Lessons California Could Learn from the Birthplace of the Initiative
Our California ballot-measure reporter travels to Switzerland to explore what insights a state passionate about direct democracy can glean from the country that pioneered it, coinciding with the 150th anniversary of its first federal referendum.
TroibNews 
**BERN, Switzerland —** Over a century ago, California adopted the initiative and referendum system from Switzerland, providing citizens a means to override a lobbyist-influenced state government and influence policy directly.
Ballot measures have emerged as an unofficial fourth branch of government in California, allowing voters to address wide-ranging cultural issues such as affirmative action and to influence the state budget. Yet, many Californians now express concerns that this system, intended to empower them, is heavily influenced by special-interest funding, which it was designed to mitigate.
In Switzerland, the origin of California’s direct democracy, voters enthusiastically engage with various issues, ranging from pension increases to adherence to climate regulations, and even topics like cow horn regulations and funding for the Eurovision Song Contest.
Swiss citizens embrace this governance model much more positively than the Californians I encounter, who often feel overwhelmed and confused by the complexities of ballot measures. In contrast, the Swiss celebrate a system focused on issues rather than political parties or individual politicians. They argue it creates an environment conducive to consensus, reduces polarization, and instills confidence in individuals' abilities to influence policy.
Reflecting on Switzerland’s celebration of the 150th anniversary of the first national referendum in 2024 brought back memories of J.W. Sullivan, an American journalist who famously chronicled the unique politics of Switzerland after his 1888 European trip. Sullivan portrayed initiatives and referendums as antidotes to the era's populist and progressive fears regarding the overwhelming power of wealthy interests.
These issues are still relevant, with California among the 24 states that adopted the initiative system following Sullivan's influential writing. Today, however, many view direct democracy in California as contributing to the very challenges it was meant to resolve. During my visit to Switzerland, it was clear the country still possesses valuable lessons for California’s ballot measure landscape.
**1. Vote more often.**
In California, many voters lament the prevalence of too many measures on ballots. For instance, I covered a ballot with ten statewide issues last year, relatively low compared to 29 questions voters faced in November 1988.
Switzerland adopts a strategy of more frequent votes to keep the number of measures manageable—typically holding elections on issue questions every three months. Voters can engage with initiatives and referendums at federal, regional, and local levels. Each ballot often includes two to four federal-level initiatives, supplemented by cantonal and local measures.
For instance, during the last election day of 2024, Swiss voters considered four initiatives related to highway expansion, housing, and a healthcare amendment. At local levels, there were discussions about lowering the voting age and reforming urban planning.
Conversely, Californians only vote on statewide issues every two years, often finding all measures clumped together during general elections. Swiss direct democracy advocates argue that their steady electoral cadence encourages consistent voter engagement with policy, even if it might feel taxing at times.
“Democracy can be exhausting in Switzerland,” Adrian Michel, a leader in a pro-business campaign group in Bern, remarked, underscoring the commitment of citizens to participate in this dynamic system.
This frequent voting process also allows for quicker resolution of policy debates. For example, Basel quickly sought to gather signatures on a referendum after deciding to host the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest, putting it to a vote just over a month later. In contrast, in California, policies can languish for months awaiting voter input, which often leads to strategic maneuvers that delay legislative implementation.
**2. Lower the barriers to entry.**
During Switzerland’s national holiday in August, I witnessed grassroots initiatives firsthand at an outdoor fair in Zurich. One campaign aimed to relax the country’s strict citizenship requirements.
“We created this from scratch,” said Arbër Bullakaj, a campaign initiator, amidst the lively atmosphere of volunteers engaging potential signers. In California, a similar scene would often involve paid signature-gatherers rather than enthusiastic volunteers.
In California, campaigners face a daunting requirement of gathering 546,651 signatures within six months, with costs upwards of $8 million just to reach the ballot. In Switzerland, only 100,000 signatures are needed for an initiative, and campaigners have 18 months to gather them. Consequently, many rely on grassroots support rather than expensive professional help.
“Money plays a role, there’s no question about that,” acknowledged Urs Leuthard, a journalist with Swiss broadcaster SRF. However, he emphasized that smaller organizations still find opportunities to succeed in launching initiatives.
Throughout the campaign, I observed enthusiastic volunteers exchanging updates, highlighting the collective effort required to gather signatures. This collaborative spirit contrasts sharply with California’s often financially-strained initiative process, where many proposed campaigns fail to qualify due to the high costs of meeting signature thresholds.
**3. Let legislators strike back.**
My experiences covering California’s ballot initiatives left me pondering how things might operate differently in a system like Switzerland's. In Switzerland, the legislature can propose its countermeasures to initiatives. If the backers don’t withdraw, both the initiative and the counterproposal appear on the ballot for voters to decide.
This system not only encourages dialogue between proponents and legislators but also enhances voter choice by requiring them to weigh multiple options at once. For instance, following a controversial initiative related to deporting criminals, voters had to choose both the original proposal and a more moderate legislative alternative.
In California, however, the introduction of measures that can be removed shortly before an election has often led to strategic negotiations, where interest groups use the initiative process to force discussions with lawmakers. While this occurs in Switzerland as well, having both proposals on the ballot simplifies choices for voters.
**4. Ditch the TV ads.**
When discussing California ballot measures, the prevalence of TV advertising is often highlighted. During the last election cycle, voters encountered numerous ads, particularly for contentious issues like Proposition 33.
In stark contrast, Swiss law prohibits political advertising on television and radio for initiatives and candidates, resulting in lower campaign costs and less media saturation. The absence of these ads encourages deeper discussion on policy matters, reinforced by media coverage focusing on substantive issues.
“The media cannot avoid writing and reporting on policy issues,” noted Heike Scholten, a Swiss political consultant, emphasizing the quality of debate that arises from this approach. Major Swiss media outlets provide in-depth coverage, enhancing public understanding of each measure.
Eliminating TV ads in California could present significant challenges, particularly given the declining local media presence. Nevertheless, some believe that fostering a more engaged media discourse could enhance voter knowledge and participation.
**5. Give citizens other ways to shape policy.**
Switzerland uniquely incorporates traditional in-person voting methods, known as Landsgemeinde, allowing residents to vote directly on legislation and budgets. This practice fosters community dialogue and participation throughout the decision-making process.
As California grapples with enhancing citizen engagement, ideas for empowering voters have surfaced, including citizens’ assemblies and advisory votes to better gauge public priorities on issues.
Baldassare envisions annual advisory votes in California, similar to Switzerland's practices, allowing citizens to express their views systematically. Leuthard proposes that mechanisms of Swiss direct democracy could be integrated into other political systems, promoting broader involvement from citizens.
In summary, while California's initiative process has faced criticisms and challenges, the lessons drawn from Switzerland could inspire meaningful reforms. By fostering more frequent voter engagement, lowering entry barriers for initiatives, allowing legislative counterproposals, eliminating costly advertising, and providing additional avenues for citizen participation, California could enhance its direct democracy system to better reflect the will of its people.California has historically prided itself on being a laboratory for democracy, a place where innovative governance can flourish. Yet as concerns about money in politics and the complexity of initiatives loom large, it may be time to reevaluate how the state engages its citizens in the democratic process. While Switzerland boasts a long-standing tradition of direct democracy with mechanisms that keep voters informed and engaged, California's approach risks becoming a source of frustration for many.
One crucial area of consideration is education about the initiative process. In Switzerland, there is a strong emphasis on citizen education regarding voting issues, ensuring that voters are well-informed on the matters they are voting on. This rigorous approach contributes to a more substantive public discourse, encouraging participation from a broader swath of society. In contrast, California often sees voters inundated with complex ballot measures that lack clear explanations, leading to a sense of bewilderment.
Furthermore, the high financial stakes associated with California’s ballot measures often lead to voter apathy. Many citizens feel overwhelmed by the advertising blitzes and the perception that only well-funded interests have a voice in the initiative process. This disillusionment can stifle participation and lead to lower voter turnout, undermining the very purpose of the initiative process, which is meant to empower the electorate.
To address these concerns, California could adopt strategies to demystify the voting process. Educational campaigns similar to those conducted in Switzerland could help. This might involve community workshops, collaborations with local schools, and informational resources accessible online, focused on explaining the implications of ballot measures in plain language – making the voting process less daunting.
Moreover, encouraging grassroots movements by simplifying the logistics of launching initiatives could lead to a more representative democratic process. By reducing the necessary funding and logistical hurdles, a wider array of voices could emerge in the discussions surrounding state-wide issues. This would create a more vibrant democratic landscape, allowing individual citizens and smaller organizations to weigh in on key topics, potentially invigorating public interest in political engagement.
Another critical element to consider is the role of technology in modern democracy. Citizens increasingly turn to digital platforms for information and mobilization. California could leverage this trend by creating a dedicated, accessible online portal providing comprehensive, impartial information about upcoming ballot measures and the initiative process. Such a resource could enable users to ask questions, seek clarification on complex issues, and engage with experts and fellow voters in meaningful discussions.
Lastly, any re-evaluation of California's initiative process must also acknowledge the value of public forums that stimulate direct dialogue between citizens and their representatives. Swiss traditions like Landsgemeinde exemplify how in-person discussions can empower communities to engage directly with legislation and policy decisions. California could explore similar models tailored to its diverse population, facilitating conversations that may help bridge the gap between voters and legislators, leading to greater mutual understanding and cooperation.
In looking to Switzerland, it becomes clear that while both places value direct democracy, the methods of achieving participatory governance differ substantially. Switzerland’s established practices, honed over decades, allow citizens to harness their voice meaningfully and maintain a clear sense of agency in the political system. For California, this presentation of ideas and methods provides an opportunity not just for reflection, but also actionable changes that could reinvigorate direct democracy.
By taking inspiration from these Swiss practices, California can work towards a more inclusive, transparent, and effective initiative process that honors its roots in direct democracy while adapting to modern needs and challenges. Ultimately, these changes could not only empower voters but also restore trust in the systems designed to represent them—a vital step in the ongoing evolution of American democracy.
Anna Muller for TROIB News
Ballot measures have emerged as an unofficial fourth branch of government in California, allowing voters to address wide-ranging cultural issues such as affirmative action and to influence the state budget. Yet, many Californians now express concerns that this system, intended to empower them, is heavily influenced by special-interest funding, which it was designed to mitigate.
In Switzerland, the origin of California’s direct democracy, voters enthusiastically engage with various issues, ranging from pension increases to adherence to climate regulations, and even topics like cow horn regulations and funding for the Eurovision Song Contest.
Swiss citizens embrace this governance model much more positively than the Californians I encounter, who often feel overwhelmed and confused by the complexities of ballot measures. In contrast, the Swiss celebrate a system focused on issues rather than political parties or individual politicians. They argue it creates an environment conducive to consensus, reduces polarization, and instills confidence in individuals' abilities to influence policy.
Reflecting on Switzerland’s celebration of the 150th anniversary of the first national referendum in 2024 brought back memories of J.W. Sullivan, an American journalist who famously chronicled the unique politics of Switzerland after his 1888 European trip. Sullivan portrayed initiatives and referendums as antidotes to the era's populist and progressive fears regarding the overwhelming power of wealthy interests.
These issues are still relevant, with California among the 24 states that adopted the initiative system following Sullivan's influential writing. Today, however, many view direct democracy in California as contributing to the very challenges it was meant to resolve. During my visit to Switzerland, it was clear the country still possesses valuable lessons for California’s ballot measure landscape.
**1. Vote more often.**
In California, many voters lament the prevalence of too many measures on ballots. For instance, I covered a ballot with ten statewide issues last year, relatively low compared to 29 questions voters faced in November 1988.
Switzerland adopts a strategy of more frequent votes to keep the number of measures manageable—typically holding elections on issue questions every three months. Voters can engage with initiatives and referendums at federal, regional, and local levels. Each ballot often includes two to four federal-level initiatives, supplemented by cantonal and local measures.
For instance, during the last election day of 2024, Swiss voters considered four initiatives related to highway expansion, housing, and a healthcare amendment. At local levels, there were discussions about lowering the voting age and reforming urban planning.
Conversely, Californians only vote on statewide issues every two years, often finding all measures clumped together during general elections. Swiss direct democracy advocates argue that their steady electoral cadence encourages consistent voter engagement with policy, even if it might feel taxing at times.
“Democracy can be exhausting in Switzerland,” Adrian Michel, a leader in a pro-business campaign group in Bern, remarked, underscoring the commitment of citizens to participate in this dynamic system.
This frequent voting process also allows for quicker resolution of policy debates. For example, Basel quickly sought to gather signatures on a referendum after deciding to host the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest, putting it to a vote just over a month later. In contrast, in California, policies can languish for months awaiting voter input, which often leads to strategic maneuvers that delay legislative implementation.
**2. Lower the barriers to entry.**
During Switzerland’s national holiday in August, I witnessed grassroots initiatives firsthand at an outdoor fair in Zurich. One campaign aimed to relax the country’s strict citizenship requirements.
“We created this from scratch,” said Arbër Bullakaj, a campaign initiator, amidst the lively atmosphere of volunteers engaging potential signers. In California, a similar scene would often involve paid signature-gatherers rather than enthusiastic volunteers.
In California, campaigners face a daunting requirement of gathering 546,651 signatures within six months, with costs upwards of $8 million just to reach the ballot. In Switzerland, only 100,000 signatures are needed for an initiative, and campaigners have 18 months to gather them. Consequently, many rely on grassroots support rather than expensive professional help.
“Money plays a role, there’s no question about that,” acknowledged Urs Leuthard, a journalist with Swiss broadcaster SRF. However, he emphasized that smaller organizations still find opportunities to succeed in launching initiatives.
Throughout the campaign, I observed enthusiastic volunteers exchanging updates, highlighting the collective effort required to gather signatures. This collaborative spirit contrasts sharply with California’s often financially-strained initiative process, where many proposed campaigns fail to qualify due to the high costs of meeting signature thresholds.
**3. Let legislators strike back.**
My experiences covering California’s ballot initiatives left me pondering how things might operate differently in a system like Switzerland's. In Switzerland, the legislature can propose its countermeasures to initiatives. If the backers don’t withdraw, both the initiative and the counterproposal appear on the ballot for voters to decide.
This system not only encourages dialogue between proponents and legislators but also enhances voter choice by requiring them to weigh multiple options at once. For instance, following a controversial initiative related to deporting criminals, voters had to choose both the original proposal and a more moderate legislative alternative.
In California, however, the introduction of measures that can be removed shortly before an election has often led to strategic negotiations, where interest groups use the initiative process to force discussions with lawmakers. While this occurs in Switzerland as well, having both proposals on the ballot simplifies choices for voters.
**4. Ditch the TV ads.**
When discussing California ballot measures, the prevalence of TV advertising is often highlighted. During the last election cycle, voters encountered numerous ads, particularly for contentious issues like Proposition 33.
In stark contrast, Swiss law prohibits political advertising on television and radio for initiatives and candidates, resulting in lower campaign costs and less media saturation. The absence of these ads encourages deeper discussion on policy matters, reinforced by media coverage focusing on substantive issues.
“The media cannot avoid writing and reporting on policy issues,” noted Heike Scholten, a Swiss political consultant, emphasizing the quality of debate that arises from this approach. Major Swiss media outlets provide in-depth coverage, enhancing public understanding of each measure.
Eliminating TV ads in California could present significant challenges, particularly given the declining local media presence. Nevertheless, some believe that fostering a more engaged media discourse could enhance voter knowledge and participation.
**5. Give citizens other ways to shape policy.**
Switzerland uniquely incorporates traditional in-person voting methods, known as Landsgemeinde, allowing residents to vote directly on legislation and budgets. This practice fosters community dialogue and participation throughout the decision-making process.
As California grapples with enhancing citizen engagement, ideas for empowering voters have surfaced, including citizens’ assemblies and advisory votes to better gauge public priorities on issues.
Baldassare envisions annual advisory votes in California, similar to Switzerland's practices, allowing citizens to express their views systematically. Leuthard proposes that mechanisms of Swiss direct democracy could be integrated into other political systems, promoting broader involvement from citizens.
In summary, while California's initiative process has faced criticisms and challenges, the lessons drawn from Switzerland could inspire meaningful reforms. By fostering more frequent voter engagement, lowering entry barriers for initiatives, allowing legislative counterproposals, eliminating costly advertising, and providing additional avenues for citizen participation, California could enhance its direct democracy system to better reflect the will of its people.California has historically prided itself on being a laboratory for democracy, a place where innovative governance can flourish. Yet as concerns about money in politics and the complexity of initiatives loom large, it may be time to reevaluate how the state engages its citizens in the democratic process. While Switzerland boasts a long-standing tradition of direct democracy with mechanisms that keep voters informed and engaged, California's approach risks becoming a source of frustration for many.
One crucial area of consideration is education about the initiative process. In Switzerland, there is a strong emphasis on citizen education regarding voting issues, ensuring that voters are well-informed on the matters they are voting on. This rigorous approach contributes to a more substantive public discourse, encouraging participation from a broader swath of society. In contrast, California often sees voters inundated with complex ballot measures that lack clear explanations, leading to a sense of bewilderment.
Furthermore, the high financial stakes associated with California’s ballot measures often lead to voter apathy. Many citizens feel overwhelmed by the advertising blitzes and the perception that only well-funded interests have a voice in the initiative process. This disillusionment can stifle participation and lead to lower voter turnout, undermining the very purpose of the initiative process, which is meant to empower the electorate.
To address these concerns, California could adopt strategies to demystify the voting process. Educational campaigns similar to those conducted in Switzerland could help. This might involve community workshops, collaborations with local schools, and informational resources accessible online, focused on explaining the implications of ballot measures in plain language – making the voting process less daunting.
Moreover, encouraging grassroots movements by simplifying the logistics of launching initiatives could lead to a more representative democratic process. By reducing the necessary funding and logistical hurdles, a wider array of voices could emerge in the discussions surrounding state-wide issues. This would create a more vibrant democratic landscape, allowing individual citizens and smaller organizations to weigh in on key topics, potentially invigorating public interest in political engagement.
Another critical element to consider is the role of technology in modern democracy. Citizens increasingly turn to digital platforms for information and mobilization. California could leverage this trend by creating a dedicated, accessible online portal providing comprehensive, impartial information about upcoming ballot measures and the initiative process. Such a resource could enable users to ask questions, seek clarification on complex issues, and engage with experts and fellow voters in meaningful discussions.
Lastly, any re-evaluation of California's initiative process must also acknowledge the value of public forums that stimulate direct dialogue between citizens and their representatives. Swiss traditions like Landsgemeinde exemplify how in-person discussions can empower communities to engage directly with legislation and policy decisions. California could explore similar models tailored to its diverse population, facilitating conversations that may help bridge the gap between voters and legislators, leading to greater mutual understanding and cooperation.
In looking to Switzerland, it becomes clear that while both places value direct democracy, the methods of achieving participatory governance differ substantially. Switzerland’s established practices, honed over decades, allow citizens to harness their voice meaningfully and maintain a clear sense of agency in the political system. For California, this presentation of ideas and methods provides an opportunity not just for reflection, but also actionable changes that could reinvigorate direct democracy.
By taking inspiration from these Swiss practices, California can work towards a more inclusive, transparent, and effective initiative process that honors its roots in direct democracy while adapting to modern needs and challenges. Ultimately, these changes could not only empower voters but also restore trust in the systems designed to represent them—a vital step in the ongoing evolution of American democracy.
Anna Muller for TROIB News
