Fri 1 May 2009
Are Coloradans Fit to Make Their Own Laws
Posted by Dennis Polhill under Constitution, Initiative and Referendum, Issue Papers - Independence Institute
[2] Comments
A Common Sense Primer on the Initiative Process
By Dennis Polhil
Introduction
On Election Day, Nov. 5, Colorado citizens will exercise their right to vote not only in electing candidates but also in deciding upon proposed laws, both statutory and constitutional. Some of these proposals will have been initiated by signature petitions, while others were referred from the General Assembly for final action by the voters.
The “initiative and referendum” feature of self-government in Colorado flows from the bold declaration in Article V, Section 1, of the State Constitution: “The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the general assembly and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly.” It is a provision not to be taken for granted, since more than half the states (26) do not recognize it in their constitutions, nor does it occur in the U.S. Constitution. It is prized by some Coloradans as an important bulwark of liberty, but criticized by others as a nuisance or flaw in the system.
Initiative and Referendum (I & R) is briskly debated in every election year as the ballot fills up with questions for decision and the airwaves buzz with ads pro and con. The debate becomes especially hot in years when the ballot process is used to revise itself, as was the case in 1994 with enactment of the single-subject rule as is recurring in 1996 with Referred Measure A, the 60-percent proposal, and Amendment 13, the petition rights measure. The present paper will not address the merits of those specific proposals, but will provide a general primer on petitions, ballot questions, and I & R as a time-honored feature of the U.S. and Colorado political scene in this century.
While this boisterous manifestation of popular sovereignty is no panacea, it cannot be waved off as a bogeyman in the way sometimes attempted by those who would foreclose all argument with the simple mantra, “representative government.” Our ancestors who pioneered representative government were the same ones who cherished petition rights from the time of the Magna Carta and who acknowledged them in the First Amendment right to petition. The petition right and representative government can more properly be seen as complementary, not antithetical, as the succeeding discussion will show.
Entire Paper: Are Coloradans Fit to Make Their Own Laws [Independence Institute Version] (PDF)
Entire Paper: Are Coloradans Fit to Make Their Own Laws [Initiative and Referendum Version] (PDF)
2 Responses to “ Are Coloradans Fit to Make Their Own Laws ”
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
[...] more extensive discussion of each is provided in “Are Coloradans fit to make their own laws?” By Dennis Polhill, Oct. 1996 which can be found at [...]
I became interested in the Initiative and Referendum process after the 1994 election when I learned that statements in the Colorado state voters guide were incorrect. Prior to this I had held the belief that the Blue Book was flawless. The error was made in their statement about the number of states with single subject limitations … a researcher had mixed up the single subject limitation as applies to legislation with single subject limitation as applies to the petition process. Thus, apples and oranges were mixed, providing wrong information and misleading voters. Single subject limitation on petitions passed in 1994 and has since been severely distorted by Colorado courts from what voters approved in 1994. This started me looking at various things that are commonly stated about the petition process and every time I got my hands on factual information it turned out to be the opposite of what was being asserted and commonly believed. As the 1996 election approached I had written over 50,000 words. It was a mess and too voluminous to be useful in expanding the understanding of the uninformed. So, to assist the Petition Rights Amendment on the 1996 ballot, I was forced to shrink all of this to just a few pages and those few relevant points. This paper addressed the 14 most commonly heard complaints about the petition process and examined those assertions for truth (one example was “issues on the ballot do not influence voter turn out positively.” Well, they do and it is indisputable. The facts are stark. Once this paper was released and went against the norm, some political science professors had the courage to look more objectively at the question and published more extensive studies proving this point beyond dispute. Now that this is a known and indisputable fact, deeper questions can be probed. Is this also true of referred measures on the ballot? Do more measures increase voter turn out more? Do referred measures and initiated measures influence voter turn out equally? Etc.). This paper also published for the first time a complete list of all ballot issues to appear on the Colorado ballot since 1912. I expected to be vilified for this writing but it was extensively footnoted, so those with preconceived notions addressed it by ignoring it. There is no need to search for truth when one has already made up their mind.