesting, and most useful, suggestions made in recent years to re-vitalize, streamline, or improve California’s very own form of direct democracy. Assuming, of course, that we want to do any of those things: the first and the last of the consensus questions ask if we want to keep the Initiative and Referendum process.

Visit the website to review the consensus questions in preparation for our consensus meetings this March.

Stay tuned for our next post: Historic Summary

Read the previous post: An Initiative and Referendum Primer

Thank you again to the League of Women Voters of North County San Diego for sharing these summaries with us!

A New Year. A chance to fix what’s broken. On March 11th and March 23rd at general meetings of consensus our League will help shape what some say is a dysfunctional piece of California’s government: the initiative and referendum process.

This series of blog posts, generously shared with LWVSF by LWV of North County San Diego, will introduce some of the consensus question topics.

What is a proposition?

A term used for any ballot measure to be voted on by the people. It can be an initiative or a referendum.

What is an initiative?

A brand new law or constitutional amendment proposed and voted on by the people. It is a law initiated by the people.

In California, we use the direct initiative process, which means a petition with the required number of signatures automatically qualifies for the ballot. Some states allow only indirect initiatives, which means a measure that receives the necessary signatures moves to the Legislature for further action.

What is a referendum?

A vote by the people to approve or reject an existing law. It is law referred to the people, triggered in two ways: 1) Legislature sends a proposed bill directly to the people instead of deciding it themselves (legislative referendum) or, 2) the people can attempt to repeal a law even after it has been passed by the Legislature (popular referendum). California is one of 24 states to allow this.

Two ways of making laws?

The Legislative process is at least 13 steps long, verbal, filled with compromise and subject to endless, seemingly random, amendment.

The people’s initiative process can seem streamlined; a limited group of people propose their version of public policy and attempt to sell it to voters. The 4 main steps are: Drafting the Petition, Qualifying it for the ballot (collecting & validating signatures), Campaigning, and Voting.

Is California unique?

Between 1912 and 2010, California qualified more popular initiatives for the ballot than any other state except Oregon. During that period, 1,657 California initiatives and referendums were circulated for signature; only 348 (20 percent) qualified for the ballot and only 116 (7 percent) were approved.

Stay tuned for the next post: The League’s Current Position on Initiatives and Referendum