The initiative and referendum were progressive Era political reforms designed to weaken the power of

In 1893, the California State Legislature enacted its first campaign finance disclosure statute titled the "Purity of Elections Law" (AB 8, Shanahan) based on an English law passed ten years earlier. The California law covered aspects of election corruption of concern at that time, including bribery, coercion, fraud, and secret financing of campaigns. Provisions of the Purity of Elections Law included requirements that candidates and their committees file with the Secretary of State detailed financial statements disclosing campaign receipts and expenditures.

In 1911, as part of the Progressive reform movement in California, the initiative, referendum, and recall were added to the State Constitution. Almost immediately, ballot measures began to play an increasing role in the creation of public policy. But ballot measure campaigns were not covered by the Purity of Elections Law. So, in 1921, legislation (SB 133, Eden) was enacted to require financial disclosure by organizations supporting or opposing statewide ballot measures.

Although the disclosure of campaign finances was required throughout the first half of the 20th Century, there was no corresponding requirement for financial disclosure of lobbying activities - attempts by individuals and organizations to influence the decisions of State Government. Ironically, the lack of interest in disclosing lobbying activities may have been partly due to the success of Progressive reformers. The Progressives had accomplished their goal of effectively limiting the political influence of the Southern Pacific Railroad, so there was little apparent reason to regulate lobbying practices because other lobbying interests were relatively weak by comparison. However, by the 1940's the lobbying vacuum was filled with an imposing figure - Arthur H. Samish. “Artie” Samish, now considered by many, the most powerful individual lobbyist in the history of California became a symbol of the need for reform. Critics such as the popular progressive, three-term California Governor Earl Warren said of Samish: "On matters that affect his clients, Artie unquestionably has more power than the governor." In 1949, the “Lobbying Control Act” (AB 74, Erwin) was adopted to regulate lobbying practices and require the disclosure of lobbying financial activities.

The provisions of law requiring financial disclosure of campaign and lobbying activities remained in place, with a variety of amendments, until the mid-1970's. In 1974, a coalition of reformers qualified Proposition 9, sponsored by then-Secretary of State Jerry Brown, for the statewide ballot. Titled "The Political Reform Act," the measure included new requirements for reporting campaign and lobbying activities, and was the most detailed disclosure law in the nation. One of its major features was a response to ongoing criticism of the earlier lobbying disclosure law that originally required lobbying statements to be filed with the State Legislature. Because most of the information contained in lobbying statements directly related to the Legislature itself, reformers argued (and the Political Reform Act mandated) that lobbying statements be filed with the Secretary of State where campaign disclosure statements had always been filed.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 was written before the Watergate revelations. However, by the time Proposition 9 appeared on the ballot, the Watergate scandal and its ramifications were publicly revealed, and reform proposals were sweeping the country. The Political Reform Act passed with an overwhelming majority of the vote. As a consequence, the Political Reform Division was created in the Office of the Secretary of State in order to administer key provisions of the new law. The Act also created a new, independent state agency - the Fair Political Practices Commission. The five-member Commission is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the Act.

Subsequent to the Act taking effect in 1975, it has undergone amendments and revisions every year. Among the most prominent revisions, was the addition of the Online Disclosure Act of 1997 (SB 49, Karnette), which authorized the creation of an online, electronic filing and disclosure system called the California Automated Lobbying And Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search System (CAL-ACCESS). Implemented in June 2000 for campaign finance disclosure filings, CAL-ACCESS now provides continuous internet access for the public to electronically filed campaign and lobbying statements and reports. The Legislature followed up the launch of CAL-ACCESS by placing Proposition 34 (SB 1223, Burton) on the November 7, 2000 ballot. The proposition was approved by more than 60% of the voters and implemented sweeping changes to the Political Reform Act. Among its many provisions was a requirement that contributions of $1,000 or more, made within 90 days of an election, be disclosed within 24 hours. Prop. 34 also implemented new, 10-business-day reporting for contributions of $5,000 or more to candidates and statewide ballot measures made at any other time. Access to the raw data stored in the CAL-ACCESS database was made publicly available online on August 28, 2013. This “open data” effort led to the creation of a new, open-source search engine called “Power Search” by the non-profit organization MapLight. Developed at no cost to the state, Secretary of State Alex Padilla worked with MapLight to host Power Search on the Secretary of State’s webpages starting on September 2, 2015, creating a faster, more convenient means for the public to conduct comprehensive searches for contributions and contributors to state candidates and statewide ballot measures. The success of Power Search led to the addition of an open-source search engine for independent expenditures to state candidates and ballot measures, also developed by MapLight at no cost to the state. The independent expenditure search engine was launched on February 9, 2016.

These innovations have expanded and changed the responsibilities of the Secretary of State's Political Reform Division over time as it sought to keep pace with changes in the law. For a description of our current activities, go to the Responsibilities of the Political Reform Division page.

Taken together, they are called the politics of direct action. Initiative, referendum, and recall are three means by which the people may bring their will to bear directly on the legislative process and the machinery of government. Most constitutional democracies, such as Australia, Canada, Italy, and the United States, operate through a system of representative government. If the people are dissatisfied with and want to change the actions of government, or if the government wants to get public approval for a given policy, these three devices are available.

Initiative is a legislative proposal that originates with the people. Recall, the device by which voters may remove public officials from office, also originates with the people. Referendum, however, is a measure submitted by the government to the people for their approval. All three have in common the fact that, at some point or other, the people vote on them; and in most cases, the vote of the people is final.

Any proposed law can, with sufficient backing, be put on the ballot in an election. To do this, petitions have to be signed by a certain portion of the electorate, or voters. If the petitions are approved and the signatures are valid, the proposal can be voted on. If it passes, it becomes law. Sometimes initiatives are first submitted to a legislature. If they are passed there, they become law without the need for a popular vote. If they fail, they may be submitted directly to a vote by the public, who may override the action of the legislature.

There are two kinds of referenda: obligatory and optional. In many areas certain proposals must be put on the ballot for public approval. For example, when a school district wants to issue bonds for building construction, it goes to the voters with an obligatory referendum. In the United States, amendments to state constitutions also must be put before the voters for approval. This practice was first adopted by the state of Connecticut in 1818, and by the 20th century it had become the prevailing way of changing constitutions.

Under the optional referendum, a specified number of voters may, by petition, demand a popular vote on a law passed by the legislature (a process similar to the initiative). By this means, an act of the legislature can be overturned in a kind of popular veto.

There is another kind of referendum, called the plebiscite (from a Latin term meaning “decree of the people”), whereby questions or issues are submitted to the vote of the people. Depending on the nature of the particular plebiscite, the result may be binding or it may be only advisory.

This is a device, used mostly in the United States at the state and local level, whereby voters may remove a public official from office before the expiration of his or her term. It is based on the principle that officeholders are agents of the popular will and should, therefore, be constantly subject to its control.

Both the initiative and the referendum originated in Switzerland in the first half of the 19th century. In 1831 the canton of St. Gall adopted what is called the facultative, or optional, referendum. The obligatory referendum was first adopted by the canton of rural Basel in 1863. The initiative came into use at Vaud in 1845.

Both the referendum and the initiative were adopted in the United States under the leadership of groups hostile to machine politics or those convinced that government was generally insensitive to the popular will. But these devices, like the recall, are legal only in certain states and municipalities, not at the national level.

Since the early 1970s, the initiative has increased greatly in popularity. The use of the device gained momentum with the emergence of groups concerned with specific issues such as civil rights, abortion, capital punishment, nuclear power, tax policies, handgun control, and the environment.

Probably the most celebrated initiative to pass in recent years was Proposition 13 in California. This was a highly popular proposal to reduce property taxes in the state by 57 percent. Its success in 1978, despite the strong opposition of the governor, state legislature, and the bureaucracy, prompted tax revolts in several other states.

Some plebiscites have gained international attention since the late 1970s, because they dealt with matters of great concern to large groups of people. On May 18, 1981, Italians resoundingly defeated a proposal to repeal a controversial 1978 abortion law, although the Catholic church had strenuously urged repeal. Canadians, in May 1980, defeated a proposal that would have forced the national government to negotiate sovereignty for the French-speaking province of Quebec. In the United States, during the 1982 congressional elections, there were successful, nonbinding plebiscites in several states and municipalities on the issue of a nuclear weapon freeze.

Like the initiative and referendum, recall originated in Switzerland, where it was made applicable to the entire legislature as well as to individual officials. The device was first adopted in the United States in 1903 as a part of the Los Angeles city charter. Many cities and about one fourth of the states have incorporated it into their charters or constitutions. A year after Los Angeles adopted the device, voters in that city recalled a city councilman. In 1921 the voters of North Dakota removed from office the governor, attorney general, and commissioner of agriculture. The mayors of Detroit and Los Angeles were recalled in 1929 and 1938, respectively. In April 1983, a recall vote to remove San Francisco’s mayor Dianne Feinstein from office was overwhelmingly defeated.