The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions Executive Summary In every California election,

Conclusions 2

• CL1 Page 15
  For the reasons described above, the ballot questions we reviewed generally fell short of what voters have a right to expect. Although such outcomes are predictable based on the drafting processes used by government entities, and indeed have come to be expected by many voters used to reading ballot questions written in a style that has become commonplace, the grand jury believes such outcomes are not acceptable and should be resisted by all those with a role in observing the legal requirements for accuracy and impartiality. In our interviews, we found officials who are responsible for preparing questions to be sincere in their desire to meet the standards for accuracy and impartiality, even while their overarching goal in drafting the questions was to promote voter approval. All things considered, we understand how questions end up reading the way they do. As we have found, the root of the problem is inherent in the process by which questions are prepared, in combination with the standards applied in the event they are challenged. Given the dynamics of these processes, and the challenges faced by local governments who must appeal to voters to approve many of their plans and programs, it is difficult to imagine the problematic nature of ballot questions changing without some legislative or institutional initiative to spur improvement. 69
• CL2 Page 16
  In recognition of these practical realities, the grand jury proposes that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors create an advisory commission composed of impartial and representative citizen volunteers committed to the ideals of accuracy and impartiality, who would review and rate ballot questions according to applicable legal standards as well as general principles of transparency and objectivity. Jurisdictions could submit questions for review on a voluntary basis, in parallel to the development of the questions. The commission would be empowered to develop a 0 to 10 rating or a simple “fair/unfair” or “pass/fail” rating, and would rate all questions in each election, after their adoption, regardless of whether a jurisdiction had submitted the question to the panel for review. In this way jurisdictions would have an incentive to have their questions reviewed prior to adoption, so as to obtain a favorable rating. The advisory panel would also assist jurisdictions in developing better questions, by serving as a neutral appraiser of questions for which there could be divergent views within a particular agency. By reviewing and rating questions based on uniform standards, the proposed panel would also promote greater uniformity in question language, facilitating voters’ understanding. The grand jury believes such a panel and process would improve the overall quality of ballot questions and enhance the legitimacy of elections in which ballot measures are approved or rejected. Alameda County could become the state’s leader for fairness and transparency in government.

Agency Responses 3

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.