California, Initiatives, and Referenda

Responding to my post about California, State Bailouts and Term Limits, "just me" opines that California's woes relate to the State's initiative and referendum system. He writes:

I don't think it's the specific issue of term limits so much as the general abuse of the initiative system that has made the legislature ineffective. California voters over the last 30 years have passed referenda that basically locked in a governing plan based on limited taxes, unlimited spending, and a balanced budget. At this point, I don't think it even matters who is in the legislature or the governor's chair, which party they belong to, or how much experience they have. These three things the voters want are not possible simultaneously. It's possible to be low tax/low spend/balanced budget (Utah) or high tax/high spend/balanced budget. (Massachusetts) It's also possible to do what DC does and cut taxes on 95% of the population, increase spending to obsene levels and not care about the budget being in balance. But you can't have all 3 things.

Now it may be that the voters of the other 49 states would also prove themselves to be idiots if given the chance. But most of the other states have some constraints on the initiative process to make it somewhat idiot proof--constraints that don't exist in California.

Here are some of my thoughts on Utah's referendum process. In short, initiatives and referenda on policy questions are good and necessary tools in our democracy toolbox. Believing in our representative form of government, however, I think the initiative and referenda process needs more rigor than California has. And I think that initiatives and referenda on budgetary issues probably are a bad idea, since budgets are a composite; in isolation, just about every funding choice looks like a winner.