The longer California's fractured system of non-governance continues to throw complicated and technical issues at voters in the form of propositions, the more likely we are to adopt that strategy.
 
The offerings on the June 3 primary ballot are a classic example.

Both Proposition 98 and Proposition 99 offer reform for the practice of using eminent domain by governments to take property for public use.

But each also contains ulterior motives over which their supporters continue to bicker, especially over a provision in Proposition 98 to eliminate or modify rent control.

On top of that, Proposition 99 contains a so-called "poison pill" that would nullify 98 if it were adopted.

The bottom line is that both of these measures are convoluted and misleading. Voters ought to reject both of them.

And then they should demand that our lawmakers start doing the job they were sent to Sacramento for.

These issues ought to be addressed by the Legislature and not presented directly to voters.

We will not dispute that eminent domain is due for reform, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London decision, made it appear that government has the right to take private property not only to meet a pressing public need, such as a road or public building, but to provide an economic benefit to the community.

In our own community, the exercise of eminent domain has produced some controversial issues and raised questions of fair market value.

The exercise of eminent domain is largely a local function. Restrictions on it could result in loss of local control. There are some cases where eminent domain is an important tool for the public good.

Without it, private property owners hold government over a barrel and could paralyze needed public action forever.

Abuses in eminent domain usually occur in how things are interpreted: One person's idea of "just compensation," for instance, might not be the same as another's. Current law entitles property owners to have those kinds of disputes settled by a jury.

Eminent domain might need some fine-tuning. It does not need to be so restricted as these two ballot measures propose. If there are abuses in eminent domain, settle those cases; don't tie government's hands.

Even if we agreed with full-scale overhaul of eminent domain, these measures go beyond that. Proposition 98 is using this occasion to end rent control in California. About a dozen California cities, including many of the largest ones, have some form of rent control for apartments. About 100 cities and counties have laws limiting mobile home park rent. Proposition 98 would end rent control in all cases after the current tenant has moved.

This isn't even necessary: Current law allows landlords to reset rents to reflect market value when a lease expires.

There are good reasons for having rent control in some cases, especially in mobile home parks, where tenants own their mobile homes but not the property they sit on. If rent control needs reform, let's do that through the Legislature.

Regardless, ballot measures ought to stick to one issue.

As constitutional amendments, both these provisions will be nearly impossible to reform if adopted.

This is a classic case of issues that ought to be taken up by our state Legislature and not left for voters to decide amid a confusing barrage of media ads.

When our Legislature refuses to take up serious issues, however, this is what we will get: Badly crafted measures made by special interests.

Until that tendency changes in California, voters ought to take the simplest approach: Just say no.