The Initiative--Take It or Leave It?

Others Want the Initiative
Controversy Continues

Improving on the Initiative

Initiative and referendum lurked quietly in the background of state politics for much of the 20th century, but over the last 12 years they've come back strong.

Consider the numbers: There were 183 statewide votes on initiatives in the 1970s, 253 in the 1980s, and 383 in the 1990s-more than double the total from the 1970s. And California alone accounts for 130 of the total 819 measures during that 30-year period; Oregon can lay claim to 107. Between them, those two states account for nearly 30 percent of all initiatives from 1970 to 1999. It's no wonder people there are beginning to say initiatives are a problem.

Supporters say the resurgence of initiatives is great-it means citizens are using them as a tool to implement new laws and make reforms legislatures are unwilling or unable to enact. Besides changing policy, supporters also say initiatives increase citizen engagement with government-people are not only more aware of state policy issues, but are more likely to go out and vote.

In some states where the initiative is used heavily, however, people are beginning to speak out against it. And it's not just legislators. The governors in Arizona and Maine call for reform, and a wide range of citizen and business groups have offered their ideas. The California League of Women Voters submitted a menu of suggested reforms in 1999, and the City Club of Portland proposed changes for Oregon's initiative process in 1996.

Task forces are looking at the issue in several states. A group in Colorado called Save Our Constitution includes voices from just about every spectrum of the political rainbow-a wide range of citizen, business and local government groups, as well as current and former legislators.

One of the biggest problems in the minds of many lawmakers is that initiatives only ask voters to make simple yes or no decisions on very complex issues. "Voters don't have to make the same kinds of tough decisions legislators face in balancing competing needs with limited resources," says Oregon Representative Lane Shetterly, a member of NCSL's I&R Reform Task Force. "The legislature may acknowledge an issue as a priority, but, in the face of an upcoming revenue shortfall and with existing programs and services to fund, it just isn't always possible to fund a new program. Then the initiative comes along and does it anyway. It puts the legislature in a box, having to meet newly mandated needs as well as existing ones," Shetterly says.

He favors reforms that would give voters better information about the fiscal impacts of initiative proposals and put that information into context with the fiscal resources of the state.

But reform won't come easy. Legislatures are struggling to find ways to prevent fraud in the signature-gathering process, disclose who pays for initiative campaigns, and add flexibility to the process to accommodate more debate, deliberation and compromise than presently exists. But the courts have made regulating petition circulators and initiative campaign finance very difficult. And almost any changes to the process can be a political hot potato because proponents of the initiative are generally hostile to legislative attempts to change it.

OTHERS WANT THE INITIATIVE

At the same time as some states are desperately seeking solutions for reining in an initiative process run amok, a few states without the process are thinking about implementing it for the first time. 
Seventeen states have seen legislation to implement I&R procedures during the 2001-2002 biennium, but it's gathered the most momentum in Minnesota and New York.

The initiative had its heyday during the Populist and Progressive movements around the turn of the last century with 19 states adopting the process between 1898 and 1918. Since then, only five states have adopted the initiative and referendum, most recently Mississippi in 1992.

If Representative Erik Paulsen has anything to do with it, Minnesota will be next. He's the sponsor of an I&R bill that's already passed the Minnesota House (and a similar bill in the last biennium that also passed the House). He says Minnesota needs the initiative and referendum process as a "safety valve" for situations when government fails to act.
"I've always been a believer in trusting the people to make decisions. The Legislature doesn't always act responsibly, and voters need an extra tool to deal with those situations," Paulsen says.

He says he's crafted his proposal carefully, trying to avoid some of the pitfalls other states have encountered with their processes. For instance, his measure calls for a so-called "geographic distribution requirement." Instead of gathering all their signatures during the lunch hour on the busiest corner in downtown Minneapolis, initiative proponents would have to fan out across the state, gathering signatures in at least three-fourths of the state's congressional districts.

I&R has gotten a lot of attention in New York recently, too. Governor George Pataki voiced support for it in his state-of-the-state address this year. At least 10 bills to implement the process have been introduced in the Legislature this biennium.

"Initiative and referendum represents the very core of democracy," says Senator Michael Nozzolio, who has supported the implementation of I&R throughout his legislative career. "It ensures that all people have a voice in the democratic process. It is an idea grounded in the belief that power ultimately rests in the hands of the people," he says.
Whether Minnesota or New York will join the list of initiative states remains to be seen and is ultimately up to voters in those states. Paulsen is confident that Minnesota will eventually become an I&R state, in spite of the fact that voters have turned down the issue three times in the past. Most recently, they declined to pass a 1980 constitutional amendment to implement the initiative. The vote was close in all three cases, though. Representative Paulsen is certain that if voters knew more about it, they'd support I&R.

CONTROVERSY CONTINUES

The only thing that is certain is that I&R will continue to be controversial in the states where it is heavily used. Legislatures in Arizona, California, Colorado and Oregon face an uphill battle in their efforts to make the initiative and the legislative process work together effectively.

"States need to get the best public policy we can out of the process, and we need a process that is fair, free of fraud and open to public scrutiny so that the voters have confidence in it," says Nebraska Senator DiAnna Schimek, who chairs the task force. The group will issue its recommendations for states on how to improve the initiative process at NCSL's Annual Meeting in Denver next month.

Similar suggestions from this and other reports include:

• Increase the requirements for disclosure of money spent on initiatives.
• Adopt an indirect initiative process and create incentives to encourage its use.
• Provide incentives for using volunteer signature-gatherers, such as requiring fewer signatures.
• Improve voter education on initiatives, including ballot pamphlets and public hearings.

Impose a single subject requirement for initiative proposals.