Taming the Initiative Beast.

• Author: Drage, Jennifer
• Position: Brief Article

As the number of initiatives on the ballot skyrockets, so too has the level of controversy over do-it-yourself lawmaking.

With the explosion in the number of initiatives on statewide ballots over the last decade, the merits and weaknesses of the process have become a subject of national debate. At the heart of it is the question: Does do-it-yourself lawmaking threaten our system of representative democracy or is it a valuable supplement to representative government?

Political consultant Sue Tupper sums up one side's view: "Its effect on representative democracy is chilling. Those elected to office, when threatened with an initiative, act like deer in the headlights and choose to dump the controversial issues on the voters. They end up either frozen in fear, or, cynically, have learned to use the process." The opposing side claims that the initiative is merely a check on one institution of representative democracy, the legislature, not a substitute for it, and that it is in fact often the only route available to those who seek to reform government.

A recent conference sponsored by the University of Virginia's center for Governmental Studies provided a forum for debate on these questions, and for an exchange of ideas on how, and if, the process should be reformed. The National Direct Democracy conference drew a wide array of participants and observers of initiative and referendum from pollsters, political consultants and professional signature gatherers to academics, journalists, attorneys and citizen groups that use the initiative. Panels covered such topics as how direct legislation affects state public policy, the financing of initiative campaigns, the role of the political consulting industry and an examination of proposals for reforming the process.

NOT SO BROKEN IT CAN'T BE FIXED

While the political ideologies of the participants varied widely, there seemed to be a general consensus that the initiative process isn't so broken that it can't be fixed. Some advocated radical reforms and regulations intended to decrease the use of the initiative, while others advocated less stringent action that might shed light on the sources of money in the process and encourage grassroots, volunteer efforts. A few favored a moratorium on all reforms of the process, believing it is already too heavily regulated and unfairly suppressed.

The ideas that percolated in this conference centered on reforms that would reduce the costs of qualifying an initiative...