Abstract
Purpose. The initiative process is becoming a regular method for the creation of public policy by concerned residents of California who see their elected representatives as unresponsive to their needs. This study analyzes the historical roots of the initiative process and contrasts its development to judicial review of such plebiscites. Also investigated was the relationship between special interest groups and the formation and passage of initiatives. Methodology. The researcher used a multiobservation method. Historical review of selected and representative initiatives was combined with secondary analysis of the subsequent judicial findings when these initiatives were constitutionally challenged. The following questions were asked: (1) Why was the California initiative process introduced? What problem was it supposed to resolve? (2) How does the initiative process work? (3) Does the process as it exists contribute to voter confusion? (4) What role do special interest groups play, and what are the consequences of such involvement in the policy-making process? (5) What role have the courts played in this process? (6) How could the process be improved? (7) What are the ramifications of an improved initiative process on the legislature, the courts, and the people? (8) How could an improved initiative process affect policy analysis and policy evaluation? Findings. The initiative process was developed to thwart unresponsive or unscrupulous legislators. The process involves interested persons banding together to acquire the minimum number of signatures to place a measure on the ballot. But the process was found to be too cumbersome and complicated for the average voter to determine his or her position on the measure. Special interest groups have "captured" the process and manipulated the issues of the initiative to their advantage. The courts have heard the complaints by opposing parties and ruled on constitutional issues rather than on the public policy deficiencies. Conclusions and recommendations. The initiative process could be improved by a more informed voter base and more in-depth analysis and descriptions of the issues.