California needs ballot measure reform. Will Dems make this basic fix?

Once a referendum qualifies for the ballot, the law it’s challenging is prevented from taking effect until voters decide whether to keep or reject it at the next regular general election — which can be as long as two years away. This buys valuable time. The tobacco industry, for example, qualified a referendum on a 2020 state law banning the sale of flavored tobacco products, putting it on hold until the 2022 general election. Voters ultimately upheld the law, but the industry netted hundreds of millions of dollars  from another two years of selling flavored tobacco products. 

Overhauling California’s ballot measure process is a complex task. But there’s at least one quick, easy fix lawmakers could make to drastically reduce politicization: transfer the power to write ballot measure titles and summaries — which play a critical role in influencing voters — from the elected, partisan attorney general to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which already writes impartial, thorough and digestible analyses for the state’s official voter information guide.

Unfortunately, legislators refuse to do so. Over the past 15 years, according to legislative analyses, bills to transfer the attorney general’s ballot-titling power to the Legislative Analyst’s Office have died repeatedly, including on Sept. 1, when Democrats in the appropriations committee buried two bills by state Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks (Sacramento County).

Having a partisan official — who since 1999 has been a Democrat — control perhaps the most consequential language on the ballot is a clear conflict of interest. 

Attorney General Rob Bonta was originally appointed to his position by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor is aggressively pushing a March 2024 ballot measure to overhaul the main source of mental health funding for counties and authorize billions in bonds to build behavioral health facilities — which Bonta will title and summarize for voters. 

John Matsusaka, executive director of the University of Southern California’s Initiative and Referendum Institute, told the editorial board that, amid growing national polarization and mistrust in institutions, the attorney general’s approach to labeling and summarizing ballot measures has become increasingly politicized.

“It’s a no-brainer to take the titling away from the attorney general and give it to the (Legislative Analyst’s Office) … because we’ve seen it be abused,” Matsusaka said. 

One prime example: 2020’s Proposition 15. The measure, which was supported by many of California’s top Democrats, would have amended Prop. 13 — the landmark 1978 initiative capping property taxes — to raise taxes on large commercial and industrial properties. 

Yet the title, prepared by then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, made no mention of tax increases and instead emphasized feel-good causes: “Increases funding sources for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by changing tax assessment of commercial and industrial property.” 

Wording like this makes a big difference, as 2018’s Prop. 6, which proposed rolling back an increase to the state’s gas tax, made clear. 

When the Public Policy Institute of California read to likely voters Becerra’s title for the measure — “Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding. Requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees be approved by the electorate” — a majority opposed it. But when likely voters were asked if they supported repealing the gas tax increase, 50% said yes. 

Voters deserve a crystal-clear understanding of the measures they’re called to decide upon. Using word games to trick them into supporting the whims of the majority party does a disservice to democracy and adds to growing public cynicism over the political process.

Last week, Newsom signed into law a bill sponsored by labor and environmental groups that makes sweeping changes to California’s referendum process to limit industry challenges. 

Under the new law, Californians will no longer be asked to vote “yes” or “no” on a referendum — their choices will be “keep the law” or “overturn the law.” The state’s official voter information guide will include a list of a referendum’s top funders, and the ballot label will list supporters and opponents.

The law also allows referendum proponents to withdraw their measure from the ballot — which, as we’re already seeing, could lead to more backroom deals. On Monday, fast-food workers and the restaurant industry struck a deal on wage increases and workplace conditions. Those issues would otherwise have been decided at the ballot box because restaurant groups had qualified a 2024 referendum challenging a state law ushering in even more sweeping labor reforms.  

These changes will make it harder for “concentrated special interests to silence and manipulate the voice of voters in our communities,” Assembly Majority Leader Isaac Bryan, the Los Angeles Democrat who authored the law, said in a statement.

That may prove true. But if lawmakers really wanted to limit the influence of special interests, they would reintroduce ballot language reform bills at the start of the next legislative session in January and pass them with an urgency clause so they would take effect before the November 2024 general election. 

Ensuring voters see ballot measure titles and summaries free from political interference is the bare minimum reform needed.

Sadly, we aren’t holding our breath.

Reach the Chronicle editorial board with a letter to the editor at sfchronicle.com/submit-your-opinion.