[citation needed] The initiative and optional (or facultative) referendum were introduced as Progressive Era reforms in 1911, by a constitutional amendment called Proposition 7.
Hiram Johnson supported the creation of this process to balance the power that corporations, specifically Southern Pacific Railroad, had over legislators.
The $200 fee had been originally set in 1943, and the State Legislature felt that it needed to be increased to discourage people from proposing frivolous or improper measures for the ballot.
[5][6] Before initiative proponents may gather signatures, the Attorney General prepares an official title and summary for the proposed law, and the California Legislative Analyst's Office submits a report on its estimated fiscal effects.
The Legislative Analyst's Office has 50 days after receiving the final version of the proposed measure to prepare its report, and the Attorney General has 15 days after receiving these fiscal estimates to send the final official version of the title and summary to both the Secretary of State and the initiative proponents.
[citation needed] Proponents who have gathered at least 25 percent of the required number of signatures must immediately submit a written statement to the Secretary of State certifying they have done so.
This is to allow time for each chamber in the State Legislature to assign the proposed initiative to its appropriate committees and schedule public hearings on it.
The Secretary of State only uses the "qualified" classification in this particular case to mean when the initiative is on the official list that will appear on the ballot, which is prepared and certified on that 131-day mark.
[citation needed] Under California law, certain types of bills passed by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor must be submitted to the voters as a referendum at the next statewide election.
[11] The rule in the constitution was clarified in 1990 by the California Supreme Court in its ruling in Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Commission: When two or more measures are competing initiatives, either because they are expressly offered as "all-or-nothing" alternatives or because each creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme related to the same subject, section 10(b) mandates that only the provisions of the measure receiving the highest number of affirmative votes be enforced.
[12]The Court was concerned that attempts to combine the non-conflicting provisions in such competing initiatives would result in regulatory schemes completely different from what the electorate understood or intended.
[12] Criticism has been raised of the initiative process, suggesting that with trends toward lower voter turnouts, and evidence for voter disinterest in candidates and issues other than in presidential elections, that a "direct democracy system specifically designed to be inflexible" might be infeasible to continue as a way to make important California public policy decisions.
Generally, because of California's size and population, proponents of a ballot initiative or referendum need significant amounts of money and resources to first gather the required number of petition signatures, and then campaign across the state for the effort's passage.
The wealthy and large special interest groups can afford to do so (or to sponsor the opposition campaigns), a process that can be cost-prohibitive to most other organizations and individual citizens.