|
re ~nation'3 largest food processors, Lion. As vice~piesiaencorcrigineeringior'"now:"Kndihe~cominunity Kept two bust- regulaIIOn wo•
<br />:::id be there. So would representatives BH Electronics in Mazshall, he could nesses, a music store and an accounting wireless technc
<br />tae big. farmer-owned alcohol and report how the lack ofhigh-speed service firm, that almost surely would have left Training ~ti
<br />Ilot
<br />Jeff Jacoby'
<br />.stop Globe
<br />initiatives keep democracy on tracK
<br />BOSTON -When Winston
<br />urchill suggested in 1945 that a
<br />~erendum be held to decide
<br />-.ether to extend the all-party gov-
<br />~mentthathad led Britain during
<br />:~ war, Clement Attlee was
<br />palled. Referendums, the Labor
<br />arty leader spat, were an "instru-
<br />:ent ofNazism and fascism."
<br />David Broder doesn't go quite
<br />tat faz. But in a new book, "De-
<br />ocracy Derailed," he makes it
<br />fear that he regards ballot initia-
<br />ives -proposed laws that aze
<br />~~bmitted to a vote of the people
<br />- as a cancer on American de-
<br />.ocracy. The initiative process,
<br />writes, is "alien to the spirit of
<br />ne Constitution." It is a "favored
<br />:ool of millionaires and interest
<br />groups." It "threatens to chal-
<br />~nge or even subvert the Ameri-
<br />° stem of government." And
<br />ust on the first page.
<br />der is a highly respected
<br />political journalist, and his book
<br />- part of which ran on the Star
<br />ribune's May 21 Opinion page -
<br />;urveys the lively world of ballot
<br />,campaigns with the careful report-
<br />ing and amiable tone for which he
<br />is known. He reviews the history of
<br />initiatives, which grew out of the
<br />Progressive and Populist move-
<br />ments azound a century ago, and
<br />describes in some detail how the
<br />"initiative industry" operates
<br />today. It is fair to say he doesn't
<br />like what he sees.
<br />Ballot campaigns, Broder az-
<br />gues, undermine the republican
<br />form of government the Found-
<br />ing Fathers created. On a vast
<br />array of public issues, they by-
<br />pass the very officials who were
<br />elected to make public policy.
<br />"Indications" are that initiatives-
<br />can be deployed to hurt minor-
<br />ities. They aze peddled to voters
<br />in "blitzes of distortion and half-
<br />truths." Worst of all, the initiative
<br />process allows powerful interests
<br />simply to buy the laws they want.
<br />Is any of this really true?
<br />Take the tidal wave of initia-
<br />tives that Broder says is flooding
<br />American ballots.- 'From 1976
<br />through 1998, the average has
<br />been an astonishing 61 initia-
<br />tives" per election cycle, he
<br />writes. In 1997-98, the number
<br />was 66." It is a theme he has
<br />pressed in recent. columns. "Ev-
<br />eryone knows it rains a lot here,"
<br />he wrote from Oregon in April,
<br />"but lately it has been raining
<br />ballot initiatives."
<br />Don't reach for your umbrella
<br />just yet. On the legislative weath-
<br />er map, ballot issues amount to
<br />little more than scattered clouds.
<br />To begin with, initiatives aren't
<br />even allowed in 26 states. While
<br />that leaves 24 that do permit citi-
<br />zen-lawmaking, 56 percent of all
<br />ballot activity has occurred in just
<br />five: California. Colorado, North
<br />Dakota, Arizona, and, yes, Ore-
<br />gon. Even there, initiatives gener-
<br />ally fail. Most never make it to
<br />the ballot; of those that do, most
<br />usually go down to defeat.
<br />Consider California, often
<br />thought of as a state in which bal-
<br />lotpolitics is running amok In the
<br />89 years since California adopted
<br />the initiative process, 1,043 ballot
<br />measures have been submitted.
<br />.Only 272 - 26.1 percent - quali-
<br />fied for the ballot. Only 87 - 8.3
<br />percent- actually became law.
<br />In 1996, when the recent
<br />"flood" of initiatives crested, vot-
<br />ers in the 24 initiative states con-
<br />sidered atotal of 102 proposed
<br />laws. Of those, 45 passed. "By con-
<br />trast," says Dane Waters, presi-
<br />dent of the Initiative and Referen-
<br />dum Institute in Washington,
<br />D.C., "the legislatures in those 24
<br />states adopted over 17,000 laws
<br />that same yeaz." Voters may think
<br />ill of state legislators, but they aze
<br />not remotely close to displacing
<br />them as the dominant makers of
<br />law in America.
<br />Sure, laws passed at the ballot
<br />box can be unfair. But for real
<br />cruelty and injustice, you need a
<br />legislature. (It wasn't ballot activ-
<br />ists who segregated Southern
<br />drinking fountains.) And sure,
<br />campaigns for and against ballot
<br />initiatives sometimes resort to
<br />deceptive slogans and alarmist
<br />ads. The same can be said of
<br />every other type of campaign in
<br />American politics.
<br />Broder's greatest concern is
<br />that special interests with .deep
<br />pockets will hijack the initiative
<br />process for their own purposes,
<br />spending whatever it takes to
<br />change public policy as they see
<br />fit. He writes, for example, about.
<br />the "well-coordinated and richly
<br />financed effort" by three million-
<br />sires - New York financier
<br />George Soros, Cleveland insur-
<br />ance executive Peter Lewis, and
<br />Ehoenix businessman John Sper-
<br />ling - to legalize the medical use
<br />of marijuana. That effort met with
<br />spectacular success; of the five
<br />"medical marijuana" initiatives on
<br />state ballots in 1998, five carried.
<br />It would indeed be cause far
<br />worry if initiatives were routinely
<br />exploited by rich insiders for their
<br />own purposes. But they aren't.
<br />Political scientist Elisabeth Ger-
<br />ber, surveying 168 ballot cam-
<br />paigns in eight states, concluded
<br />that economic interest groups "are
<br />severely limited in their ability to
<br />pass new laws by initiative." Only
<br />31 percent of initiatives backed
<br />chiefly by special interests passed.
<br />while those put forward bybroad-
<br />based citizen groups succeeded 50
<br />percent of the time.
<br />In California, the disadvantage
<br />is even more lopsided: 40 percent
<br />of all initiatives on the ballot ir,
<br />1986-96 were adopted, but onl}
<br />14 percent of initiatives promot-
<br />ed by wealthy interests. The pat
<br />tern is the same in other states.
<br />"Democracy derailed?" On th
<br />contrary, ballot measures kee
<br />democracy on track Represents
<br />five government is not alway
<br />representative. When legislature
<br />refuse to heed the voters, initi~
<br />fives can set them straight.
<br />• ro ram for Social.
<br />l.e~s tr a collective investment p g
<br />recipients earning higher returns is These fur
<br />Sy Kenneth Zapp cleazly aimed at diverting public atten- one lazge
<br />George W. Bush and the Republicans Lion from the system's progressive vidual ac
<br />intent. Gov. Gee
<br />~~zcrLthe Social Security At the same time, Gore and the Dem- money c
<br />y .-~~~~~ seem determined to ignore the gressive i
<br />__~_~.e .,,Mle av~
<br />~ ~%v~~ ~:, ~i*cv~- ~ lit h.L. ~, ZC%C~t~ .~ r1~~1 I n bt-vJ'1-C
<br />•
<br />
|