Pubdate: Sun,  1 Dec 2002
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2002 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author:  Al Knight

Perspective

YES, BUT THEY NEED SOME REPAIR

Do Initiatives Still Work?

Every election year provokes a round of hand-wringing and whining about the 
initiative process. Foes of that process, a group that includes many 
legislators who wish to maintain their power, repeat the familiar refrain 
that citizens have been tricked into voting for schemes backed by moneyed 
political interests. This year, as in the past, there is a bit of truth to 
the charge. Voters sometimes do stupid things. Of course, so do 
legislatures. Mostly, however, voters get things right. This year, for 
example: Universal health care was rejected in Oregon; looser marijuana 
laws were rejected in several states; expensive transportation measures 
were defeated in California, Washington and Northern Virginia; and in 
Colorado and in California, voters rejected same-day voting proposals.

The big news out of Colorado this year was that the infusion of about $3.5 
million to defeat the English Language Education Amendment was more than 
enough. That was no real surprise. Historically, a half million dollars was 
enough to defeat any ballot measure in Colorado. What that means is that 
the opponents of Amendment 31 probably wasted about $3 million.

Supporters of the initiative process simply have to live with the fact that 
big money can kill a ballot measure. But the corresponding good news is 
that big money can't always buy a "yes" vote.

Millions were spent on some election-related issues this year, such as 
same-day voting and the mail-in ballot proposal, but those initiatives were 
defeated easily.

There is no sane method by which the influence of money can be taken out of 
the initiative process, so the issue becomes what can be done to improve it 
around the margins. Here's a modest, four-part proposal.

Repeal the single-subject rule, which was adopted by the voters several 
years ago to limit amendments to a single subject. Proponents assured the 
public that it would simply make initiatives subject to the same 
limitations imposed on the legislature. That was a lie. Ever since then, 
the Colorado Supreme Court has been pawing around in the text of 
controversial initiatives to find a second subject. Meanwhile, the state 
legislature continues to pass bills that arguably cover several subjects.

When a measure was submitted to refashion the way judges are selected, the 
court ruled it out, saying it contained multiple subjects. The point is, 
the single-subject rule invites manipulation and favoritism and reeks of 
conflict of interest. We should get rid of it.

Do something about the title-setting process, which summarizes the text. 
Some ballot titles are longer than a William Faulkner sentence and just as 
difficult to follow. The process is an invitation to selective 
manipulation. For example, the campaign-finance measure this year got a 
wonderful break from the title-setting board, which included a favorable 
description in the title. Some other issues, like the amendment to 
eliminate the caucus system, were very nearly impenetrable and virtually 
invited a "no" vote.

Why is this important? Because people go into the voting booth highly 
skeptical of all ballot measures. If the title is unclear or if it has been 
filled with loaded language, the voter may well decide to vote "no" without 
reading beyond the first few lines. A comparison of title length and 
language this year shows that when the legislature refers a measure to the 
ballot, it is short and to the point, giving it a huge advantage. Only the 
initiatives have exhaustive titles.

Do a better job with the Blue Book, which is published by the Legislative 
Council and goes to every voter. There was a time when it was more 
objective and more useful than it is now. The description of the arguments 
for and against a measure ought to be clear and complete. There is plenty 
of room for improvement.

If the aim is to reduce ballot clutter, the legislature could do its part 
by adopting a higher standard for referring a measure to the voters. This 
year they passed the buck on exempting term limits for district attorneys 
(easily defeated) and the proposal to add a new state holiday honoring the 
late labor leader, Cesar Chavez. If the lawmakers had paid $75 to a 
political consultant, they would have been told that both of these were 
losers (the holiday proposal lost by about a 5-1 margin) and they could 
have saved their energy, state expense and the voters' time.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth