Editorial: Like making sausage

Plenty of bad policy ideas originate in California. But every once in a while, a worthwhile proposal emerges from the Golden State.

Take the California Legislature Transparency Act.

How many times we have seen lawmakers hurriedly pass bills before the ink even dries, barely having time to digest the final summaries, let alone consider all the fine print tossed in by special-interest lobbyists? Too many times, that’s how many.

Well, the transparency act, likely to appear on the Nov. 8 ballot in California, represents a much-needed effort to prevent such nonsense. Not surprisingly, Democrat lawmakers there are pushing back.

The Associated Press reported last week that Charles Munger Jr., a wealthy, GOP donor, and former California Assembly Minority Leader Sam Blakeslee have collected and submitted signatures for an initiative that would require lawmakers to publish all bills at least three days before the full Senate or Assembly may vote on them.

“You have no choice but to vote what’s in front of you without the information necessary,” Mr. Blakeslee said during a joint committee hearing last week. “That is the ‘gut-and-amend’ process that we want to put an end to once and for all.”

At its core, the initiative is meant to promote more transparency and, in turn, more government accountability. It’s a disgrace that California Democrats would complain about the proposal, but that highlights just how embedded they and their lobbyist friends remain in the status quo — as well as how much they stand to lose by reform.

Backers of the Blakeslee/Munger proposal have submitted 930,000 signatures when only 580,000 are required for ballot access — an indication of the initiative’s popularity. Cynical Democratic lawmakers have responded with a somewhat similar, but comparatively toothless, measure in order to confuse voters.

Their actions just reinforce the need for the measure they are trying to defeat.

It makes eminent sense to provide lawmakers with adequate time to absorb the final language of the bills they must consider, rather than forcing them to rush votes on important issues. Let’s hope a majority of California voters agree.

Meanwhile, even casual observers of the Nevada Legislature appreciate that similar concerns resonate in Carson City, where special-interest fingerprints too often dominate amended legislation. Offering lawmakers more time to actually understand what they’re voting on might help improve the process here in Nevada, also.