TERM LIMITS QUOTES

Assembled by Dennis Polhill (1990 – 2007)

Quotes Directly Related to TERM LIMITS

REF #	QUOTE	AUTHOR	DATE	SOURCE
A7	I am for making of terms annual, and for sending an entire new set every year.	John Adams
A8	Where annual elections end, there slavery begins … Humility, patience, and moderation, without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey.	John Adams
A420	Politicians are like diapers: they must be changed often and for the same reason.	Paul Harvey
A483	My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years, rather than for life, was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governors which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget.	Thomas Jefferson
A490	No person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six.	Thomas Jefferson
A510	The ordinary affairs of a nation offer little difficulty to a person of any experience.	Thomas Jefferson
A562	The Governor (President) would serve a five-year term and be ineligible for reelection.	Thomas Jefferson	1784	In his model Constitution
A881	The security intended to the general liberty consists in the frequent election and in the rotation of the members of Congress.	James Madison & Alexander Hamilton	1782
A886	No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that … the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.	James Madison
A1367	Term limits would cure both senility and seniority– both terrible legislative diseases.	Harry S. Truman
A1407	The people must remain ever vigilant against tyrants masquerading as public servants.	George Washington
A1439	Term limits would make Congress bolder, more independent, and less risk-averse.	George Will
A1440	I am opposed to term limits because if we did not have seasoned professionals, we would not have the good government that we have.	George Will		[The statement he made that lead him to reverse his opinion]
27	Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on office, a rottenness begins in his conduct.	Thomas Jefferson
61	There is a long and honorable tradition of citizens in service to their nation that goes back at least as far as Cincinnatus, the Roman citizen who, more than once answered his country’s call, then returned to his farm and his family and his work.	Tom Clancy	1996 Executive Orders	Rights.com 1/5/2001
118	The short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.	Will Rogers	1879-1935	Rights.com 11/9/2000
436	A fondness for power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired.	Alexander Hamilton
437	That the members (of the three branches of government) may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating in the burdens of the people, they should at fixed periods be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all or any part of the former members shall be again eligible or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.	George Mason
439	If many have their turns to rule, … this will encourage all men to advance Righteousness and that the Commonwealth will hereby be furnished with able and experienced men, fit to govern.	Gerrard Winstanley
572	The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.	James Madison	1751-1836	Rights.com
863	The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with the power to endanger the public liberty.	John Adams	1772	Rights.com
1160	Those who formerly usurped the name of federalists, which, in fact, they never were, have now openly abandoned it, and are as openly marching by the road of construction, in a direct line to that consolidation which was always their real object.  They, almost to a man, are in possession of one branch of the government, and appear to be very strong in yours.  The three great questions of amendment now before you, will give the measure of their strength, I mean, 1st, the limitation of the term of the Presidential service; 2nd, the placing the choice of President effectually in the hands of the people; 3rd, the giving to Congress the power of internal improvement …	Thomas Jefferson	Feb. 14, 1824	Letter to Robert J. Garnett
1355	Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents, as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens.	George Mason	June 17, 1788	Speech at Virginia Ratifying Convention Founder’s Almanac 2001
1357	I leave to others the sublime delights of riding in the storm, better pleased with sound sleep & a warmer berth below it encircled, with the society of neighbors, friends & fellow laborers of the earth rather than with spies & sycophants … I have no ambition to govern men.  It is a painful and thankless office.	Thomas Jefferson	Dec. 28, 1796	Letter to John Adams Founder’s Almanac 2001
1358	The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.	James Madison	Feb. 19, 1788	Federalist No. 57 Founder’s Almanac 2001
1407	Those gentlemen, who will be elected senators, will fix themselves in the federal town, and become citizens of that town more than of your state.	George Mason	June 14, 1788	Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention Founder’s Almanac 2001
1664	Politics and self-interest have been so uniformly connected, that the world, from being so often deceived, has a right to be suspicious of public characters.	Thomas Paine	Feb. 1791	Rights of Man p. 210
2071	Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.	Chester Bowles	1901-1986
2154	Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.	Thomas Jefferson
2202	It is tempting to believe that social evils arise from the activities of evil men and that if only good men (like ourselves, naturally) wielded power, all would be well.  That view requires only emotion and self-praise – easy to come by and satisfying as well.  To understand why it is that ‘good’ men in positions of power will produce evil, while the ordinary man without power but able to engage in voluntary cooperation with his neighbors will produce good, requires analysis and thought, subordinating emotions to the rational.	F.A. Hayek	1944	The Road to Serfdom p. xii  preface by Friedman
2402	Judging is a matter for mature people and the breadth and depth necessary for maturity can better be acquired in the private sector than by a total lifetime on the bench.	Judge Malcolm R. Wilkey	1995	Dilger
2528	A (constitutional) amendment (for congressional term limits) could never achieve the blessing of Congress; it could be initiated only by the states.	Dwight D. Eisenhower	1965	Dilger
2587	Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their careers by paying obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.	Alexander Hamilton		Dilger Federalist No. #1
2794	The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.	Thomas Jefferson		Rights.com
2893	All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.	James Madison Federalist Papers		Your Money or your Life by Sheldon Richman, for ward by Walter E Williams
3029	The member (of Congress) who is not making a career of politics looks quite differently at the world.	Robert Novak	2003	Breach of Trust P. XI
3031	Careerism: the self-centered philosophy of governing to win the next election above all else.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. XIX
3034	The career politicians in Washington had transformed a government “for the people” into a government for themselves and for special interests.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. XXI
3037	Careerism in Washington “goes to the heart of what’s wrong in America right now.”	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 10
3040	The voting records of virtually every member of Congress reveal that the oath of office is more a ceremonial gesture than a sacred commitment.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 16
3045	When I came to Washington, I was troubled to observe so many similarities between the behaviors of drug-addicted patients and my political colleagues.  In Washington power is like morphine.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 32
3046	It is easy to see how after receiving this adoration for a term or two most members become convinced they are indispensable.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 33
3049	Career politicians do not have the courage to prioritize spending and say no to demanding special interest groups who do not reflect the best interests of the country.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 45
3050	What makes this mentality dangerous is that when the team is held together by careerism and mindless partisanship, individual members are punished for thinking for themselves.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 79
3056	If the voters really understood what we were up to they’d vote us out of office.	Senator Robert Byrd	2003	Breach of Trust P. 123
3058	People that had the guts to put their loyalty to the Constitution ahead of their loyalty to their political party were citizen legislators.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 139
3059	The founding fathers never once rationalized getting in power and having control so they could stay in power.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 164
3066	Critics may blame self-imposed term limits for encouraging fiscally conscientious Members of Congress to leave, but they fail to give term limits credit for developing that conscience.	John Berthoud	2003	Breach of Trust P. 178
3069	Statesmen exhibit five key commitments: 1)      A commitment to principles above politics; 2)      An ability to compromise without abandoning principle; 3)      A commitment to truth over spin; 4)      A commitment to courage over cowardice; and 5)      A commitment, or willingness, to give up power.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 188
3078	Few things infuse a member of Congress with more courage than self-imposed term limits or an imminent retirement.  The issues they choose to focus on in their final months say a great deal about what are really the most important issues in the country.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 208
3079	I would like to believe I would not have behaved differently had I not made a term limits pledge, but my own frailties and human desire for prestige and position tell me my term limits pledge did make a difference in how I approached my job in Congress.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 209
3080	“I’ve become a huge fan of term limits,” the former aide said, “because Armey and the others in leadership used to be just like you and your crew in their approach to spending.  They have changed over the years.”	Former Dick Armey aide	2003	Breach of Trust P. 208, quote from Mark Sanford’s book, The Trust Committed to Me
3081	“Of course, it’s easy for Coburn to rebel.  His six-year, self-imposed term limit ends in 2000, so there are no threats leadership can make to dissuade him.”	Roll Call	2003	Breach of Trust P. 209
3082	“Term limits set him free.  Having kept his word on term limits, Coburn also is more inclined than House careerists to make Congress keep its word.”	Debra Sanders	2003	Breach of Trust P. 209
3083	Coburn has little to fear in challenging the leaders because he came to Congress promising to stay no more than three terms, and his time is almost up.	Washington Post	2003	Breach of Trust P. 209
3086	The longer a politician bears power, the more he is controlled by that power.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 213
3089	The traits in career politicians the public detests most are produced when ego triumphs over principle.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 215
3090	We can achieve much greater representation through term-limited members.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 218
3092	I often found it ironic that many of my colleagues from the Class of 1994 who were accused of being partisan ideologues were far more willing to work with members from the other side of the aisle than some career politicians.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 221
3094	I still believe that term limits is the best way to ensure that the next generation, not the next election, is the central concern in our elected bodies.	Tom Coburn	2003	Breach of Trust P. 247
3095	Those who have once been intoxicated with power … can never willingly abandon it.	Edmund Burke	2003	Breach of Trust P. 253
3266	Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.	Thomas Paine	1776	Future of Freedom Foundation 11/5/04 Common Sense
3343	Power is sweet; it is a drug, the desire for which increases with a habit.	Bertrand Russell	1872-1970	Rights.com, 1951 Saturday Review
3416	After a time, civil servants tend to become no longer servants and no longer civil.	Winston Churchill
3819	Those who have been intoxicated with power  … can never willingly abandon it.	Edmund Burke		Rights.com
3843	We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.	Aesop		Future of Freedom Foundation, Sept. 18, 2005
3920	It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers.  James Madison said, ‘We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.’ This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power, is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.  This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.	Ronald Reagan	Oct. 27, 1964	Rights.com
4197	I still spit on authority today, the people who have the power and everyone trying to get it. Professional politicians are the biggest bunch of lazy f**ks in the world. We ought to forbid politicians from being professionals. Politics is a way of life, and if you make your living from it you don’t know anything about life anymore. This country is being run by politicians who don’t understand anything about life. They control more and more people, and it’s disgusting.	Roger Daltrey of ‘The Who’ in ‘Le nouvel Observateur’	July 12, 1994	Right.com
4443	The short memories of American voters, is what keeps our politicians in office.	Will Rogers		Rights.com
4489	Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.	Chester Bowles
4565	Republicans believe in certain things and Democrats in certain other things. But once in office, they both believe in one thing above all else: incumbency!	Paul Jacobs		“Common Sense”
4871	No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.	Abraham Lincoln	1854	Rights.com
4956	I apprehend… that the total abandonment of the principle of rotation in the offices of President and Senator will end in abuse.	Thomas Jefferson	1788	Future of Freedom Foundation, Sept. 28, 2007  Letter to Edward Rutledge
5025	They wanted me to be a Washington.	Napoleon		Washington’s Christmas Farewell
5163	I know politicians well enough to be more than just skeptical.  They are ALL a bunch of lying SOB’s if you ask me… if they’re not when they start, it doesn’t take them long to become one.	Dave Pearson	Jan 4 2008
5326	There is a danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.	John Adams,	Spring 1772	Future of Freedom Foundation, March 24, 2008 Notes for an Oration at Braintree
5353	Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?  Let history answer this question.	Thomas Jefferson	1801	Rights.com Investor’s Business Daily, November 25, 1998

]]> http://www.dennis.polhill.info/archives/376/feed 5 http://www.dennis.polhill.info/archives/362 http://www.dennis.polhill.info/archives/362#comments Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:14:14 +0000 Dennis Polhill http://www.dennis.polhill.info/?p=362 Moldova

By Dennis Polhill, 1997

BACKGROUND

The fall of the Berlin Wall on the other 9/11 … November 9, 1989, symbolized a blow against repression and on behalf of liberty. Eastern European Communist dictators subsequently fell in weekly succession. The USSR was composed of 15 “independent” Republics (When Lenin wrote the Soviet Constitution, the American Civil War had been relatively recent. Lenin wrote his constitution to avoid similar events among his Union members, pledging that each republic to join the Soviet Union would remain independent and free to leave at their pleasure. The reality of this promise proved otherwise). In the face of economic turmoil in 1991, Soviet Union President, Mikhail Gorbachev, sought to consolidate his power by reaffirming the Soviet Constitution with their first national referendum vote. Discontent among the participants resulted in inconsistencies. Some independent republics refused to participate in the referendum or neglected to schedule the election. Others placed other issues or qualifying conditions on their ballots. In the end, the largest referendum in world history reaffirmed nothing other than the independent republics may be independent after all. Gorbachev was still president, but president of nothing. There no longer was a Soviet Union. The USSR had an aggregate population of 300 million. When the 15 independent republics went their separate ways, Russia remained with a population of 150 million with Boris Yeltsin as its president.

Throughout the remainder of 1991 the Newly Independent States busily adopted new constitutions. Among other things and departing from socialist tradition these constitutions recognized the right of individuals to own property. Government bureaucracies resisted the creation of property rights by roadblocks of all kinds. As time passed, the natives grew increasingly restless asking “The constitution says I can own property. Where is my property?”

The various former Communist states attacked the problem differently. In Russia and Mongolia, having been under communism for over 70 years, there was virtually no living memory of property ownership. Others, such as Czech, had become communist after WW II and the elders remembered the property they once owned. In Czech, anyone who could prove their property ownership prior to confiscation had it returned on Feb. 1, 1993. So by a date-certain all property in Czech was either returned to its original owner, was in dispute because ownership evidence was inconclusive, or there was no claim and the state could dispose of the unclaimed properties by other means. Not knowing how to approach the task, most former Soviet Republics did little or nothing.

By 1996 the rumblings among the masses were noticed by USAID who wisely went to the most obscure piece (Moldova) of the FSU to find the most obscure collective farm (Mayak) where they paid all of the bribes, extortion and outrageous fees to subdivide the farm so every individual could have their own small farm. To grasp the scale of a collective farm, Americans should think of rural Iowa where an entire county would be a collective farm. The county would have a population of 1000 people. About half of the population would be farmers. The other half would be teachers, doctors, mechanics, etc. in a centrally located small town. When the subdividing was done, land titles were issued in a formal ceremony in January 1997. The emotional experience garnered major media coverage throughout the FSU, but none in the U.S.

USAID had proven issuing property to the people was possible. The next goal was to make it repeatable. Doing it a second time was not sufficient. This time USAID wisely refused to pay the bribes, etc., recognizing that the subdividing costs exceeded the property value. If the transaction costs exceed the value of the property, there could never be a secondary market. There would never be another sale after the initial subdivision.

USAID determined to do 70 collective farms, offering contracts paid in U.S. dollars to surveyors who would leave their government jobs to establish their own firms to do the work. Each surveyor would have several farms in their part of the country. The compensation would work out to about one dollar per parcel, which was a little more than a man-day equivalent (comparable to the U.S.). The economy of scale made this practical for the surveyors and workable for establishing a secondary market.

The bureaucracy was not happy with the USAID plan. Their gravy train of bribes, extortion and fees was at risk. When the program was announced one of the government ministers went on national TV demanding that the program be boycotted. Fortunately Paul Revere is alive and well (he just happens to not live in the U.S.). Sergi Gori was a 26 year old surveying instructor who reasoned, “They have lied to us forever about everything. Now they tell us to boycott. Therefore, the right thing must be the opposite of what they say.” Sergi was the first to sign a contract. As soon as there was one leader, there was a second and a third and finally 10 private companies existed. USAID had created a private sector for surveying and consulting engineering in Moldova.

When the wall came down, President Bush created a non-profit organization, CDC (Citizens Democracy Corps). It was a data base of resumes from volunteers. CDC matched resumes to requests for help. I had submitted a resume. The USAID subcontractor, Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, submitted a request for a surveyor who had left his government job to establish his own company as an advisor to the 10 new Moldovan surveying companies. My phone rang. They wanted me to go to Moldova for 2 months to fulfill this purpose. Had I not previously visited USSR, Czechoslovakia, and China, my apprehension would likely have been too great to accept. The diary of my time in Moldova follows.

The successful subdivision of the 70 collective farms in Moldova was of great interest throughout the Former Soviet part of the world. Georgia, instantly copied the Moldova program and was the first country to subdivide all of its collective farms. Ukraine being larger, more bureaucratic, and more corrupt, was still struggling to divide its farms in 2009. Moldova subdivided all of its collective farms defining property for all of its 4 million people. When the project was complete, the market for surveying shrank and several of the 10 surveyor-entrepreneurs went in different directions. One of the 10 businesses failed. At least two did collective farm subdividing in other countries. One used his surveying profits to buy a restaurant. One bought a prime piece of real estate in his town center and built an office building. Several serviced the secondary market for land transactions. Sergi relocated to his home town and established a chicken processing business.

Each collective farm elected both a Mayor and a President, both elected by the same population. The President of the collective farm managed the farming. He decided what crops would be planted in which fields, when they would plant, fertilized, irrigated and harvested and which workers would go to which fields on which days. The Mayor managed the remainder of the collective farm activities: doctors, teachers, mechanics, etc. The subdivision process was complicated by the fact that the people knew which parts of the collective farm were most productive. So a complex land fertility index system was established so those who received less productive land would get more land. Because wine is so important to the Moldovan culture, each farmer received 3 parcels: tillable land, orchard, and vineyard.

Non-farmers received a “garden plot.” Many of these garden plots turned into building lots, as they eagerly sought escape from city tenement life. In other words, where suburbs had previously not existed because the state prevented it, given a modicum of freedom the people busily invented suburbs. I witnessed the same thing in Cancun, Mexico. There, with a rented car, in addition to the normal tourist sights, I drove away from the beach as far as the road went. There, just like the people in Moldova, people were busily busting their butts to build single family dwellings from nothing. No money, no tools, no vehicle … carrying a couple of brick on their back for miles to add it to THEIR home.

Once the Moldovan farmers had their own land, they could make their own choices. Some would sell to send their child to college or lease to their neighbor, or farm it alone. In many cases they chose to re-collectivize, working together to operate one large farm, often under the leadership of the former president of the collective. About half of the farmers in each collective chose to go this route, the one they knew best. Each individual still had title to his land and could leave or sell at his sole discretion. Mongolia privatized its collective farms by creating an enterprise for each collective farm with the same boundaries and functions as the original collective farm … and each farmer then received ownership (or stock) shares in the enterprise.

CULTURE STORIES

I often relate stories of my personal experience in Moldova of how socialism injured the culture, the work ethic, the morals, and more, but have been derelict in not documenting these for future reference by others.

Apples: The one I have told the most often is about apples. When communism collapsed, so did the food distribution systems. So a farmer had a pile of apples he had harvested and says to me, “My apples will rot.” I reacted the same as every American I have told this story to by saying, “I don’t see a problem. Throw them on a truck and take them to town. Problem solved. Better yet, buy up some more apples, load them on a barge and take them to Istanbul and make even more money.” Farmer: “I could never get permission to do that.” The reaction of every American: “These are my apples. No one better get in the way of me selling them.” How is it that an American instantly knows the solution and no Moldovan does? The story exposes a corrupting influence of socialism on the culture. People are afraid to make decisions and to take action.

Peace Corps: Conceptually I think the Peace Corps is a good thing. But one has to question how the U.S. uses and manages it when one observes what I saw in the field. A couple examples follow.

Central Planning: I was tasked to attend a meeting. One of the presenters was a Peace Corps volunteer. After making several idiotic statements such as there no longer being any fish in the oceans, he responded to a local question about how Moldova should fix its economy. The Peace Corps volunteer commented, “You need more central planning.” Well, former Communists may not know much, but I will go out on a limb here and suggest central planning is one thing they know is wrong. This adds up to at least two massively misleading comments in one short presentation. If the Peace Corps is dispatched to help people, volunteers should know enough to ‘first do no damage’ … and try not to say anything when they don’t know anything. Moldovans are economically poor and not many of them will ever have the opportunity to visit the ocean to learn that they were misled.

Propaganda: I’m not remembering the details of how this came to happen. I was out in some remote part of Moldova, probably visiting one of the surveyors and there was a local NGO (non government organization) to which had a veteran Peace Corps volunteer had been assigned and with whom I was to meet. The telephone system in Moldova was unreliable but a meeting was finally set up. I arrived at the appointed time, 10:00 am. The guy was not there. After a time the NGO manager tried to phone him. Finally someone was sent to retrieve him. When he appeared, he demonstrated perhaps the worst attitude problem I have ever observed. He was obviously sleeping in intentionally to avoid meeting with me. He joined PC after serving in the U.S. military and had a prior PC assignment in Africa and he was in his second tour in Moldova. Evidently his only job with the NGO was to keep their two desktop computers working, so he probably did not put in very many hours … making the meeting with me a big imposition on him. Early in our exchange his problem was revealed so I got him outside the office so fewer of the locals could listen to his rants. Basically, he had adopted the belief that the Peace Corps should not be in Moldova because unlike Africa, Moldova had electricity part of the day. He called the PC presence in Moldova “propaganda.” Right or wrong on this point, Peace Corps volunteers are representatives of the U.S. (supposedly ambassadors of goodwill) and convey more by attitude, outlook, and behavior than anything they can do physically. This guy was out of his mind and probably should have been terminated. Where was his supervisor and why did they allow this negative individual to damage both the U.S. and Moldova by his presence?

Overhead Cost: Early after my arrival in Moldova, many of the new surveyor entrepreneurs were assembled for dinner so they could meet each other and gain some confidence in the project they were about to undertake. My assignment was to stay close to Peter, probably the most entrepreneurial of the surveyors and probably the strongest leader. Peter was a realist and expressed his fear, “If the communists come back, we will be the first to be hanged.” I assured him that could not happen. Because of how the seating worked out, Peter and I ended up with 2 translators. When we got into more of a business discussion, I noticed difficulty when I used the word “overhead cost.” The translators talked to each other and in the end Peter had a blank expression. I knew we had not communicated. My office was a bull pen with about 12 people: 6 translators, 3 surveyors (They were the big picture surveyors, not the contractors. These were probably the 3 most technically competent surveyors in Moldova), me and a few others. I went to the head translator and said, “I think there is a problem translating the word ‘overhead cost.’” Everyone went to the other side of the room and formed what looked to me like a football huddle. There was lots of noise and activity. Finally one of them approached me saying, “We know the meaning of overhead cost. It is when a project does not have enough money.” I said, “No. That is over run.” So, the moral of the story is, socialists understand a project running out of money, but have no clue about indirect costs … non-project related costs … overhead cost. I prepared a hand out defining overhead cost which went to all of the surveyors. It was Managerial Accounting 101 on one sheet of paper.

GPS: One of the 3 main surveyors came over to my desk one day asking, “Is GPS real?” Being the technical expert that he was, I thought the question somewhat odd. I started into explaining as best I could 3 dimensional triangulation and he interrupted saying he knew all of that. He wanted to know whether satellite global position was real and currently functioning technology. Are there really satellites up there that can do this? Wow!! I think GPS requires a fleet of 28 satellites. Both the U.S. and the USSR had their own fleet. But the Soviet GPS system was available only to their military. Meaning not even their most competent technical people were sure that GPS was real. So the correct answer to his question was “yes.” Now, how to prove it to him? Is it fair to conclude that the more secrets a government has from its people, the more authoritarian it is? I think so.

Profits: Under socialism, “profit” is a word that does not exist. So, the survey firms were getting familiar with some new verbiage. I was meeting with one of the surveyors. We had a long discussion about the best way for him to get his phones answered while he was away. He had hired a neighbor lady, who apparently did her job randomly and to her personal satisfaction, not his. Most of his calls were not being answered. Those answered rarely resulted in a message. We talked about him getting an answering machine. His objection was a machine costs more than a person. But the person is not doing the job. So it went. In the U.S. we fire such people. Evidently the lady harbored no such fear. She gets paid; any work she does is a bonus. As we parted he commented on how much money he would make now that he is a private business. Somehow he got it in his head that a 15% profit was automatic … an entitlement. To make him think about it, I said, “Maybe. More than 15% if your get the work done faster and less if you get the work done slower. And if you have to do the work a second time to get it right, your profit might be negative.” There was no evidence of any planning that would help him complete his projects efficiently. By contrast, in a similar discussion with Peter, he brought out a ledger book, where he had set up pages for each project and broken each project into tasks including time and cost estimates for each task. At the end he included a 10% contingency for unexpected difficulties and figured on doing all of the work with 50% of the contract amount … meaning, obviously, his intent was to make 50% profit. My guess: it was more likely that Peter got his 50% than the other guy got his 15%.

Roofs: While visiting the surveyor in northern Moldova and driving thru his town, I observed that the roofs on most of the houses appeared to be made of aluminum. He confirmed my observation. I said, “Aluminum seems to be a very expensive way to make a roof.” He said, “No. The aluminum is free.” As it turns out before the fall of the USSR, there had been an airplane factory in this town with most of the population working in it. The often heard Soviet maxim came to mind, “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.” Evidently this means, if you don’t like your wages, you are entitled to steal from your employer. Further, there is apparently no shame to this theft as most of the town had turned their homes into billboards announcing that they are thieves. Again socialism has worked to undermine the moral fabric of the culture on multiple fronts. When the Soviet Union fell, pessimists said it would be a generation for their economies to recover. Before their economies can work, they must have basic morality. Perhaps the pessimists were not pessimistic enough. How do they ever get this entitlement mentality and the immoral behavior that goes with it out of their thought process?

Street Sweeping: Many mornings I went jogging about 6 am and the streets were filled with hundreds of people sweeping the leaves by hand from the streets and sidewalks. Finally I asked Tonya (my translator) about this. First, why does this need to be done daily. Second, why not get the workers real brooms (instead of the thatched twig brooms they use) to be more efficient. Third, why not do it with a machine. She said with a straight face, if they did it more efficiently, those people would be without jobs. I said, no they would be free to do other work. She did not grasp my point. Socialism had deprived her of an understanding of the importance of the individual and the value an individual can contribute to society.

CIA: Each evening I walked down to the park to buy ice cream. One night one of my translators was there with her boyfriend, an attorney working with us to write Moldova’s first land code. I bought them ice cream. Sitting on a park bench, they finally got up the nerve to ask the question that had been bothering them. “Everyone says that the CIA tells the Americans here what to do.” Me: “Two things about that. First, thank you for having the comfort with me to ask the question. And, second, by asking the question, that tells me you don’t understand Americans very well. If the CIA did that, every American I know would instantly do the opposite of what they are told to do.” I left them to ponder. For me it was one more example of the authoritarian state imposing on its people and beating them down (subjugating them) to the point that they don’t know any longer what is true or not true. The corrupting influence of socialism has struck again.

Students: After many trips to the park and near the end of my stay, a group of 5 or 6 college students recognized me as a regular and approached as I enthusiastically ate my ice cream. They asked to confirm what they already knew … I was American on short term stay. They asked 3 simple questions about America which I answered as best I could and they summarily departed. I would have preferred to chit-chat longer. First they asked about Americans speaking second languages. I said there was essentially none (most folks here speak 5 or so languages. Not so much as a product of American being ignorant, but as a product of the countries being small and close … so they gain exposure from a young age). To the extent that there is a second language, it would be Spanish and I guess that 5% of Americans can speak it. Next they asked about race. They wanted to know how many blacks there were in America. I didn’t know but guessed it was less than 20% (the correct number is near 12%). They were shocked … probably because of sports events and entertainment they have seen on TV. They thought the U.S. was majority black. I don’t recall the third questions, which tells me it is a good thing to be writing some of this down.

Orange Juice: There were other volunteers besides me and the Peace Corps. These tended to be business people trying to do what they could to help. Most would come for a shorter time (more typically 2 weeks) and work with a single company in an industry with which they had experience. Factories were now called “enterprises.” The same people worked at them with the same management structure as under communism, but ownership had been transferred from the state to the people via a voucher system which ended with people owning shares of stock. I had met another American on his way home as I arrived. He had set up the Moldovan stock exchange and advised me to go look. I did and the guard was about to harass me until I said “Americanski” and then I had my run of the place and took some photos. It was a large room with 50 or more computer stations. But no people were there; nothing was happening; no stock was being traded. Because the stock was not paying dividends, it had no value and no one had the incentive to speculate and trade. I always wondered whether someone could buy all of the worthless stock for all of the worthless companies for peanuts and just sit on it … or change the incentives so people actually started to do their jobs. Back to orange juice … another volunteer I met was assigned to help an orange juice factory. We met 3 or 4 times. He was very frustrated and did not know what to write in his final report. The orange juice factory could not make money. It could not generate enough revenue to pay its people. So they paid them in boxes of orange juice … which made the black market problem worse … and further damaging the tax revenue stream needed to fund the government. Under communism there was no sales department and no marketing department, but they had 30 or so people in accounting calculating what the fee should be for a box of juice. The factory produced 2 sizes: 400 milliliters and 500 milliliters. Evidently, no one ever thought that the consumer might prefer a family size or anything else … but this is socialist culture, so not to worry, no consideration for consumers is given or expected. I suggested that maybe he should recommend that half of the accountants become sales representatives … even though the personality types for those two functions tend to be opposites. Thus, this recommendation would be convenient and compassionate (not firing the excess accountants), by design it was high risk, meaning even though the organizational structure would be improved, chances of success due to personality miss-match would likely be a problem. Under communism everyone’s job is safe, even the manager. So the idea of the manager holding an underperforming worker accountable or being accountable himself is another cultural issue. When the state privatized the enterprises, it kept 10% of the stock shares. If they really wanted their factories to start performing, they could divest that stock. It is wrong for the state to hold stock anyway. State minority stock holdings diminish the value of both the enterprise and all stock shares. The state could issue minority shareholder rights to itself and by so doing control all decisions with just a 10% share. One means of divesting could be to offer the 10% as a performance incentive for the CEO … or it could be a discounted purchase offered to the CEO based on performance of the enterprise … a stock option. I don’t know what was recommended.

Agricultural economics: Another volunteer was a Rhode Island university professor. He showed me the teaching aids he had created to use with his farmer-students. Unbelievable: It was first grade stuff. If you plant corn, seed cost this, fertilizer costs this, yield is this, sales price is this and revenue minus expenses is net. Repeat the exercise for wheat and beans etc. and then the farmer can make a rational choice about which crop to plant.

Opportunities: The last time I met with all of my surveyors before I came home, I offered them a challenge. Knowing how inept the average CEO was in Moldova, I suggested the room was filled with some of the best entrepreneurial talent in Moldova, because they had incurred expenses, they got the job done and they made money. How many others in Moldova have this experience? My parting homework assignment: go home and read the front page of your local newspaper and identify a minimum of 5 business opportunities that you might have interest in. I don’t know that they did their homework. Most of them seem to be doing OK now from the little I know. Peter is the only one who has managed to learn English. He now has email and is my only remaining contact in Moldova. Because of ongoing corruption in Moldova, he is considering immigrating to Czech.

Mass transit: Chisinau had trolleys. The fare was 1 cent (U.S. equivalent). But this is a socialist culture, so no one paid, except for the ignorant tourists (silly me). Probably the most thriving industry in the country was mobility. Vans could not be imported fast enough. They had invented the jitney industry (outlawed in the U.S. because it is more efficient than buses). A jitney is a van that runs a semi-fixed route, picking up and dropping off customers at the customer’s convenience. The fare was $1.00 per trip, but people willingly pay 100 times as much as the trolley because it got them where they need to go, when they need to get there. Perhaps jitneys are a concept that can be legalized someday in the U.S. … more mobility for less cost and at higher value to the consumer.

Corruption: Moldovans always had questions about America. During an interruption to one of the surveyor meetings, someone asked. “How can we ever succeed with this corruption and the Mafia stealing from us?” Those who know me would be shocked that I had an accidental astute reply. “Because you know that the U.S. had periods like this in its history (cowboys and Indians and train robbers and prohibition) and the U.S. made it thru successfully and is now better because of that experience, tells you there is an end possible. And because you know this history, you can get thru this period in your history faster than the U.S. was able to.”

Oklahoma City: In a similar setting the question came up about the Oklahoma City bombing. I said, “There are crazy people everywhere.” It was fun to watch them look at each other, starting to nod and smile. Every family has a crazy cousin.

Race Riots: Another time the locals were shocked to learn that the U.S. race riots were real. Communists had made a big point of these to illustrate the evils of capitalism. They said, “Because they lied to us so often, we never believed the race riots were real.” Amazing!! The lesson from this for the U.S. is our government should lie less in order to sustain credibility.

Ethnic Friction: I often practiced my “buna dimi natsa” (good morning in Romanian) with the locals. Frequently someone would correct me with, “Oh, he’s ‘Russian’ and cannot understand you.” Well, “Russian” did not mean he was Russian. Rather, it meant he was not Moldovan, which in turn meant he was not welcome and did not belong here. Many of these “Russians” were born here and simply never learned to speak Moldovan. In speaking with a tourist translator, she mentioned she was Bulgarian. I said, that is very interesting; how long have you lived in Moldova? She said, “300 years.” By that way of thinking not many of us are Americans.

DIARY

May 11, 1997 – Sunday – 9:30 am … Left Denver on Delta Airlines, changed in Cincinnati. Laid over 5 hrs. in Frankfurt, Germany. Spoke with German and Lituanian on airplane. Arrived Frankfurt 6:00 am. Tried internet phone in Frankfurt airport … it failed to send my emails, but did not fail to take my money.

May 12, 1997 – Monday – 11:15 am … I departed Frankfurt to Budapest on Malev (Hungarian Air). Arrived 1:00 pm. 50 to 100 soldiers were guarding Budapest airport. I took a taxi ($13.00) to second airport to catch the connecting flight. I tried to speak with young Hungarian mother with 2 year old daughter returning from L.A. The Hungarian language is different from the Slovak and Romance languages. On same flight was U.S. West cell phone system man from Tennessee going to Budapest. He gave me melatonin to help with sleep. They were putting up cell phone towers and mounting a cell phone on the walls of the homes, skipping the land-line step. Moldova Airlines was a turboprop. They served much wine and Champagne and bread with a meal. I sat with the head of the Moldova Chamber of Commerce. I was charged extra for my suitcase. I arrived in Chisinau at 6:00 pm. Irina of VOCA and a driver picked me up. She graduated high school in Kansas City. At my apartment I met Ludmila, who was with the Center for Private Business Reform (CPBR). In transit I also met Jerry and Julie Mosher and Joe Saunders from Georgia. They were building a Baptist Church.

May 13, 1997 – Tuesday – 5:00 am … Up. Jogged 33 minutes to McDonalds and back. 8:45 Irina arrived. We walked to the BAH (Booz, Allen, Hamilton) office. Met Bob Cemovich (boss), Al Slipher (second in command) and other BAH staff. My office is with five translators and three surveyors. Tanya (head translator) talked the most. Another American engineer will arrive soon to help with the project. Had lunch in office for $1.60. Veal, noodles, bread and coke. I did not eat cucumber salad. Mid-afternoon apple juice. Igor set up my computer with email address and delivered my emails (8). The office is open 24-7 hours with security guard. Too late to change money. Banks close at 6:00. Phoned Ludmila and Joe Saunders – Emailed Debby and Brian Propp (a friend with state department stationed in Kiev, Ukraine) and Doug Till (writing an Independence Institute paper).

May 14, 1997 – Wednesday – Today was a big day. I was the first one in the office at 8:00. Did some emails. Changed $100 to Lei. Met Steve, U.S. attorney working on enterprise sales. He was very frustrated. The government does not want the people to own property. He says the entire program is at a standstill. Clearly, the most important thing that needs to be done is to move the government out of the way (sound like the U.S.). I spoke a long time with Tonya, chief translator, regarding resistance to privatization. She is 27 and seems to understand markets. Evening was a dinner. I should have had my camera – a historical event. Several (about 5) of the survey firms were present. The purpose was to let them know that they are not alone. They are being pressured and intimidated because they are staking out the land for private ownership. I was assigned to sit with Peter from Cahul (the south). BAH is concerned that he is undertaking too many farms and will lose control. Peter is a university professor with two sons. One plays college basketball. Peter seems very competent. Part of the reason he is getting much work is that the farmers are coming to him. It seems that he is effective at the difficult task of reconciling disputes among the farmers so that the subdivision and privatization may move ahead. Once the farmers agree among themselves, the power of the government officials to frustrate the process is gone. Peter understands the need for property rights and said he “would be the first to be hanged if the communists returned.” I said it was impossible … but his concern illustrates the fear and pressure the surveyors are under. I could barely contain tears many times as we spoke. Who knows what they are going thru, and how important it is, not just to their freedom but to the freedom of all people everywhere?

May 15, 1997 – Thursday – Ran again … every day so far … 30+ minutes. Got to office at 8:30. Emailed attached file to Doug Till and suggested to Dave Bishop that he contact John Semmons. Bob Cemovich took me to the weekly embassy meeting with 6 or 7 U.S. entities cooperating on various aspects of privatization. A good, but too short, talk with Bob in the car. He was impressed with my Marshall Plan research of 1993 (not published). We will do lunch Saturday. At noon I went to VOCA office and met the people there: Irina, Elaina, Visili, Sergi, Giani. VOCA will pay me $10/day and they gave me $200 in advance. BAH will pay the same. … So I will probably take more money home than I brought. I went to Ukraine Embassy for a Visa to visit Ukraine, but they are open only 10 to 12 on M, W, & F. Went on Crivoca Winery tour. It is like a city 200 meters (600 feet) underground. Blocks of limestone are carved from underground to use for building and the remaining tunnels are the winery. The tunnels are 120 km (75 miles) in length. 1,000,000 bottle so wine are stored here. We were forced to try 12 different kinds and they gave two bottles as samples to each person. I spoke at length with Valery Efimov (CPBR) about the problems of the privatization program. Vouchers were issued to all citizens and exchanged at auctions for stock in 1500 companies. Some stock and some companies are still held by the state. Very few companies pay stock dividends and because the state has some stock in every company, it wants veto power over decisions. Mike from MOP (Ministry of Privatization) forced me to drink too much wine. Had dinner with Ludmilla (the VOCA-landlord facilitator). Watched video of Rumanian folk dances. Bed at 11:30.

May 16, 1997 – Friday – Up at 4:00 am – Ran around lake. Wrote in diary. In office at 8:30. Sent emails. Met Rick, the surveyor who just arrived from Florida, not licensed, but a competent hands-on surveyor. Lunch with Rick and Tanya at Turkish restaurant. A long meeting before and after lunch regarding the steps to convey land. Salary for entry level teacher is 80 Lei (what 3 of us paid for lunch today) = $17/month. Office has wine and cognac after work. Drank too much … again … there seems to be a theme here.

May 17, 1997 – Saturday – Overslept. Up at 8:00. At office at 9:00. More too-long meetings before and after lunch regarding coordinate systems, aerial photos, maps, and other procedures. Lunch with Bob C. (Mexican) making some goal decisions. Talked again about Marshall Plan. I will give talk to Moldovan attorneys about term limits and petitions. I will go on a bunch of 2 day trips to visit the fledgeling surveying companies and evaluate their procedures. Left at 4:00. Bought a 2 liter bottle of Coke for 9 Lei. I got an ice cream bar for 1.6 Lei. I could not find grocery store or bread. Home, nap, CNN (European … I learned more about the impending election in France than any American wants to know). Filtered water and studied history of the one collective farm that has been privatized. Called Deb and Tyler. Bed at 1:00 am.

May 18, 1997 – Sunday. Up at 8:30 am. Ran around lake. Took pictures of apartment. Inventoried the gifts I had brought. Wrote plan on how to approach surveying companies on their business procedures. Ran into Bob from N.C. in the park, listening to band. He and his wife were with 2 other Americans, elderly ladies from Peace Corps. Bob is retired and used to work in finance … and is working with CBPR to help a canning company. Went to circus with Ludmila. Brought a loaf of bread. A big park I walked past had flower vendors side by side (probably more than 50 of them). Called Deb. In bed at 11:00.

May 19, 1997 – Monday – 6:00 am. Ran lake. Many soldiers running also. About 8 groups of 12+. I have been going past the U.S. Embassy to get to the lake. 8:00 at office. Typed memo to Bob.C. Went to Ukraine Embassy again, trying to get them to give me a Visa. Must have a letter of invitation stating purpose. I told them my purpose was to spend tourist dollars there and I knew no one who could supply such a letter. I asked why they were making it so difficult and I might not go. They acted disappointed that I might not go, saying “those are the rules.” Plus, they wanted $50. Maybe it would have been simpler if I offered the $50 first. Later, I changed $100 to lei. Lunch with Sean Carmody, American head of VOCA. Reached David Nolan at Peace Corps. We will try to do dinner next week end. Received 11 emails. Met with Bob C. regarding scope. Studied list of contractors and collective farms, mapping some of the locations. Phoned APFC … Elaine on vacation, spoke with Nancy. Figured out how to check my VM box in Denver. The phones and phone switching system uses the old dialers. So after I’m in the mail box, I switch the phone to “tone.” One of the Moldovan attorneys, Viorelia, turned 25 today. Birthday party at 5:30. I gave 5 lei ($1.00) for her gift. Bob says they find a reason to drink 4 nights per week. Home at 7:30. I walked to grocery store to buy bread, orange juice, vegetable oil, jelly, coke. Asleep at 11:00.

May 20, 1997 – Tuesday – 5:30 am … no running today. Meeting at 7:00 at office to drive to Balti (Moldova’s second largest city and a manufacturing center), where a collective farm was being surveyed. Got back at 10:00 pm. Beers with Rick at Dache Hotel. Home at 11:00. Took 2 cars. Rode with Oxanna and Rick. Met with Mircea Ginju, the surveyor-entrepreneur in Balti area (pronounced “belts”). We looked at his computer and maps. Mircea showed us a Mylar 1:10,000 orthographic map flown in 1987. It shows contours and buildings. Similar maps exist for each collective farm in the country. We had coffee with Mircea. Then we went to the “8 Martie” collective farm associated with the village of Hisnasenii near Cubolta, about 20 km north of Balti. This collective has about 2500 people … 600 retired, 300 children, a school, hospital, 1000 homes, 600 farm workers. We observed Ginju’s field crew surveying a vineyard. Procedures were normal, using 30 year old 30” theodolite and inverted stadia rod. We visited the Primaria (mayor) and president of the collective farm. Both were recently elected as communists in the first ever contested elections. They have lost links to markets and are having difficulty selling their goods. They started building a canning factory but ran out of money. No restaurants for lunch so the school cooks did up some stuff. Lunch went from 1:00 to 5:00. I drank about one tenth of the required alcohol intake which was twice my normal allotment (Evidently, disappointed at my meager alcohol intake, the mayor tried to gain favor by giving me one of the ladies. One would assume they were beyond this level of maturity. I declined his gracious offer in the most diplomatic way possible. I had more drinks). The mayor and the president are torn, but committed to privatization reforms. Back to Balti and more drinks with Ginju and his crew. Finally, we left at 7:00. At the collective also was a representative from MOP (Ministry of Privatization who was paid by CBPR = USAID), Folotorier Pefres, from Socora, even farther north. He pushed hard for a visit to Soroca, MOP. The perspective on this is the sacrifice these people are making for their children. They gave up a level of material security and no freedom so the next generation could have some freedom and opportunity … totally opposite to the U.S. whose policy is to enslave our children with unthinkable debts, taxes and financial burdens.

May 21, 1997 – Wednesday – 6:00 am up and around the lake. Connected with Brian Propp and scheduled lunch Thursday. I got a massage at Dachia Hotel. It was 1 hour for 40 lei = $9.00. She worked hard on beating up my skin but did not do much for the muscles. At the office at 9:00. We discussed the adequacy of Co-Go (coordinate geometry software) program being developed locally. Phoned producer in U.S. – has demo on internet. I located more of the collective farms on the map. I met with Al Slipher about going to survey firms. I met with Vicili Yakub (BAH staff surveyor, Moldovan). Peter from Cahul will be in Friday. 7:00 met Bob and Henrietta Wolbering from N.C. for dinner. I had pork, French fries, bread and wine. Bob is working with a cannery. They have no perception of costs. He gave many stories of pricing stupidity. Like a package of orange juice with 15% more volume priced at 6 times the other package. They mix fixed and variable costs. Excess inventory. Overhead. He had prepared no materials that would be useful for the surveyors. Home at 10:00. To bed at 11:00. Awakened at 3:00 am by the light of the full moon coming in my window.

May 22, 1997 – Thursday – 6:00 am up and around the lake. Confirmed lunch today with Propp. He has a car and will pick me up at the office. More meetings about maps and coordinates. Lunch with Brian at Old City Café … steak and French fries. Discussed Reform Party (this is where Brian and I first met in Colorado) and taxation. His wife, Loella is still in Kiev. His daughters are in Denver. Oldest (20) gets married in July. We will try to do dinner tonight. We will try to meet with Perot when he comes to Denver. After lunch met Sergi Gori, surveyor-contractor. He was the first to sign up, 20 minutes after minister asked all of them to boycott. He is a young professor who works out of his home and has two field crews. I will meet with him again next Thursday. Beers with Bob C., Rick, Allan, Steve, and Joe Murphy. Murphy is helping set up stock exchange. Of the 80 companies, none pay dividends. He is going home due to funding cuts. Bob C. asked for copy of my Marshall Plan research. I went back to office to send emails. I went to park for dinner … ice cream. Bob Wolmering (NC) was out for a walk. We walked together to my place and had wine. Cleaning lady had left flowers. It rained. He went home at 10:00. Propp called for dinner at 10:00 … declined … too late. He was working on press release for container of medical supplies arriving in morning from U.S. military base closing in Germany. To bed at 11:00.

May 23, 1997 – Friday – Mosquito woke me up at 5:00; out of bed at 7:00. No running. Called Debby from office 8:15. Surveyors were in to get paid. I met more of the surveyors. Got schedule commitments for the next 2 weeks. Tonya (the elder of the 2 Tonyas, not the boss-Tanya) will be assigned my permanent translator. I must begin assembling materials for my field visits. Anna (the tall translator) is 20 today, birthday party. Home early and worked on calculating average durations of the 11 work tasks. Lunch with Al, Rick and John. John has a 5 day business course … 1 day of accounting and finance. I will review it with John and try to schedule for the week of June 9. I spoke with Galina. She will try to teach me some Romanian. One day per week for 1 hour for $5.00. Starts Sunday. I will meet Dave Nolan, Peace Corps, Sunday afternoon. Called Debby and Tyler at 1:00 am.

May 24, 1997 – Saturday – Up at 7:00 am. Ran lake … picked up some speed. Finished durations. To office at 9:00. No one was in except a group debating coordinates. Found and read public opinion poll of Moldovans regarding media. Received Kiplinger from Debby by email. Sent emails to Cameryn at the Independence Institute and Anne Campbell, regarding her PhD. dissertation. Lunch with Rick, Gregori Brianu (the lead local BAH surveyor) and John (driver) at El Paso Café. Meeting at 2:00 at CPBR regarding status of 70 farms. Returned to office. Beers with Allan and Rick. Home. Walked to Fidesco (grocery store) to buy bread, cheese, orange juice, cookies, pretzels. Stopped for hot dog and ice cream at park. Walked home a different route … past “the” cathedral. Priests are regularly seen on the streets collecting donations to rebuild the bell towers that the communists demolished throughout Moldova. I made a list of my TV channels, so I would know which language is being spoken on each. Napped; wrote in diary; and snacked on bread and cheese.

May 25, 1997 – Sunday – I was annoyed by a mosquito all night (I bet his name was Dennis). Up at 8:00. No run. Romanian lesson is at 11:00. Galina is the first local to express discomfort with the number of local “Russians.” $5.00. Same time next Sunday. I tried to meet, but could not find, Dave Nolan at the lake. Too many people; a concert. We will do lunch Monday. Sean Carmody, sick, cancelled dinner. Elaina, Sean’s secretary, got a business degree in the U.S. and is studying for a second business degree here. She confirmed that there is no word for “overhead cost,” nor is there any understanding of it. Even her professors have no understanding of it. I wrote some stuff to explain overhead cost to the surveyors. Meet the Press was on TV in the evening but was a rerun from many months prior. It rained constantly from 2:00 pm on. Killed the mosquito. Listened to Romanian language tape. To bed after midnight.

May 26, 1997 – Monday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; 8:30 at office. I immediately started an argument among the locals by asking about “overhead cost.” They finally decided it is when a project budget must be increased. “Indirect costs may be what we call overhead.” Met surveyor #7. Lunch with Dave Nolan and Kelly King of the Peace Corps. Dave is working with non-profits, NGOs (non government organizations). Kelly is on a collective farm helping teachers. She is from Virginia, has been here two years and goes home in August. She goes to the Peace Corps office weekly in Chisinau so she can get a shower. Changed $100 to lei. Bought coke. Another massage by Nina at Dachia Hotel for left lower back pain. Back to office. Robert Mitchell, American attorney who is helping local attorneys write land code, and I had dinner. Back to the office. It was too chilly for a T-shirt. Home at 10:00 and to bed at 11:30.

May 27, 1997 – Tuesday – Up at 6:00 am. Slept well; no mosquito; reasonable temperature; no run. To the office at 7:00; woke up security guard. Phoned Peace Corps guy in Cruileni; he will be in office Thursday afternoon so we can stop to talk with him then. Completed a bar chart for surveyors. Left my Marshall Plan file for Bob C. Lunch at office, beef stroganoff. Copied project management manual for surveyors. Talked with NewBizNet about seminar for surveyors. In bed at 11:00.

May 28, 1997 – Wednesday – Awake at 6:00 am; laid in bed thinking about surveyors until 8:00. Organized papers. To office at 10:30. Lunch at office was chicken and mashed potatoes. Met with NewBizNet again. Tanya, head translator, tries to learn 10 new English words each day, so it is a game at lunch to try to stump her. Found a bread place between home and office. Got a loaf of French bread and ate it all. Tanya wants to come to U.S. Reviewed papers for tomorrow.

May 29, 1997 – Thursday – Up before 6:00 am; ran lake; office at 8:00. We headed for Criuleni at 8:30 to meet with Sergi Gori (surveyor) at his office. We discussed his business plan, bar chart, corporate goals, balance sheet, and overhead costs. Lunch with Sergi and his parents. He is 25 was a teacher of surveying. He will succeed. Stopped at the MOP regional office to meet Richard Corey, Peace Corps. He had nothing to offer and thinks the Peace Corps should not be here. PC presence here is “propaganda, not humanitarian assistance.” I gave him a mini-cheerleader speech. I doubt that he is capable of much leadership. We picked up Adrian (computer guy) who we had left with Sergi. Back to the BAH office at 4:30. Home; then to the park for hot dog; phoned Larissa in Moscow and Brian Propp in Kiev. To bed at 11:00.

May 30, 1997 – Friday – Up at 6:00 am; no run; at office at 8:00; did emails. Loretta (USAID) is scheduled to go with us to Orhei; need a bigger car. When she arrived, we learned she could not go; back to plan A. We got to Orhei at 9:30. Vlad Sevcenco and Efim Trajanovsky, partners, were not ready. Vlad seemed to have a good handle on the money. He acted as if he understood “overhead cost.” Vlad had little interest in surveying and is involved in other entrepreneurial ventures. They moved the conversation to marketing. We discussed brochures and statements of qualifications. They want to do GIS conversion work. I left them a Walsh and Associates (environmental engineering firm in Colorado) brochure. They had planned lunch at collective farm and tour of the castle (most of the castles in Moldova had been dismantled during the Islamic occupation). Because we had to be back at 2:00 for a meeting, we had a quick restaurant lunch and skipped the castle tour. I left them a U.S. Atlas and maps of Colorado and Denver. At lunch they wanted to discuss political corruption; I tried to match their stories with mine about the U.S Congress and the need for term limits (I think they won this contest). We got back to the office at 2:30. Did a few emails to home and others. There was a formal dinner at Caacho Restaurant at 7:30 with Loretta, Al, Steve, and Millie (Steve’s wife). Home at 10:00; to bed at 11:00.

May 31, 1997 – Saturday – Up at 6:00 am; at office at 7:00. We picked up Vicili on the way to Cahul. We could see Romania on the other side of the Prut River (the border), but not time or visa to go there … maybe later. We met Nellie, Peter’s wife and technical manager. Peter just executed a 5 year lease for his office at the Institute. It was free in exchange for computer training of students. He already has a bar chart and budgets per task on each project. He has two contracts to survey farms separate from BAH at twice the fee. We got into a deep discussion of overhead. He attended a state sponsored seminar on marketing. He thought it was poorly done because it was from the “old system” perspective. He has 7 employees, including two new engineers. He keeps a daily diary with production rates of each person and crew and weather, etc. He knows whether or not work is getting done. We arrived at 9:30; had lunch at noon; left at 1:00; back in Chisinau at 4:00. We had a nice discussion in the car with Visili and Tonya about Jefferson, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, Marx, Lenin, freedom, etc.

June 1, 1997 – Sunday – Up at 7:00 am; ran lake; good finish; Romanian lesson at 11:00; studied Romanian most of the day; called Debby; listened to sales tapes; took notes for surveyors; went to park for ice cream; bed at midnight.

June 2, 1997 – Monday – Up at 7:00 am; no run; office at 8:00; 22 emails; wrote status report of the first 3 visits; met with NewBizNet about June 11 seminar; brainstormed with Steve about stagnated status of land privatization of land owned by 2400 enterprises (factories). Conclusion: two groups of seven enterprises operate in friendly environments and can proceed to create the seed for a private land market. A market does not exist until there is a second sale. I ran into Diona (translator) and Andre (attorney) holding hands. They are a pair but he won’t say his age because he thinks he is too old for her. We talked about Mafia, parliament, corruption, etc. I bought them ice cream. Finally Diona asked if the rumor was true. “Are the Americans here CIA or coached by CIA?” She would not have asked if she did not know in her heart it to be untrue. Andre was a prosecutor before going to work for BAH and knows Mafia to be real. I met 2 girls (maybe 11 and 8). They spoke a little English. I gave them gum. Elaina from VOCA called and wanted to reschedule lunch. I called Ludmila to discuss Brian Propp job prospect, laundry and CPBR training. Today I started to get a better sense of the animosity between locals and ethnic Russians. It was a brief discussion with Lena about her moving to Moscow … that made things said by others come together (Tonya, Ludmila, Oxanna, etc.). It is not so subtle. The “Russians” are clearly not welcome and they feel it.

June 3, 1997 – Tuesday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; record speed; finished status report. Long meeting with Allen. He asked again if I would stay longer. I will consider. He is questioning the foreign policy objective because some programs are working in opposite directions. Anna’s (the tall) entire job is to translate newspaper articles to English. She will give me copies. I met again with NewBizNet. They did not get pricing done. I sent 5 emails (McKenna, Hosken, Merrick, Sellards, Kaufman) about the possibility of subcontracts to local firms. Adrian Cazacu is very interested. I called my vm and Cameryn at the Independence Institute. Re-emailed to Cameryn. Another BAH after-work drinking party. Had one and left. Organized for trip; CNN: McVeigh was found guilty.

June 4, 1997 – Wednesday – Up at 5:00 am; no run; packed for overnight; at office at 7:00; at Mircea Ginju’s office in Balti at 9:00; 2 hour meeting; Mutu (third BAH surveyor) needed to stop at CPBR regional office. We visited a nearby Orthodox Church while waiting for Mutu. It had no chairs and no pews. The people stand for an entire 3 hour service. I took pictures. The priest would not let me ring the bell. On to Floresti to meet with Grigore Ursu. Like Ginju, Ursu was preoccupied with the many activities of running his business. Cazacu did computer training of two employees while we talked. We had chocolate and cokes. No lunch. On to Brinceni to meet with Valentine Gauzin. We arrived at 5:30. He was in a meeting after which he had to go home to get his computer (It was not safe to have it at his office). Here is an example of the ethnic friction: Gauzin was born and raised in Moldova, but because he speaks Russian and not Moldovan he is considered “Russian” and is not welcome in his own country. He considers himself Ukrainian first, partly because the far north tip of Moldova was once part of Ukraine and partly because he feels unwelcome in his country. Under Soviet Union domination, Russian was taught as the first language. The byproduct is 100% of Moldovans speak Russian and 50% speak Moldovan. Moldovan is a dialect of Romanian. Russian and Ukrainian are both Slavic languages and are similar. Romanian is a Roman (Romance) language with many words similar to English, French, Italian, etc. Computer work (installing printer) was cut short when power went out. Went to dinner at 8:00, thinking it would be quick. Power went out again during dinner. We had planned to stay overnight but Tonya was emphatic that it would not be enjoyable so we left for Chisinau at 10:30, arriving home at 2:30. Tonya argued that since we drove half of the night, we did not have to work the next day. I said, no, I am here to get as much stuff done as I am able.

June 5, 1997 – Thursday – Up at 9:00 am; ran lake slowly; dropped a pound to 81 kilos, probably due to less food and alcohol yesterday. I got to the office at noon. I met with the other far north surveyor that we missed on our trip (Marcel). He is young and sharp and split off from Gauzin (partners, now competitors). I resent some emails that may not have gotten thru. Internet access is limited. The system collects them and they go on line once or twice per day and send them in batches. Had dinner at Robert Mitchell’s home with Sean Carmody. Later we went to play pool. Home at 10:00; bed at midnight.

June 6, 1997 – Friday – Up at 6:00 am; no run; office at 8:30; gave Lena $20 for Ukraine Visa. She will bring it back this afternoon. Grigori Brianu (local boss of everything, subordinate to Bob C.) wants to postpone seminar. I will develop a new plan. He wants survey companies focused on technical and production tasks. Beers after work with Joe Murry (his program was cancelled) and Al Slipher. Both have many complaints about U.S. foreign policy objectives. Joe has week off; then new assignment in Bosnia. Al and I discussed Marshall Plan at length. Home at 9:00; called Deb and Tyler.

June 7, 1997 – Saturday – Went to Hinchesti to meet with a survey firm, 2 partners. Back at 1:00; Romanian lesson at 2:00. John, my driver, showed me Chibanu’s house (outgoing MOP head was caught in a scandal), about one block from my apartment. Dinner with Sean Carmody and Nora Dudwick (World Bank) spawned interesting discussion about Moldova. I challenged Sean to offer a solution. Sean is at the end of his 3 year learning curve and is looking forward to leaving. Nora is also working on the farm privatization program and will be here 1 ½ weeks from DC and is fluent in Russian. Her Jewish parents left Ukraine in 1920. She is an anthropologist and will study poverty and hunger on farms. I suggested making the president of the collective farms (soon to be unemployed) the marketing agents for the farmers.

June 8, 1997 – Sunday – 7:30 am left for Ukraine with Oxanna and Valery, her husband, a driver. Got home at 7:30 pm; 3 hr drive each way. At the border they would not let Oxanna cross because her passport had expired. So she got out of the car and walked across, no problem. Coming back I lost count after 10 stops to cross the border (probably close to 14). Oxanna walked across again. There are two borders: Molodova-Transdneister and Transdneister-Ukraine. Transdneistria is the part of Moldova on the east side of the Dniester River. It is a breakaway region, as if Moldova is not small enough, roughly a million people who prefer to be an independent state. Their second choice would be to annex to Ukraine. The least tolerable option to them was to be part of Moldova. There was a mini-civil war here in 1993 that resulted in several hundred deaths with no coverage by the American media. Our first stop was the Black Sea; lots of fat people; 11:30; no one topless. We took a tram to get back up the hill … it did not slow down for boarding … very dangerous. I took 1 ½ rolls of pictures. In a courtyard one group of apartments took up a full city block, with a communal central courtyard where children played and people fixed their cars. There was one entry way to the center; the apartments face the courtyard. We toured past opera house, mayor’s office, Pushkin’s house, several weddings, new port built by Italy in 1992, flee market. We had Cokes and snack … then to parliament, founder of Ukraine (missed the name), Odessa City Limits sign, emissions test, street cleaning, catacombs (freedom fighters hid in the catacombs during WW II … 2000 km (1250 miles) of tunnels under city, service station, water tower, well. Paid them $90 in one dollar bills (what they wanted). I will use the rest of my one dollar bills the next time I change money.

June 9, 1997 – Monday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; OK time; detour to avoid dogs; office at 9:00; worked all day on 18 emails; home at 5:30; massage for 10 lei ($2); hamburger at Turkish restaurant.

June 10, 1997 – Tuesday – Up at 6:00 am; no run; office at 8:30; package from U.S. with Independence Institute Issue Paper in need of edits. Bought wine to take to Debby and plastic blocks for Oxanna’s daughter. Not feeling 100%; maybe one of those bugs finally got in. 14 emails; home early; stopped at grocery store for bread and orange juice. Ludmila came over to brainstorm on her job prospects. She left at 9:30. Cleaning lady did not come (a friend died). So, tomorrow I wear twice used socks and shorts … standard procedure for the locals. When we went for the overnight trip to Balti, I was the only one with an overnight bag.

June 11, 1997 – Wednesday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; office at 8:00; met with Bob C. and Al; 10 emails. I will do a status report to send to the survey companies. I am to consider a return trip in November. I met with two of the NewBizNet professors. I went to the National Palace with Ginadi (IESC) and a new batch of American volunteers to see local cultural concert; very interesting; colorful costumes; many violins; lots of yodeling and screeching-type singing; accordion; many people (maybe 3000). Diona and Andre were there. People from the audience took flowers to the performers after each number. A new minister of privatization (MOP) was appointed today (Urie Badir who was part of the agency that audited/investigated Chibanu).

June 12, 1997 – Thursday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; new personal best; late to office at 9:00; took a long time to stop sweating; down to 81 kilos = 178 pounds. Made notes for presentation to attorneys. I received my Issue Paper on I&R from the Independence Institute. I bumped into Mike from Ohio on the street; he was part of Ginadi’s new IESC group. We will meet tomorrow for breakfast. I went on a picture taking circuit: parliament, presidents house, primaria (mayor), sock exchange, embassy, lake, bought shirt for Debby. Ran into American kids – Baptists. I re-read my Issue Paper. I got home at 5:30 and returned to park at 6:30 – Baptists were singing and handing out literature. I met local students on park bench: Mark and Nat. Went to Sean’s; met David and Amy(?). She is pregnant. He is an MBA working on privatization of businesses … stock sales. Home at 10:30; to bed at 11:30.

June 13, 1997 – Friday – Up at 7:00 am; no run; met Mike and Kedwick for breakfast at Dache Hotel … 10 lei = $2 for buffet. They are IESC volunteers. Mike is in bottle production. Kedwick is in corrugated boxes (looking at $6 million investment). Changed $100 in one’s to lei. Breakfast was slices of ham, cheese, salami, boiled eggs, boiled potatoes, cake, bread, apple or prune juice, instant coffee or tea, cottage cheese, corn flakes and other unrecognizable stuff. A new translator, Radu, (the only male) started today. I went to the library to write and to search for English newspapers. Lots of young people studying. I did more writing at home. I went to the park at 6:30 to meet the students from yesterday “Nat” is “Natasha.” Instead of Mark was another Ludmila. We walked to Wam (McDonalds). I think they were too poor to have eaten there on their own and too polite to ask for anything. 3 cokes, 3 French fries, and 3 burgers were 42 lei ($10) … very expensive in local terms. Burger was normal. Fries were better than U.S. Wam looks and feels like McDonalds, but the arches are upside down … thus “W” instead of “M” … evidently they were not a real McDonalds … but close, nonetheless. We met a university friend of theirs from Syria who took our picture in front of Wam. Nat and Ludmila were both 20. They will be English teachers in 2 years. Ludmila is from Hincesti, Nat from far north. Nat’s first language is Ukrainian, then Moldovan, Russian, Spanish, and English (so she is speaking with me in her 5th language). They laughed that I have only one language (the truth is I’m still working on that one). Ludmila has the same languages in the same order without Ukrainian because Hincesti is more central Moldova. By the time we walked back to the park, Mark and another guy were there. We talked until 9:30; everyone went home.

June 14, 1997 – Saturday – Awake at 6:00 am; no run; laid in bed thinking about things until 8:00. I remember Nat asking about corn flakes. She has never had any. I arrived at office at 9:30; home at 1:00; went to park at 2:00; tried to write for surveyors; Nat and Luma (Ludmila) appeared at 3:00. We took a trolleybus to a lake, picking up Mark, his brother (Rado), and his wife (another Ludmila) on the way. While they were swimming, other young people came and asked about America. The parents of these kids are 34 to 40 years old. They keep saying, “There is no hope here. The country cannot be fixed. The government is too corrupt.” As soon as one group left, another took their place. I gave them Reagan coins (that I had purchased at the U.S. Mint in Denver) and U.S. flag pins. We took the trolleybus back to Pushkin (my) Park where I bought four of them Cokes for 25 cents each. I spoke with another young Moldovan who had just returned from America. He asked about my Bronco t-shirt. He was on a tour of U.S. military bases, visiting 5 states. I was home at 9:00 and made some of the pop corn I had brought. It came out well this time. Watched a Dan Aykroyd movie in German. An alien from outer space, disguised as Kristi Brinkley, came to destroy earth, but married Aykroyd and they saved the planet … thank God. Bed at 11:30.

June 15, 1997 – Sunday – Up at 7:00 am; ran lake; called Deb and Tyler. They were watching Saturday Night Live. 8:00 am Sunday is 11:00 pm Saturday in Denver. Debby thought I was in a bad mood because I complained about everything. She is always right. Maybe I have been gone too long or maybe it is because I am stalled temporarily in helping the surveyors. No Romanian lesson today (a good thing since I did not do my homework). I meet other Americans at 10:00 at Dache Hotel to travel to Orhei Monastery. Mike (bottling expert) is from St. Louis. Kedrick (box manufacturing) is from Florida. Rhode Island professor, David, teaches farm economics. A German couple now living in Texas is helping in restaurant management. And a new lady from Florida … basically the same group that was at the Wednesday evening concert. The monastery was the same as Odessa catacombs and Cricova Winery … limestone building blocks are mined leaving tunnels. Monks hid here during feudalistic times. Ceiling was 5 feet high. Each monk had a 5 x 5 x 8 room. On the top of this mountain is a village with a church, the oldest known remains in Moldova (300 B.C.) We got good pictures inside the Orthodox Church. The locals invited us to share lunch with them. Today is “Dominica Mare” (Great Sunday) celebrating that all of the crops have been planted. Colorado is famous here for the Colorado Beetle that eats their crops. We skipped the second stop in order to get Mike to the airport on time. I gave gum to the kids (about 10 years old) at the monastery. I walked from Dache Hotel to apartment with Kedrick. His apartment is in the next building. I went up with him to get papers I had loaned him. We will have dinner later. Nap. I gave gum to kids outside of my apartment. Three of the older girls (10 to 12) looked at U.S. maps and my family photos. They spoke a little English. I ran into Nora Dudwick (World Bank) at dinner. Ked gave her a hard time because she lives in DC and is a Democrat. She leaves tomorrow and will send a copy of her report to me in a month.

June 16, 1997 – Monday – Worked at home until noon writing report to surveyors. Changed $100 to lei and got 457 one-lei bills. My phone bill is 586 lei = $130.00. I spoke with Moldovan attorneys about term limits and petitions. I got home at 8:00. Gave more gum to kids. A mom insisted that I teach her 8 year old son English. She wanted to pay. Hot dog for dinner.

June 17, 1997 – Tuesday – Up at 5:30 am; ran lake; early to office to revise and finish surveyor report. I turned in report to Al and Bob C. I went to see conference room with Lena. I changed more one dollar bills to lei. Went to Fantasy Store and got more Moldova shirts. I had lunch with Sean, who is writing up VOCA paper work for me to return in November. CDC has no more funding. Evidently CDC had funding for just one Moldova volunteer for 1997. I met Salvation Army group in shirt store (Fantasy). They are building Methodist Churches here. They have built 6 churches so far. I went to the National Library (biggest library in Moldova), but they had no newspapers in English. I got 2 more rolls of film, which looks standard but the box is written in Russian. I got books from Gianady (IESC is another brand of CDC and VOCA) on writing business plans. I spoke with attorneys again. They want to meet again after my Issue Paper on petitions is translated. I exchanged one of the t-shirts. I saw Mark and Nat in the park … no time to talk. I was late to meet Victor. But Victor wanted to play and his parents wanted to talk. The other lady’s husband is General or Secretary of the Army. They said Chibanu (the old MOP) lives in my building, but they declined providing an introduction. TV is either Charles Bronson speaking Italian or Beethoven in French. NBC (English) had golf. To bed at 10:30.

June 18, 1997 – Wednesday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; Tom Brokaw is on 7:30 to 8:00 … not enough time to do both. Late to office at 9:30 … worked on hand outs for Monday seminar … forms and questionnaire also. Home early at 5:00. Got call from Lena that apartment was OK. Celebrated by making (filtering) water. I had been letting my inventory decline. Found Mark and Nat in the park. They decided in the last couple of days they are a couple. We discussed Nat’s “impossible” goal … to visit America. Now I think she knows her goal is achievable. I bought them hamburger and coke at Turkish restaurant … $3 for the 3 of us. Mark has political aspirations … wants to start a new political party. Home at 9:30. Vacili from VOCA called and said I had to change apartments. Moldova Air allows only 64 kilos for my return flight baggage. So I will leave my surveying books for my friends here when I go back to the states.

June 19, 1997 – Thursday – Up at 6:00 am; raining; no run; to the office at 8:30. Saw Ked in front of Dache Hotel. He is 77 and here until June 26 and interested in going to Romania. I will do some more research. My apartment status turned into a crusade at the office today. Everyone got on it and refused to let me move to another place. Finally it was settled. I would not have to move. Home at 6:00 to rest. Left at 6:30 for Bob’s, buying Champagne along the way for $4.00. His wife made pork chops. Bob, Robert, Tanya, Al, me, Mitzi (Bob’s wife) were all from the office … plus Melissa (from U.S. Embassy … she is the consular who decides visas). Bob graduated from U. of Illinois in 1986 and then went to law school in Wisconsin. Al left early to pick up his wife at airport. Home at 11:00. Bob insisted that a car take Tanya and me … I never thought of it as unsafe before. To bed at midnight.

June 20, 1997 – Friday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; good time; met Ked at Dache Hotel for breakfast and to discuss possible Romania trip. He has to work Saturday and the good stuff (Transylvania and Dracula’s Castle or Bucharest) is too far for a one day trip. I met Brian Propp for lunch again. He seemed a little preoccupied. Maybe he has been here too long or has attended too many of those vodka bashes. We talked about funding for political reform initiatives in the U.S. He will be in Denver mid-July. Today, Bob C. asked if I would come back for pay … he wants 6 a month commitment. Ilia’s birthday today (the lead Moldovan attorney) … birthday party after work. Galina (my Romanian teacher) is applying for job in my building. Home at 8:00; more rain. Today they fired Oxanna. She is upset. They won’t even give her a good reference. Someone said she came in late too much. There must be more to it than that. I tried to learn to record on VCR … too tired. Bed at 11:00.

June 21, 1997 – Saturday – Up at 6:00 am; rain; no run. Ked called at 8:00 … went to Dache Hotel again for breakfast … fried eggs, pancakes, bread, coffee, cheeses and meats, corn flakes (which I screwed up by putting milk on them). The eggs hit the spot. I stopped to pick up bread, Coke, and orange juice on my way home. The cleaning lady failed to change burned out light bulb in bathroom so I swapped with the one on my balcony. I worked at home most of the day. Several phone calls … wrong numbers. I started organizing to return to the U.S. Decided which gifts would be best for which individuals. I wrote in the books I would leave for the surveyors. Went to the park. Read some Adam Smith.

June 22, 1997 – Sunday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; to office; checked emails; organized for seminar; met Ked at 9:30 for breakfast at Dache … no eggs today but ate too much anyway. 10:15 IESC/CDC/VOCA volunteers gathered to go to Pushkin museum (Pushkin lived 1799 to 1837, was anti-Czar, was part Arab [or black], and was exiled from Russia to Chisinau for 3 years. He was a philosophical Jeffersonian). I gave a Reagan coin to museum curator and to translator/guide. David, the R.I. professor, tried to convince me Reagan was evil. After the second museum I went for a Coke with the professor, Ted (the walnut expert from San Francisco) and Tom and Dee (new couple from Minn.). On my way home I met 20 to 30 Peace Corps volunteers in Pushkin park. We spoke for 30 minutes. One wanted AOL access number, which I will get to her. They get 3 months of language training and orientation before being assigned. They know not where or what they will be assigned … probably schools, hospitals and a few businesses. I didn’t tell them how tough it would be in the villages. Home to change for the ballet. Met Ked. Saw Robert, Verelia and her boyfriend at ballet. Went to dinner with Ked, Tom, Dee at Sea Beka Hotel. $10/person. At home I called Ludmila to tell her of Tom’s interest in attending seminar. She will drop him at 10:00 tomorrow. She has internet access.

June 23, 1997 – Monday – Up at 6:00 am; no run; office at 7:30; 175 month anniversary today; card from Deb (no small task in that the mail service here is dysfunctional. To get anything from the U.S. it has to be sent to the mail person at the BAH office in DC and once or twice per week, a package is overnight mailed to BAH-Moldova). Tonya and Lena and I went to the Soros Building at 8:30 to get the room ready. Surveyors were late. We started with 4 at 9:30. 3 came later making 6 of the 9 companies present. Paul Morris (USAID) came at the end of the day to speak. Afterwards had beers with Djiganskii and Gori and Fidui … fun but awkward with no translator. More beers later with Rick, Al, Bob, and Robert. Seminar ratings were all 9s and 10s out of 10 (they must be afraid to tell the truth). Good enthusiasm all day. Many questions; most took notes. Saw Nat and Ludmila in park and gave them Colorado Rockies baseball caps. They were very excited. They took a third for Mark; he was in exams. Nat thinks her parents hate her (typical among teenagers). I asked her to explain, then, why they were sending money for her college; checkmate. She will phone her mother tomorrow. Her father died when he was 27. Her mother remarried so she has a half-brother who is 15. Home at 9:30. Bed at midnight. Got up at 3:00; watched TV; ate; back to bed.

June 24, 1997 – Tuesday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; breakfast at Dache with Ked and Ted. They both leave tomorrow at 5:30 am. 9:00 at office. I tabulated the results of seminar. Discussed return trip with Al. I will meet with Sean and Lena tomorrow about report they want written. I had lunch with Rick. He has 26 people working in Minnesota on pipeline project and will go to Siberia for gold mine survey. He thinks he can get a PhD from Siberia for $100.00. If so, I think I’ll ask him to get one for me too. I gave Bronco sweatshirts to Tonya and Lena. Both acted over excited, but Lena was most excited. She was jumping up and down, literally. It was embarrassing. I tried to be invisible. Very humid; raining; home at 5:00; got bread and orange juice; read Moldova constitution. It is not a constitution. It fails to recognize the people as sovereign or limit the government. Plebiscites (referendums) may be advanced for a vote by parliament. They have an initiative process but the president or 1/3 of parliament must agree for it to go to the ballot. I will do a report for the surveyors on the seminar results. I met Robert and Sean for beers and pool. I gave more gum to the kids near my apartment. I tried to talk with them; one girl (about 12) tried to act as translator. Home at 9:30; cable TV is out; returned call from Tom. He wanted to meet for beer tonight; maybe tomorrow. I read the professor’s (Dave Brown) report and western NIS report (Ked). Bed at 11:00. It cooled off a lot after the rain. Neck hurting less; left thumb still numb; stress or boredom.

June 25, 1997 – Wednesday – Up at 6:00 am; no run; call from Tom; a reception tonight at Peace Corps at 6:00. I reported to Bob C.: … Moldova has no constitution. He, an attorney, was interested in the thought process. The Stewart from Stewart Title Company is due in later today. Dinner is scheduled with him Thursday evening. I worked on surveyor status report. I met with Sean Carmody. He said I should get $45/day and CDC will pay when I get home. Therefore, I paid him back the $200 Vasili gave me from VOCA. He also gave me the apartment receipts to submit to CDC … so VOCA can be reimbursed. He will call me in July when he is in Iowa. I had lunch with Elana (Helen) from VOCA. She wants a final report and to follow up with all surveyors in 3 months. I went to Peace Corps at 6:00. There was a presentation by two PC volunteers who were working in northern regional offices. Afterwards I spoke with ABA representative, UN, and Melissa (from Cahul) and Victor (who is recruiting 100 Moldovan business owners to go to the U.S.). He will come to surveyor meeting on Monday. I saw the children near my apartment; more gum; they were making dinner (mud). I deferred eating any. I practiced high-fives with two 2 year olds. I showed my family pictures to the older ones. I went to park. Nat and Mark were there wearing Rockies caps. I tried to explain to Mark that Moldova does not have a constitution. He knew it had been written and adopted by the Communist parliament without citizen approval. I tried to explain “why” it was deficient, but the ideas are too difficult for Nat to translate. Mark’s friend finished exams and will be a doctor. He will look up the name of the Australian doctor who discovered the true cause of ulcers. Home at 10:30; bed at 11:30.

June 26, 1997 – Thursday – Up at 6:00 am; rain; no run; office at 8:00; worked on report to surveyors. I had lunch with Stewart Morris of Stewart Title. After work I had beers with Rick, Iacub, Mutu (surveyors), and Rado (translator) for $20 until 8:30. Mutu opened up on politics and thinks there will be 100% turn over in parliament elections due to lies. Social Democrats control now. Rick promised to bring GPS locator and their eyes lit up like little kids. Mutu knows at least 50 additional farms that can be subdivided immediately without controversy, but CPBR will not change the list. Next batch of farms would go better if surveyors could do all of the work without CPBR (CBPR’s roll is to reconcile conflicts among the farmers). I ran into Nat, Mark, Luma in the park. Mark had gotten a copy of the Moldova Constitution and was reading it. He finally understood when I pointed to Article 141. I will get him a copy of the U.S. Constitution (although it contains the same flaw). I met 5 new Westerners (Scott, another American, two Brits, and a Belgium). Home at 10:00; to bed at 11:30.

June 27, 1997 – Friday – Up at 6:00 am; no run; too lazy; office at 8:00. I worked on the surveyor report all day. It will be too long but I think it will be helpful to them. Tanya (older) and Rado have been struggling to translate my paper. Today is Igor’s birthday … party from 6 to 8; left to go to grocery store and to avoid excessive drinking. I worked on surveyor report at home. I went to park at 9:30 for ice cream. Doina and Andre were there. Nat and Mark went away for the week end. I introduced Lena, the Jewish girl, and Larry from Kentucky, and moved on. He is working on the same bottle plant that Mike was here to help. He will try to get me a tour tomorrow. Looks like no chance to go to Romania. I watched 70s movie until 1:00 am; the “Runner.”

June 28, 1997 – Saturday – Up at 7:30 am; stretched during NBC news (2 weeks old news); ran lake; good time; under 25:00 minutes; to office at 10:00. Tonya (older) and Gregori Breanu were working. Bob C. was in and out. Sean and Robert called to invite me to go with them to the country for a picnic; declined. Brain went on strike and stopped working at 4:00; changed $100 to lei. I went to museum to get ear rings, to Fantasy for runner and to outdoor market for flute (the $30 price negotiated quickly to $20). I got jewelry box for Tyler. He can put junk in it. Quiet. I went downstairs to read where kids are. Only 3 kids tonight: 6, 5, and 3 years old. We drew on the sidewalk.

June 29, 1997 – Sunday – Up at 6:00 am; no run; office at 8:00 to work on report; tired. Got coffee at Dache for 1 lei. Home at 3:00. Tom and Dee (Minn) called to go to Hans and Dorothy’s (from Texas) restaurant. Stopped for desert on way home … sold out. We went thru Pushkin Park. No Nat or Mark tonight. I got home at 9:30. Kids were not out; to bed at 11:30.

June 30, 1997 – Monday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; office at 8:30; finished surveyor report. I met with surveyors most of the day. I finished the CDC exit report. Dave Nolan will come for my clothes Wednesday at 9:00 am … he will take most of my clothes to a charity. Home at 5:00. I met Tom and Dee for desert. I showed them my apartment. I introduced them to some of the kids. I met Nat and Mark at the park. I gave him U.S. Constitution and my comments on it and Moldova Constitution. Home at 9:30. Cable TV channels are scrambled, several are not working. Others are on different channels. I gave Tom and Dee blank video tape, phone # list, list of restaurants, business cards. In bed at 10:30.

July 1, 1997 – Tuesday – Up at 6:00 am; ran lake; OK time, but not fast enough; sorted out clothes. One of the surveyors said I gave him “confidence.” Another showed delight at a comment in my letter. Maybe my trip was a success. I met with VOCA for exit interview. Sergi will pick me up Thursday at 5:45. He says I am allowed 60 kilos (easy with no books and minimal clothes); called Deb; Hayden (grandson) was born June 23; she sent several emails that did not arrive; the entire country has been email-down for several days; translators were shocked that I failed to find out if Hayden was a boy or a girl. Elana (VOCA) visits U.S. this year and will try to come to Denver for a few days. I went with Bob C. for exit interview with U.S. Ambassador John Stewart and Paul Morris for 30 minutes. He was very personable (after all he is a politician). When they asked about the surveyors finishing on schedule, Bob had a chance to open up on bureaucratic resistance; perfect timing for perfect opportunity. Mutu got a copy of a title certificate for me to take to U.S. So I cautiously gave him my trigonometry calculator. I was fearful of insulting him. He explained that he needed it because he must use book tables and interpolation. I was so in disbelief he got the tables out to show me. Beers with Rick; home at 7:00; sorted out clothes for morning.

July 2, 1997 – Wednesday – Up at 6:00 am; last day; no run; sorted and packed. Dave Nolan picked up clothes and food for Peace Corps at 9:00. I got to office at 9:30; still no email; purged files; office is in turmoil due to government interference with titling process. 10:30 Ludmila (attorney) and Tonya (older) and I went to meet NGO president (family and children issues). Ludmila is part of NGO (non-profit). President is also a Vice-minister and wants to do a petition drive. Moldovan constitution allows it, but does not define procedures and parliament has the power to ignore it. She said she could talk for only 30 minutes. But she didn’t stop talking for 1 ½ hours. We walked back to office. I took pictures of underground pipes for central heat. I went to Fantasy store and spent most of remaining lei on serving tray. I got to office in time to have lunch with translators; back at 2:00. Computer system is up and got a few emails but not of the ones sent by Deb and Tom. Responded to Dane Waters (USTL); I had filed term limits initiative petition for November 2008 ballot from here with State of Colorado by fax. I met from 3 to 4:30 with attorneys who had read my II IP on I&R … we also discussed Moldovan constitution. More emails. Party at 6:00; gave me a wedding shroud; I gave out sweatshirts, baseball caps, coffee cups and gum. I gave Tonya T. (head translator) one of my cameras. Translators, Robert, Rick, Lena and Yuri (courier) and I went for dessert (the bird egg shell stuff Dee likes). I went thru the park at 9:00. Nat and Mark had just left. I sat with the two who could not speak for a few minutes. Three of their friends arrived. One could speak only French (when I speak French I end up with diesel in my gas tank … so no way for me to communicate … I also failed Romanian lessons). The other 2 could speak a little and had 6 questions and left as soon as I replied. There questions were about crime, second languages, race and women’s rights in America. They are generation X and feel that there has been “no change” in Moldova. Home; called Oxanna and Ludmila for last time; finished packing; no TV; to bed at 11:00.

July 3, 1997 – Thursday – Up at 5:00 am; closed suit cases; 2 instead of 4; called Deb and Christa. Sergi was on time at 5:45. I sat next to girls from Italy on airplane. I met a Russian in Budapest airport who spent 5 years in NYC and is returning to get his MS degree. Actually, he is Moldovan, from Transdniestria. He gives “Russian” answer for Americans because most Americans do not recognize Moldova or Transdniestria. Hungary airport is like modern times: glass, light, clean, services …. I think I am back to the other world. Four Baptists are on the flight returning to U.S. One said he has been coming to Moldova for 4 years and Moldova is rapidly changing. His perspective is probably more accurate, but the local Gen-Xers have another view.

EPILOGUE

Bob Cemovich, the head guy, saw the project to completion and stayed in contact with me for a few years.

Allan Slipher, Bob’s #2, finished in Moldova and ended up on another project in Bratislava, Slovakia. I offered to introduce him to some friends I knew there including the former Ambassador, Josef Sestak, but got no reply.

Steve, the lead attorney and #3 in command, took on the identical project in Georgia. Partly because of reform-minded Eduard Shevardnadze, President and former USSR Foreign Minister and reformer with Gorbachev, farm privatization in Georgia advanced quickly and was completed before Moldova’s. No doubt Steve’s experience in Moldova helped to expedite the quick result.

Robert Mitchell, attorney, helping to write the land code, was from Seattle, but it seemed like he never lived there. After Moldova he went on to help with a land reform project in Indonesia. That was the last I heard from him.

Sean Carmody, VOCA, from Iowa was burned out and left the foreign service, but got a job with the Federal government in DC, helping to gain approval of African-grown crops for importation into the U.S. His first Peace Corps assignment had been in Africa from which he had told stories of racism. Early after his arrival there shots rang out and 2 fellows ran down the street laughing that they had killed someone who was, evidently, the wrong shade of black. And he told of the little girl who died because the father would not allow Sean to take her to the hospital. Sean also served in the PC in Korea where he met his wife.

Peter Djiganshi, surveyor-entrepreneur, learned to speak English, stayed with us in Denver for 2 weeks and now does regular (every couple of months) emails with me. His younger son (Gene) graduated in finance from a college in Budapest, which required an internship. We got one set up for him in the U.S., but the U.S. State Department refused to allow him a visa (both Gene and the U.S. are worse off due to this … lose:lose). Peter bought a prime piece of real estate in the city center of Cahul and built an office building there. He had duel citizenship with Ukraine and subdivided several collective farms there. He also bought the records of several of the other surveyors and kept his survey crews busy doing surveys for resale of farm parcels. He is frustrated at the corruption in Moldova and is considering migrating to the Czech Republic. He also spent a few weeks in New Zealand exchanging knowledge of wine growing and production.

Sergi Gori, surveyor-entrepreneur, finished his contracts, pocketing enough money to build a chicken processing factory in his home town. I recall him teasing me about going to help the people in Africa next. I said that will be for the next generation of entrepreneurs … meaning him. He smiled, knowing I trusted him to carry on the cause of liberty someday.

Mircea Ginju, surveyor-entrepreneur, finished his projects and used his profits to go into the restaurant business. He always carried a pistol.

Tonya B., was my translator (the elder Tonya). We exchanged emails for a few years. She and her husband did not feel welcome in Moldova and were labeled as “Russian” even though they had never lived in Russia. They moved to Moscow. They had one daughter who attended college in Florida.

Tonya T., (also spelled Tanya) lead translator, exchanged a couple of emails, but she was a workaholic and had less time to be social.

Vicili Yakub, one of the three Moldovan surveyors on BAH staff. He seemed to be the most technical of the three. Gregori Brianu (built like an NFL lineman) was the boss of all the locals, and so was more the big picture guy and did the hiring and firing. Mutu seemed to be the make-things-happen quietly behind the scene personality type. Yakub is the one who wanted to know whether GPS is real. Peter reported that Yakub had suffered a heart attack and died.

Ludmila Sviridov, was my go-between with my landlord. We continue to do emails on occasion. In 1997 she was very worried about her daughter who was in college but paying too much attention to a male. She was lonely and sought marital advice from, of all people, me. Translators are exposed to a lot. In addition to language they learn culture, and people and trivia. (I saw the same thing in Egypt … a wise, alert, and informed 30-year-old taxi driver … with no real education, but knew plenty). I suggested that she was probably too cosmopolitan because of the exposure she gained by translating, to be able to find the right man among the local Neanderthals. Thus, she would do better to shop among the westerners she meets. Sure enough, she married a German and now lives in Frankfurt. She visited the U.S. several times, including Denver once.

Kedwick Martin is the volunteer from Florida and expert in box manufacturing. We continue to exchange Christmas cards annually. Until typing this, I had forgotten that we had had so many meals together.

David Brown, the R.I. university professor and I always exchange Christmas cards. He is always appreciative of the tiny tidbits I am able to provide, usually from either Peter or Ludmila, my only two remaining sources of information.

Ludmila Svirina, the lead local attorney. We exchanged a few emails. I did not get to meet her children.

Cazacu, there were 2 Cuzacus, a father and a son, both computer geeks working together on the project. The son was developing the coordinate geometry software. The father did training and installations. The father told of when the Communists came and confiscated all of the property. Many land owners were murdered. He was lucky and was shipped to a gulag in Siberia. When he got back from Siberia, his intellect was recognized and he became an “economist.” Under Soviet Communism, economist means central planner … the level of economic understanding of a Soviet economist is a question. I was sorry that I did not have the opportunity to learn more from him.

Citizens Democracy Corps: I got one additional invitation from CDC to go to Sakhalin and help a local paving contractor decide which paving machine to buy. I suggested the Sakhalin guy should go look at the machines in action. They did not call again. Sakhalin Island is part of Russia, but is the island immediately north of Japan, used to be part of Japan and is primarily Japanese culturally. I may have blown my best chance to see that part of the world.

Brian Propp, my friend from Denver, served in the Ukraine for 10 years before being transferred to DC for a year or two. We met in DC during one of my visits there. He retired and moved to northern Colorado to start an energy conservation business.

Constitution: Annoyed at persistent friction between Parliament and the President, the Parliament (who has unilateral power to amend the constitution) sought to eliminate such friction by changing the presidential selection process. Henceforth, instead of election by the populace, the President will be chosen by the Parliament. This change happened shortly after my stay, later in 1997. Shortly thereafter, Parliament announced an amnesty for those with illegal weapons … they could turn them in to the government without fear of penalty. To this I say, how interesting … that the government would seek to protect itself against insurrection when it is taking actions that might incite insurrection.

Somaliland Election Observation

Dennis Polhill
May 26 through June 8, 2001

In 2001 the Initiative and Referendum Institute was invited to be the official election observer for the election ratifying the constitution of Somaliland.  Somalia became a nation when European nations divested themselves of colonies throughout most of the world.  Somalia had been 2 parts: Italian Somalia (south) and British Somalia (north) also known as Somaliland.  Because both were given independence within a week of each other, there was an immediate local clamor for “one Somalia.”  Only problem, the north did not agree to the merger terms of the south and conversely, the south did not agree to the merger terms of the north.  The south is about twice the size of the north in area and population.  The world community came to recognize one Somalia.  Yet those in the north never considered themselves part of the south.  Many African nations were pawns of the Cold War.  After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Somalia fell into anarchy as warlords dominated.  This event allowed those in the north to assert their position.  They declared independence, set up a government and wrote a provisional constitution.  After a few years the Constitution was to be ratified by vote of the populace.  IRI agreed to take on the task and Dennis Polhill being Chairman of the Board of Directors of IRI was the leader of the group of election observers.  Like the old cowboy movie, “The Magnificent Seven” I headed out collecting compatriots as we made our way to our destination.

May 26, Saturday — Debby and Tyler drove me to DIA. Stopped for late lunch at Hops. One hour line at Lufthansa to check in. No concern with 14 canisters of pepper-spray in my suitcase. Karen Benker, former RTD board member was on the flight to Frankfurt and sat on other side of airplane and one row ahead of me. I was forced to say hello to her as we both searched for connecting flights. Departed DIA at 5:30 pm and arrived in Frankfurt at 11:30 am.

May 27, Sunday — Arrived on time in Frankfurt. Had 2 hours between flights. Stacy, Alex and Sasha who flew together from DC and I boarded the plane to Dubai together. Scott from Chicago, Dave Byrd from DC, and Derek and Dave M from San Francisco were to be on the same flight but no one knew them. After boarding Stacy found Scott and Dave M. I got the flight attendant to make an announcement and we found the remaining two. Derek was sitting in the seat in front of me. We departed Frankfurt at 1:20 pm and arrived in Dubai, capitol of United Arab Emirates, on time at 9:30pm. Although it would have been more direct to go over Saudi Arabia, the flight went over Tehran, Iran. We were met by a Ramada Inn representative who helped us thru security and customs. At the hotel we were met by 2 representatives of the Somaliland Forum who offered snacks and drinks. Adrian from Switzerland was already at the hotel. Our group now numbers 9. Everyone was anxious to clean up and rest.

May 28, Monday – We received wake up calls at 1:30 am in order to get to the airport in time for our 4:00 am flight. It was a Soviet IL-18 with 4 turboprop engines. It reminded me of my first flight on a Mexican airline: no safety instruction and small fans for air circulation. We got the tail of the plane, which was separated from the remainder of the airplane by a curtain. A couple other people also sat in our area. The sun came up over the Gulf at a little past 5:00 am. Instead of stopping for gas in Berbera, Somaliland, we stopped in Yemen. There were quite rugged mountains that nearly reached the ocean. The airport was scattered with scavenged hulks of parted out Migs. Arrived in Hargeisa, the capitol city, about 10:00 am.

We were met by Omar and Abdul. Abdul is the Speaker of the House and is vice chairman of the referendum committee. After a short briefing at the airport they took us to our hotel. The city had been leveled by shelling and bombing by the Somalia government in 1988. Only the main road is paved, but is very rough. The norm is gravel, dirt or sand. The temperature is more moderate than expected: 90s. Humidity is high. Hargeisa is at 1000 feet and the breeze is constant and strong.

Our hotel is Maansoor, probably the best in the country. It has a shower but no hot water and no air conditioner, just a ceiling fan. The rooms are a little larger than average, maybe 200 square feet. Ceiling is 8.5 to 9 feet. Floor is tile. Lighting is poor and the power was off for several hours in the afternoon. I have a color TV with cable … about 13 inch screen but the only station in English is CNN (European CNN, not American news). The bed is 2 single beds pushed together with a top and bottom sheet. They are mattresses on wood, no springs.

We checked into our rooms and had a couple hours to rest and get organized. Omar and Abdul picked us up for lunch at 1:00. We drove to another place in the city where we met the 7 people from the South African group and shared lunch with several dignitaries. I sat with the Minister of the Interior and Edna the former wife of the president. Edna is a former nurse and midwife and is putting all of her energy into building a 100,000 sq. ft. hospital. She insisted that we come to visit her hospital and have lunch. We agreed but after the election. After the Minister welcomed us, I had to reply on behalf of our group with one of my famous one-minute missives.

At the hotel our cell phones soon arrived. They were new and smarter than my own. We distributed a phone number list to everyone. Then we reconvened in the conference room next to my room. There we discussed our approach to the project and distributed the pepper-spray. We adjourned at 3:30 in order to have an hour to rest for our 5:00.

At five we met again with Omar and Abdul. Abdul had prepared a map of the country and distributed copies of three reports. He reviews their organizational structure and procedures for managing the election.

At 7:00 we went to the presidential mansion to meet the president. He gave a long speech. I gave a short one. A few photos were taken.

Back at the hotel I went to bed as the others had dinner in the lobby.

May 29, Tuesday — Breakfast in the lobby. 10:00 meeting did not start until 11:00. Omar took me to pick up a Canadian married to a native: Matt Bryden (00 1-252-2-426-820 Bryden@wsp-International.org).  His group authored “A Self-Portrait of Somaliland.”  Abdul distributed maps of the 6 regions and we decided who would cover each:
• Awdal (north west) — Sasha Bruce and Dave McCuan
• Sanaag (north east) — Derek Cressman
• Togdheer (south central) — Alison Puranik and Scott Kohlhass
• Saaxil — (north central) — Dave Byrd and Alex Mundt
• Woqooyi Galbeed (Hargeisa) — Dennis Polhill, Stacy Rumenap and Adrian Schmid

Adrian was reassigned from Sanaag to Wojooyi Galbeed because the trip to Sanaag required a flight, which arrived after opening of polls there; because the region has comparatively few polling places (20 to 30); because 3 of the 7 South African observers were planning to work the same region; and because the Woqooyi Galbeed (Hargeisa and surrounding area) region has many polling places (over 160).

The ballot boxes were brought to the meeting for display. They are about 2 feet cubes made of half-inch wood with a hinged top with a slot for ballots and a padlock. There was some mention of the selection of colors. Red and green were rejected as too confusing; they claimed that white, in their culture was not necessarily perceived as good, as it is in western cultures. As an example, Islamic burials require that the corps be wrapped in white cloth. A third and similar but larger box had 2 padlocks and contained all of the necessary equipment for the polling place. All 3 boxes were marked with the polling place number.

In the third box was 1500 ballots, a registry for voters, a logbook for incidents (notations for those needing assistance voting, sicknesses, changes in polling staff, etc.), candles for darkness, posters showing this as a polling place, copy of the constitution for posting, a rubber stamp and ink pad for stamping the polling place number on each ballot, dye for marking the hands of those who voted. After voting the remainder of the materials are returned to the materials box and locked. The ballot boxes are sealed and stamped across the seal with the number of the polling place, and are transported to the District office for counting.

Five of us walked into town for a local lunch. They had no menus, received spaghetti on one plate, and got no silverware. They did get newspapers to use as napkins. The bill was $10 until they paid and then the owner asked for more money.

Everyone went to visit Arabsiyo, a farm village about 30 minutes away. The road was paved. We passed 3 checkpoints with gates, no guns. They said the checkpoints were to tax trucks. Each checkpoint presented an opportunity for vendors to set up and sell. The city was next to a dry riverbed. They had dug 2 wells and were pumping water for irrigation. A large variety of fruit trees, vegetables, and plants were thriving. The dry river is a flooding hazard during rain. The city was about 10,000 people. It had been destroyed by artillery bombardment during the genocide. The locals were rebuilding: some on the same lots, but most had moved to a fresh part of the city.

We wandered the streets to observe the damage. The locals were shy, but increasingly came forward, waved, got closer and said hello. Stacy bought a scarf, which made her part of the clan. A little girl (about 3) came up and touched David Byrd’s hand. I told him, he was now officially married. I gave my two pens to two girls about 10 years old and took their picture. The primitive stores were stocked with a large variety of goods: pots and pans, suitcases, drugs, lanterns, etc. At sundown they chewed Kat, the leaf of a plant that gives a nicotine-high. Alcohol consumption is prohibited under Islam. We had tea and rushed back for dinner.

Dinner was at 7:30 at the Hotel. Matt and his wife, Edna, the South Africans, some of our hosts and several others shared dinner. One of those we did not know before dinner was a French journalist stationed in Nairobi. About a dozen of us discussed the referendum, what it might mean for Africa and how the world community might react.

In my room, I phoned Dane and Debby and tried to get organized for Wednesday.

May 30, Wednesday – Breakfast meeting at 8:00 am to review everything and to answer last minute questions. Ahmed distributed tee-shirts, which were indicated to be our badges for entry to polling places. We decided to not wear them but have them available, because we think the words might read “vote yes.” Everyone seems to be ready. At 9:00 everyone went to the mass gravesite SW of the city. This was where several thousand of the 50,000 killings took place. The military headquarters was close. The hill behind the HQ had a little observation house on top, which was used to direct the artillery bombardment of the city. The mass graves were discovered when the floods came and washed some bones up. Now, because the bodies have little cover, the mounds they are under are eroding and more are appearing. The locals killed a poisonous snake near our walk. We also saw a school, not in session. Alex and Dave B. could not attend as they left at 10:00 for Berbera. We had lunch in the lobby. Others left for their regions. Derek’s flight to Sanaag is still being worked out. Abdul brought more maps and will return at 6:00 pm with a more detailed map and polling locations for Hargeisa. Amed will take the remaining 4 of us at 4:00 to the market.

The Awdal and Togdheer teams left and all 3 teams checked in as planned. No problems. All phones are working; accommodations are acceptable, etc. Alison will be the Togdheer rover but the rain-washed out the road and she will not be able to make as much coverage as planned.

At the market it rained soon after we arrived. Lots of people; lots of vendors. Met a native who lived in Lakewood, Colorado for 10 years. Bought two scarves (shalmet) for Deb, et al. Will get 2 more later … $5 each.

Rushed back to meet Abdul at 6:00. He had more maps and info on polling places. We learned that he had 3 years of military training in USSR. At this point the airplane to Sanaag is off. So we have 4 IRI and 5 South Africans to distribute throughout the Hargeisa region. The region has 10 districts and 165 polling places. The South Africans agreed to cooperate with our plan and to not double cover locations. As soon as we had it figured out as to who would be city vs. rural, fixed vs. rover, and IRI vs. S.A., it was announced that they had procured an airplane. Derek and 3 South Africans would go to Sanaag in the northeast. After crossing their coverage off the list we decided to make no changes with regard to the remainder.

All seems to be ready.

May 31, Thursday (Election Day) — The local people perceive the election as independence. Passage is virtually certain. The leaders know that the election is not independence, but is a step toward international recognition and in turn a step to independence. The goal seems reasonable in light of the genocide committed by Somali soldiers against unarmed civilians. Somalia has a high level of conflict and disorder; Somaliland is independent and productive. It seems that both would be better off by the split; perhaps more significant Somaliland would benefit and Somalia would not be injured.

We must meet our cars at 5:00 am. There was resistance to the time, but we had to insist in order to be at polling places prior to opening of the polls at 6:00.

Lots of observations in addition to the notes in my election-day log kept of the site I observed plus a log of contacts with folks in the field. No time now; will enter more latter.

June 1, Friday — Up at 6 for Radio Africa interview at 6:30. They did not phone. “Class” will pick me up at 7:30 to be at the counting station by 8:00. All of the ballot boxes had arrived overnight. But someone was not present; so no counting was happening.

Counting began at 10:30 and went until 5:30.

Waiting for the counting to begin a polling station chairman showed me his bullet scars. He gave me the Somaliland name: Guiliasamo. I used it thru the day and it stuck. It is after the area of the city where my counting station is located and means Happy Village.

Ahmed picked me up at closing time. We stopped at the market and he bought gifts for me. Then we stopped at his home to meet his 2 month old son, Mohamed, and wife, Simson. At the hotel I took a quick shower and met Stacy, Adrian, and Derek for dinner. We were interrupted by several calls from the out-teams. They will check out of their hotels and work their way back to stay tomorrow night in Hargeisa. They will stop at as many intervening counting stations as possible on the way. Derek will rove Hargeisa counting stations tomorrow. I will go to the national headquarters to see how they will receive information.

June 2, Saturday — Another counting day. I will go to the National Referendum Committee headquarters.

The outer region folks will do final observations and stay in Hargeisa this evening. Derek and Stacy will rove Hargeisa and Adrian will return to Gabiley. Adrian is doing some analysis of this location. Claude from South Africa may accompany Adrian.

The National Referendum Committee is not ready in the morning. They called and I went at 3:00. Abdul, another committee member, the computer guy, and one other person were sitting on the floor without shoes waiting for calls to come in. We learned that the counting districts would total their polling places and phone (or radio) in their results. Then before being released to the public they would be further aggregated by region. Six sets of numbers would be known publicly. The rationale is that some voters were not happy with the place that they had to vote and might be upset at knowing the polling place detail. All data will be available to IRI, but polling station detail may not be available for a week or more.

We went for dinner with President Igal at 7:30. Many TV cameras, pictures, recorders, entertainment and many dignitaries were present. Igal gave a brief speech. I sat at the head table next to Abdul. Abdul never married and has no children. He and a Soviet woman wished to marry but he could not stay in Moscow and he felt she would not be happy in his culture. He is 50. He has a level head and is very well reasoned and statesman-like. I suggested he might run for president and he said maybe … but he seems to be more of a reformer and crusader than a politician … so my bet is that he will not run for that office. Back to the hotel at 10:00 and listened to a debate between Derek and Dave M. on sovereignty and self-determination. They were saying the same thing, so the debate was over semantics.

Calls to Dane and Deb … to bed too late: 1:00am.

June 3, Sunday — A visit by Montezuma. Met several group members at 8 am for breakfast and planning for the day. Sasha and Dave M. went to visit the Vice President. Dave B. and Alex will go to the mass graves. Alex will interview Abdul at the election headquarters about election procedures. Alex will also on Monday June 11 go to IFES in DC, copy a similar report as a sample and email its outline to the group members. Stacy went to another counting station. Derek is sick in bed. I went to rest.

A local book writer in search of a publisher came for publishing ideas. I was not much help, but Alison suggested he pursue a South African publisher and publishing agent. He agreed and will contact one of the two remaining people from the South African delegation.

Omar phoned; the national referendum committee was receiving results. I rushed over to the office of the Minister of the Interior. Complete data was available for only 3 regions, but I left a disc to copy the data onto and got a commitment that their computer guy would email the final poll by poll results. There will be another election before the end of the year and another soon thereafter. The first will be for local representation (cities, etc.) and the latter will select the legislature and the President. The latter may be divided into more than one election. I will return to the committee office after going to the market this afternoon.

Back to the hotel. No lunch; rest. 4:30 left for market. Bought scarves (shalmet) and a pen for Tyler. On the return we stopped at an orphanage not far from the hotel. We had dinner in the lobby. I sat with Dave M. and Sasha. The other table was Alex, Dave B., Scott, and Stacy. Allison came out but seems to be getting sicker. I took her water and Sprite. Derek came out and seems to be recovering.

Returned to my room at 9:00 to phone Dane and Deb.

June 4, Monday — Slept good. Breakfast at 7:00 to see group off at 8:00 for Ethiopia. I decided to stay so that the locals would not think we were mooching, to make sure Allison was OK, and in case something important finally happens. No sooner than they had gone and Omar indicated that there would be a press conference at 10:00 announcing the complete election results. We picked up Matt (the Canadian) and went to the Hargeisa Club for coffee to wait. There we were joined by Allison and discussed the reaction of the international community. Matt tried to explain why the UN was conflicted in its view of Somaliland. He will go to NY in 2 weeks to meet with several Somaliland experts. His office is in Nairobi. The UN officer in Nairobi seems to be a big part of the problem.

Derek had a copy of an IFES report. I will copy the table of content for all and the full report for myself.

The press conference was in the chambers of the House of Representatives. Abdul opened the conference. The 2 remaining South Africans attended. There were speeches by the Minister of the Interior, by Abdul, and by the Chairman of the House of Elders. An Islamic prayer was given. All of the numbers were read by region and a copy was distributed. Four of the 6 National Election Committee members signed the final result. The 2 who did not sign are in remote rural areas. There was 1,188,154 total votes cast, of which 1,182,859 were valid. Of those, 1,148,399 voted “yes” and 34,460 voted “no.” “Yes” carried with 97.09%.

We returned to the hotel to await arrival of our team and to go to lunch at Edna’s Hospital.

Met John Drysdale who came here as a British Army officer in 1943 and stayed. He lives near Gabiley and is operating a charitable entity to survey land and issue titles to farmers very similar to my Moldova project. We took up a collection to give to Edna’s Hospital. She got $400.

The IRI observation team met in the lobby for dinner at 7:30 and to discuss the final report organization and assignments. I typed a revised outline and distributed it.

June 5, Tuesday — Up at 7 again. I had breakfast in the lobby with some team members. Omar, Ahmed and the Mayor picked us up at 9:00 for a tour of the countryside and picnic. We stopped at a water pumping station. The road followed a 15 inch steel pipe, which brought water to Hargeisa. Because there is no electricity, the pumping station used diesel engines to run the pumps. The pumps boosted the water through the pipes. Chlorine was added at this location and that is the extent of their water treatment. They deliver 6,000 cubic meters of water per day to Hargeisa. Average use is 14 liters per person per day … about 3 ½  gallons per person. We drove another 15 kilometers, which was a 1 km. walk from a groundwater well. Most of the driving via 4×4 was in a dry soft sand riverbed. The submersible pump was 90 meters deep and groundwater level is about 30 meters. Fuel has to be delivered to these locations daily to run the pumps. Twelve wells feed the water system. Adrian took one of the cars to meet his airplane. Stacy tried to kick down a giant anthill. We got more camel photos. A caterer showed up with Chinese food. The Mayor did his noon prayer (Moslems pray 5 times per day).

One of the cars got a flat coming. Going back a broken four-wheel-drive got stuck in the sand. About a dozen people had to push to get it out.

Hassan Hussien (hargeisa@bgtinet.com … phone = 5297), reporter for Maandeeq Newspaper, arrived at 5:00 for our scheduled interview. Afterwards he translated a note for Derek and we exchanged emails. He will bring extra photos he has taken so that we may use them in our report if we wish.

The Vice President was not able to join us for dinner as planned. In his place our host was the Foreign Minister and the Minister of Coastal Development. We discussed the possibility of oil and mining of gems, as well as the prospect of acceptance by the international community. We got back to the hotel at 9:30. Omar told Derek that the BBC Somalia radio had reported that no one voted in Erigabo. Derek was there and observed voting in 4 locations where people were standing in very long lines to vote … concurring with the results reported by the National Election Commission. We notified Dane and went to bed.

June 6, Wednesday — Our last full day. Lots to accomplish. Abdul arrived at 9:30 with the national committee member from the Sool region to review election procedures and how decisions were made. Derek, Dave B., and Alex questioned Abdul. Excellent meeting. Omar brought the video people who had prepared a tape of the election for us to take home with us. I will have to convert and make copies. They also will drop by a documentary of the war for us to take home. Dave and Dave got in their meeting with the Information Minister.

I drafted a statement to release to the media tomorrow at the airport. Others have reviewed it and offered suggested edits. I completed a map with the region boundaries and counting district numbers properly located … and distributed copies.

Omar took the entire group to lunch with the Foreign Minister, his former boss. Sasha was upset because she had plans to have lunch with another person.

Most of the group went again to the market. I stayed to meet the book author and to communicate with Dane about the press statement.

Abmed is 38 years old. His father died when he was 8. He wants us to come to his home for tea tomorrow.

June 7, Thursday — Supreme Court. Press Conference at the airport.

Derek, Stacie, Scott and I met with Omar, Abdul and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The court must ascertain that the law was followed and that the election was fair.

Thusfar, there have been very few complaints and none of substance. We had a photo in the chamber chairs and I made a few decrees.

The group went to Ahmed’s home for tea at 11. We returned, packed, turned in our cell phones and headed to the airport. On the way we stopped at Edna’s hospital to pick up some papers for Stacie and David. David is writing a piece about her. At the airport we had to wait for passengers from a connecting flight. The press statement was brief and uneventful. We departed 2 hours late but arrived in Dubai early because there was no intervening stop for gas.

In Dubai finding our luggage and checking back through security was somewhat of a hassle. I was able to change my return ticket to the Frankfurt-Denver direct, non-stop flight. We had beers at an Irish Pub and some were compelled to visit the McDonalds.

In the Pub David M. recognized a British journalist with whom we shared our entry flight Dubai-Hargeisa. He spent a little time in Hargeisa and flew Hargeisa-Mogudisu to train journalists there. He had one unit of security: a sawed-off pickup truck with a machine gun installation and 8 armed guards. He said that he regularly heard random gunfire and about 4 times per day heard a firefight. He was hesitant to say whether he might return, but offered that he never felt personally or directly threatened.

June 8, Friday — We arrived in Frankfurt at 6:30 am. We said our goodbyes as everyone went different directions. I had to pick up my boarding pass and would try to get an earlier flight. At first they forced me back to my original flight. But upon checking they found that the travel agent had cancelled my itinerary completely. Somehow this freed them to put me on the direct-non-stop flight. I still waste 6 hours in Frankfurt, but arrive in Denver 5 hours early.

The Friday USA Today had no information about the Thursday evening Avalanche game. I found a clean and spacious bathroom and shaved, etc. I then found a snack bar with an isolated corner just for me with a power plug. A croissant and water was $5.00.

I arrived in Denver at 3:30pm, but Deb was too busy (she says) to pick me up.

June 9, Saturday – Avalanche beat NJ in game 7 to win the Stanley Cup.

The Issue of a National Initiative Process
The Role of I&R in Aiding the Women’s Suffrage Movement
Colorado Initiative Usage

From the Publisher:

No other book has ever provided such a complete and comprehensive history of the initiative and referendum process in the U.S. Waters provides such information as the definitions of initiative and referendum; the roots of the initiative and referendum movement; the history of how the process has been utilized; regulations of the initiative process in each state; legislative attempts to regulate the process; and the role of the judiciary. The book also includes a series of essays by leading scholars and activists about the reforms brought about through the initiative process, and a brief discussion on the future of the initiative process through the eyes of activists and elected officials.

A complete listing of all relevant laws associated with utilizing the initiative and referendum process in each state, as well as a checklist of the major steps of which initiative proponents should be aware, are also included in the almanac. The appendix contains a complete listing of every statewide initiative that has appeared on the ballot since 1904; a complete listing of all the popular and legislative referenda that have appeared on the ballot since 1998; as well as other charts and graphs tracking the usage of the process since its adoption in 1898.

“This is what we have been waiting for. As penetrating and stimulating as it is thorough and even-handed, the Almanac will spark and inform debate about our most democratic process of lawmaking. It is a gift to activists and scholars alike.”
-Richard Parker, Williams Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

“This uniquely comprehensive volume provides a wealth of invaluable information about the initiative and referendum process in the United States. The volume combines detailed information about the constitutional and statutory bases of initiative and referendum usage in all fifty states; descriptions of the major court decisions and legislative attempts to regulate the process; comparisons of I&R provisions across the states; and scholarly analyses of some of the main theoretical debates concerning its use. This is certain to be a critical resource for academics, policy analysts, advocates, lawmakers, citizens, the media—indeed, anyone interested in this increasingly important method of citizen lawmaking.”
-Elisabeth R. Gerber, Professor of Public Policy, University of Michigan

“The initiative and referendum mechanisms are two of the jewels of American democracy. They have been the tools to usher in critically important reforms in society, and they serve to excite and engage the electorate. This almanac provides a detailed roadmap on the history and workings of this important process. I recommend it for any person interested in politics in America.”
-Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President, The Humane Society of the United States

“Water’s volume provides a wealth of statistical and factual information on a neglected topic. . . . Public and and academic libraries, as well as American politics and and public policy collections, will . . . find this a worthwhile purchase.”
-CHOICE, January 2004

“Despite presenting a wealth of information, this book is well organized and very readable. Because the information it contains is of interest to scholars, students, and laypeople, this volume is highly recommended for all but the smallest public and academic libraries, and for high school libraries that support law and government courses.”
-American Reference Books Annual

By Dennis Polhill

The effort for I&R in Colorado was started by Dr. Persifor M. Cooke of Denver in the mid-1890s. As secretary and president of the Colorado Direct Legislation League, Cooke and the constitutional lawyer J. Warner Mills of Denver fought for I&R from 1900 until 1910, when Governor John F. Shafroth called a special session of the legislature to consider the issue. The constitutional amendments that were passed provided for initiative, referendum, and recall on both state and local levels.

Coloradans set their state’s record for initiative use the first year it was available, in 1912, by putting 22 initiatives and 6 popular referendums on the ballot. Eight of the initiatives passed and challenges to legislatively approved laws were sustained in 5 of the 6 cases. Among these were laws or amendments establishing an eight-hour work day for workers employed in “underground mines, smelters, mills and coke ovens”; giving women workers an eight-hour day; providing pensions for orphans and for widows with children; establishing juvenile courts in major cities and counties; and granting home rule to cities and towns.

Over the years Colorado voters proved sympathetic to the needs of the aged and infirm, approving initiatives providing for the treatment of mental illness in 1916 and 1920, relief for blind adults in 1918, pensions for the aged and for indigent tuberculosis sufferers in 1936, and increased pensions adjusted for inflation in 1956. Colorado voters also remained friendly to organized labor, approving an initiative statute changing the workmen’s compensation law to benefit employees in 1936 and defeating an employer-backed “Right to Work” initiative in 1958.

In the early 1970s, Coloradans passed environmentalist-backed initiatives to keep the Winter Olympics from being held in their state (1972) and prohibit underground nuclear explosions except with prior voter approval (1974). Richard Lamm, an obscure state legislator when he sponsored the anti-Olympics initiative, gained sufficient prestige from his leadership of this campaign to later win election as governor.

In 1984 Colorado became the first state to pass an initiative banning the use of state funds for abortion (the second was Arkansas, in 1988). Voters approved the measure by a single percentage point. Less controversial and more popular was the 1984 “Motor Voter” initiative, which set up a system of voter registration at driver’s licensing bureaus. This highly successful program increased the number of registered voters in Colorado by 12.4 percent in the 15 months from July 1985 to October 1986.

Hostility to the initiative process by the political establishment manifested itself in the 1976 election with a “No on Everything” campaign that outspent proponents with over 91% of all funds expended. The election was followed by a series of legislative efforts to restrict use of the initiative. Notorious for exceeding the ”reasonable regulation” guideline, Federal Courts have struck down more of Colorado initiative restrictions than any other state. Those most famous are Meyer v. Grant in 1986 and Buckley v. ACLF in 1999 – both went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Colorado is recognized for having spawned the Term Limits movement in 1990. Other states had term limits initiative in 1990 and in previous years. State Senator Terry Considine, frustrated that his peers would not consider his term limits bill, became an activist and drove the term limits law to fruition with a 71% favorable vote. Colorado’s initiative was unique in that it also sought to limit members of Congress. Large numbers of states approved term limits for members of Congress in subsequent elections. Colorado passed additional term limits initiatives in 1994, 1996, and 1998.

Coloradans would have preferred that their elected officials exercise self-restraint with taxation. Tax limit initiatives succeeded in making it to the ballot in 1966, 1972, 1976, 1978, 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992, but failed at the ballot box until 1992. The 1992 effort sponsored by tax activist Doug Bruce and dubbed the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), helped to revitalize the lagging taxpayer revolt begun in 1978 when Proposition 13 had been approved in California.

Recent use of the initiative peaked in 1992 with 10 initiatives on the ballot. Since 1992, use has been flat with a slight downward trend to 6 in 2000. Average is 8 per 2 year election cycle over the high use decade of the 1990s. Initiatives are blamed for long ballots, yet state issues referred to the ballot by the General Assembly generally equal the number of initiatives. Other issues referred to the ballot by local governments result in several times more referred measures than initiatives.

Statewide Initiative Usage

Statewide Initiatives

Year	Measure Number	Type	Subject Matter	Description	Pass/Fail
1912	1	DA	Alcohol Regulation	Providing for statewide prohibition.	Failed
1912	10	DS	Election Reform	Amending election laws.	Failed
1912	11	DA	Initiative and Referendum	Providing for the holding of special elections for voting on proposed constitutional amendments and initiated and referred laws.	Failed
1912	12	DA	Legal	Defining contempt of court and providing for trial by jury for contempt in certain cases.	Failed
1912	13	DA	Utility Regulation	Creating a public utilities court with exclusive power to fix and enforce reasonable rates, and for appeal direct to the supreme court from its decision.	Failed
1912	14	DS	Election Reform	Amending election laws, and providing for a “headless ballot”.	Passed
1912	15	DA	Education	Providing wider control of the schools by the people.	Failed
1912	16	DA	Judicial Reform	Providing for juvenile courts in cities and counties of 100,000 population.	Passed
1912	17	DS	Welfare	Mothers’ compensation act and aid to dependent and neglected children.	Passed
1912	18	DS	Administration of Government	Relating to civil service and amending said law.	Passed
1912	19	DS	Labor	Eight-hour law for work in underground mines, smelters, mills and coke ovens.	Passed
1912	2	DS	Alcohol Regulation	Enforcement of prohibition laws by search and seizure.	Failed
1912	20	DS	Administration of Government	Giving state highway commission control of certain funds.	Failed
1912	3	DS	Labor	Women’s eight-hour employment law.	Passed
1912	31	DA	Bonds	Authorizing a bonded indebtedness for public highways.	Failed
1912	32	DS	Administration of Government	Construction of tunnel through James Peak.	Failed
1912	4	DS	Administration of Government	Providing for the regulation of public service corporations.	Failed
1912	5	DS	Administration of Government	Establishing a state fair.	Failed
1912	6	DA	Alien Rights	Providing special funds for the state immigration bureau.	Failed
1912	7	DS	Initiative and Referendum	Reducing costs of publishing constitutional amendments, initiated and referred laws, and publishing arguments for and against.	Failed
1912	8	DA	Administration of Government	Granting home rule to cities and towns.	Passed
1912	9	DA	Election Reform	Providing recall from office.	Passed
1914	N/A	DA	Initiative and Referendum	Giving people right to petition governor to call special elections for submitting measures under the initiative and referendum.	Failed
1914	N/A	DS	Legal	Permitting probation in criminal cases for minors and first offenders.	Failed
1914	N/A	DS	Administration of Government	Providing for codification of laws relating to women and children.	Failed
1914	N/A	DA	Utility Regulation	Designating newspapers as public utilities.	Failed
1914	N/A	DA	Judicial Reform	Providing for a 3/4 jury verdict in civil cases and permitting women to serve on juries if they desire.	Failed
1914	N/A	DA	Alcohol Regulation	Providing for statewide prohibition.	Passed
1914	N/A	DA	Initiative and Referendum	Providing that initiated measures rejected by people cannot again be initiated for six years, and if two conflicting measures be adopted at same election, one receiving largest affirmative vote shall prevail.	Failed
1914	N/A	DS	Taxes	Increasing state road fund by half mill levy for highway construction.	Passed
1916	N/A	DS	Education	Providing for the investment of public school funds in certain securities.	Passed
1916	N/A	DS	Business Regulation	Regulating the running of stock at large.	Failed
1916	N/A	DS	Welfare	Providing for the care and treatment of insane persons.	Passed
1916	N/A	DA	Alcohol Regulation	Declaring beer non-toxicating and providing for its manufacture and sale.	Failed
1916	N/A	DA	Administration of Government	Placing state civil service in the constitution.	Failed
1916	N/A	DS	Taxes	Abolishment of the state tax commission.	Failed
1918	N/A	DS	Welfare	Relief for blind adults.	Passed
1918	N/A	DA	Administration of Government	Placing state civil service in the constitution.	Passed
1918	N/A	DS	Alcohol Regulation	“Bone-dry” prohibition law.	Passed
1920	N/A	DS	Health/Medical	Appropriating $350,000 from the general fund for the establishment o the Psychopathic Hospital and Laboratory.	Passed
1920	N/A	DA	Education	Providing additional one mill levy for state educational institutions.	Passed
1920	N/A	DA	Bonds	Providing for the construction of the Moffat, Monarch and San Juan tunnels, and bond issue therefore.	Failed
1920	N/A	DS	Business Regulation	Relating to the practice of chiropractic, and providing for the regulation and licensing thereof.	Failed
1920	N/A	DS	Administration of Government	Creating the County of Limon.	Failed
1920	N/A	DS	Administration of Government	Creating the County of Flagler.	Failed
1920	N/A	DS	Labor	Fixing hours of employment in city fire departments.	Passed
1922	N/A	DA	Bonds	$1.5m bond issue for construction of public highways.	Passed
1922	N/A	DA	Utility Regulation	Creating a public utilities commission, prescribing its powers and duties, and defining public utilities.	Failed
1922	N/A	DA	Taxes	Giving legislature or people power to exempt certain intangibles from ad valorem taxation, and to impose an income tax in lieu thereof.	Failed
1922	N/A	DS	Business Regulation	Concerning experimental operations on human beings and dumb animals.	Failed
1922	N/A	DS	Apportionment/Redistricting	Revising apportionment of members of legislature.	Failed
1924	N/A	DA	Administration of Government	Establishing the office of state printer and printing building committee.	Failed
1926	N/A	DA	Administration of Government	Creating a public utilities commission and prescribing its powers and duties.	Failed
1926	N/A	DS	Taxes	Concerning the taxation of petroleum products and registration of motor vehicles, and providing that all such taxes and fees by used exclusively for roads.	Failed
1926	N/A	DS	Business Regulation	Amending law to permit dentists licensed in other states to practice in Colorado without examination.	Failed
1928	N/A	DA	Education	Providing for the election of a board of education, and for the appointment by said board of a commissioner of education to take place of superintendent of public instruction.	Failed
1928	N/A	DA	Bonds	Providing for a $60m bond issue for the construction of highways.	Failed
1930	N/A	DA	Education	Providing for the election of a board of education and for the appointment by said board of a commissioner of education to take place of superintendent of public instruction.	Failed
1932	N/A	DA	Taxes	Limiting taxation of motor fuel and ad valorem taxation of motor vehicles.	Failed
1932	N/A	DS	Apportionment/Redistricting	Reapportionment of members of legislature .	Passed
1932	N/A	DA	Alcohol Regulation	Repealing statewide prohibition, subject to national repeal.	Passed
1932	N/A	DA	Taxes	Giving legislature power to provide for a limited income tax and a classified personal property tax, to be used for public schools.	Failed
1932	N/A	DA	Taxes	Giving legislature power to provide for a graduated income tax for state purposes, abolishing property tax for state purposes, and giving any excess revenue to the public schools.	Failed
1934	N/A	DA	Taxes	Concerning the taxation of petroleum products and registration of motor vehicles and providing that such taxes and fees be used exclusively for roads.	Passed
1934	N/A	DS	Business Regulation	Imposing license fees on chain stores.	Passed
1934	N/A	DA	Taxes	Limiting tax on motor fuel to $.03 per gallon.	Failed
1934	N/A	DA	Taxes	Giving people sole power to impose or approve imposition of excise taxes through the initiative and referendum.	Failed
1936	N/A	DA	Taxes	Providing for ownership tax on motor vehicles in lieu of ad valorem taxation thereon, and for the distribution thereof.	Passed
1936	N/A	DS	Welfare	Providing for public assistance to indigent tubercular residents.	Passed
1936	N/A	DA	Taxes	Amending “uniformity clause” of constitution principally by limiting rate to taxation for all purposes to 20 mills in cities and towns of first class, and 15 mills in other divisions.	Failed
1936	N/A	DA	Taxes	Amending revenue section of constitution, principally by giving legislature power to provide for an income tax within limitations.	Failed
1936	N/A	DA	Welfare	Providing $45 per month old age pensions and designating certain taxes for the payment thereof.	Passed
1936	N/A	DS	Labor	Amending workmen’s compensation act to benefit of employee.	Passed
1938	N/A	DA	Business Regulation	Relating to the practice of the healing arts, and giving practitioners licensed by the state certain rights in tax supported institutions and power to regulate their own professions.	Failed
1938	N/A	DA	Welfare	Repeal of $45 per month old age pension amendment and giving legislature power to provide for pensions.	Failed
1938	N/A	DS	Taxes	Repeal of chain stores tax act.	Failed
1940	N/A	DA	Taxes	Providing for an income tax; requiring the legislature to levy such income tax at not lower than certain specified rates; and providing that the revenues derived there from shall replace property taxes.	Failed
1940	N/A	DA	Environmental Reform	Providing for the conservation of the state’s wildlife resources; limiting the use of game and fish revenues for such purposes; and establishing a Game and Fish Commission.	Failed
1940	N/A	DS	Gaming	Establishing a racing commission and legalizing horse and dog racing.	Failed
1940	N/A	DA	Welfare	Providing for a guaranteed old age pension of $30 per month to residents of the state over 65 years who qualify.	Failed
1940	N/A	DA	Taxes	Providing for an ad valorem tax on all intangible property in the state, and allocating the funds derived there from.	Failed
1944	N/A	DA	Alien Rights	Providing that aliens eligible to citizenship may acquire and dispose of real and personal property, and that provision shall be made by law concerning the right of aliens ineligible to citizenship to acquire and dispose of such property.	Failed
1944	N/A	DA	Veteran Affairs	Providing for preference to honorably discharged veterans and their widows in the civil service of the state and its political subdivisions.	Passed
1944	N/A	DS	Welfare	Appropriating $.5m for the then current biennium and $1.5m annually thereafter for old age pensions.	Passed
1948	3	DA	Alcohol Regulation	Political subdivisions may adopt and thereafter modify or repeal local option proposals prohibiting the sale of alcoholic and fermented malt beverages.	Failed
1948	4	DA	Welfare	Providing for a guaranteed minimum $55 per month old age pension and for the allocation and earmarking of certain moneys and excise taxes to pay the same.	Failed
1950	3	DA	Administration of Government	Concerning civil service and providing for additional exemptions there from of governor’s staff.	Failed
1952	4	DA	Taxes	Providing for a severance tax on certain petroleum products and natural gas.	Failed
1952	6	DA	Gaming	Legalizing slot machines except where prohibited by local ordinance.	Failed
1952	N/A	DS	Labor	Making it unlawful for any municipality to employ firemen more than 60 hours a week, with certain exceptions.	Failed
1954	8	DA	Administration of Government	Providing for four-year terms of office for certain County officers. (Art. 14, Sec.	Passed
1956	4	DA	Apportionment/Redistricting	Providing for apportionment of members of the general assembly.	Failed
1956	5	DA	Welfare	Revising the old age pension article; establishing a monthly award of $100 to be adjusted to increased living costs; providing for a stabilization fund of $5 million.	Passed
1958	1	DA	Labor	“Right-to-work” amendment; providing that no person shall be denied the freedom to obtain or retain employment because of membership or non-membership in any labor union or labor organization.	Failed
1958	4	DA	Gaming	Legalizing the conduct of games of chance (limited to bingo, lotto, or raffles) by certain organizations which operate without profit to dues paying members.	Passed
1960	3	DA	Environmental Reform	Creates a wildlife management commission and a department of wildlife conservation.	Failed
1960	4	DS	Daylight Savings Time	Providing for and establishing Daylight Saving Time.	Failed
1960	6	DA	Taxes	Authorizing general assembly to vest in counties, cities and towns, the power to impose a retail sales and use tax for local purposes on tangible personal property, except drugs, and food for off-premises consumption.	Failed
1960	7	DA	Administration of Government	Authorizing governor, with consent of Senate, to appoint administrative officers of certain departments, to be excluded from civil service.	Failed
1962	7	DA	Apportionment/Redistricting	An act providing for the apportionment of the Senate and House of Representatives of the General Assembly.	Passed
1962	8	DA	Apportionment/Redistricting	Providing for reapportionment of the general assembly.	Failed
1966	1	DS	Daylight Savings Time	Providing for Daylight Savings Time in Colorado.	Passed
1966	2	DS	Death Penalty	Abolishing death penalty.	Failed
1972	10	DS	Utility Regulation	An Act to protect the consumer of public utility services by defining just and reasonable rates, by creating an Office of Public Consumer Counsel.	Failed
1972	11	DS	Business Regulation	Establishing a system of compulsory insurance and compensation irrespective of fault for victims of motor vehicle accidents, setting forth the basis for recovery.	Failed
1972	6	DA	Gaming	An act to amend the Constitution to provide for a privately operated lottery, supervised and regulated by the Department of State and granting an exclusive original ten year license to the United States Sweepstakes Corporation.	Failed
1972	8	DA	Taxes	An Act to Amend Art. 10 and 11 to prohibit the state from levying taxes and appropriating or loaning funds for the purpose of aiding or furthering the 1976 Winter Olympic Games.	Passed
1972	9	DS	Campaign Finance Reform	Require that public officials disclose their private interests and that all lobbyists register and file periodic informational statements.	Passed
1972	N/A	DA	Taxes	Establishing a maximum limitation of one and one-half percent of the actual value on the annual taxation of property except as permitted by a vote of the qualified electors.	Failed
1974	1	DA	Administration of Government	An act concerning the annexation of property by a County or city and County, and prohibiting the striking off of any territory from a County without first submitting the question to a vote of the qualified electors of the County and city.	Passed
1974	10	DA	Nuclear weapons/facilities/waste	An act to amend the Constitution to establish procedural steps to be complied with prior to the detonation of nuclear explosive devises including voter approval.	Passed
1974	2	DS	Death Penalty	Shall the death penalty be imposed upon persons convicted of Class 1 felonies where certain mitigating circumstances are not present and certain aggravating circumstances are present?	Passed
1974	8	DA	Education	Prohibit the assignment or the transportation of pupils to public educational institutions in order to achieve racial balance of pupils at such institutions.	Passed
1974	9	DA	Apportionment/Redistricting	Reapportioning of legislative districts by a body to be known as the Colorado Reapportionment Commission which shall consist of electors.	Passed
1976	1	DA	Gaming	Authorize conduct of sweepstakes.	Passed
1976	10	DA	Taxes	An Amendment adding a new Sec. 31 to Art. 10 requiring registered electoral approval of all state and local executive or legislative acts which result in new or increased taxes.	Failed
1976	2	DA	Taxes	Classification/taxation of motor vehicles.	Passed
1976	3	DA	Nuclear weapons/facilities/waste	An amendment requiring approval by two thirds of each House of the General Assembly prior to any construction or modification of a nuclear power plant or related facility.	Failed
1976	4	DA	Administration of Government	Exemptions from state personnel systems.	Failed
1976	5	DA	Administration of Government	Compensation of County officials.	Failed
1976	6	DA	Civil Rights	An Act to repeal Sec. 29 of Art. 2 which section provides for equality of rights under the law on account of sex.	Failed
1976	7	DS	Taxes	Exempts food and food products, with certain exceptions, from state sales and use taxes and repeal the food sales tax credit, to require the General Assembly to enact severance taxes and corporate income taxes to offset any revenue lost.	Failed
1976	8	DS	Environmental Reform	Requires a minimum deposit refund value for beverage containers for malt liquor, including beer, and carbonated soft drinks manufactured, distributed, or sold for use in this state.	Failed
1976	9	DS	Utility Regulation	Protects and represents consumers of public utilities services by creating a Department of Public Counselor, and concerning financial disclosures by Public Utilities Commissioners.	Failed
1978	1	DA	Administration of Government	Office of County Commissioner, vacancies.	Passed
1978	2	DA	Taxes	Limiting annual increases in per capita expenditures by the state and its political subdivisions.	Failed
1982	1	DA	Taxes	Property tax assessment.	Passed
1982	2	DA	Legal	An amendment to Authorizing the denial of bail to persons accused of a capital offense when proof is evident or presumption is great.	Passed
1982	3	DA	Judicial Reform	Concerning the membership and appointment of the commission on judicial discipline.	Passed
1982	5	DS	Environmental Reform	Refund on beverage containers.	Failed
1982	6	M	Nuclear weapons/facilities/waste	To bring about the cessation of nuclear weapons component production in Colorado.	Failed
1982	7	DS	Business Regulation	Regulate the sale of wine in grocery stores.	Failed
1984	1	DA	Administration of Government	Appointment of Commissioner of Insurance.	Passed
1984	2	DA	Election Reform	Providing that a person must be a registered elector in order to vote for state elected executive officers.	Passed
1984	3	DA	Abortion	Ban the state funding of abortion.	Passed
1984	4	DS	Election Reform	To provide for additional voter registration of qualified electors applying for a driver’s license.	Passed
1984	5	DA	Gaming	Establish casino gambling in Pueblo.	Failed
1986	1	DA	Administration of Government	Appointments by merit.	Failed
1986	2	DA	Administration of Government	Compensation of County officers.	Failed
1986	3	DA	Initiative and Referendum	Franchises subject to initiative and referendum.	Passed
1986	4	DA	Taxes	Voter approval for tax increases.	Failed
1988	1	DA	Administration of Government	English as official language.	Passed
1988	2	DA	Election Reform	Reimbursement of Recall expenses.	Passed
1988	3	DA	Administration of Government	Legislative session length.	Passed
1988	4	DA	Labor	Concerning maximum eight-hour workday.	Passed
1988	5	DA	Taxes	Property tax exempt non-producing mining claims.	Passed
1988	6	DA	Taxes	Voter approval: increases in tax revenues.	Failed
1988	7	DA	Abortion	Restore funding for abortions.	Failed
1988	8	DA	Administration of Government	Referral of measures to committees.	Passed
1990	1	DA	Taxes	To require voter approval for certain state and local government revenue increases.	Failed
1990	2	DA	Election Reform	Colorado shall conduct a presidential primary election which conforms to political party rules.	Passed
1990	4	DA	Gaming	Legalizing limited gaming.	Passed
1990	5	DA	Term Limits	Term limits for elected officials. State legislature and Congress. 8/8	Passed
1992	1	DA	Taxes	Voter approval of tax revenue increases.	Passed
1992	10	DS	Animal Rights	Prohibit taking of black bears.	Passed
1992	2	DA	Civil Rights	Repeal local laws passed to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and prevent similar new laws.	Passed
1992	3	DA	Gaming	Limited gaming; surtax.	Failed
1992	4	DA	Gaming	Limited gaming.	Failed
1992	5	DA	Gaming	Limited gaming.	Failed
1992	6	DS	Education	Act for system of educational standards.	Failed
1992	7	DA	Education	Vouchers for school funding.	Failed
1992	8	DA	Environmental Reform	The Great Outdoors Colorado program.	Passed
1992	9	DA	Gaming	Limited gaming.	Failed
1994	1	DA	Taxes	Would place an additional 50 cents per pack tax on the sale of cigarettes by wholesalers.	Failed
1994	11	DA	Labor	Workers compensation benefits.	Failed
1994	12	DA	Campaign Finance Reform	Placed limitations on elected officials compensation; enacted campaign contribution limitations.	Failed
1994	13	DA	Gaming	To allow slot machines without a local vote in Manitou Springs.	Failed
1994	15	DA	Campaign Finance Reform	Establish campaign contributions limits.	Failed
1994	16	DA	Civil Rights	Would allow the control of the promotion of obscenity by the state and any city, town or County to the full extent permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.	Failed
1994	17	DA	Term Limits	Term limits on Congress 6/12 and on all localities.	Passed
1994	18	DA	Administration of Government	State medical assistance repayment.	Failed
1996	11	DA	Taxes	Eliminates property tax exemptions of religious and nonprofit organizations.	Failed
1996	12	DA	Term Limits	Term limits on Congress 6/12 and all localities.	Passed
1996	13	DA	Initiative and Referendum	Expands initiative and referendum powers.	Failed
1996	14	DA	Animal Rights	Concerns methods of taking wildlife; prohibits use of leg hold traps.	Passed
1996	15	DS	Campaign Finance Reform	Limiting the amount of campaign contributions to candidate committees.	Passed
1996	16	DA	Administration of Government	Concerns management of state’s trust lands; expands membership of the State Land Board.	Passed
1996	17	DA	Civil Rights	Grants constitutional status to parents’ rights.	Failed
1996	18	DA	Gaming	Allow limited gambling in the city of Trinidad.	Failed
1998	11	DS	Abortion	Would prohibit partial birth abortion	Failed
1998	12	DS	Abortion	Would require parents be notified prior to a physician performed abortion.	Passed
1998	13	DA	Animal Rights	Would establish uniform livestock regulations.	Failed
1998	14	DS	Animal Rights	Establish regulations for commercial hog farms	Passed
1998	15	DS	Environmental Reform	Would regulate water flow meters.	Failed
1998	16	DA	Education	Would require that payments by the Conservation District be made to the Public School Fund and School Districts.	Failed
1998	17	DA	Education	Would establish Income Tax Credit for education expenses.	Failed
1998	18	DA	Term Limits	Self Limit Law.	Passed
2000	20	DA	Drug Policy Reform	Legalizes marijuana for medical purposes.	Passed
2000	21	DA	Taxes	Amends TABOR – creates tax cuts.	Failed
2000	22	DS	Gun Regulation	An initiative amendment to require background checks for guns purchased at gun shows.	Passed
2000	23	DA	Education	Providing Additional K-12 Funding	Passed
2000	24	DA	Environmental Reform	Citizen Growth Initiative.	Failed
2000	25	DS	Abortion	This measure insures the provision of complete and accurate information to allow a woman to make an informed choice as to whether to give birth or to have an abortion.	Failed
2001	26	DA	Administration of Government	Expends $50 million of 2001 tax refund revenues over a period of three years to fund a high-speed monorail.	Passed

Colorado Constitution

Article V: Section 1. General assembly – initiative and referendum.
(1) The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives, both to be elected by the people, but 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.
(2) The first power hereby reserved by the people is the initiative, and signatures by registered electors in an amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the office of secretary of state at the previous general election shall be required to propose any measure by petition, and every such petition shall include the full text of the measure so proposed. Initiative petitions for state legislation and amendments to the constitution, in such form as may be prescribed pursuant to law, shall be addressed to and filed with the secretary of state at least three months before the general election at which they are to be voted upon.
(3) The second power hereby reserved is the referendum, and it may be ordered, except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, and appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of state and state institutions, against any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly, either by a petition signed by registered electors in an amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the office of the secretary of state at the previous general election or by the general assembly. Referendum petitions, in such form as may be prescribed pursuant to law, shall be addressed to and filed with the secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the general assembly that passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded. The filing of a referendum petition against any item, section, or part of any act shall not delay the remainder of the act from becoming operative.
(4) The veto power of the governor shall not extend to measures initiated by or referred to the people. All elections on measures initiated by or referred to the people of the state shall be held at the biennial regular general election, and all such measures shall become the law or a part of the constitution, when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, and not otherwise, and shall take effect from and after the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by proclamation of the governor, but not later than thirty days after the vote has been canvassed. This section shall not be construed to deprive the general assembly of the power to enact any measure.
(5) The original draft of the text of proposed initiated constitutional amendments and initiated laws shall be submitted to the legislative research and drafting offices of the general assembly for review and comment. No later than two weeks after submission of the original draft, unless withdrawn by the proponents, the legislative research and drafting offices of the general assembly shall render their comments to the proponents of the proposed measure at a meeting open to the public, which shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public. Such meeting shall be held prior to the fixing of a ballot title. Neither the general assembly nor its committees or agencies shall have any power to require the amendment, modification, or other alteration of the text of any such proposed measure or to establish deadlines for the submission of the original draft of the text of any proposed measure.
(5.5) No measure shall be proposed by petition containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; but if any subject shall be embraced in any measure which shall not be expressed in the title, such measure shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed. If a measure contains more than one subject, such that a ballot title cannot be fixed that clearly expresses a single subject, no title shall be set and the measure shall not be submitted to the people for adoption or rejection at the polls. In such circumstance, however, the measure may be revised and resubmitted for the fixing of a proper title without the necessity of review and comment on the revised measure in accordance with subsection (5) of this section, unless the revisions involve more than the elimination of provisions to achieve a single subject, or unless the official or officials responsible for the fixing of a title determine that the revisions are so substantial that such review and comment is in the public interest. The revision and resubmission of a measure in accordance with this subsection (5.5) shall not operate to alter or extend any filing deadline applicable to the measure.
(6) The petition shall consist of sheets having such general form printed or written at the top thereof as shall be designated or prescribed by the secretary of state; such petition shall be signed by registered electors in their own proper persons only, to which shall be attached the residence address of such person and the date of signing the same. To each of such petitions, which may consist of one or more sheets, shall be attached an affidavit of some registered elector that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be and that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the affiant, each of the persons signing said petition was, at the time of signing, a registered elector. Such petition so verified shall be prima facie evidence that the signatures thereon are genuine and true and that the persons signing the same are registered electors.
(7) The secretary of state shall submit all measures initiated by or referred to the people for adoption or rejection at the polls, in compliance with this section. In submitting the same and in all matters pertaining to the form of all petitions, the secretary of state and all other officers shall be guided by the general laws.
(7.3) Before any election at which the voters of the entire state will vote on any initiated or referred constitutional amendment or legislation, the nonpartisan research staff of the general assembly shall cause to be published the text and title of every such measure. Such publication shall be made at least one time in at least one legal publication of general circulation in each county of the state and shall be made at least fifteen days prior to the final date of voter registration for the election. The form and manner of publication shall be as prescribed by law and shall ensure a reasonable opportunity for the voters statewide to become informed about the text and title of each measure.
(7.5) (a) Before any election at which the voters of the entire state will vote on any initiated or referred constitutional amendment or legislation, the nonpartisan research staff of the general assembly shall prepare and make available to the public the following information in the form of a ballot information booklet:
(I) The text and title of each measure to be voted on;
(II) A fair and impartial analysis of each measure, which shall include a summary and the major arguments both for and against the measure, and which may include any other information that would assist understanding the purpose and effect of the measure. Any person may file written comments for consideration by the research staff during the preparation of such analysis.
(b) At least thirty days before the election, the research staff shall cause the ballot information booklet to be distributed to active registered voters statewide.
(c) If any measure to be voted on by the voters of the entire state includes matters arising under section 20 of article X of this constitution, the ballot information booklet shall include the information and the titled notice required by section 20 (3) (b) of article X, and the mailing of such information pursuant to section 20 (3) (b) of article X is not required.
(d) The general assembly shall provide sufficient appropriations for the preparation and distribution of the ballot information booklet pursuant to this subsection (7.5) at no charge to recipients.
(8) The style of all laws adopted by the people through the initiative shall be, “Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado”.
(9) The initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people by this section are hereby further reserved to the registered electors of every city, town, and municipality as to all local, special, and municipal legislation of every character in or for their respective municipalities. The manner of exercising said powers shall be prescribed by general laws; except that cities, towns, and municipalities may provide for the manner of exercising the initiative and referendum powers as to their municipal legislation. Not more than ten percent of the registered electors may be required to order the referendum, nor more than fifteen per cent to propose any measure by the initiative in any city, town, or municipality.
(10) This section of the constitution shall be in all respects self-executing; except that the form of the initiative or referendum petition may be prescribed pursuant to law.

Colorado Statutes

1-40-101 – Legislative declaration.
It is not the intention of this article to limit or abridge in any manner the powers reserved to the people in the initiative and referendum, but rather to properly safeguard, protect, and preserve inviolate for them these modern instrumentalities of democratic government.
As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Ballot issue” means a non-recall, citizen-initiated petition or legislatively-referred measure which is authorized by the state constitution, including a question as defined in sections 1-41-102 (3) and 1-41-103 (3), enacted in Senate Bill 93-98.
(2) “Ballot title” means the language which is printed on the ballot which is comprised of the submission clause and the title.
(3) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 430, § 2, effective May 8, 1995.)
(4) “Draft” means the typewritten proposed text of the initiative which, if passed, becomes the actual language of the constitution or statute, together with language concerning placement of the measure in the constitution or statutes.
(5) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 431, § 2, effective May 8, 1995.)
(6) “Section” means a bound compilation of initiative forms approved by the secretary of state, which shall include pages that contain the warning required by section 1-40-110 (1), the ballot title, and a copy of the proposed measure; succeeding pages that contain the warning, the ballot title, and ruled lines numbered consecutively for registered electors’ signatures; and a final page that contains the affidavit required by section 1-40-111 (2). Each section shall be consecutively prenumbered by the petitioner prior to circulation.
(7) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 431, § 2, effective May 8, 1995.)
(8) “Submission clause” means the language which is attached to the title to form a question which can be answered by “yes” or “no”.
(9) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 1621, § 3, effective August 2, 2000.)
(10) “Title” means a brief statement that fairly and accurately represents the true intent and meaning of the proposed text of the initiative.
1-40-103 – Applicability of article.
(1) This article shall apply to all state ballot issues that are authorized by the state constitution unless otherwise provided by statute, charter, or ordinance.
(2) The laws pertaining to municipal initiatives, referenda, and referred measures are governed by the provisions of article 11 of title 31, C.R.S.
(3) The laws pertaining to county petitions and referred measures are governed by the provisions of section 30-11-103.5, C.R.S.
(4) The laws pertaining to school district petitions and referred measures are governed by the provisions of section 22-30-104 (4), C.R.S.
1-40-104 – Designated representatives.
At the time of any filing of a draft as provided in this article, the proponents shall designate the names and mailing addresses of two persons who shall represent the proponents in all matters affecting the petition and to whom all notices or information concerning the petition shall be mailed.
1-40-105 – Filing procedure – review and comment – amendments – filing with secretary of state.
(1) The original typewritten draft of every initiative petition for a proposed law or amendment to the state constitution to be enacted by the people, before it is signed by any elector, shall be submitted by the proponents of the petition to the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services for review and comment. Proponents are encouraged to write such drafts in plain, non-technical language and in a clear and coherent manner using words with common and everyday meaning which are understandable to the average reader. Upon request, any agency in the executive department shall assist in reviewing and preparing comments on the petition. No later than two weeks after the date of submission of the original draft, unless it is withdrawn by the proponents, the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, or their designees, shall render their comments to the proponents of the petition concerning the format or contents of the petition at a meeting open to the public. Where appropriate, such comments shall also contain suggested editorial changes to promote compliance with the plain language provisions of this section. Except with the permission of the proponents, the comments shall not be disclosed to any person other than the proponents prior to the public meeting with the proponents of the petition.
(2) After the public meeting but before submission to the secretary of state for title setting, the proponents may amend the petition in response to some or all of the comments of the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, or their designees. If any substantial amendment is made to the petition, other than an amendment in direct response to the comments of the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, the amended petition shall be resubmitted to the directors for comment in accordance with subsection (1) of this section prior to submittal to the secretary of state as provided in subsection (4) of this section. If the directors have no additional comments concerning the amended petition, they may so notify the proponents in writing, and, in such case, a hearing on the amended petition pursuant to subsection (1) of this section is not required.
(3) To the extent possible, drafts shall be worded with simplicity and clarity and so that the effect of the measure will not be misleading or likely to cause confusion among voters. The draft shall not present the issue to be decided in such manner that a vote for the measure would be a vote against the proposition or viewpoint that the voter believes that he or she is casting a vote for or, conversely, that a vote against the measure would be a vote for a proposition or viewpoint that the voter is against.
(4) After the conference provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a copy of the original typewritten draft submitted to the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, a copy of the amended draft with changes highlighted or otherwise indicated, if any amendments were made following the last conference conducted pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section, and an original final draft which gives the final language for printing shall be submitted to the secretary of state without any title, submission clause, or ballot title providing the designation by which the voters shall express their choice for or against the proposed law or constitutional amendment.
1-40-106 – Title board – meetings – titles and submission clause.
(1) For ballot issues, beginning with the first submission of a draft after an election, the secretary of state shall convene a title board consisting of the secretary of state, the attorney general, and the director of the office of legislative legal services or the director’s designee. The title board, by majority vote, shall proceed to designate and fix a proper fair title for each proposed law or constitutional amendment, together with a submission clause, at public meetings to be held at 2 p.m. on the first and third Wednesdays of each month in which a draft or a motion for reconsideration has been submitted to the secretary of state. To be considered at such meeting, a draft shall be submitted to the secretary of state no later than 3 p.m. on the twelfth day before the meeting at which the draft is to be considered by the title board. The first meeting of the title board shall be held no sooner than the first Wednesday in December after an election, and the last meeting shall be held no later than the third Wednesday in May in the year in which the measure is to be voted on.
(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 432, § 4, effective May 8, 1995.)
(3) (a) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 1620, § 1, effective August 2, 2000.)
(b) In setting a title, the title board shall consider the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles and shall, whenever practicable, avoid titles for which the general understanding of the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote will be unclear. The title for the proposed law or constitutional amendment, which shall correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning thereof, together with the ballot title and submission clause, shall be completed within two weeks after the first meeting of the title board. Immediately upon completion, the secretary of state shall deliver the same with the original to the parties presenting it, keeping the copy with a record of the action taken thereon. Ballot titles shall be brief, shall not conflict with those selected for any petition previously filed for the same election, and shall be in the form of a question which may be answered “yes” (to vote in favor of the proposed law or constitutional amendment) or “no” (to vote against the proposed law or constitutional amendment) and which shall unambiguously state the principle of the provision sought to be added, amended, or repealed.
1-40-106.5 – Single-subject requirements for initiated measures and referred constitutional amendments – legislative declaration.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that:
(a) Section 1 (5.5) of article V and section 2 (3) of article XIX of the state constitution require that every constitutional amendment or law proposed by initiative and every constitutional amendment proposed by the general assembly be limited to a single subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title;
(b) Such provisions were referred by the general assembly to the people for their approval at the 1994 general election pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 93-4;
(c) The language of such provisions was drawn from section 21 of article V of the state constitution, which requires that every bill, except general appropriation bills, shall be limited to a single subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title;
(d) The Colorado supreme court has held that the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills was designed to prevent or inhibit various inappropriate or misleading practices that might otherwise occur, and the intent of the general assembly in referring to the people section 1 (5.5) of article V and section 2 (3) of article XIX was to protect initiated measures and referred constitutional amendments from similar practices;
(e) The practices intended by the general assembly to be inhibited by section 1 (5.5) of article V and section 2 (3) of article XIX are as follows:
(I) To forbid the treatment of incongruous subjects in the same measure, especially the practice of putting together in one measure subjects having no necessary or proper connection, for the purpose of enlisting in support of the measure the advocates of each measure, and thus securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits;
(II) To prevent surreptitious measures and apprise the people of the subject of each measure by the title, that is, to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters.
(2) It is the intent of the general assembly that section 1 (5.5) of article V and section 2 (3) of article XIX be liberally construed, so as to avert the practices against which they are aimed and, at the same time, to preserve and protect the right of initiative and referendum.
(3) It is further the intent of the general assembly that, in setting titles pursuant to section 1 (5.5) of article V, the initiative title setting review board created in section 1-40-106 should apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and should follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills.
1-40-107 – Rehearing – appeal – fees – signing.
(1) Any person presenting an initiative petition or any registered elector who is not satisfied with a decision of the title board with respect to whether a petition contains more than a single subject pursuant to section 1-40-106.5, or who is not satisfied with the titles and submission clause provided by the title board and who claims that they are unfair or that they do not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the proposed state law or constitutional amendment may file a motion for a rehearing with the secretary of state within seven days after the decision is made or the titles and submission clause are set. The motion for rehearing shall be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the title board; except that, if the title board is unable to complete action on all matters scheduled for that day, consideration of any motion for rehearing may be continued to the next available day, and except that, if the titles and submission clause protested were set at the last meeting in May, the motion shall be heard within forty-eight hours after the motion is filed.
(2) If any person presenting an initiative petition for which a motion for a rehearing is filed, any registered elector who filed a motion for a rehearing pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, or any other registered elector who appeared before the title board in support of or in opposition to a motion for rehearing is not satisfied with the ruling of the title board upon the motion, then the secretary of state shall furnish such person, upon request, a certified copy of the petition with the titles and submission clause of the proposed law or constitutional amendment, together with a certified copy of the motion for rehearing and of the ruling thereon. If filed with the clerk of the supreme court within five days thereafter, the matter shall be disposed of promptly, consistent with the rights of the parties, either affirming the action of the title board or reversing it, in which latter case the court shall remand it with instructions, pointing out where the title board is in error.
(3) The secretary of state shall be allowed a fee which shall be determined and collected pursuant to section 24-21-104 (3), C.R.S., for certifying a record of any proceedings before the title board. The clerk of the supreme court shall receive one-half the ordinary docket fee for docketing any such cause, all of which shall be paid by the parties desiring a review of such proceedings.
(4) No petition for any initiative measure shall be circulated nor any signature thereto have any force or effect which has been signed before the titles and submission clause have been fixed and determined as provided in section 1-40-106 and this section.
(5) In the event a motion for rehearing is filed in accordance with this section, the period for filing a petition in accordance with section 1-40-108 shall not begin until a final decision concerning the motion is rendered by the title board or the Colorado supreme court; except that under no circumstances shall the period for filing a petition be extended beyond three months prior to the election at which the petition is to be voted upon.
(6) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 1622, § 5, effective August 2, 2000.)
(7) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 433, § 5, effective May 8, 1995.)
1-40-108 – Petition – time of filing.
(1) No petition for any ballot issue shall be of any effect unless filed with the secretary of state within six months from the date that the titles and submission clause have been fixed and determined pursuant to the provisions of sections 1-40-106 and 1-40-107 and unless filed with the secretary of state within the time required by the state constitution before the election at which it is to be voted upon. A petition for a ballot issue for the election to be held in November of odd-numbered years shall be filed with the secretary of state within the same time before such odd-year election as is required by the state constitution for issues to be voted on at the general election. All filings under this section must be made by 3 p.m. on the day of filing.
(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 433, § 6, effective May 8, 1995.)
1-40-109 – Signatures required.
(1) No petition for any initiated law or amendment to the state constitution shall be of any force or effect, nor shall the proposed law or amendment to the state constitution be submitted to the people of the state of Colorado for adoption or rejection at the polls, as is by law provided for, unless the petition for the submission of the initiated law or amendment to the state constitution is signed by the number of electors required by the state constitution.
(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 433, § 7, effective May 8, 1995.)
(3) Any person who is a registered elector may sign a petition for any ballot issue for which the elector is eligible to vote.
1-40-110 – Warning – ballot title.
(1) At the top of each page of every initiative or referendum petition section shall be printed, in a form as prescribed by the secretary of state, the following:

“WARNING: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure.

DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE.

Before signing this petition, you are encouraged to read the text or the title of the proposed initiative or referred measure.”

(2) The ballot title for the measure shall then be printed on each page following the warning.
1-40-111 – Signatures – affidavits.
(1) Any initiative or referendum petition shall be signed only by registered electors who are eligible to vote on the measure. Each registered elector shall sign his or her own signature and shall print his or her name, the address at which he or she resides, including the street number and name, the city and town, the county, and the date of signing. Each registered elector signing a petition shall be encouraged by the circulator of the petition to sign the petition in ink. In the event a registered elector is physically disabled or is illiterate and wishes to sign the petition, the elector shall sign or make his or her mark in the space so provided. Any person, but not a circulator, may assist the disabled or illiterate elector in completing the remaining information required by this subsection (1). The person providing assistance shall sign his or her name and address and shall state that such assistance was given to the disabled or illiterate elector.
(2) To each petition section shall be attached a signed, notarized, and dated affidavit executed by the registered elector who circulated the petition section, which shall include his or her printed name, the address at which he or she resides, including the street name and number, the city or town, the county, and the date he or she signed the affidavit; that he or she has read and understands the laws governing the circulation of petitions; that he or she was a registered elector at the time the section of the petition was circulated and signed by the listed electors; that he or she circulated the section of the petition; that each signature thereon was affixed in the circulator’s presence; that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be; that to the best of the circulator’s knowledge and belief each of the persons signing the petition section was, at the time of signing, a registered elector; and that he or she has not paid or will not in the future pay and that he or she believes that no other person has paid or will pay, directly or indirectly, any money or other thing of value to any signer for the purpose of inducing or causing such signer to affix his or her signature to the petition.
The secretary of state shall not accept for filing any section of a petition that does not have attached thereto the notarized affidavit required by this section. Any signature added to a section of a petition after the affidavit has been executed shall be invalid.
1-40-112 – Circulators – requirements.
(1) No section of a petition for any initiative or referendum measure shall be circulated by any person who is not a registered elector and at least eighteen years of age at the time the section is circulated.
(2) (a) All circulators who are not to be paid for circulating petitions concerning ballot issues shall display an identification badge that includes the words “VOLUNTEER CIRCULATOR” in bold-faced type which is clearly legible and the circulator’s name.
(b) All circulators who are to be paid for circulating petitions concerning ballot issues shall display an identification badge that includes the words “PAID CIRCULATOR” in bold-faced type which is clearly legible, the circulator’s name, and the name and telephone number of the individual employing the circulator.
1-40-113 – Form – representatives of signers.
(1) Each section of a petition shall be printed on a form as prescribed by the secretary of state. No petition shall be printed, published, or otherwise circulated unless the form and the first printer’s proof of the petition have been approved by the secretary of state. Each petition section shall designate by name and mailing address two persons who shall represent the signers thereof in all matters affecting the same. The secretary of state shall assure that the petition contains only the matters required by this article and contains no extraneous material. All sections of any petition shall be prenumbered serially, and the circulation of any petition section described by this article other than personally by a circulator is prohibited. Any petition section that fails to conform to the requirements of this article or is circulated in a manner other than that permitted in this article shall be invalid.
(2) Any disassembly of a section of the petition which has the effect of separating the affidavits from the signatures shall render that section of the petition invalid and of no force and effect.
(3) Prior to the time of filing, the persons designated in the petition to represent the signers shall bind the sections of the petition in convenient volumes consisting of one hundred sections of the petition if one hundred or more sections are available or, if less than one hundred sections are available to make a volume, consisting of all sections that are available. Each volume consisting of less than one hundred sections shall be marked on the first page of the volume. However, any volume that contains more or less than one hundred sections, due only to the oversight of the designated representatives of the signers or their staff, shall not result in a finding of insufficiency of signatures therein. Each section of each volume shall include the affidavits required by section 1-40-111 (2), together with the sheets containing the signatures accompanying the same. These bound volumes shall be filed with the secretary of state.
1-40-114 – Petitions – not election materials – no bilingual language requirement.
The general assembly hereby determines that initiative petitions are not election materials or information covered by the federal “Voting Rights Act of 1965″, and therefore are not required to be printed in any language other than English to be circulated in any county in Colorado.
1-40-115 – Ballot – voting – publication.
(1) Measures shall appear upon the official ballot by ballot title only. The measures shall be placed on the ballot in the order in which they were certified to the ballot and as provided in section 1-5-407 (5).
(2) All ballot issues shall be printed on the official ballot in that order, together with their respective letters and numbers prefixed in bold-faced type. Each ballot shall have the following explanation printed one time at the beginning of such ballot issues: “Ballot issues referred by the general assembly or any political subdivision are listed by letter, and ballot issues initiated by the people are listed numerically. A ‘yes’ vote on any ballot issue is a vote in favor of changing current law or existing circumstances, and a ‘no’ vote on any ballot issue is a vote against changing current law or existing circumstances.” Each ballot title shall appear on the official ballot but once and shall be separated from the other ballot titles next to it by heavy black lines and shall be followed by the words “yes” and “no” with blank spaces to the right and opposite the same as follows:

(HERE SHALL APPEAR THE BALLOT TITLE IN FULL)

YES ______ NO ______

(3) A voter desiring to vote for the measure shall make a cross mark (X) in the blank space to the right and opposite the word “yes”; a voter desiring to vote against the measure shall make a cross mark (X) in the blank space to the right and opposite the word “no”; and the votes marked shall be counted accordingly. Any measure approved by the people of the state shall be printed with the acts of the next general assembly.
1-40-116 – Verification – ballot issues – random sampling.
(1) For ballot issues, each section of a petition to which there is attached an affidavit of the registered elector who circulated the petition that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be and that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the affiant each of the persons signing the petition was at the time of signing a registered elector shall be prima facie evidence that the signatures are genuine and true, that the petitions were circulated in accordance with the provisions of this article, and that the form of the petition is in accordance with this article.
(2) Upon submission of the petition, the secretary of state shall examine each name and signature on the petition. The petition shall not be available to the public for a period of no more than thirty calendar days for the examination. The secretary shall assure that the information required by sections 1-40-110 and 1-40-111 is complete, that the information on each signature line was written by the person making the signature, and that no signatures have been added to any sections of the petition after the affidavit required by section 1-40-111 (2) has been executed.
(3) No signature shall be counted unless the signer is a registered elector and eligible to vote on the measure. A person shall be deemed a registered elector if the person’s name and address appear on the master voting list kept by the secretary of state at the time of signing the section of the petition. In addition, the secretary of state shall not count the signature of any person whose information is not complete or was not completed by the elector or a person qualified to assist the elector. The secretary of state may adopt rules consistent with this subsection (3) for the examination and verification of signatures.
(4) The secretary of state shall verify the signatures on the petition by use of random sampling. The random sample of signatures to be verified shall be drawn so that every signature filed with the secretary of state shall be given an equal opportunity to be included in the sample. The secretary of state is authorized to engage in rule making to establish the appropriate methodology for conducting such random sample. The random sampling shall include an examination of no less than five percent of the signatures, but in no event less than four thousand signatures. If the random sample verification establishes that the number of valid signatures is ninety percent or less of the number of registered eligible electors needed to find the petition sufficient, the petition shall be deemed to be not sufficient. If the random sample verification establishes that the number of valid signatures totals one hundred ten percent or more of the number of required signatures of registered eligible electors, the petition shall be deemed sufficient. If the random sampling shows the number of valid signatures to be more than ninety percent but less than one hundred ten percent of the number of signatures of registered eligible electors needed to declare the petition sufficient, the secretary of state shall order the examination and verification of each signature filed.
1-40-117 – Statement of sufficiency – statewide issues.
(1) After examining the petition, the secretary of state shall issue a statement as to whether a sufficient number of valid signatures appears to have been submitted to certify the petition to the ballot.
(2) If the petition was verified by random sample, the statement shall contain the total number of signatures submitted and whether the number of signatures presumed valid was ninety percent of the required total or less or one hundred ten percent of the required total or more.
(3) (a) If the secretary declares that the petition appears not to have a sufficient number of valid signatures, the statement issued by the secretary shall specify the number of sufficient and insufficient signatures. The secretary shall identify by section number and line number within the section those signatures found to be insufficient and the grounds for the insufficiency. Such information shall be kept on file for public inspection in accordance with section 1-40-118.
(b) In the event the secretary of state issues a statement declaring that a petition, having first been submitted with the required number of signatures, appears not to have a sufficient number of valid signatures, the representatives designated by the proponents pursuant to section 1-40-104 may cure the insufficiency by filing an addendum to the original petition for the purpose of offering such number of additional signatures as will cure the insufficiency. No addendum offered as a cure shall be considered unless the addendum conforms to requirements for petitions outlined in sections 1-40-110, 1-40-111, and 1-40-113, and unless the addendum is filed with the secretary of state within the fifteen-day period after the insufficiency is declared and unless filed with the secretary of state within the time required by the state constitution before the election at which the initiative petition is to be voted on. All filings under this paragraph (b) shall be made by 3 p.m. on the day of filing. Upon submission of a timely filed addendum, the secretary of state shall order the examination and verification of each signature on the addendum. The addendum shall not be available to the public for a period of up to ten calendar days for such examination. After examining the petition, the secretary of state shall, within ten calendar days, issue a statement as to whether the addendum cures the insufficiency found in the original petition.
1-40-118 – Protest.
(1) A protest in writing, under oath, together with three copies thereof, may be filed in the district court for the county in which the petition has been filed by some registered elector, within thirty days after the secretary of state issues a statement as to whether the petition has a sufficient number of valid signatures, which statement shall be issued no later than thirty calendar days after the petition has been filed. If the secretary of state fails to issue a statement within thirty calendar days, the petition shall be deemed sufficient. During the period a petition is being examined by the secretary of state for sufficiency, the petition shall not be available to the public; except that such period shall not exceed thirty calendar days.
(2) If the secretary of state conducted a random sample of the petitions and did not verify each signature, the protest shall specifically allege the defects in the procedure used by the secretary of state in the verification of the petition or the grounds for challenging individual signatures. If the secretary of state verified each name on the petition sections, the protest shall set forth with particularity the grounds of the protest and the signatures protested. No signature may be challenged that is not identified in the protest by section number, line number, name, and reason why the secretary of state is in error. If any party is protesting the finding of the secretary of state regarding the registration of a signer, the protest shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the elector or a copy of the election record of the signer.
(3) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 436, § 13, effective May 8, 1995.)
(4) The secretary of state shall furnish a requesting protestor with a computer tape or microfiche listing of the names of all registered electors in the state and shall charge a fee which shall be determined and collected pursuant to section 24-21-104 (3), C.R.S., to cover the cost of furnishing the listing.
1-40-119 – Procedure for hearings.
At any hearing held under this article, the party protesting the finding of the secretary of state concerning the sufficiency of signatures shall have the burden of proof. Hearings shall be had as soon as is conveniently possible and shall be concluded within thirty days after the commencement thereof, and the result of such hearings shall be forthwith certified to the designated representatives of the signers and to the protestors of the petition. The hearing shall be subject to the provisions of the Colorado rules of civil procedure. Upon application, the decision of the court shall be reviewed by the Colorado supreme court.
1-40-120 – Filing in federal court.
In case a complaint has been filed with the federal district court on the grounds that a petition is insufficient due to failure to comply with any federal law, rule, or regulation, the petition may be withdrawn by the two persons designated pursuant to section 1-40-104 to represent the signers of the petition and, within fifteen days after the court has issued its order in the matter, may be amended and refiled as an original petition. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the timely filing of a protest to any original petition, including one that has been amended and refiled. No person shall be entitled, pursuant to this section, to amend an amended petition.
1-40-121 – Receiving money to circulate petitions – filing.
(1) The proponents of the petition shall file with the official who receives filings under the “Fair Campaign Practices Act”, article 45 of this title, for the election the name, address, and county of voter registration of all circulators who were paid to circulate any section of the petition, the amount paid per signature, and the total amount paid to each circulator. The filing shall be made at the same time the petition is filed with the secretary of state. Any payment made to circulators is an expenditure under article 45 of this title.
(2) The proponents of the petition shall sign and file monthly reports with the secretary of state, due ten days after the last day of each month in which petitions are circulated on behalf of the proponents by paid circulators. Monthly reports shall set forth the following:
(a) The names of the proponents;
(b) The name and the residential and business addresses of each of the paid circulators;
(c) The name of the proposed ballot measure for which petitions are being circulated by paid circulators; and
(d) The amount of money paid and owed to each paid circulator for petition circulation during the month in question.
1-40-122 – Certification of ballot titles.
(1) The secretary of state, at the time the secretary of state certifies to the county clerk and recorder of each county the names of the candidates for state and district offices for general election, shall also certify to them the ballot titles and numbers of each initiated and referred measure filed in the office of the secretary of state to be voted upon at such election.
(2) Repealed.
1-40-123 – Counting of votes – effective date – conflicting provisions.
The votes on all measures submitted to the people shall be counted and properly entered after the votes for candidates for office cast at the same election are counted and shall be counted, canvassed, and returned and the result determined and certified in the manner provided by law concerning other elections. The secretary of state who has certified the election shall, without delay, make and transmit to the governor a certificate of election. The measure shall take effect from and after the date of the official declaration of the vote by proclamation of the governor, but not later than thirty days after the votes have been canvassed, as provided in section 1 of article V of the state constitution. A majority of the votes cast thereon shall adopt any measure submitted, and, in case of adoption of conflicting provisions, the one that receives the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail in all particulars as to which there is a conflict.
1-40-124 – Publication.
(1) (a) In accordance with section 1 (7.3) of article V of the state constitution, the director of research of the legislative council of the general assembly shall cause to be published at least one time in every legal newspaper, as defined in sections 24-70-102 and 24-70-103 (1), C.R.S., compactly and without unnecessary spacing, in not less than eight-point standard type, a true copy of:
(I) The title and text of each constitutional amendment, initiated or referred measure, or part of a measure, to be submitted to the people with the number and form in which the ballot title thereof will be printed in the official ballot; and
(II) The text of each referred or initiated question arising under section 20 of article X of the state constitution, as defined in section 1-41-102 (3), to be submitted to the people with the number and form in which such question will be printed in the official ballot.
(b) The charge for publication shall be at the newspaper’s then effective current lowest bulk comparable or general rate charged. The director of research shall provide all of the legal newspapers either complete slick proofs or mats of the title and text of the proposed constitutional amendment, initiated or referred measure, or part of a measure, and of the text of a referred or initiated question arising under section 20 of article X of the state constitution, as defined in section 1-41-102 (3), at least one week before the publication date.
(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 437, § 18, effective May 8, 1995.)
1-40-124.5 – Ballot information booklet.
(1) The director of research of the legislative council of the general assembly shall prepare a ballot information booklet for any initiated or referred constitutional amendment or legislation, including a question, as defined in section 1-41-102 (3), in accordance with section 1 (7.5) of article V of the state constitution. If it appears that any measure has a significant fiscal impact on the state or any of its political subdivisions, the booklet shall include an estimate of the fiscal impact of such measure, taking into consideration fiscal impact information submitted by the office of state planning and budgeting, the department of local affairs, any proponent, or other interested person. Prior to completion of the booklet, a draft shall be reviewed by the legislative council at a public hearing held after notice. At the hearing, any proponent or other interested person shall be allowed to comment on the accuracy or fairness of the analysis of any ballot issue addressed by the booklet.
(1.5) The executive committee of the legislative council of the general assembly shall be responsible for providing the fiscal information on any ballot issue that must be included in the ballot information booklet pursuant to section 1 (7.5) (c) of article V of the state constitution.
(2) Following completion of the ballot information booklet, the director of research shall arrange for its distribution to every residence of one or more active registered electors in the state. Distribution may be accomplished by such means as the director of research deems appropriate to comply with section 1 (7.5) of article V of the state constitution, including, but not limited to, mailing the ballot information booklet to electors and insertion of the ballot information booklet in newspapers of general circulation in the state. The distribution shall be performed pursuant to a contract or contracts bid and entered into after employing standard competitive bidding practices including, but not limited to, the use of requests for information, requests for proposals, or any other standard vendor selection practices determined to be best suited to selecting an appropriate means of distribution and an appropriate contractor or contractors. The executive director of the department of personnel shall provide such technical advice and assistance regarding bidding procedures as deemed necessary by the director of research.
(3) There is hereby established in the state treasury the ballot information publication and distribution revolving fund. Moneys shall be appropriated to the fund each year by the general assembly in the annual general appropriation act. All interest earned on the investment of moneys in the fund shall be credited to the fund. Moneys in the revolving fund are continuously appropriated to the legislative council of the general assembly to pay the costs of publishing the text and title of each constitutional amendment, initiated or referred measure, or part of a measure, and the text of a referred or initiated question arising under section 20 of article X of the state constitution, as defined in section 1-41-102 (3), in every legal newspaper in the state, as required by section 1-40-124, and the costs of distributing the ballot information booklet, as required by subsection (2) of this section. Any moneys credited to the revolving fund and unexpended at the end of any given fiscal year shall remain in the fund and shall not revert to the general fund.
1-40-125 – Mailing to electors.
(1) The requirements of this section shall apply to any ballot issue involving a local government matter arising under section 20 of article X of the state constitution, as defined in section 1-41-103 (4), for which notice is required to be mailed pursuant to section 20 (3) (b) of article X of the state constitution. A mailing is not required for a ballot issue that does not involve a local government matter arising under section 20 of article X of the state constitution, as defined in section 1-41-103 (4).
(2) Thirty days before a ballot issue election, political subdivisions shall mail at the least cost and as a package where districts with ballot issues overlap, a titled notice or set of notices addressed to “all registered voters” at each address of one or more active registered electors. Except for voter-approved additions, notices shall include only:
(a) The election date, hours, ballot title, text, and local election office address and telephone number;
(b) For proposed district tax or bonded debt increases, the estimated or actual total of district fiscal year spending for the current year and each of the past four years, and the overall percentage and dollar change;
(c) For the first full fiscal year of each proposed political subdivision tax increase, district estimates of the maximum dollar amount of each increase and of district fiscal year spending without the increase;
(d) For proposed district bonded debt, its principal amount and maximum annual and total district repayment cost, and the principal balance of total current district bonded debt and its maximum annual and remaining local district repayment cost;
(e) Two summaries, up to five hundred words each, one for and one against the proposal, of written comments filed with the election officer by thirty days before the election. No summary shall mention names of persons or private groups, nor any endorsements of or resolutions against the proposal. Petition representatives following these rules shall write this summary for their petition. The election officer shall maintain and accurately summarize all other relevant written comments.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a ballot issue that is subject to the provisions of section 1-40-124.5.
1-40-126 – Explanation of effect of “yes” or “no” vote included in notices provided by mailing or publication.
In any notice to electors provided by the director of research of the legislative council, whether by mailing pursuant to section 1-40-124.5 or publication pursuant to section 1-40-124, there shall be included the following explanation preceding any information about individual ballot issues: “A ‘yes’ vote on any ballot issue is a vote in favor of changing current law or existing circumstances, and a ‘no’ vote on any ballot issue is a vote against changing current law or existing circumstances.”
1-40-130 – Unlawful acts – penalty.
(1) It is unlawful:
(a) For any person willfully and knowingly to circulate or cause to be circulated or sign or procure to be signed any petition bearing the name, device, or motto of any person, organization, association, league, or political party, or purporting in any way to be endorsed, approved, or submitted by any person, organization, association, league, or political party, without the written consent, approval, and authorization of the person, organization, association, league, or political party;
(b) For any person to sign any name other than his or her own to any petition or knowingly to sign his or her name more than once for the same measure at one election;
(c) For any person to knowingly sign any petition who is not a registered elector at the time of signing the same;
(d) For any person to sign any affidavit as circulator without knowing or reasonably believing the statements made in the affidavit to be true;
(e) For any person to certify that an affidavit attached to a petition was subscribed or sworn to before him or her unless it was so subscribed and sworn to before him or her and unless the person so certifying is duly qualified under the laws of this state to administer an oath;
(f) For any officer or person to do willfully, or with another or others conspire, or agree, or confederate to do, any act which hinders, delays, or in any way interferes with the calling, holding, or conducting of any election permitted under the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people in section 1 of article V of the state constitution or with the registering of electors therefor;
(g) For any officer to do willfully any act which shall confuse or tend to confuse the issues submitted or proposed to be submitted at any election, or refuse to submit any petition in the form presented for submission at any election;
(h) For any officer or person to violate willfully any provision of this article.
(2) Any person, upon conviction of a violation of any provision of this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than one year in the county jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
1-40-131 – Tampering with initiative or referendum petition.
Any person who willfully destroys, defaces, mutilates, or suppresses any initiative or referendum petition or who willfully neglects to file or delays the delivery of the initiative or referendum petition or who conceals or removes any initiative or referendum petition from the possession of the person authorized by law to have the custody thereof, or who adds, amends, alters, or in any way changes the information on the petition as provided by the elector, or who aids, counsels, procures, or assists any person in doing any of said acts commits a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in section 1-13-111. The language in this section shall not preclude a circulator from striking a complete line on the petition if the circulator believes the line to be invalid.
1-40-132 – Enforcement.
(1) The secretary of state is charged with the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this article relating to initiated or referred measures and state constitutional amendments. The secretary of state shall have the authority to promulgate rules as may be necessary to administer and enforce any provision of this article that relates to initiated or referred measures and state constitutional amendments. The secretary of state may conduct a hearing, upon a written complaint by a registered elector, on any alleged violation of the provisions relating to the circulation of a petition, which may include but shall not be limited to the preparation or signing of an affidavit by a circulator. If the secretary of state, after the hearing, has reasonable cause to believe that there has been a violation of the provisions of this article relating to initiated or referred measures and state constitutional amendments, he or she shall notify the attorney general, who may institute a criminal prosecution. If a circulator is found to have violated any provision of this article or is otherwise shown to have made false or misleading statements relating to his or her section of the petition, such section of the petition shall be deemed void.
(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 439, § 22, effective May 8, 1995.)
1-40-133 – Retention of petitions.
After a period of three years from the time of submission of the petitions to the secretary of state, if it is determined that the retention of the petitions is no longer necessary, the secretary of state may destroy the petitions.
1-40-134 – Withdrawal of initiative petition.
The designated representatives of the proponents of an initiative petition may withdraw the petition from consideration as a ballot issue by filing a letter with the secretary of state requesting that the petition not be placed on the ballot. The letter shall be signed and acknowledged by both designated representatives before an officer authorized to take acknowledgments and shall be filed no later than thirty-three days prior to the election at which the initiative is to be voted upon.
31-11-104 – Ordinances – initiative – conflicting measures.
(1) Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the legislative body of any municipality by filing written notice of the proposed ordinance with the clerk and, within one hundred eighty days after approval of the petition pursuant to section 31-11-106 (1), by filing a petition signed by at least five percent of the registered electors of the city or town on the date of such notice. The proposed ordinance may be adopted without alteration by the legislative body within twenty days following the final determination of petition sufficiency. If vetoed by the mayor, the proposed ordinance may be passed over the mayor’s veto within ten days after the veto. If the proposed ordinance is not adopted by the legislative body, the legislative body shall forthwith publish the proposed ordinance as other ordinances are published and shall refer the proposed ordinance, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the municipality at a regular or special election held not less than sixty days and not more that one hundred fifty days after the final determination of petition sufficiency, unless otherwise required by the state constitution. The ordinance shall not take effect unless a majority of the registered electors voting on the measure at the election vote in favor of the measure.
(2) Alternative ordinances may be submitted at the same election, and, if two or more conflicting measures are approved by the people, the one that receives the greatest number of affirmative votes shall be adopted in all particulars as to which there is a conflict.
31-11-105 – Ordinances – when effective – referendum.
(1) No ordinance passed by the legislative body of any municipality shall take effect before thirty days after its final passage and publication, except an ordinance calling for a special election or necessary to the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, and not then unless the ordinance states in a separate section the reasons why it is necessary and unless it receives the affirmative vote of three-fourths of all the members elected to the legislative body taken by ayes and noes.
(2) Within thirty days after final publication of the ordinance, a referendum petition protesting against the effect of the ordinance or any part thereof may be filed with the clerk. The petition must be signed during the thirty-day period by at least five percent of the registered electors of the municipality registered on the date of final publication.
(3) If a referendum petition is filed, the ordinance or part thereof protested against shall not take effect, and, upon a final determination of petition sufficiency, the legislative body shall promptly reconsider the ordinance. If the petition is declared not sufficient by the clerk or found not sufficient in a protest, the ordinance shall forthwith take effect, unless otherwise provided therein.
(4) If, upon reconsideration, the ordinance or part thereof protested is not repealed, the legislative body shall submit the measure to a vote of the registered electors at a regular or special election held not less than sixty days and not more than one hundred fifty days after the final determination of petition sufficiency, unless otherwise required by the state constitution. The ordinance or part thereof shall not take effect unless a majority of the registered electors voting on the measure at the election vote in favor of the measure.
31-11-106 – Form of petition sections.
(1) Each petition section shall be printed in a form consistent with the requirements of this article. No petition section shall be printed or circulated unless the form and the first printer’s proof of the petition section have first been approved by the clerk. The clerk shall approve or reject the form and the first printer’s proof of the petition no later than five business days following the date on which the clerk received such material. The clerk shall assure that the petition section contains only those elements required by this article and contains no extraneous material. The clerk may reject a petition or a section of a petition on the grounds that the petition or a section of the petition does not propose municipal legislation pursuant to section 1 (9) of article V of the state constitution.
(2) Each petition section shall designate by name and mailing address two persons who shall represent the proponents thereof in all matters affecting the petition and to whom all notices or information concerning the petition shall be mailed.
(3) (a) At the top of each page of every initiative or referendum petition section, the following shall be printed, in a form as prescribed by the clerk:

“WARNING: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure.

DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE.

Do not sign this petition unless you have read or have had read to you the proposed initiative or referred measure or the summary in its entirety and understand its meaning.”

(b) A summary of the proposed initiative or ordinance that is the subject of a referendum petition shall be printed following the warning on each page of a petition section. The summary shall be true and impartial and shall not be an argument, or likely to create prejudice, either for or against the measure. The summary shall be prepared by the clerk.
(c) The full text of the proposed initiated measure or ordinance that is the subject of a referendum petition shall be printed following the summary on the first page or pages of the petition section that precede the signature page. Notwithstanding the requirement of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3), if the text of the proposed initiated measure or ordinance requires more than one page of a petition section, the warning and summary need not appear at the top of other than the initial text page.
(d) The signature pages shall consist of the warning and the summary, followed by ruled lines numbered consecutively for registered electors’ signatures. If a petition section contains multiple signature pages, all signature lines shall be numbered consecutively, from the first signature page through the last. The signature pages shall follow the page or pages on which the full text of the proposed initiated measure or ordinance that is the subject of the referendum petition is printed.
(e) (I) Following the signature pages of each petition section, there shall be attached a signed, notarized, and dated affidavit executed by the person who circulated the petition section, which shall include the following:
(A) The affiant’s printed name, the address at which the affiant resides, including the street name and number, the municipality, the county, and the date the affiant signed the affidavit;
(B) That the affiant has read and understands the laws governing the circulation of petition;
(C) That the affiant was eighteen years of age or older at the time the section of the petition was circulated and signed by the listed electors;
(D) That the affiant circulated the section of the petition;
(E) That each signature thereon was affixed in the affiant’s presence;
(F) That each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be;
(G) That, to the best of the affiant’s knowledge and belief, each of the persons signing the petition section was, at the time of signing, a registered elector; and
(H) That the affiant has not paid or will not in the future pay and that the affiant believes that no other person has paid or will pay, directly or indirectly, any money or other thing of value to any signer for the purpose of inducing or causing such signer to affix the signer’s signature to the petition.
(II) The clerk shall not accept for filing any section of a petition that does not have attached thereto the notarized affidavit required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (3). Any disassembly of a section of the petition that has the effect of separating the affidavit from the signature page or pages shall render that section of the petition invalid and of no force and effect.
(III) Any signature added to a section of a petition after the affidavit has been executed shall be invalid.
(4) All sections of any petition shall be prenumbered serially.
(5) Any petition section that fails to conform to the requirements of this article or that is circulated in a manner other than that permitted by this article shall be invalid.
31-11-107 – Circulators – requirements.
The circulation of any petition section other than personally by a circulator is prohibited. No section of a petition for any initiative or referendum measure shall be circulated by any person who is not at least eighteen years of age at the time the section is circulated.
31-11-108 – Signatures.
Any initiative or referendum petition shall be signed only by registered electors who are eligible to vote on the measure. Each registered elector shall sign his or her own signature and shall print his or her name, the address at which he or she resides, including the street number and name, the city or town, the county, and the date of signing. Each registered elector signing a petition shall be encouraged by the circulator of the petition to sign the petition in ink. In the event a registered elector is physically disabled or is illiterate and wishes to sign the petition, the elector shall sign or make his or her mark in the space so provided. Any person, but not a circulator, may assist the disabled or illiterate elector in completing the remaining information required by this section. The person providing assistance shall sign his or her name and address and shall state that such assistance was given to the disabled or illiterate elector.
31-11-109 – Signature verification – statement of sufficiency.
(1) The clerk shall inspect timely filed initiative or referendum petitions and the attached affidavits, and may do so by examining the information on signature lines for patent defects, by comparing the information on signature lines against a list of registered electors provided by the county, or by other reasonable means.
(2) After examining the petition, the clerk shall issue a statement as to whether a sufficient number of valid signatures have been submitted. A copy of the statement shall be mailed to the persons designated as representing the petition proponents pursuant to section 31-11-106 (2).
(3) The statement of sufficiency or insufficiency shall be issued no later than thirty calendar days after the petition has been filed. If the clerk fails to issue a statement within thirty calendar days, the petition shall be deemed sufficient.
31-11-110 – Protest.
(1) Within forty days after an initiative or referendum petition is filed, a protest in writing under oath may be filed in the office of the clerk by any registered elector who resides in the municipality, setting forth specifically the grounds for such protest. The grounds for protest may include, but shall not be limited to, the failure of any portion of a petition or circulator affidavit to meet the requirements of this article. No signature may be challenged that is not identified in the protest by section and line number. The clerk shall forthwith mail a copy of such protest to the persons designated as representing the petition proponents pursuant to section 31-11-106 (2) and to the protester, together with a notice fixing a time for hearing such protest that is not less than five or more than ten days after such notice is mailed.
(2) The county clerk shall furnish a requesting protester with a list of the registered electors in the municipality and shall charge a fee to cover the cost of furnishing the list.
(3) Every hearing shall be held before the clerk with whom such protest is filed. The clerk shall serve as hearing officer unless some other person is designated by the legislative body as the hearing officer, and the testimony in every such hearing shall be under oath. The hearing officer shall have the power to issue subpoenas and compel the attendance of witnesses. The hearing shall be summary and not subject to delay and shall be concluded within sixty days after the petition is filed. No later than five days after the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer shall issue a written determination of whether the petition is sufficient or not sufficient. If the hearing officer determines that a petition is not sufficient, the officer shall identify those portions of the petition that are not sufficient and the reasons therefor. The result of the hearing shall be forthwith certified to the protester and to the persons designated as representing the petition proponents pursuant to section 31-11-106 (2). The determination as to petition sufficiency may be reviewed by the district court for the county in which such municipality or portion thereof is located upon application of the protester, the persons designated as representing the petition proponents pursuant to section 31-11-106 (2), or the municipality, but such review shall be had and determined forthwith.
31-11-111 – Initiatives, referenda, and referred measures – ballot titles.
(1) After an election has been ordered pursuant to section 31-11-104 or 31-11-105, the legislative body of the municipality or its designee shall promptly fix a ballot title for each initiative or referendum.
(2) The legislative body of any municipality may, without receipt of any petition, submit any proposed or adopted ordinance or resolution or any question to a vote of the registered electors of the municipality. The legislative body of the municipality or its designee shall fix a ballot title for the referred measure.
(3) In fixing the ballot title, the legislative body or its designee shall consider the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles and shall, whenever practicable, avoid titles for which the general understanding of the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote would be unclear. The ballot title shall not conflict with those titles selected for any other measure that will appear on the municipal ballot in the same election. The ballot title shall correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of the measure.
(4) Any protest concerning a ballot title shall be conducted as provided by local charter, ordinance, or resolution.
31-11-112 – Petitions – not election materials – no bilingual requirement.
The general assembly hereby determines that initiative and referendum petitions are not election materials or information covered by the federal “Voting Rights Act of 1965″, and are therefore not required to be printed in any language other than English in order to be circulated in any municipality in Colorado.
31-11-113 – Receiving money to circulate petitions – filing.
The proponents of the petition shall file with the clerk a report disclosing the amount paid per signature and the total amount paid to each circulator. The filing shall be made at the same time the petition is filed with the clerk. Any payment made to circulators is an expenditure under article 45 of title 1, C.R.S.
31-11-114 – Unlawful acts – penalty.
(1) It is unlawful:
(a) For any person willfully and knowingly to circulate or cause to be circulated or sign or procure to be signed any petition bearing the name, device, or motto of any person, organization, association, league, or political party, or purporting in any way to be endorsed, approved, or submitted by any person, organization, association, league, or political party, without the written consent, approval, and authorization of the person, organization, association, league, or political party;
(b) For any person to sign any name other than his or her own name to any petition or knowingly to sign his or her name more than once for the same measure at one election;
(c) For any person knowingly to sign any petition relating to an initiative or referendum in a municipality who is not a registered elector of that municipality at the time of signing the petition;
(d) For any person to sign any affidavit as circulator without knowing or reasonably believing the statements made in the affidavit to be true;
(e) For any person to certify that an affidavit attached to a petition was subscribed or sworn to before him or her unless it was so subscribed and sworn to before him or her and unless the person so certifying is duly qualified under the laws of this state to administer an oath;
(f) For any officer or person to do willfully, or with another or others conspire, or agree, or confederate to do, any act that hinders, delays, or in any way interferes with the calling, holding, or conducting of any election permitted under the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people in section 1 of article V of the state constitution or with the registering of electors therefor;
(g) For any officer to do willfully any act that shall confuse or tend to confuse the issues submitted or proposed to be submitted at any election or refuse to submit any petition in the form presented for submission at any election;
(h) For any officer or person to violate willfully any provision of this article.
(2) Any person, upon conviction of a violation of any provision of this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than one year in the county jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
31-11-115 – Tampering with initiative or referendum petition.
(1) Any person commits a class 2 misdemeanor who:
(a) Willfully destroys, defaces, mutilates, or suppresses any initiative or referendum petition;
(b) Willfully neglects to file or delays the delivery of the initiative or referendum petition;
(c) Conceals or removes any initiative or referendum petition from the possession of the person authorized by law to have custody of the petition;
(d) Adds, amends, alters, or in any way changes the information on the petition as provided by the elector; or
(e) Aids, counsels, procures, or assists any person in doing any of such acts.
(2) Any person convicted of committing such a misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(3) This section shall not preclude a circulator from striking a complete line on the petition if the circulator believes the line to be invalid.
31-11-116 – Enforcement.
(1) Any person may file with the district attorney an affidavit stating the name of any person who has violated any of the provisions of this article and stating the facts that constitute the alleged offense. Upon the filing of such affidavit, the district attorney shall forthwith investigate, and, if reasonable grounds appear therefor, the district attorney shall prosecute the same.
(2) The attorney general of the state shall have equal power with district attorneys to file information or complaints against any person for violating any provision of this article.
31-11-117 – Retention of petitions.
After a period of three years from the time of submission of the petitions to the clerk, if it is determined that the retention of the petitions is no longer necessary, the clerk may destroy the petitions.
31-11-118 – Powers of clerk and deputy.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this article, the clerk shall render all interpretations and shall make all initial decisions as to controversies or other matters arising in the operation of this article.
(2) All powers and authority granted to the clerk by this article may be exercised by a deputy clerk in the absence of the clerk or in the event the clerk for any reason is unable to perform the duties of the clerk’s office.

The Basic Steps To Do An Initiative In Colorado
Statutes And Amendments – Direct Initiative Process

Basic Procedures: Proponents must submit the original text of the measure to the directors of the Legislative Council Staff and the Office of Legal Services for review and comment. Proponents must designate two people as those representing the proponents in all matters affecting the petition. Drafts are to be submitted in typewritten form and are to be written in plain, non-technical language, using words with common and everyday meaning understandable to the average reader.

Upon receiving the proposed measure, directors set a date for a public hearing no later than two weeks from the date the measure is filed. The director of the Legislative Council Staff provides proper notice of the date, time, and place for the meeting. Measures accepted as a legal filing are a matter of public record and are available for public distribution.

Comments on proposed initiated measures are prepared by the Legislative Council Staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services for review during the public hearing. The comments typically contain a summary of the proposal followed by a series of questions concerning the wording, intent, and purpose of the proposal. The Legislative Council Staff and Legislative Legal Services directors may request the assistance of state agencies in preparing the comments. Agencies are required to assist when so requested. Proponents receive the comments prior to the meeting, but the comments are not disclosed to the public before the hearing, except with permission of the proponents.

The public hearing conducted by the Legislative Council Staff and Legislative Legal Services is informal in nature. The purpose of the meeting is to give the public notice that a proposal on a given topic is under consideration and to review the purposes and wording with the proponents so that the proposal states what the proponents want it to state. The comments are intended to help proponents clarify their proposal, but proponents are not required to accept the suggestions made in the comments. The meeting is open to the public and, while persons who may oppose a measure are welcome to attend, no testimony or comments are accepted from anyone other than the proponents. The meeting is tape recorded for the public record.

Following the public hearing, proponents may submit the measure to the Secretary of State who chairs the Ballot Title Setting Board. The ballot title, submission clause, and summary are established by a board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the director of the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

The Ballot Title Setting Board usually completes its work on the ballot title, submission clause, and summary at its first meeting. If the board is unable to complete action on all of its agenda, motions for rehearing may be continued until the board’s next meeting.

If a proponent or any registered elector claims that a ballot title, submission clause, or summary is unfair or does not fairly express the meaning of a proposal, that person may request a rehearing by the Ballot Title Setting Board. Such request must be made within seven days after the title and summary are set.

Such rehearing will be held at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board. If the board is unable to complete action on the request for rehearing, consideration of the request may be continued until the next available day, except that if the request was to be heard on the last meeting date in May, it must be heard within 48 hours after the motion is filed.

An appeal for change in the ballot title, submission clause, and summary may be made to the Colorado Supreme Court, pursuant to Section 1-40-107 (2) and (5), C.R.S.

Once the ballot title, submission clause, and summary are established, petitions may then be circulated throughout the state to obtain the required number of signatures.

Date Initiative language can be submitted to state for November 2002: Can be submitted anytime after the first Wednesday in December of 2000.

Signatures are tied to vote of which office: Secretary of State

Next Secretary of State election: 2002

Votes cast for Secretary of State in last election: 1,611,420 (Note: Although Secretary of States are normally elected every four years, a vacancy was filled in 2000.)

Net number of signatures required: 5% of votes cast for Secretary of State in last election, for both statutes and amendments. (80,571 signatures)

Distribution Requirement: None

Circulation period: 6 months

Do circulators have to be residents: No

Date when signatures are due for certification: The petition must be filed within 6 months from when the final language is set by the Title Board and no later than 3 months before a statewide election. (August 5, 2002 for the November 2002 ballot.)

Signature verification process: The Secretary of State verifies signatures by a random sample procedure. Not less than five percent of the signatures, and in no event fewer than 4,000 signatures, are to be verified. If the sample indicates that the number of valid signatures is 90 percent or less of the required total, the petition is deemed to have insufficient signatures. If the valid signatures are found to be 110 percent or more of number required, the petition is deemed sufficient. However, if the number of valid signatures is found to be over 90 percent but less than 110 percent of the required number, the law requires that each signature on the petition be verified.

Single-subject restriction: Yes

Legislative tampering: The Legislature can repeal and amend an initiative statute passed by the voters.

General Comments: If the Ballot Title Setting Board finds that more than one subject is contained in a proposal, the proponents are permitted to change the measure. If the changes by the proponents involve only the removal of language to achieve a single subject, another review and comment hearing with the Office of Legislative Legal Services and the Legislative Council Staff may not be required. However, if the board finds that revisions are so substantial that another hearing is in the public interest, another review and comment hearing may be required.

If a proposal is revised and resubmitted to the board, a ballot title can be set or the title board can conclude that the proposal still contains more than one subject. In the event of a dispute over the single subject rule, the board can set the title without including reference to the provisions it thought was in violation of the rule. The constitution provides that, if there is any part of a proposal not clearly expressed in the ballot title, that part is to be considered void.

By Dennis Polhill and Kim Garrett(i)

One of the first instances of the discussion of women’s suffrage was in 1776 when Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John Adams, asking him to include women in the Declaration of Independences’ wording. John writes back with humor, stating that he understands Abigail’s views but to Abigail’s dismay, the document states, “all men are created equal.” Upset with this wording, Abigail confides in many colleagues that this lack of including women in the Declaration might be something that needed to be taken directly to the people. However, it wasn’t until the mid 1800s that women’s suffrage became a dominant issue again.

Wyoming was the pioneer equal suffrage state when its first legislative council, after its organization as a territory in 1869, passed a bill providing that women should have the same rights as men to vote and hold office. When Wyoming was granted statehood in 1890, equal suffrage was part of its constitution – before any other state had given women the right to vote. Utah followed in 1896. From 1906 to 1920, thirteen states voted on women suffrage ballot measures, both initiatives and legislative referendum; Oregon (1906 by initiative/failed), Oregon (1908 by initiative/failed), Oklahoma and Oregon (1910 by initiative/failed), California (1911 by legislative referendum/passed), Arizona and Oregon (1912 by initiative/passed), Kansas (1912 by legislative referendum/passed), Nevada and Montana (1913 by legislative referendum/passed), Ohio, Nebraska, Missouri (1914 by initiative/failed), New York (1917 by legislative referendum/passed), Michigan, South Dakota and Oklahoma (1918 by legislative referendum/passed) (ii).

In both Arizona and Oregon the battle for equal suffrage was long and strong. For nearly fifteen years Arizona women worked without success to get their territorial legislature to confer full suffrage upon them. Nor were they successful in their efforts to get a woman suffrage clause included in the constitution when Arizona was granted statehood. A bill creating a women’s suffrage amendment to the constitution was introduced in the first legislature of the new state but lost by one vote in the Senate – although it passed in the House. The women then turned to the people, and in less than two months time succeeded in collecting the signatures necessary to place an initiative on the ballot granting women suffrage. The measure went to the voters in 1912 and won by 7,240 votes.

In Oregon, equal suffrage initiatives lost in 1906 and 1908. In 1910 suffragists tried a different approach: an initiative giving only female taxpayers the right to vote, a compromise that was rejected at the ballot box by a three to one margin. Finally, in 1912, suffragists led by Abigail Scott Duniway won their long struggle. An initiative they placed on the ballot for women’s suffrage passed – 61,265 in favor to 57,104 against.

One of the reasons the battle for equal suffrage was so difficult was the link between the women’s suffrage movement and the prohibition movement. The Women’s Crusade of 1873 and the organization of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in 1874 (WCTU), which pioneered the movement for equal suffrage, strongly advocated prohibition. The Ohio WCTU, for example, circulated a speech by Anna Howard Shaw entitled “Influence versus Power,” which defined women’s suffrage as an important weapon in the fight for prohibition. Brewers and distillers, believing that all suffragists favored prohibition, opposed women’s suffrage vehemently and in 1911 created the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS). NAOWS was instrumental in delaying Congress from passing a women’s suffrage amendment (iii).

In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party adopted a women’s suffrage plank – a major breakthrough. In the summer of 1913, suffragists presented U.S. Senators with 200,000 signatures in support of a constitutional amendment establishing women’s suffrage – but they refused to act. They also began to speak out through hunger strikes, picketing the White House, and other forms of civil disobedience.

On March 2, 1914, U.S. Senator John Shafroth of Colorado introduced a constitutional amendment that would grant all states I&R to achieve suffrage. The “Shafroth Amendment” would have advanced both I&R and the women’s suffrage issue by empowering the people to decide within their own state. Although the amendment failed in Congress, it helped the initiative and referendum process gain public credibility as a method of dealing with these types of issues.

In 1914 and 1915, both houses of Congress again rejected women’s suffrage amendments. Finally, in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson changed his position and gave his support to a women’s suffrage amendment. His support helped get the amendment through the House, but not the Senate. Then in 1919, President Wilson once again urged passage of a women’s suffrage amendment and fifteen days after the House passed the amendment, the Senate passed it as well. The 19th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution in 1920 – just 14 months after Congress sent it to the states for ratification.

Carrie Chapman Catt summarized the women’s suffrage effort when she said, “[t]o get the word ‘male’ in effect out of the Constitution cost the women of the country fifty-two years of pauseless campaign… During that time they were forced to conduct fifty-six [initiative] referenda campaigns to male voters; 480 campaigns to get legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to voters; 47 campaigns to get state constitutional conventions to write woman suffrage into state constitutions; 277 campaigns to get state party conventions to include woman suffrage planks in party platforms, 30 campaigns to get presidential party conventions to adopt women’s suffrage planks into party platforms, and 19 campaigns with 19 successive Congresses.”

As Catt points out, the relationship between women’s suffrage and I&R is not trivial. When momentum began to lag, I&R appeared on the horizon to instill the suffragists with new hope, inspiration, and energy. However, even though most of the women’s suffrage initiatives were defeated at the ballot box, their presence raised the awareness of the issue and helped lead the way to the 19th Amendment.

Women’s Suffrage Initiatives (I) and Legislative Referendum (LR)

i. Dennis Polhill is the Chairman of the Initiative & Referendum Institute. Kim Garrett is a research assistant for the Institute and a student at the University of Denver.
ii. McDonagh, Eileen L. and H. Douglas Price (1984). “Woman Suffrage in the Progressive Era: Patterns of Opposition and Support in Referenda Voting, 1910-1920,” in The American Political Science Review 79 (3).
iii. McDonagh, Eileen L. and H. Douglas Price (1984). “Woman Suffrage in the Progressive Era: Patterns of Opposition and Support in Referenda Voting, 1910-1920,” in The American Political Science Review 79 (3), and Schmidt, David D. (1989). Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; Connors, Arthur (1917). “ Direct Legislation in 1916,” in The American Political Science Review 11 (1).

By Dennis Polhill

National referendums are a regular event among the world’s democracies. With four national elections per year Switzerland has held approximately half of the 800 national referendums in world history.

One application of national referendums has been in exercising the “self determination” of a people. A referendum unified fragmented Italian states into a nation. Norway separated from Sweden in 1905 via national referendum. Only “five major democracies have never had a national referendum: India, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States.” In recent years Israel and the Netherlands have seriously contemplated the idea of a national referendum to advance intractable issues.

The demise of the Soviet Union was a byproduct of the largest national referendum in world history; the Soviet Union’s first and last referendum. To advance his reforms Mikhail Gorbachev sought popular support by proposing the March 17, 1991 All-Union referendum. The All-Union Referendum would reaffirm the Union Treaty of 1922 that created the Soviet Union. The referendum opened a floodgate. The 15 Republics did not conform. Some redrafted the language; several added questions to the ballot; others declared their independence and still others boycotted the event. Although the All-Union Referendum passed overwhelmingly, periphery events turned out to be more relevant than the specific outcome. The Soviet Republics had discovered a way to articulate their frustration with central control and busily went about acting as independent states.

But has the national referendum process been abused?

The prospect of manipulation of a national referendum is real. Gorbachev directed the military to manage the election in Republics that boycotted the All-Union Referendum with the result that voter turn out approximated the local ethnic Russian population.

Hitler used national referendums to withdraw Germany from the League of Nations in 1933 and to consolidate his powers in 1934. The ability of the Nazi propaganda machine to insure the desired result is well known. This problem with referred measures was well expressed when Benito Mussolini said, “Give me the right to nominate and you can vote for whomever you please.” The control of the language and what questions appear on ballots is not a minor detail. A recent example is the election held in April 2002 in Pakistan. President Musharraf clearly manipulated the wording of the referendum in order to ensure he was reelected to another five year term as President of Pakistan.

So what about national I&R in the United States?

If I&R has been a means for dealing with the conflicts at the state level, why not resolve similar national conflicts with national I&R? Lincoln is said to have proposed a national vote to reconcile slavery. There have been 3 major efforts in the U.S. for national I&R: the Progressive movement (prior to 1920), the anti-war movement (during both World Wars I and II), and the environmental movement (during the 1970s).

An early advocate for national I&R was U.S. Senator and former Colorado Governor John Shafroth. The Shafroth Amendment was proposed as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1914. It would have given the people of every state I&R for determining women’s suffrage. When 8% of voters signed a petition, the issue would be determined by a majority vote at the next state election. Mounting pressure eventually forced Congress to deal with the issue. Had it become law, the Shafroth Amendment might very well have expedited resolution of women’s suffrage. Perhaps more importantly, it would have set a precedent as a means of addressing other difficult national issues.

When the U.S. entered World War I, isolationists and pacifists called for a national referendum, arguing that only the people should decide whether to go to war. Advocates proposed an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (also called the Peace Referendum) that would have required a nationwide popular vote to go to war, unless the U.S. was attacked or invaded. A similar movement emerged during World War II but was never approved by Congress.

After World War II, the use of the statewide initiative process declined and was largely forgotten by many activists until it was rediscovered in the 1970s by the environmental movement. Coincident with rediscovery of state I&R, was a renewed interest in national I&R. Senator Abourezk (D-SD) introduced the National Voter Initiative Amendment in 1977.

The NVIA would have taken an issue to nationwide vote, when 3% of voters in at least 10 states signed a petition. A majority of voters nationwide would decide the issue. The difference between the Shafroth and the Abourezk approaches merit elaboration. Shafroth empowered the people of the states, acknowledging that the Federal government is a collection of state governments. Abourezk did not account for the division of powers between Federal and State governments itemized in the U.S. Constitution or provide a means of addressing state issues. Shafroth did not provide a means for directly resolving national concerns. A well-designed system of national I&R should do both: work within the bounds of the constitution and provide a means for addressing issues reserved to the respective Federal and State levels.

National I&R Proposals

There have been two distinct approaches to obtaining a national I&R process in the United States. One is working through the states and the other is by getting Congress to pass an amendment establishing the initiative process.

In the states, several organizations, like USPIRG, have worked hard to generate support for a national I&R process. In addition to the “PIRGs”, another organization, “Philadelphia Two” has been working to establish a national initiative process. Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel heads the group. Though their approach is somewhat controversial (basically to set up an “electoral trust” that is not accountable to the government), they are working hard to build support for a national initiative process.

At the Congressional level, between 1895 and 1943, 108 proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution by adding national I&R were submitted. Seven would have created a general I&R, that would have allowed for consideration of any issue. The others created I&R for specific issues only or that had issue-specific prohibitions. For example, Abourezk would not permit the declaring of war, calling up troops, or amending the constitution and would permit statutory modifications by Congress with a two-thirds majority or simple majority after two years. Implementation of national I&R is more complicated in the U.S. than in other nations due to the unique Constitutional division of responsibilities between the Federal and State governments. In most countries, governments are centralized to either a greater or lesser extent. Other variations of national I&R that have been proposed in the U.S. include:

• The first proposal for national I&R was in 1895 by Populist Party U.S. Senator William Peffer from Kansas. It provided for a national vote on an issue when 20% of voters nationwide or 20% of state legislatures requested it.
• In 1907 U.S. Representative Elmer Lincoln Fulton from Oklahoma suggested that 8% of the voters in each of 15 states could put either a constitutional amendment or statute proposal to a national vote or that 5% of the voters in each of 15 states or their state legislatures could challenge a statute passed by Congress.
• In 1911 Senator Bristow from Kansas proposed that the Initiative be used to reign in the court. Any law held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court would go to a vote of the people. This was the first proposal for using I&R as the method by which to reconcile conflicts between the equal branches of the Federal government.
• Socialist Party U.S. Representative Victor Berger of Wisconsin introduced the most radical proposal ever. It would have abolished the Presidency, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Five percent of the voters in three-fourths of the state could propose a law or challenge a law passed by Congress.
• U.S. Senator Bob La Follette from Wisconsin in 1916 proposed a non-binding national advisory referendum that would be held when 1% of the voters in 25 states petitioned.
• The National approach would require some percentage (usually in the range of 3%) of voters nationwide to sign a petition. Because elections are managed by the states and there are no national voter rolls or other election systems, leaving states out of the process would require changes in election management.
• Nullification advocates in the 1980s and 1990s suggested that Federal statutes should go to a nationwide vote when 10% of the voters in 1/3 of the states sign a petition challenging it. Nullification proposals were in reaction to “unfunded mandates” and directives imposed upon the states by Congress. A nullification mechanism would effectively be a national application of the referendum petition or challenge petition.

The State Approach to National I&R

The question of national I&R in the U.S. is not whether it will be. Rather, the question is when it will be and what form it will have. When the Confederate States wrote their constitution, they substantially replicated the constitution they had lived under for over 70 years. Perhaps the most substantial variation cured a significant structural flaw in the U.S. Constitution: how Amendments are proposed for ratification. Recognizing that a constitution is the delegation of consent to govern and, therefore, a limitation on government, and acknowledging Congress’ inherent conflict of interest, the authority of Congress to draft proposed amendments was revoked. A proposed amendment would go to ratification when 25% of the states passed resolutions supporting the same proposal. This, in fact, is what the Founders had intended with Article V; but their intent was subsequently subverted by Congress.

The “State Approach” may be the best form for National I&R. The “State Approach” would permit a number of states (25%) to agree either by state initiative petition and vote or by state legislature resolution, that a question should be addressed nationally. When a number of states concur, the Federal statute (simple majority) or constitution (3/4 majority) is changed. Obviously, over-reaching Federal statutes could be stricken by the same means.

The “State Approach” acknowledges the respective constitutional roles of the State and Federal governments. It provides a means for addressing both state and national issues. It can cure both actions of omission and acts of commission by Congress and by individual state legislatures. It utilizes the existing election management systems of the states. It answers the problem of Congressional conflict of interest. It can deal with both Federal statutory or constitutional problems. It acknowledges the sovereignty of the people at every level. It might be a viable means for resolving conflicts between the equal branches of the Federal government or deadlocked Federal legislation. The fear of majoritarian abuse of I&R is reduced. National issues are resolved gradually via ongoing public debate and incremental approval by the states. A critical part of the Constitution is restored to the functionality intended by the Founders.

The “State Approach” also offers a practical means of implementation and can be achieved gradually by increasing the number of states with I&R until critical mass is reached. Critical mass is when the numbers of states with I&R is sufficient to press the issue nationally.

Summary

National I&R in the U.S. would offer a mechanism to address national issues that partisan politics or Congressional inherent conflict of interest prohibits a solution. Several attempts have been made in Congress and in the states – but to no avail. However, as citizens enlarge their participation in their government, it appears inevitable that the U.S. will find a way to exercise this fundamental right in the near future.

© 2007 Initiative & Referendum Institute

USC School of Law

Los Angeles CA 90089-0071

Issue Paper

By Dennis Polhill

1. Context of the Initiative Process

A. Introduction
Initiative and Referendum (I&R) is important to representative democracy as a check and balance, a means of augmenting government accountability. The Initiative is essential for dealing with issues that legislators cannot or will not address. Such issues typically include conflict-of-interest issues (such as proposed limits on legislators’ powers) and third-rail issues (those that offend powerful interest groups).

This issue paper is a sequel to the Issue Paper, “Are Coloradans Fit to Make Their Own Laws?”1 published in 1996 by the Independence Institute. It has been widely read and referenced. It was offered in testimony when Texas considered I&R, was republished by the Initiative and Referendum Institute, has been linked to and posted by numerous Web sites, and was even translated into Russian.2

Public interest in and support for the Initiative process remains high. But politicians see the process as infringing on their monopoly power to legislate. Some politicians pretend to support I&R to win election, but quickly forget their campaign promises and oaths to uphold the Constitution.

As with all rights, the right to petition is a fundamental right that is not granted by politicians or by governments. As a matter of fact, in delegating authority to legislate to the legislature, the sovereign citizens of Colorado limited their delegation by reserving “to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments.”3 Thus, the initiative is more than a fundamental right; it is a reserved power. The legislature has no authority to interfere with, throttle or adversely regulate the process other than reasonable regulation to insure its fair and nonfraudulent exercise.

Entire Paper: Protecting the People’s Voice [Independence Institute Version] (PDF)

Entire Paper: Initiative and Referendum in Colorado [Initiative and Referendum Institute version] (PDF)

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)

By Dennis Polhill
Does the Initiative process enhance or diminish representative government?

In Colorado, citizens have the power to bring their idea before voters by using a petition. If a number of citizens agree by signing the petition, the idea goes to the ballot. Legislators dislike the Initiative process because they see it as infringing on their monopoly authority to legislate.

Opponents of citizen participation masterfully exaggerate difficulties with the Initiative process in order to compound false perceptions about the extent of the problems. Some problems are even caused by or augmented by their actions or inactions.

They claim petitions have caused “clutter” in the Colorado Constitution. But only 42 Initiated Amendments have been approved in the 94 year history of the process. Over the same period legislators have amended the Constitution 69 times (62 percent).

Next they claim “many” statutory measures end up in the Colorado Constitution. Some measures must be constitutional. Therefore, “many” being a portion of 42, probably means about a dozen. Distributed over 94 years, a dozen is “not very many.”

Because initiated statutes are approved by voters 41 percent of the time (versus 33 percent for initiated constitutional amendments), ample incentive exists for issue advocates to go statutory. The counterbalancing disincentive is the risk of legislative tampering. That is, when there is a risk that legislators will tamper, initiative proponents are forced to go constitutional as a protection. Many of these “few” issues would have gone the statutory route, if a reasonable protection against tampering existed.

Like a magician, they distract Coloradans from the truth by comparing the Colorado with the U.S. Constitution. This is a rouse; the two documents are not comparable. The Federal government does not manage elections, local governments (which Colorado has 2710 of 61 different types), private corporations, and much more. State constitutions typically restate the Bill or Rights and sometimes enlarge the list. Colorado’s Bill of Rights has 30 Articles. Colorado is comfortably in the midrange of state constitutions. The longest by word-count is Alabama (6 times Colorado’s) and the shortest is Vermont (1/6th of Colorado’s). Colorado is also near the center in number of amendments.

Colorado ballot titles are the longest and most difficult to read of any state. In addition titles on referred measures are much shorter than initiated measures. Legislators could easily require shorter or more readable titles; or even offer two titles (short and long) to help voters.

Only 10 percent of Colorado governments (272 out of 2710) now have petitions. In 1910 the Initiative was reserved to every unit of government. Counties and districts did not exercise legislative authority in 1910, so it did not matter much either way then. When the legislature delegated legislative authority to these governments, they failed to account for the fact that the Initiative was a power citizens “reserved themselves” in the Colorado Constitution. Thus, they delegated more than the constitution allowed them to delegate.

The last Referendum Petition to appear before Colorado votes was in 1932. A tax had been imposed margarine to protection the dairy industry from competition. It was challenged by Referendum Petition and defeated by voters. Referendum Petitions challenge a legislated law with two exceptions. Appropriations bills and threats to public health and safety are exempt from a Referendum Petition challenge. After 1932 the Safety Clause was contrived to disenfranchise citizens from their Referendum power and was attached to virtually every bill declaring the bill essential for the immediate protection of the public health and safety.

The Colorado Supreme Court has intentionally misinterpreted the 1994 Single Subject rule in order to insert itself as another stumbling block in the Initiative process.

The Colorado Legislature has the power (but not the will) to correct any or all of the above difficulties. That they do not, illustrates hostility toward the Initiative process; an unwillingness to uphold the Colorado Constitution or to abide by their oath of office; and a disrespect for the people who elect them to office. However Amendment 38, which will appear on the November ballot, seeks to correct several of these problems that the legislature won’t address.

The Initiative process gives the people a voice when legislators fail to hear their constituents. It helps representative government do a better job.

Learn more about this subject in the newly released, Issue Paper Protecting the People’s Voice: Identifying the Obstacles to Colorado’s Initiative and Referendum Process.

Compiled for Colorado Constitution Panel

By Dennis Polhill, March 4, 2008

DPolhill@aol.com

Colorado’s Constitution is average.

• It contains 45,679 words.

• The longest is Alabama at 310,296 words.

• The shortest is Vermont at 8,295 words.

• The most amended is Alabama with 711 amendments.

• The least amended is Illinois with 11 amendments.

Between 1912 and 2005 (93 years) the citizens of Colorado have considered 254 proposed amendments.

• 125 were referred by the General Assembly.

• 129 were initiated by citizen petition.

111 of the 254 (43.7%) proposals were approved by voters.

• 69 of 125 (55.2%) of those referred by the GA.

• 42 of 129 (32.6%) of those by citizen petition.

Nearly two-thirds of the amendments to the Constitution originate in the GA.

• 69 of 111 (62.2%) were referred by the GA.

• 42 of 111 (37.8%) originated by citizen petition.

Some of the 42 could have been statutory, but most of the 42 had to be Constitutional. Counting entails subjectivity. This author estimates that one quarter could have been statutory. Thus, the target universe is small (10 in 93 years).

The incentive for issue proponents to go statutory is in place.

• 32.6% of initiated amendments pass.

• 41.3% of initiated statutes pass.

• The election advantage of statutes over amendments is 8.7 points.

• That is a 27% increase in proponents’ prospect of prevailing.

Amendment 2002-27 (Campaign Finance Restrictions by Common Cause) added 5,685 words (over 10%) to the Colorado Constitution. Amendment 27 was the rebirth of statutory initiative 1996-15 after it had been unilaterally modified by the GA.

The disincentives for issue proponents to go the statutory route (as illustrated by 2002-27) have yet to be addressed.

http://www.i2i.org/articles/IP_7_2006_b.pdf

From the Publisher:

There is little doubt that in recent years the initiative process has become one of the most important mechanisms for altering and influencing public policy at every level of government. In the last two years alone, utilizing the initiative process, citizens were heard on affirmative action, educational reform, term limits, tax reform, campaign finance reform, animal protection, drug policy reform, and the environment.

However, the initiative process has fallen prey to its own success. Lawmakers who have been most affected by this citizen’s tool have struck back by imposing new regulations on the process — regulations that serve no purpose but to deprive the citizens of the only avenue available to them to reign in unresponsive government.

These regulations have generated many questions that have so far remained unanswered or have been discussed only in specialist journals. There are legal questions about signature gathering and limits on campaign spending, political questions about implementing the relevant statutes, and philosophical questions about equality and freedom of expression. The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking discusses the evolution of the initiative and referendum process, the need for the process, how it has been utilized, the impetus for new regulations, the major regulations that have been imposed, the role the courts have played in regulating the initiative and referendum process, what role money plays, and how the process has been regulated in other countries. This book comprehensively addresses these issues from the viewpoint of leading scholars, opinion leaders, journalists, elected officials, activists, and attorneys.

“Dane Waters has done a commendable job in bringing a focus to an edited book project that provides a new perspective on the growing literature on direct democracy. The emphasis on a legal perspective may even help bring the topic to greater attention in classes on law and politics.”
- The Journal of Politics, February 2002

This paper is a chapter from The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking. You can purchase the book here. Also see the original version of Democracy’s Journey prior to editing.

By Dennis Polhill

Many historians will argue, and I will agree, that Democracy has its roots in Greek and Roman history. However, for the sake of time and space, I have chosen to begin the discussion of “Democracy’s journey” in the period of English history that immediately preceded the founding of America. This is relevant in my opinion because it is the undemocratic underpinnings of English governance during this period of time that lead to the push for freedom in America and eventually the adoption of initiative and referendum.

Historical Backdrop
The dominant form of government throughout all of human existence has been Kings. Sometimes called Caesar, Czar, Pharaoh, Caliph, Emperor, Kaiser, or Chief, the system was the same. One man determined all aspects of life for all of the people. Because “the King was the law” fairness and consistency were no more than occasionally dreamt ideals. Individual rights existed only to the extent that the King granted them. Because Kings were granted their power to rule from God, the King’s eldest son typically became the next King.

As society grew larger, it was increasingly difficult for Kings to oversee an enlarging geography. As a result the system of Feudalism, using lesser Kings called barons, earls, and lords evolved. To administer the increasing number of items requiring the attention of the King, the corps of advisors in service to the King grew larger, more bureaucratic and more corrupt. Together the King, the barons, earls, lords, and their advisors, made up society’s ruling class, called the aristocracy. Slavery was common and non-slaves were not much better off. The role of commoners or serfs in this caste system was to work and to pay tribute.

Island Feudalism Leads to Laws
England was somewhat insulated from the more frequent Feudalistic conflicts of mainland Europe. Thus, internal domestic concerns reached
center stage sooner. The natural tension between the King and his barons, earls and lords came to a head in 1215. A collection of barons had mutinied, defeating the King’s army. The Magna Carta was then drafted and defined Feudalistic Rights in 63 written articles. The single revolutionary notion achieved by the Magna Carta was that there should be limitations upon the absolute power of the King. The Magna Carta was a necessary step, but more time would be needed to invent democracy.

The Magna Carta did more to help the barons than the commoners. It reorganized the judicial system; it abolished tax assessments without con-sent; it standardized penalties for felonies; and trials were to be conduct-ed according to strict rules of procedure. Although the Pope voided the Magna Carta, it was reissued in 1217. In 1258, again over taxation, the barons revolted, forcing the Baronial Council to become permanent. The permanent Baronial Council was the first vestige of the House of Lords of Parliament. The Magna Carta was modified and confirmed by Parliament in 1297.

Conflict over the divine right of Kings versus limitations on his powers continued for centuries. In the 17th century, religious fragmentation and persecution, and the lack of individual liberties, fueled internal turmoil and emigration to the New World. Royal abuses had become so extreme that in 1628 Parliament passed the Petition of Rights. The Petition enumerated abuses and asked that they cease. The King responded by forcing Parliament to adjourn and imprisoning parliamentary leaders. An eleven years religious war against the Scots forced the King to convene Parliament to raise taxes. Unfriendly to the idea, Parliament was immediately adjourned and a new Parliament convened in 1640. But the new Parliament was even less friendly to the King and quickly arrested and executed one of the King’s closest advisors for treason, emphasizing the view that the King and his advisors were not above the law.

Soon after, a national referendum was proposed on the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords. The House of Commons was created which would be elected by universal male suffrage but limited by a bill of rights. However, the King refused to cooperate and was convicted of violating his coronation oath by attacking the people’s liberties, and was publicly beheaded in 1649. Parliament took unilateral control of government under the dictatorial leadership of Oliver Cromwell. The state-preferred religion changed, but religious persecution continued. Parliament was purged and Cromwell cruelly suppressed the Irish and Scots. Soon, the Commonwealth began to crumble. Upon Cromwell’s death, his son proved too weak to maintain control and so the son of the beheaded King was asked to return in 1660 and the Monarchy was restored.

John Locke
Events during this period influenced the thinking of John Locke, arguably the foremost political thinker of all times. Locke was born in 1632 and was educated at Oxford University. After teaching briefly, he became a physician. Uncomfortable with the restoration of the monarchy, Locke went to France in 1675. He returned in 1679 only to discover religious persecution as rampant as ever, and returned to the Continent until 1689. He was a philosophical empiricalist emphasizing the importance of experience and experimentation in the pursuit of knowledge. His two most important writings, Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Two Treatises o f Government were written in 1690. Locke attacked the theory of divine right of Kings and argued that sovereignty resided with the people, not the state. The state was limited by civil and “natural” law. It was government’s duty to protect natural rights, such as life, liberty, property, and religious freedom. He advocated checks and balances via three branches of government and separation of church and state. Locke held that revolution was not only a natural right, but also an obligation.

The contest for supremacy between the King and Parliament continued after Cromwell’s death. Finally the divine right of Kings ended with the Glorious Revolution in 1688. In a Parliamentary vote, the Crown was taken from James II and offered to William and Mary conditioned upon a written Declaration of Rights, which enumerated rights in similar fashion to what was to become the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

Evolution of Sovereignty
During this period, John Locke introduced the next revolutionary notion: that the people were sovereign, not the King. The King-by-proxy government of the American colonies, proved both ineffective and largely irrelevant to the increasingly self-reliant colonists.

Locke’s ideas soon took hold in the American colonies. Thomas Jefferson, a reader of Locke, based many of his beliefs on Locke’s theories, which can easily be seen in his writings. A perfect example is Jefferson’s belief that “[t]he people.. . are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” It’s that principal, that one simple statement, that best summarizes not only Jefferson’s and Locke’s beliefs, but also the beliefs that America was founded upon.

The Evolution of Initiative and Referendum in the United States
It wasn’t long before the American colonies had tired of the undemocratic governance by the Crown and soon gained their independence. Then came the tough job of designing a system of government that would recognize the sovereignty of the people while creating a strong government that would insure the stability of a newly formed country. Even though many historians believe initiative and referendum was a subject of discussion, it was left out of the original constitution- as was women’s suffrage and the abolishment of slavery.

However, Jefferson was a strong and vocal advocate of the referendum process, which in his view recognized the people to be the sovereign. Where-as the King of England spoke of his power to govern being derived from God, Jefferson knew that those chosen to represent the citizenry as envisioned in a republican form of government were only empowered by the people.

James Madison, as did Jefferson, knew too well the possibility that in a republic, those chosen to rule can and would on occasion become consumed with their power and take actions not consistent with the Constitution- actions that represented their self-interest and not the interest of the people. For this reason, a series of checks-and-balances were placed in the U.S. Constitution in order to right the errors caused when elected representatives chose to rule unconstitutionally or in their own self-interest. Not only did the Founding Fathers create these checks-and-balances by one branch of government over the next, they created a provision in Article V of the Constitution that allowed the people the right to make change and/or restore our Constitution absent action by the Government. Unfortunately this process still relied on some form of action by those in power and therefore can be argued as being unusable by the citizenry since it has never been utilized in over 200 years.

The Founding Fathers at the state level created republican governments on a smaller scale that mirrored that of the Federal Government. In these constitutions a series of checks-and-balances were created to take into account the possible abuse of power by elected representatives and to protect the people from an out of control government- when and if that were to happen. But what the citizens began to realize in the late 1800s was that no matter what checks-and-balances existed, the people had no direct ability to reign in an out-of-touch government or government paralyzed by inaction.

Then came the Populist Party of the 1890s. Its members had become outraged that moneyed special interest groups controlled government, and that the people had no ability to break this control. They soon began to pro-pose a comprehensive platform of political reforms. They advocated women’s suffrage, secret ballots, direct election of U.S. Senators, primary elections and initiative and referendum. Difficult as it would be to envision modern political systems without these reforms, they were considered quite extreme changes in the 1890s.

Perhaps the most revolutionary Populist reform was initiative and popular referendum. These forms of initiative and referendum, as well as the already established legislative referendum- which Jefferson championed in the late 1700s- acknowledged that the authority to legislate and govern was delegated by the people and reaffirmed that the people were the only true sovereign- as Jefferson and Locke had envisioned. They right-fully believed that government without the consent of the governed was tyranny and because authority, but not responsibility, can be delegated, a mechanism to un-delegate, when appropriate, was a proper check on the process of legislating.

It should be noted and emphasized that the move to establish initiative and referendum was not a movement to change our system of government or abolish representative government- but to enhance it. Our Founding Fathers at the state and federal levels created wonderful documents, but they were documents based on compromise. They realized that they would need to be changed which is why they created a mechanism to alter them when necessary. The system of checks and balances were created as a theoretical system based on how to check the power of one branch of government with another- but it was an unproven system. As time progressed, the citizens discovered that this theoretical system of checks and balances at the state and federal level worked- but not good enough- for their were times when elected officials chose not to act in the people’s best interest. For this reason, the Populists/Progressives strove to strengthen the system of checks and balances on government at the state level and advocated the initiative and referendum process. Additionally it must be remembered that we have two tiers of Founding Fathers in this country- those at the federal level and those at the state level. The Founding Fathers of Oklahoma and Alaska, for example, chose to put initiative and referendum in their states’ original constitutions. It would be wrong in my opinion to pass judgment that the Founding Fathers at the state level were in some way inferior to our Founding Fathers at the federal level.

In 1897, Nebraska became the first state to allow cities to place initiative and referendum in their charters. One year later, the Populists adopt-ed methods from the 1848 Swiss Constitution and successfully amended them into the South Dakota Constitution. On November 5, 1898, South Dakota became the first state to adopt statewide initiative and popular referendum. Oregon followed in 1902 when Oregon voters approved initiative and popular referendum by an 11-to-1 margin. Other states soon followed. In 1906 Montana voters approved an initiative and popular ref-erendum amendment proposed by the state legislature. Oklahoma became the first state to provide for the initiative and popular referendum in its original constitution in 1907. Maine and Michigan passed initiative and popular referendum amendments in 1908.

In 1911 California placed initiative and popular referendum in their constitution. Other states were to follow- but even with popular support in many states, the elected class refused the will of the people and did not enact this popular reform. In Texas; for example, the people actually had the opportunity to vote for initiative and popular referendum in 1914, but voted it down because the amendment proposed by the legislature would have required that signatures be gathered from 20% of the registered voters in the state -a number twice as large as what was required in any other state. The proponents for initiative and popular referendum felt it was more important to get a useable process than one that would have maintained the status quo and provided no benefit to the citizenry. However, the legislature used this defeat as an excuse to claim that initiative and popular referendum was not wanted by the people and therefore effectively killed the movement in Texas.

Eventually, between 1898 and 1918, 24 states adopted initiative or popular referendum- mostly in the West. The expansion of initiative and popular referendum in the West fit more with the Westerners belief of populism- that the people should rule the elected and not allow the elected to rule the people. Unfortunately in the East and South this was not the case. Those that were in power were opposed to the expansion of initiative and popular referendum because they were concerned that blacks and immigrants would use the process to enact reforms that were not consistent with the beliefs of the ruling class.

In 1959, when Alaska became a state, the citizens had adopted the power of initiative and popular referendum. Then in 1972, Floridians adopted statewide initiative. Mississippians in 1992 restored initiative and referendum to their constitution, 70 years after the state Supreme Court invalidated the election creating the process. Mississippi became the newest and last state to get this valuable tool.

The credit for the establishment of initiative and popular referendum in this country belongs with the Progressives. They worked steadily to dismantle the political machines and bosses that controlled American politics by pushing reforms eliminating the influence the special interest had on political parties and the government. Their goal, as is that of today’s proponents of the initiative and popular referendum, is to ensure that elect-ed officials remain accountable to the electorate.

Conclusion
The evolution from tyranny to democracy has been a long and difficult road- a road that is never ending. But as you can see, the evolution of initiative and referendum is not contrary to the evolution of representative democracy- but an enhancement to it. The two are designed to work hand-in-hand with each other. The following chapter by Rob Natelson specifically addresses this issue.

The long journey for democracy that began with the Magna Carta is far from finished. Though its future form may be unclear today, we can be certain that democracy will increase and that initiative and referendum will play a role in determining future democratic systems.

Initiative and Referendum Historical Timeline
This information compiled from research contained in David Schmidt’s Citizen Lawmakers and from independent research conducted by the Initiative & Referendum Institute.

By Dennis Polhill

The most significant idea of the second millennium is that government powers must be limited. This is the foundation principle for democracy.

HISTORICAL BACKDROP
The dominant form of government throughout all of human existence has been Kings. Sometimes called Caesar, Czar, Pharaoh, Caliph, Emperor, Kaiser, or Chief, the system was the same. One man determined all aspects of life for all of the people. Because “the King was the law” fairness and consistency were no more than occasionally dreamt ideals. Individual rights existed only to the extent that the King granted them. Because Kings were granted their power to rule from God, the King’s eldest son typically became the next King.

Before there were big Kings, there were little Kings. Living in caves, the little Kings gained their initial power by brute force. They decided who would and who would not eat; what crimes would receive what punishment; and when to raid and pillage the neighbors.

As society grew larger, little Kings became big Kings. It was increasingly difficult to oversee an enlarging geography. As a result the system of Feudalism using lesser Kings called barons, earls, and lords evolved. To administer the increasing number of items requiring the attention of the big King, the corps of advisors in service to the King grew larger, more bureaucratic and more corrupt. Together the big King, the lesser Kings, and their advisors made up society’s ruling class, called the aristocracy. Slavery was common and non-slaves were not much better off. The role of commoners or serfs in this cast system was to work and to pay tribute.

ISLAND FEUDALISM LEADS TO LAWS
England was somewhat insulated from the more frequent Feudalistic conflicts of mainland Europe. Thus, internal domestic concerns reached centerstage sooner. The natural tension between the big King and the lesser Kings came to a head in 1215. A collection of barons had mutinied, defeating the King’s army. Magna Carta in 63 written articles defined Feudalistic Rights. The single revolutionary notion achieved by Magna Carta was that there should be limitations upon the absolute power of the King. Magna Carta was a necessary step. But more time would be needed to invent democracy.

Magna Carta did more to help of the barons than the commoners. It reorganized the judicial system; it abolished tax assessments without consent, which eventually grew into Parliament; it standardized penalties for felonies; and trials were to be conducted according to strict rules of procedure. Although the Pope voided the charter, it was reissued in 1217. In 1258 again over taxation the barons revolted, forcing the Baronial Council to become permanent. The permanent Baronial Council was the first vestige of the House of Lords of Parliament. Magna Carta was modified and confirmed by Parliament in 1297.

Conflict over the divine right of Kings versus limitations continued for centuries. In the 17th century religious fragmentation and persecution fueled internal turmoil and emigration to the New World. Royal abuses had become so extreme that in 1628 Parliament passed the Petition of Rights. The Petition enumerated abuses and asked that they cease. The King responded by forcing Parliament to adjourn and imprisoning parliamentary leaders. An 11 years religious war against the Scots forced the King to convene Parliament to raise taxes. Unfriendly to the idea, Parliament was immediately adjourned and a new Parliament convened in 1640. But the new Parliament was even less friendly to the King and quickly arrested and executed one of the King’s closest advisors for treason, emphasizing the view that the King and his advisors were not above the law.

A national Referendum was proposed on the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords. A House of Commons would be elected by universal male suffrage but limited by a bill of rights. The King refused to cooperate, was convicted of violating his coronation oath by attacking the people’s liberties, and was publicly beheaded in 1649. Parliament took unilateral control of government under the dictatorial leadership, Oliver Cromwell. The state-preferred religion changed, but religious persecution continued. Parliament was purged. Cromwell cruelly suppressed the Irish and Scots. The Commonwealth began to crumble. Upon Cromwell’s death, his son proved too weak to maintain control and the son of the beheaded King was asked to return in 1660.

JOHN LOCKE
Contemporary events evidently influenced the thinking of John Locke, arguably the foremost political thinker of all times. Locke was born in 1632 and was educated at Oxford University. After teaching briefly, he became a physician. Uncomfortable with the restoration of the monarchy, Locke went to France in 1675, returned in 1679 to discover religious persecution as rampant as ever, and returned to the Continent until 1689. He was a philosophical empiricalist emphasizing the importance of experience and experimentation in the pursuit of knowledge. His two most important writings, Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Two Treatises of Government were written in 1690. Locke attacked the theory of divine right of Kings and argued that sovereignty resided with the people, not the state. The state was limited by civil and “natural” law. It was government’s duty to protect natural rights, such as life, liberty, property, and religious freedom. He advocated checks and balances via three branches of government and separation of church and state. Locke held that revolution was not only a natural right, but an obligation.

The contest for supremacy between the King and Parliament continued after Cromwell’s death. Finally the divine right of Kings ended with the Glorious Revolution in 1688. In a Parliamentary vote the Crown was taken from James II and offered to William and Mary conditioned upon a written Declaration of Rights, which enumerated rights in similar fashion to the U.S. Bill of Rights.

CONTRASTING CONSTITITONS
Other than the three great Charters of English liberty discussed above (Magna Carta, Petition of Rights, and Declaration of Rights), Great Britain has no written constitution. Many consider the three great Charters to comprise Britain’s constitution. The British constitution makes no mention of governmental structure; only rights.

Interestingly, the U.S. Constitution, as it emerged from the 1787 Constitutional Convention was the opposite. It focused on governmental structure only and made no mention of rights. So, what is a constitution? Dictionaries and encyclopedias avoid a comprehensive definition.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPERIALISM
In the middle of the second millennium the two major contestants in claiming the World were Britain and Spain. Colonization meant the superimposition of language, laws, culture and government from the motherland. A look at the human condition today in the respective colonized countries is instructive. In virtually every case the English speaking ones are better off than the Spanish speaking ones: stronger economies, human rights, more individual wealth, bigger players in the global economy, lower poverty, less disease, longer life expectancy, higher education, more evolved democratic processes, etc. Did the British pick better countries to colonize or is there another reason? If the success of the British colonies happened to be the product of natural resources, genetics, climate, the efforts of an individual political leader, or a few technological breakthroughs, the result would be random. Because the result is virtually universal, the defining variable must be a component of the British culture. It must be the system of rights, laws and government. That no man is above the law: the rule of law, is not a trivial contribution.

EVOLUTION OF SOVEREIGNTY
Magna Carta simply established that government should be limited. For nearly 500 years the concept of limits was refined and solidified. Then John Locke introduced the next revolutionary notion: that the people were sovereign, not the King. The King-by-proxy government of the American colonies, proved both ineffective and largely irrelevant to the increasingly self-reliant colonists. They would soon be ready to put Locke’s ideas into practice.

New England Town Meetings date back to the early 1600s. Elections of leaders occurred from the beginning of colonization. Thomas Jefferson suggested in 1775 that the proposed Virginia Constitution be approved by a vote of the people. In 1778 Massachusetts was the first state to hold a statewide referendum to adopt its constitution. It failed and had to be rewritten. New Hampshire adopted its constitution of 1792 by statewide referendum. When the Virginia Constitution was rewritten in 1830 the people took from their legislature the unilateral authority to amend their constitution. In 1834 eight additional states made changes to recognize the people’s sovereignty. Today 49 states acknowledge the sovereignty of their people by requiring that proposed amendments to the state constitution be approved only by vote of the electorate. Delaware is the only state that permits its legislature to amend its state constitution.

Thomas Jefferson had a firm grasp of Locke’s ideas and assigned it such importance as to advocate that it be one of three mandated readings for all students. Over 100 years Locke’s junior, at 33 Jefferson shook the foundations of conventional thinking by writing in 1776, “… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Remembering their comparatively recent experience with Cromwell, the British aristocracy accepted the notion of self-government with bemusement. The first real experiment in human history with self-government had begun.

REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government …” This meant free, open, and competitive election of representatives. The concern in 1787 was that if the people of one State chose a monarch or dictator, that the inevitable friction and thirst for political domination would undermine and destabilize their experiments in self-government in other states. It is contrary to the notion of self-government to suggest that this clause infers any further limitations on how people might decide to govern themselves.

MANAGEMENT THEORY
Management students learn to lead by exercising the principles of management: planning, organizing, directing, and controlling. Subordinates are empowered to achieve their charge by the delegation of authority. Though authority is delegated, responsibility is not. Because responsibility is maintained, the manager is obliged to oversee the progress of work. When subordinates deviate from the work plan or fail to be productive, the manager takes corrective action. Tasks that require a comprehensive vision or far-reaching strategic decisions cannot be effectively delegated. The responsibility of controlling the work implies that the manager may occasionally find it necessary to un-delegate tasks, taking things into his own hands. Usually un-delegating fills a subordinate’s skill gap helping good workers to become better. Occasionally the subordinate is generally incompetent or insubordinate and the manager is compelled to take more extreme action.

Of course, the people must be the boss in any model of democratic government. This is widely understood and frequently underscored. The U.S. Constitution opens with “We the People” and goes on to make numerous limiting and insensitive pronouncements such as “Congress shall make no law …” Article I, Section 1 says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress …” The people delegate to Congress the authority to legislate, but limited the extent of the delegated authority by the phrase “herein granted.”

State constitutions replicate the tone and terminology. In Colorado, Article V, Section 1 opens with “The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives, both to be elected by the people, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments…” Here the sovereign people delegate the authority to legislate to the general assembly, but the people are also making it absolutely clear that they are not delegating all legislative authority. They “reserve to themselves” the power to legislate when they so choose.

INSUBORDINATE LEGISLATORS
The contempt that legislators hold for petitions is not surprising. To them any petition on any subject is a personal insult. It is like saying, “You didn’t do your job. So let’s go see what the boss has to say about it.” Any person with enough talent and pride to be an elected official would naturally be offended.

However, when offense turns into action to strangle the process, the very person elected to protect and defend democracy, his constituents, and the Constitution crosses the line by subverting the institutions he swore an oath to uphold. Icon of democracy reverts to subversive tyrant. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may defined a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Penned in 1776 with King George III in mind, the phrase is surprisingly fitting for some of today’s political operatives.

Legislative attacks on the petition process are too many to discuss thoroughly. Most Initiative states observe at least one attempt per year to restrain the petition process. In 1999 there were over 100 such bills in the state of Oregon alone. The State of Colorado has been humiliated twice on the national stage for passing acts subversive to democracy, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down legislatively imposed petition restrictions. The Court’s view is that whether the state has petitions is determined by the people of the individual state. However, once the state has the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) process, the First Amendment, protection of free political speech rules. Thus, reasonable regulations that facilitate and augment the process are permissible. Restrictions are not.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The petition process is daunting to undertake. Most people who consider a petition decline to pursue it. No one exercises the petition process when any other path is available. A review of the subject content of various petitions reveals the obvious. Petitions deal with two types of issues: conflict of interest issues and too-hot-to-handle issues.

Conflict of interest issues are those that are impossible for legislative bodies to address honestly due to their position. Examples include: compensation and benefits, districting, terms of office, recall, campaign finance limitations, term limits, tax and spending limitations, and regulations of the I&R process. Basically any issue that limits the power of politicians or government is a conflict of interest issue. Expecting the legislature to fairly deal with any of these examples is like asking a first grader to set his own bedtime. It just doesn’t work.

Too-hot-to-handle issues are those that carry a political price that legislators are unwilling to pay. These include those that are offensive to any side of any issue. Politicians who wish to be reelected are careful to not offend any lobbyist constituency or any grassroots group. Thus, issues with even a moderate degree of controversy tend not to be addressed in the legislature.

SPECIAL INTERESTS
The history of special interests is well-known. After the Civil War railroads and other business interests gained enormous influence over legislative bodies. Inordinately fraudulent elections placed tremendous control in the hands of corrupt political party machines. Legislators were openly purchased. Policy meant the allocation of privilege to the few. In response to criticisms insiders strove to clarify the forms of graft that were proper. Outraged groups of reformers came together first in the Populist movement of the 1890s and again as the Progressive movement of the 1900s. Betrayed by their political leaders, they advocated reforms that enlarged the democratic process by limiting the powers of their elected officials. Some of the advocated reforms included woman suffrage, secret ballots, election of U.S. Senators, primary elections, election of judges, recall petitions, Initiative petitions, Referendum (legislative challenge) petitions, voter registration, no straight party ballots, nonpartisan municipal elections, and many more.

No doubt these insiders referred to the insurgent Populists and Progressives as “special interests.” From their perspective the label was accurate. The insurgents did have different interests. Because any group of like-minded people may be referred to as a special interest, a clearer definition of the term “special interest” is needed.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines special interest as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.” By this definition, because the Populists and Progressives were motivated on behalf of the general interest of society, they were less of a special interest than were the railroads. The word “narrowly” is key to the definition. When a broad segment of society stands to benefit from an idea, then advocacy is, by definition, not that of a special-interest.

With a clearer understanding of the term “special interest,” a closer look at what happens under the Capitol dome, is instructive. A February 7, 2000, research paper by Professor Barry Fagan, “Who Testifies and Why” tabulates all testimony on all 60 bills heard in 1999 before the Colorado Senate Finance Committee. Sixty two percent of the bills concentrated benefits narrowly. Equally important, Professor Fagan discovered that, “…chances are 96 percent that a witness is a beneficiary of that bill or representing someone who is …” Fagan explains the imbalance by public choice theory. Most witnesses are motivated by self-interest and come to testify when the benefits of testifying outweigh the costs. This occurs most frequently when benefits are concentrated narrowly. When a bill is structured as special interest legislation, favorable testimony is abundant. The legislative process sinks to the level of special-interest autonom. A similar study by James Payne, “The Public Interest,” revealed that Congressional testimony for more spending was favored by the ratio 145:1.

To state that the legislative process is heavily influenced by special interests may be an understatement. A quick look back at the list of examples of initiative petitions in the previous section, “Conflict of Interest,” reveals that hardly any are issues with narrowly concentrated benefits. Clearly the petition process is less influenced by special interests than is the legislative process under the Capitol dome.

In a March 1997 paper “The Citizen’s Initiative and Entrepreneurial Politics,” Professor Anne G. Campbell concluded, “… the initiative process in Colorado has been used primarily in attempts to benefit the public interest, and that it has rather infrequently been used to promote the objectives of special interests.”

WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT PETITIONS
As it is said, “A half truth is a whole lie.” Politics has become the deceitful art of stating half-truths. Half-truths are especially effective in misleading the less informed for the short term. This is why negative campaigning is so effective. If the opposition objects, then the false claim gains legitimacy.

From the discussion in previous sections it is known that those who dislike petitions most are those with the greatest stake in the legislative process: career politicians, lobbyists, and special interests. These groups tend to be especially well-practiced in the art of manipulating rhetoric to suit their purposes. Following is a list of the 14 most commonly heard complaints about petitions as stated by petition opponents:

1. Initiatives are the tool of special interests.
2. Initiative campaigns are influenced by money.
3. Voters are incompetent to decide complex issues.
4. Initiatives are poorly written.
5. Initiatives are often unconstitutional.
6. There are too many initiatives on the ballot.
7. Initiatives cause ballot clutter.
8. Voters do not like long ballots.
9. Initiatives benefit one philosophy.
10. People vote selfishly.
11. Many initiatives are bad ideas.
12. Initiatives place extraneous material in the Constitution.
13. Initiatives create tyranny of the majority.
14. Initiatives make the Legislature unnecessary.

A 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 http://www.i2i.org/suptdocs/issupprs/ip0896.htm or http://www.iandrinstitute.org/indepth/document1/introduction.htm).

These 14 statements are more accurate when reworded slightly:

1. Initiatives provide a means of legislating when special interests control the Legislature.
2. Initiative campaigns make it more difficult for money to influence legislation.
3. Voters are competent and conscientious to decide complex issues.
4. Initiatives are not as poorly written as most legislation.
5. Initiatives are rarely unconstitutional.
6. More initiatives appear on ballots when the legislative process is not working properly.
7. Ballot clutter is augmented by old ballot format and voting procedures.
8. High voter turn out proves that voters want to vote on issues.
9. Initiatives are used by every political philosophy.
10. People vote thoughtfully.
11. Many initiatives are good ideas.
12. Initiatives rarely place extraneous material in the Constitution.
13. Initiatives can not cause “Tyranny of the Majority.”
14.Initiatives focus the legislature on issues relevant to voters.

HOW MANY ARE TOO MANY?
In all of Colorado history only 61 petitions have made it into law. The process is so difficult that the vast majority do not succeed. About 70% are defeated in election. But only one in 10 or 20 reaches the ballot at all. Hundreds more are never attempted either because people are unfamiliar with their right to petition or because they lack the resources to undertake the difficult petition process.

Because the Colorado General Assembly passes about 300 laws per year, the 61 petition-laws represent close to 0.2% of all laws. Stated in reverse: 99.8% of all Colorado law is made in the General Assembly.

These numbers overstate petition activism. At the local government level far fewer than 0.2% of laws come from petitions. Fewer than 5% of Colorado’s local governments have the petition process and those with it rarely exercise it. At the Federal government level no laws are the product of petitions.

The 0.2% also overstates petition activism at the state level nationwide. The majority of States (26) do not have the initiative petition. Several of the remainder 24 State procedures are so restrictive that the process is rendered dysfunctional. For example, scholars frequently do not even count Illinois among the list of states with I&R and the Mississippi process is so difficult that only two petitions have ever succeeded in appearing on the ballot. Of the states where petitions are most active, only two states have more petitions appear on the ballot than does Colorado. That means 47 states (94%) have no petitions or fewer petitions than Colorado.

Comprehensive data is not available to calculate an absolute number, but conceptual generalizations are possible. Less than 0.1% (1 in 1,000) of state level laws result from a petition. Possibly as little as 0.01% (1 in 10,000) of all laws come from a petition.

DIRECT DEMOCRACY
The term Direct Democracy infers a system of democratic government in which citizens are consulted on all decisions. Conversely, Indirect Democracy is a system of democratic government through elected representatives. One hundred percent implementation of either extreme is improbable and generally undesirable.

Absolute Direct Democracy, although increasingly achievable via modern technology, would quickly wear on the interest and patience of most people. Average citizens would be buried with hundreds of daily decisions regarding issues impossible for most to become adequately educated about: should the police chief received a raise, be fired, be commended, or be reprimanded? Clearly, smaller, decentralized, more devolved units of government may more effectively deal with direct involvement of their citizens. The Swiss Landsgemeinde predating 1294 and the pre-Revolutionary War New England town meetings (banned by Britain “for better regulating the government…”) provide evidence. Small groups quickly discover it expedient to divide work and specialize. Management expert, Tom Peters claims that groups begin to become bureaucratic when they grow to five people. Bureaucracy is the negative byproduct of work specialization.

Absolute Indirect Democracy is equally infeasible. In the Management Theory section it was revealed that the boss (the sovereign people) must never delegate certain tasks and must sometimes un-delegate tasks. It was also learned in the Conflict of Interest section that there are issues impossible for legislators to address honestly and other issues too difficult for legislators to resolve.

Sometimes the term Direct Democracy is used in a pejorative sense. The context leads people to believe that any more citizen participation might result in chaos or an end to life as we know it. As was discovered in a the discussion of Special Interests, a look at who is making such claims may be more informative than the actual words.

Although an Initiative petition is an example of Direct Democracy, it alone is not Direct Democracy. It would be less misleading to apply either the term Direct legislation or citizen participation.

As the wise old man said, “If you don’t ask the right question, you cannot get the right answer.” The Direct Democracy question is more accurately about “What is the appropriate level of citizen participation in their government?” Though a specific answer is currently unavailable, the vast majority of people concur that there will be more citizen participation in the future. The underlying questions are, “How soon will there be change? What form will the change take? Where will the leadership come from? Who should decide?”

DO PETITIONS DOMINATE THE PROCESS?
Knowing that at least 99.9 percent of laws come from elected officials, makes it difficult to reconcile the domination claim. It is unlikely that the average petition law is over 1000 times more important than the average legislated law? Respect for legislators might improve, however, if they passed fewer inconsequential laws. Knowing who opposes petitions and why from the discussion in previous sections, helps explain the source and motivation for this exaggeration.

But by the mere fact that they are statements from the boss, petition-laws approved by a vote of the people are and should be more consequential than legislated laws. A true representative would never dream of ignoring or subverting the stated will of people. The influence of petitions goes even farther. Failed petitions communicate much information about the concerns and priorities of the public. These expressed concerns of the general public often influence the legislative agenda. Agenda priorities suggested external to the General Assembly might be a disruption to an internally set agenda, but only if the internal agenda is out-or-sync with the people. A true representative welcomes such direction, because it allows him to do his job more effectively.

Because petitions are used by every political ideology, petition opponents can easily find examples offensive to anyone. The tax issue is an interesting study. Although some believe that taxes should be higher, the majority of people today feel that their taxes are high enough. This majority view is out-of-sync with the view of most legislators, as they frequently feel compelled to seek ways to circumvent the will of people. A recent study by University of California Professor John Matsusaka found that Initiative states are taxed 4% below the national average. Matsusaka also found during the 1930s, when the public had a greater interest in more government spending than did legislators, that Initiative states accelerated spending more rapidly than did non-Initiative states. Legislators are often out-of-sync with the people and petitions universally accelerate the democratic process, correcting the disparity.

Citizens take their voting franchise seriously. Exit polls regularly find that voters are more informed on most issues than they are on most candidates. Attempts to ascertain voter drop-off patterns are ineffective, because voters rationally skip issues they are uncertain about and seek out those issues they care about. States, like Wyoming and Minnesota, that count abstain votes (skipped votes) as something other than an “abstain,” misrepresent and distort the intent of voters.

Professors Caroline Tolbert, Daniel A. Smith, and John Gummel released new research that reverses a commonly held misperception. “The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States” concluded that voter turnout was higher in Initiative states than non-Initiative states in every Presidential election and in every midterm election from 1960 through 1996. Initiatives appear to universally augment voter interest in elections.

HOW DOES MONEY INFLUENCE THE PROCESS?
Professor Anne G. Campbell has focused her research on the influence that money has on the outcome of issue elections. In a January 1999 paper, “The Effect of Campaign Spending on Initiative Campaigns,” Campbell concluded, “while overwhelming spending in opposition to a ballot measure can buy the defeat of initiatives, money has been singularly ineffective at buying the passage of initiatives.” This makes use of the process by narrowly defined special interests nearly impossible, unlike the legislative process.

The 1976 Colorado election was historic. Alarmed at the growth in the number of
Initiative petitions, opposition groups rallied to put a stop to it. Professor John S. Shockley tabulated that opposition spending exceeded proponent spending by over 10:1 on all issues combined. The opposition groups subsequently passed several laws restricting the petition process, several of which have since been stricken as unconstitutional. In 1996 when petition defenders attempted to protect petitions from continuing attacks by the General Assembly with the Petition Rights Amendment, opponents raised over a million dollars to perpetrate false campaign claims and defeat the measure.

In her new book, “The Populist Paradox,” Professor Elisabeth Gerber neutralized left-right ideological issue bias by aggregating all ballot measures in eight states over the period 1988 through 1992. Gerber found that 61 percent of all money spent in Initiative campaigns appeared on the opposition side. Gerber further found that 74 percent of opposition funding came from economic, professional, and business interests, the very same groups that are highly organized and well funded to affect favored outcomes at the state capitols. Regarding referred measure campaigns, Gerber further discovered that 70 percent of the funds came from the same groups who opposed initiatives and that 98 percent supported the measures drafted in the state legislature.

As measured by their spending, it can be concluded that those who work the Capitol like referred measures, but do not like Initiatives.

WHEN IS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION PERMISSIBLE?
The decade-ago collapse of Communism reminds us that political change comes in only two possible forms: violent and nonviolent. Though more lives would have been lost had Soviet troops been willing to fire on unarmed civilians, the transformation of Eastern European countries could have been less violent. Fewer lives might have been lost if the system had been open to continuous, gradual, peaceful change. However, it is not the nature of totalitarian systems to be open. Systems of democratic government, on the other hand, should be different.

But even in a democracy it is unrealistic to expect the status quo to reform itself out of existence whenever the need arises. The Initiative petition was invented as a pressure release valve to implement structural changes to the system peacefully. The Progressives used the petition as their tool to advance the remainder of their structural reform agenda (a partial list of their reforms is provided in the Special Interests section above). Term limits, tax limits, and campaign spending limits are current examples of structural changes that would be impossible without the petition.

In the Insubordinate Legislators section the view of the Court was mentioned: reasonable regulations to facilitate and augment the process far permissible; restrictions are not. When governments regulate petitions, they find themselves in an awkward position, at best.

Non-mandatory advice from government and other experts is desirable. Intrusion occurs whenever a government is in a position to exercise veto or approval power over a Petition. Some commonly observed intrusion points are: drafting of the scope, drafting the title, drafting a summary, estimating fiscal impact, determination of single subject, determination of Constitutionality, approval of petition format, drafting of voter information guides, and the counting and validation of signatures. Space does not permit discussion of each of these potential abuse points. Most people involved for the government are astutely aware of the inherent problems and work painstakingly in pursuit of fairness and objectivity. Unfortunately not all people are able to hold their personal biases in check. Minor rhetorical variations that might have devastatingly fatal consequences to a campaign or to the ultimate meaning of a proposal should be made only by the proponents. Anything otherwise, jeopardizes altogether the fundamental idea of the Initiative petition.

The rationale for intrusion is to protect voters from abuse and manipulation by overzealous proponents. This concern fails the logic test. It pre-supposes that someone is better able to screen for the truth and to objectively recast the message for public consumption. It also assumes that the election mechanism itself is an inadequate check against manipulation and deceit. These are both false, at least most of the time. But even if they were true, both thoughts are fundamentally undemocratic and bring to mind the famous Thomas Jefferson quote, “Men by their makeup are naturally divided into two camps; those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes, and those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them the safest and most honest, if not always the wisest, repository of the public interests. These two camps exists in every country, and, whenever men are free to think, speak, and write, they will identify themselves.”

There should be no doubt that an increasingly restrictive and closed petition process increases the risk of violence in America. Abraham Lincoln once advocated a national Referendum to reconcile the slavery issue. It is impossible to known whether the Referendum might have been effective in avoiding the Civil War, saving hundreds of thousands of American lives and immeasurable human suffering. But we do known the result without the Referendum and one cannot help but wonder, what would have been lost to have tried?

WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION?
A constitution is a written document of the people. It is the means by which the people agree to come together and operate as a civilized society. In so doing they define the structure of their government, establish separation and balance of powers between branches, and create limits. Clearly the entities created by the constitution are subordinate to it and may take no unilateral action to modify the constitution or to otherwise change its meaning. Such actions by any branch are grossly insubordinate and subvert the constitution, the process by which the government was created, the notion of sovereignty and the foundations for democracy. Only the sovereign people may make such changes.

“Natural” rights, sometimes called individual rights or fundamental rights, because they exist naturally, cannot be given or taken away by action of government. They should be itemized in the constitution in an un-amendable form. The primary reason for governments to exist is to protect and defend all “natural” rights for all of the people. Although a listing of “Natural” rights cannot be all-inclusive, the listing is important to facilitate their aggressive defense.

If the branches of government are separate and equal, then none is superior to the other. Thus, no branch is empowered to overrule another, when they are in dispute. A viable constitution must provide a means of reconciling such disputes. Disputes that cannot be resolved, probably necessitate action by the sovereign people.

Because the people may wish to modify either the structure of their government or the limits, a functional amendment process must be an integral part of any viable constitution.

A constitution for democratic government must:
1. Offer a list of “Natural” rights.
2. Establish the structure of government, including separation and balance of powers.
3. Define governmental limitations.
4. Include a method of reconciling disputes between the branches.
5. Provide a functional method of constitutional amendment.

A constitution that lacks one or more of these elements, may serve to provide civil society for a period of time. But lacking a key element, a constitution will eventually become dysfunctional and destructive to society. Once this occurs it may be necessary for it to be totally abandoned or replaced.

DYSFUNCTIONAL CONSTITUTIONS
The U.S. Constitution lacks a viable amendment process. Three quarters of the states must ratify proposed amendments. The problem is the source of proposed amendments. The founders anticipated that most proposed amendments would come from the states. But because Congress is in a position to block state-proposed amendments, no conflict of interest issues are addressed and governmental structure questions are rarely addressed. No state-proposed amendments have ever been released for ratification. Of those proposed by Congress, there have been over 10,000 introduced, of which 33 have been released for ratification and 27 have been ratified. Of the 27, numbers one through 10 plus 27 were drafted by James Madison as the Bill of Rights. Only a few (12,19 & 22) of the remaining 16 deal with change in the structure of government.

Forty-nine states have made 399 applications for a Constitutional Convention. Yet Congress stonewalls both efforts to convene a convention or to develop systems that might make a convention unnecessary. Congress’ thirst for power may make it the most tyrannical, undemocratic institution in America. Thomas Paine wrote as though he know the Congress of today, “Men who look upon themselves as born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests … ”

The Confederate Constitution corrected some dysfunctional parts. It prohibited omnibus bills, required a supermajority vote for appropriations, and removed from the control of Congress the process of proposing amendments, requiring that 25% of the states concur on a proposal to release it for ratification.

Legislators that work to subvert the petition process in I&R states are insubordinate. Are Legislators in non-I&R states any less insubordinate? Hardly! Their arrogance and contempt for democracy is shocking. Evidently they believe that the state constitutional flaw that fails to provide a viable amendment mechanism somehow empowers them to deny the people’s will when they so choose. Legislators in non-I&R states are obliged to bring important issues before the people for their consideration, including the state constitutional amendment process itself. In 1906 the people of Delaware voted in favor of I&R with 89.1%. With this mandate the people have been patiently waiting for over 94 years for their honest and responsible representatives to implement the process.

The words of the Founders are often relevant today. In his 1776 book Common Sense Thomas Paine wrote, “We may be as effectively enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us …”

SUMMARY
1. Magna Carta established that government must be limited.
2. John Locke reasoned that the purpose of government is to protect the “natural” rights of individuals.
3. The American colonies put the ideas of self-government and people-sovereignty into practice.
4. The ideas of democratic theory properly replicate those commonly exercise in management theory.
5. Attacks on the petitioner process by elected officials are acts of insubordination, were worse.
6. Petitions typically represent issues impossible for legislators to resolve.
7. Special interest groups find the petitioner process less friendly than legislation by elected officials.
8. The most commonly heard complaints about petitions are simply not true.
9. Less than one in 1,000 of our laws is the result of a petition.
10. A middle ground is preferable between absolute Direct Democracy and absolute Indirect Democracy.
11. Petitions help elected representatives to be more responsive and democratic.
12. Petitions increase voter turnout.
13. Voters are better informed on issues than they are about most candidates
14. Money is used most substantially by opponents to defeat petitions.
15. Government involvement in the petitioner process should be advisory only.
16. A Constitution is the people’s tool for defining and limiting their government.
17. A Constitution is dysfunctional when it lacks one of five major features.
18. Elected officials who refuse to correct dysfunctional Constitutional features are as insubordinate as those who seek to destroy the Constitution.

CONCLUSION
In all of human existence, life was mostly dictated by brutes. The comparatively recent invention of democracy has proven effective. Both human rights and economic freedoms have never been greater and are greatest where democratic processes are most evolved. The capacity of democracy to redefine itself is one of its most important aspects. Every time that democracy’s meaning has been questioned, the former definition was discovered to be too limited.

The U.S. may have suffered its darkest hour extending freedom to all races. But America’s largest war was insufficient to reconcile gender voting rights. This natural extension of democracy took another 48 years to achieve. But these, along with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, are only the best-known examples. Didn’t the Bill of Rights enlarge democracy? And the 12th Amendment that took selection of the President away from Congress? And what about the 19th Amendment that made U.S. Senators elective? And the 22nd Amendment that imposed term limits on the President? And didn’t many of the Progressives’ issues help to expand democracy: secret ballots, primary elections, voter registration, home rule, no straight party ballot, recall petitions, and Initiative and Referendum petitions?

Only by actions of tyrants has democracy been temporarily rolled back. There are no examples in the world were democracy was first enlarged and subsequently rescinded by democratic action. A recent poll revealed that petitions were popular among people in every state, but were most popular in those states with the Initiative and Referendum.

The long journey for democracy that began with the Magna Carta is far from finished. Though its future form may be unclear today, we can be certain that democracy will increase and that Initiative and Referendum will play a role in determining future democratic systems.

The Bigger Issue Within The Term Limits Issue

By Dennis Polhill

The Republican majority in Congress has a serious problem: term limits. Perhaps they didn’t really expect to gain majority control with their promises and “Contract With America.” Now they have to deliver, and their pain is exhibited by the schizophrenic conduct of that collective body. By the time you read this, all four proposed constitutional amendments on term limits will have died on March 28 for lack of the necessary 290 votes. What to do?

The process of “incremental amendment” to the U.S. Constitution evolved when the 17th and 19th amendments (popular election of Senators and women’s suffrage) were adopted. Incremental amendment was the product of several converging Populist era reforms: primary elections, secret ballots, and the initiative and referendum (I & R) process. Congress always blocks amendments it doesn’t like, usually when Congress has an inherent conflict of interest and the people are acting to limit abuse of power. Current examples are term limits, balanced budget, line item veto, unfunded mandates, devolution of responsibilities to the states. Count on the national referendum idea receiving similar contemptuous treatment.

To force Congress to act against its natural self-interest, pressure must build to eventually be unbearable. With incremental amendment, this occurs in a four stage process: first by citizen initiated action in I & R states (currently there are 24 and term limits has passed in 22). Stage two is action in non-I & R states (this year New Hampshire will become the first non-I & R state to pass term limits. On March 7, their Senate passed it unanimously after being purged over term limits in the 1994 election). Stage three is when Congress refers a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. Stage four is when the states ratify the measure already passed by the people. By the time a dozen non-I & R states pass term limits the pressure on Congress will be sufficient to motivate action. The tactics of muddling the debate over scope is merely a stalling tactic. Who among us is shocked that the least restrictive version of term limits is the most popular in Congress? It’s a lot like having a first grader set his own bedtime.

Two important points can be concluded from this background:1 — The I & R process is very important. It should be protected and preserved in all I & R states. It should be adopted in all non-I & R states. The new UWSA issue of a national referendum is an appropriate and worthy goal. Actions by Congress or the Supreme Court to undermine states rights must be opposed.2 — It is premature for Congress to act on a constitutional amendment on term limits. Only the Sanford-Deal statute (which can be passed by the Republican majority) advances term limits by endorsing the rights of the states to impose term limits and simultaneously providing protection (of both term limits and I & R) against an adverse Supreme Court ruling in June.

If the Republican majority in Congress chooses to pass the Sanford-Deal bill, the term limit movement will consider them to have honored their campaign promise. Please urge your Congressperson to vote for the Sanford-Deal bill (H.R. 1104). For more information about term limits or to become active in the term limits issue, contact Dennis Polhill.

By Dennis Polhill, Melissa Moses

It could be argued that government under Soviet communism was less hypocritical than America’s. The Soviets made no pretense about democracy, representation, accountability, competitive elections or open government. Citizen participation was mandatory for show. Lack of election alternatives was irrelevant. Besides, the ruling elite knew what was best.  Nothing could be gained by inviting the involvement of foolish and uninformed citizens. Americans are openly critical of arrogant Soviet rulers contempt toward their people. The unstated inference is that we know better. We have figured out this self-government thing and others would be wise to copy our example.

Is that so?

Turnover in the British House of Lords, appointed for life, has exceeded that of the U.S. Congress for most of the twentieth century. When Congressional turnover shot from 2% to 7% in 1994, it was labeled a revolution. Congressional elections typically have no more than a couple dozen of 435 House of Representatives seats in play. The power of incumbency combined with the conspiracy by the two dominant political parties to minimize their respective election risk through gerrymandering has resulted in the near-elimination of contested elections. If there is no threat of defeat, if there is no contest between candidates or ideas, is there an election?

Less studied, but equally troublesome are Colorado elections.  Every election cycle about 25% of the 100 General Assembly seats are uncontested by one of the two major parties.  Over 55% of the remaining races are won in landslides.  Only about a dozen races are seriously contested.

Colorado now has over 2,162 governments, each with an elected board and each with taxing and regulatory authority.  The distribution is 63 counties, 269 cities, 176 school districts, and 1,654 special districts (water, sewer, parks, recreation, fire protection and more).  There are 192 governments in Arapahoe County; 159 in Jefferson County.  The number of new governments grew last year by 69.

Though serving on a small district board may be a thankless task and recognition of one’s civic contributions may be deserved, some actions raise questions about motives. When an election date or location is obscure, fewer people vote. Although districts could conduct elections in November, when voter turnout is highest, they conduct elections that produce minimal voting. How difficult is it for someone to manipulate the election outcome? Their only legal obligation is to post a legal notice in a local newspaper. When there are not enough candidates to fill the vacancies, elections are cancelled.  Although November elections are less expensive, because costs are shared among many governments, other dates are typically used. A Jefferson County district with a $200,000 budget, increased its taxing authority to $164 million per year.  Another successfully opted-out of term limits by a vote of 10 to 4. How likely were these outcomes, except via secret elections?

The General Assembly, outraged at abuses of the initiative process, is currently considering numerous methods to throttle it. The November 2000 ballot had 12 statewide issues: six initiative petitions and six referred by the General Assembly. In 1998, there were eight initiatives and three referred; in 1996: eight initiated and four referred; in 1994: eight initiated and three referred; and, in 1992: 10 initiated and three referred. During the past five election cycles, voters approved 14 of 40 initiative petitions (35%) and 12 of 19 referrals (63%).

Though these numbers are not extreme, several 1990s initiatives were seen by politicians as personal insults. Tax limits said, We dont like what you are doing with our money.  Campaign spending limits said, We have concerns about how elections are financed. Term limits said, Dont stay forever. To the career politician, could anything be more insulting, more disrespectful, more unappreciative, more abusive?

In addition to the 12 statewide ballot issues on the 2000 ballot, at least 297 governments placed 537 measures on ballots, seven of which were initiative petitions (1.3%) and 530 of which were referred (98.7%). Of the 530, 328 were tax, debt or spending increases (62%) and 115 were attempts to opt out of term limits (22%).

What alien force has paralyzed our leaders to cease being influenced by the mere will of their constituents? Long ballots are primarily caused by the refusal of elected officials to abide by limits set by the people. Politicians falsely blame long ballots on petitions so that they may work to murder the messenger.

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow and Melissa Moses is a Research Associate at the Independence Institute, a government reform think tank in Golden, http://i2i.org.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org

By Dennis Polhill

Most Colorado legislators will violate their oath of office soon after swearing it on January 10, 2001. The legislators will knowingly subvert the state Constitution’s provision which allows citizens to call for a vote on new laws passed by the legislature.

The oath reads, I, (name) solemnly swear that I will uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office to the best of my knowledge and ability, so help me God.

The authority to legislate is delegated to the general assembly. The delegation is limited, not absolute. Citizens are empowered to override legislative decisions. (Colo. Const., art. V, sec. 1.) The mechanism is the “referendum petition.” If enough signatures are gathered to challenge a new legislative statute, then the voters have a chance to approve or disapprove the statute at the next general election.

Colorados lack of recent referendum petitions is not the product of citizen contentment. Rather, it is Constitutional subversion by elected officials. The Colorado Constitution reads, The second power hereby reserved [to the people] is the referendum, and it may be ordered, except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety. In other words, the citizens get to vote on everything, if they want to, except for emergency legislation. But the definition of emergency has changed drastically.

Colorado’s most recent “referendum petition” in 1932 proved to be a humiliation to the legislature. The referendum challenged a 50% tax increase on oleomargarine and the tax increase was defeated with 62%.

Legislators determined to correct the problem and invented the safety clause. Mere citizens would no longer interfere with the legislator’s fine work–work such as imposing extortionate taxes on margarine in order to protect dairy farmers from competition.

Thus, the “safety clause” has appeared on nearly every piece of legislation since 1932. It reads, The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

The safety clause is supposed to be used only for real emergencies–such as a law banning fires during an especially dry summer. But in practice, the “safety” clause serves only one purpose: to deny citizens their reserved power to challenge laws. In other words, to subvert the Colorado Constitution.

In response to criticism from Douglas Bruce and other citizen activists, legislative leadership in January 1997 declared new procedures for Use of Safety Clause. They publicly trumpeted their statesmanship: the safety clause no longer will appear automatically.

Well, maybe the “safety” clause is not automatic, but it’s still used very, very frequently, for bill that have nothing to do with emergencies of the sort that should prevent the public from being able to vote on whether to retain the law.

Indeed, Coloradans would be alarmed to learn that the legislature thinks there were 426 statewide emergencies just in the year 2000. Some of the safety-threatening-emergencies dealt with by the legislature since the 1997 promise to stop abusing the safety clause include: the ratio of electrical journeymen to apprentices, travel expenses for juries, regulation of notaries, pet care, prohibition of cruising, art in juvenile facilities, recouping license plate mailing costs, oil and gas commission personnel, and male mammography.

It’s true that abuse of the safety clause has declined. The clause was once universal, and now appears in about 59% of bill. Abuse of the safety clause tends to be higher in the year after an election, and declines by about ten points in election years. The State Senate misuses the safety clause more frequently than does the House.

Although more and more legislators are informed about this abuse and refuse to use the safety clause on their own bills, there is a complicity factor. The abuse is so rampant, that honest legislators must not object to the safety clause abuse by their peers. Otherwise, the conscientious legislators would be ostracized as extremists.

There is new leadership in both the Senate and the House this year, so perhaps the new leaders can implement some constructive changes.  Reforms might include: prohibition of safety clause use, except in genuine emergencies; separate roll call vote to attach a safety clause to a bill; requiring a statement of the exact supposed emergency and its injurious consequences; requiring supermajority approval to add a safety clause.

These reforms would make it much harder for legislators to prevent people from voting on whether to retain new laws. For the legislature ever to override the “reserved power of the people is a serious matter. Continued misuse would merit removal of this authority entrusted to legislators. Many legislators take their oath seriously. Let’s hope the changes of the 2000 election bring more responsible behavior.

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute, a government reform think tank in Golden, http://i2i.org.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org

By Dennis Polhill

Every two years the State of Colorado accuses hundreds of thousands of its citizens of violating election laws. This accusation is implicitly made when signatures on initiative petitions are ruled invalid by the Secretary of State.Yet no one is fined or imprisoned for their crimes.

These criminals are not pursued because the State’s mission is to frustrate petitions, not to enforce the law.  Besides, persecuting thousands of everyday citizens for exercising their fundamental right to petition would not stand up in any fair Court or in the court of public opinion.

A complex maze of rules and laws has been installed to make petitioning more difficult.  Some politicians themselves have fallen victim to the abstract and arbitrary procedures by failing to satisfy the increasingly restrictive ballot access requirements.

It is now more difficult to exercise one’s petition right in Colorado than one’s voting right.  The legitimacy of mail in ballots is attested by the signature of the lone voter.  That same voter, to exercise the petition right, must similarly attest his own signature under the identical penalties of law.  But in addition, the petition circulator attests the signature and then the notary attests the circulator, and finally all are ascertained by the State.

Outrageous examples are abundant:  William is disqualified because he signed as Bill; another is disqualified because the name has too many characters for the computer; an entire petition is invalidated because the notary made an error in the date.  Famous Coloradoans have been invalidated — including a Speaker of the State House of Representatives and the Nuggets’ coach. Colorado has been embarrassed on the national stage more than any other state. Twice the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated legislative attempts to limit petition rights.  Badge, circulator reporting, black ink signatures and blue petition book requirements are gone, thanks to the Supreme Court’s protection of the First Amendment right to petition.

Interestingly, the petition only gives people the right to vote. Evidently petition opponents subscribe to the Benito Mussolini philosophy of government, “Give me the right to nominate and you can vote for whomever you please.”

Elected representatives seem comfortable infringing on the Constitution and ignoring their oath of office.  In Article V of the Colorado Constitution the people delegate the authority to legislate to the General Assembly, but “reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments.”  The petition is not a right that the political establishment can issue and rescind or throttle and unleash.  It is a “Reserved Power.”  The General Assembly’s authority cannot go beyond enabling and facilitating the process.

Historically, issue opponents carried the burden of challenging signature validity.  This is because the Constitution defines a signature as “prima facia evidence,” meaning that it is presumed valid until proven otherwise. But the legislature changed this, and made a law requiring that the Secretary of State check signatures.

Technicalities benefit opponents as long as an idea can be defeated by denying people the vote.  It is Colorado’s rigid, drop-dead requirements that cause controversy over technicalities.  The signature controversy would disappear, if there were reasonable cure and carry-over provisions.  The purpose of a petition is to demonstrate public interest. Does public interest subside if the petition is one signature short or one day late?

Expect continued attacks on the Initiative process, like this year’s Senate Bill. This bill would impose geographic distribution on petitions; the state would be divided into four zones, and petitions would need a certain number of signatures from each zone. The stated goal is to prevent Denver from imposing unpopular ideas on rural areas.

Though meritorious in intent, the proposed solution cannot succeed. First, this mechanism does not give veto power to rural areas.  Instead it adds another technicality.  Second, geographic distributions have previously been proposed and defeated.  Third, no one has proposed geographic distributions for legislative bills.  Fourth, if it is a good idea, it should also apply to elected officials?  Should the election of the Governor not count, if not popular enough in some area?  Fifth, petition defenders will bring an expensive legal challenge for restricting the process.  Sixth, geographic discrimination suggests that there is also a need for quotas on the basis of race, gender, party affiliation, physical disability, affluence, intellect, and more.

Dennis Polhill wrote this article for the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, www.i2i.org.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email) webmngr@i2i.org

By Dennis Polhill, Chris Baker

Great strides in the evolution of human existence are rare. One of those great strides occurred 223 years ago this month. Thomas Jefferson, the 33 year old delegate from Virginia to the Second Continental Congress put goose-quill to paper and etched words that will stand for all of eternity.to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Perhaps an older author would have lacked the boldness to so directly challenge conventional thought. For centuries kings had the power to dictate ones fate at the snap of his fingers. No one had proposed the opposite: that the people were sovereign, hereditary kings were not.

The foundation principle upon which all democracy must be built, people-sovereignty, has become soundly entrenched in America. In Europe, Fascists declared democracy outmoded and obsolete for government in the twentieth century, vesting all power in their dictators. The Communists were more subtle and promised to restore democratic principles as soon as their benevolent dictator has adequately provided for the needs of all.

But in the U.S. when political systems broke down in the 1890s and government became the instrument by which privilege was issued to influential special interests, new political systems were invented that enlarged the principles of people-sovereignty, giving operational definition to ideals expressed by Jefferson, Madison and other Founders.

The right of citizens to directly propose and implement laws was included in the package. Other reforms, which were neither conceived nor implemented by politicians or political parties, included secret ballots, printed ballots, primary elections, and direct elections of U.S. Senators.

The right of citizen initiative formalized the petition rights drafted into the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by James Madison. The Initiative empowered citizens to propose laws to the ballot that legislators refused to address.

The self-confidence, pride and passion that motivates officials to first run for office sometimes becomes their enemy once elected. They are so committed to do civic good, that the notions of accountability and checks-and-balances seem to them unnecessary, if not insulting. Not surprisingly, instead of supporting petition rights, their actions frustrate and complicate the process, overlooking the fact that petitions are utilized only when the legislative process fails.

Sadly, many politicians claim that the exercise of votes by sovereign citizens are somehow more influenced by special interests than is the legislative process. Their words sound strangely reminiscent of King George III when he banned town meetings in the American Colonies to better regulate the government.

In 1992 Coloradoans grew tired of the free spending of their tax dollars by politicians, citizens used the initiative petition to propose the Taxpayers Bill of Rights which imposed limits. Not surprisingly, many in the ruling political establishment shrilly claimed that Colorado would collapse into economic chaos. Seven years later it is clear that alarmist assertions were clearly not accurate and it is more likely that TABOR contributed to Colorado having one of the strongest economies in the nation.

University of California Professor John Matsusaka performed extensive multiple regression analysis to conclude that states with petition rights have taxes that are 4% below the national average. This equates to $332 more disposable income annually for a family of four. Matsusaka also found that initiative states tended toward decentralization of spending decisions and there was less use of taxation as a tool for redistribution of wealth.

The initiative process does not always lead to less spending. Matsusaka found that the desire of politicians to tax and spend in the 1990s was reversed in the 1930s. Initiative states more rapidly responded to the will of the people by accelerating spending programs.

If the initiative process gives the people more of what they want, then isnt that the essence of democracy? Who among us is so astute that his views should be dictated to others? It would be wise for enlightened legislators to invest more thinking in the meaning of the message than in attacking the messenger and subverting the peoples sovereignty.

——————————————————————————–

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow and Chris Baker is a Research Associate at the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, http://i2i.org.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org

Taking The Initiative

Petitions underscore people’s right

By Dennis Polhill

Initiative and referendum, or “petition rights,” reinforce the ideal that the people are sovereign. As declared in 1776, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” While citizens across the country seek to exercise their rights, career politicians have abandoned this basic American principle. Because the initiative is effective at curbing excess, it is under attack by career politicians. Petition opponents evidently subscribe to the philosophy of Benito Mussolini: “Give me the right to nominate and you can vote for whomever you please.” They seek to control outcomes by controlling the process. Lacking the backbone to openly oppose petitions, legislators take away petition rights one piece at a time. Every year legislatures take steps to further restrict petitions.

Last year was a milestone for petition rights. The process was first adopted 100 years ago in South Dakota. One century later, it is a vital and thriving example of citizen participation and self-governance.

Its existence can be credited to the Populist Party. By 1890, political corruption in the U.S. had reached new heights. Railroads and “special interests” found it beneficial to “own” politicians. To calm public outrage, politicians wrote books to clarify which kinds of graft were proper. This arrogant overreaching of the power class was similar to government under King George III. The solution was not to retreat from people-sovereignty, but to enlarge it. The Populist Party included petition rights as a major plank in 1892 to wrest control of their government from moneyed special interests and to enlarge and re-establish the People’s sovereignty. By 1918, they had succeeded in establishing the initiative process in 19 states. Since then, the citizens in only five additional states have been able to persuade their legislatures to subordinate their self-interest to people sovereignty.

Some of the most fundamental and controversial public-policy decisions have been brought about through the petition process: Women gained the right to vote; states can’t fund abortions; the eight-hour workday was created; physician-assisted suicide was legalized; poll taxes were abolished; term limits were approved; and campaign finance reforms were adopted. Clearly, petition reforms represent all ideologies.

Furthermore, because of the diversity of issues, voters in states with initiatives on the ballot are more likely to vote. Voter turnout is consistently higher. In 1998 turnout was nearly 10 percent higher in the 16 states with an initiative on the ballot. People believe that initiatives make a difference. With initiatives they get what they vote for. With candidates it is never certain.

Supporters of the initiative process include such notables as Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, Richard Gephardt, Dick Armey, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Gallop and Ronald Reagan. Woodrow Wilson opposed the initiative process as a political science professor but reversed his opinion and apologized to his students after serving as governor of New Jersey.

The initiative is a natural extension of people sovereignty. Leaders know that authority — but not responsibility — is delegated. When authority is misused its delegation must be withdrawn. The initiative empowers citizens to hold legislative bodies accountable.

The referendum petition challenges a law made by the legislature, and the initiative petition seeks to create a law that the legislature failed to enact. Teddy Roosevelt stated it perfectly in his 1912 “Charter of Democracy” speech: “I believe in the initiative and referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative.”

Only 61 citizen petitions have yielded laws in all Colorado history. Contrast that with the legislature annually passing about half of 600 laws proposed in the same 88-year period (over 20,000).

The initiative process has been critical to checking unresponsive and unaccountable government in Colorado since 1910. Colorado’s biggest petition years were 1912 and 1914. The number of initiatives on the ballot was 10 in 1992, and 8 in each 1994, 1996 and 1998. The number of issues on the Colorado ballot seems larger because of the number of questions placed on the ballot by the state and nearly 2,000 local governments.

Virtually all initiatives fall into two categories nearly impossible for legislators to address. “Conflict-of-interest” issues deal with structure, form, control, reform or limits such as term limits, tax limits, campaign-finance reform, reapportionment, judicial reform and home rule. “Controversial” issues are those like the two hog-farm issues on the November ballot. Rather than offend powerful special interests there is less risk for legislators to not act.

Probably the most comprehensive study of an initiative election was done by Dr. John S. Shockley of the 1976 Colorado election. He found that voters were more informed and voted more frequently on issues than candidates. He also found that total opposition campaign spending exceeded initiative proponent spending by 10 times. Others have confirmed that opposition spending regularly exceeds proponent spending. Tax limitation was on the ballot nine times over a 26-year period and finally passed in 1992 when opposition spending dropped to 4-1. The 1994 tobacco tax proposal was defeated with a record $7.5 million opposition spending, making 1994 the most expensive issue election in Colorado history. Clearly, interest groups generally find a more friendly reception from legislators as they work hand-in-glove to undermine people sovereignty by limiting petitions in every way possible.

In the power-and-influence business, more is better than less. If securing more means taking powers reserved to the people, that is a price they are willing to extract. It is indisputable that the General Assembly has subverted the people’s sovereignty. Whether they will continue is unclear.

A statesmanly legislature would lead by restoring some of the people’s powers and letting the people be the ultimate sovereigns as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Dennis Polhill is a civil engineer and is a board member of the Initiative and Referendum Institute. He may be reached at 303-278-3636 or Dpolhill@aol.com.

Process lacks checks, balances

By Karl T. Kurtz

The Colorado initiative is a flawed process for writing new laws because it lacks the checks and balance of the normal legislative process. A simple remedy of adding a few months to the initiative process to allow the legislature to act on proposed initiatives would reduce the number of issues on which we have to vote and significantly improve the quality of the ones that go on the ballot.

What is wrong with the current initiative process? Imagine for a moment that Colorado’s legislature was radically different from its current setup. To avoid confusion, let’s call this pretend legislature the People’s Assembly.

Our People’s Assembly has one chamber consisting of 100 members who are not elected but instead are randomly selected from among all registered voters. The People’s Assembly meets for a few weeks every other year during the fall general elections. As a result, the members have virtually no experience or knowledge of lawmaking.

Prior to the legislative session, any member of the People’s Assembly can propose a new law. Soon after the member introduces the proposal, lawyers and researchers for the People’s Assembly hold a public hearing to review the proposal, ask questions and offer advice. After the hearing, the member proposing the law — but no one else — can make changes to the proposal. At this point in our make-believe legislative process, the proponent of the law is required to obtain the signatures of five other members of the People s Assembly in support of the proposal.

Once these signatures are obtained, the proposal proceeds to a vote of all the members during the next scheduled legislative session. When the members consider the issue, no one is allowed to change a single word of the proposal. There is only a period for debate followed by one take-it-or-leave-it vote.

No amendments. No correction of mistakes that may become obvious in the course of debate.

No negotiation. No compromises to resolve conflicting views among legitimate competing interests. No governor’s veto as a check against an overreaching legislature.

If this were the Colorado legislature, citizens, the media, businesses and unions would almost certainly attack it as unfair, unwise, irresponsible and inflexible. Aggrieved minorities or other losers in the legislative process would demand checks and balances in the form of multiple decision points such as two chambers, committee deliberations, “readings” of the bill in each chamber and a governor’s veto.

No way that such a “People’s Assembly” could ever exist in Colorado, you say? Think again. Our fictitious legislature is, with only two exceptions, a description of how the Colorado initiative process currently works.

The two exceptions are important and supply the redeeming features of the current initiative process. The first exception is that, unlike our fictional legislature in which a small number of randomly selected voters make decisions, all registered voters who choose to go to the polls cast the votes on any initiated matter. Thus, the initiative process is as representative of the people of the state as it is possible to get.

Second, the initiative process does not substitute for the General Assembly. It supplements the work of the legislature. It serves as a fourth branch of government. It provides a steam valve for when the General Assembly sidesteps significant policy problems or rejects proposals designed to address them.

These two points justify the existence of the initiative process in the Constitution. Yet viewing the initiative as if it were a legislature reveals fundamental flaws in making laws by this means. It shows that the initiative process lacks the checks and balances that make representative democracy work effectively as the basic American form of government.

What can be done to correct the flaws? A simple change in the initiative process to require a delay to allow the legislature to consider an initiative before the people vote on it would combine the value of the people’s power of initiative with the deliberative strengths of the normal legislative process.

How would this idea work? Any proponent of a new law could follow the current practices for qualifying an initiative for the ballot including obtaining signatures from 5 percent of the voters in the last gubernatorial election. The signature deadline would be in late March, 60 days before adjournment of the Colorado General Assembly, instead of the current early August deadline. The legislature would be required to hold a public hearing on the proposal within 20 days and to cast a floor vote on it.

The General Assembly and the proponents of the initiative would have four potential courses of action.1. If the legislature enacted the proposal as originally drafted, the measure would be removed from the ballot.2. If the legislature rejected the proposal, the proponents could submit the original version (or an amended one that takes into account the objections of the legislature) for a vote of the people. The record of action by the legislature would be a part of the information supplied to voters to help inform their decision.3. The legislature could also enact an amended version of the measure, in which case the proponents would have the option of deciding whether to place the original draft on the ballot.4. Finally, as with any proposed legislation, the legislature could choose to refer its own version of the proposal to the people for a vote. This referred measure could compete with the initiative.

The advantages of this change are obvious. It preserves the right of initiative proponents to go directly to the voters if they are not satisfied by the legislature’s action. It draws on the experience of legislators in writing, deliberating, negotiating and amending new laws. It prevents the legislature from avoiding the issue. It saves the expense of a statewide election whenever the proposition is withdrawn as a result of action by the legislature. It relieves the burden on untrained, often apathetic, voters of having to make numerous decisions on complex legislative proposals. It reduces the cost for both sides of an issue, because lobbying the legislature is generally much cheaper than mounting a statewide media campaign designed to reach all voters.

The principal drawback to this idea from the standpoint of proponents of the initiative is that it adds time to the process. The current Colorado Constitution requires completion of the initiative qualification process three months before a general election. This proposal would increase the time lag to seven months.

An additional four months may seem onerous to those who are impatient to enact their idea — and only their idea — into law. But in the course of most legislation it is little more than the time that a traffic light takes to change from yellow to red or green. And like the yellow light of caution that prevents traffic accidents, the time needed to allow the legislature to act on a proposed initiative is a small price to pay for preserving the safety and welfare of the people of the state of Colorado by avoiding ill-considered laws.

Karl T Kurtz is director of state services for the National Conference of State Legislatures headquartered in Denver. His views do not necessarily represent those of NCSL.

Losers in some ballot measures fight back

By Arlene Levinson

Americans decided 235 statewide ballot measures, or thought they did, in the November elections. But no sooner were the votes tallied than the warnings started coming: Voters’ decisions on several major issues may have to wait, held up by legal action and other challenges.

Mining interests immediately went to court to block implementation of Montanans’ vote on an environmental measure targeting gold mines. Opponents who saw Washington voters ban affirmative action echoed warnings of battles to come.

Nevada agreed with Alaska, Arizona and Washington state in approving the medicinal use of marijuana. But Nevada will not have such a pot law unless voters approve another measure in 2000, and even then, the state attorney general’s office says federal law may still stand in the way.

In California, the failure of a ballot measure backed by both parties, who had hoped to catapult California to center stage among presidential primaries, has party officials scrambling.

Voters declined to change rules that allow primary voters to cross party lines, prompting state Democratic Party chairman Art Torres to say he did not want such a “beauty-contest primary” unduly influencing the choice of nominees. Caucuses or a state convention may be held in the months before the scheduled primary, he said.

The Montana Mining Association and two companies filed suit in federal court in Helena to nullify the mine measure. “If we don’t get this initiative invalidated, gold and silver mining in Montana will be essentially gone,” said Jill Andrews, executive director of the industry group.

Cyanide is used to separate gold and silver from ore. The initiative passed in November bans use of the chemical in new mines or expanding those mines already using it. Andrews warned the ban will cost jobs and devastate communities.

But critics say cyanide harms the environment.

“They’re asking the judge to allow them to buy elections and to snub Montana voters,” said Jim Jensen of the Montana Environmental Center, the measure’s chief sponsor.

Washington state voters joined Californians who two years ago barred racial or gender preferences in government hiring and contracting and in college admissions.

Voters were saying, “‘It’s time for us to look beyond what makes us different,’” said John Carlson, a conservative commentator who led the campaign for the measure.

But Marty Larson, a community college student and member of a group that fought the measure, said, “I foresee a lot of court cases and basically a lot of angry people.” Without affirmative action, he said, “cronyism and nepotism will once again flourish.”

Other measures were less contentious.

• Iowa and Florida became the first states in 22 years to approve measures acknowledging women’s equality with men. Utah got rid of a constitutional provision protecting women’s assets from their husbands’ debts.

• Voters said they wanted stadiums in Denver, San Diego and Cincinnati.

• Oregon voters agreed to discard their voting booths: starting next year, all ballots will be cast by mail. The state also agreed to open adoption records for people over 21.

• South Carolina voters ended the state’s century-old ban on interracial marriages.

• Utah joined most other states in stripping imprisoned felons of their voting rights. The Utah Chapter of Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants said voter rolls among the state’s 5,000 inmates had swelled from 5 percent to 30 percent since the measure was announced.

• New Hampshire voters rejected lowering the age of state senators from 30 to 25. They also turned down a proposal to edit the state constitution with gender-neutral alternatives to such phrases as: “His excellency, the governor.”

“I voted no because I know it doesn’t make a bit of difference,” said Jennifer Warren. “We know women are smarter anyway.”

Some of November’s votes were just new chapters in long-running controversies.

Gay marriage, for instance.

Alaskans voted to put a gay-marriage ban in their constitution. And Hawaiians told their Legislature to draft a law against same-sex marriages, the latest response to a 1993 state Supreme Court ruling that Hawaii has no right to ban homosexual marriage, because that would deny some citizens the rights provided others.

That ruling led to gay-marriage bans in at least 30 states and the Defense of Marriage Act enacted by Congress.

“People are taking a stand for traditional marriage,” Mike Gabbard, a leader of the Save Traditional Marriage group in Hawaii, said of November’s outcome.

But Joseph Melillo, who with his partner and two lesbian couples sued the state of Hawaii for denying them marriage licenses in 1990, warned, “It’s putting into our state constitution a discriminatory clause that will distinguish us from other people.”

In Colorado, voters in Fort Collins defeated a measure to protect gays and lesbians from bias. The proposal was especially emotional there sincethe beating death of Matthew Shepard, a gay student from the University of Wyoming who died in a Fort Collins hospital.

“National gay advocacy groups built this up as an important watershed, and I think it was,” said Fort Collins lawyer Jon-Mark Patterson, an ordinance opponent. “It showed most people here don’t want the government to take a side in a controversial moral debate.”

Michigan voters rejected a measure that would have made physician-assisted suicide legal. Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who says he’s attended more than 120 deaths, called the measure “crazy” and too restrictive.

“Michigan wants compassion and comfort for those facing their final days,” said Dr. Cathy Blight of the opposition Citizens for Compassionate Care and president of the Michigan State Medical Society. “They don’t want death bureaucracies or manipulations of vulnerable patients.”

In the continuing back-and-forth over abortion rights, Colorado voters agreed to require parents be notified when minors seek abortion but rejected a ban on late-term procedures, as did Washington voters.

American Indian tribes in California won strong approval to continue running casinos without state control, a measure hard fought by Nevada gambling interests and costing both sides more than $100 million.

Opponents filled the airwaves with warnings that the measure would lead to unregulated, untaxed gambling statewide. The tribes countered that impoverished Indians’ lives were bettered by gambling.

Proposition 5 is “the first time that wealthy business interests have not been allowed to sacrifice the lives of Indians and future Indians to satisfy their greed,” said Anthony Pico, chairman of the Viejas tribe in San Diego County. In animal-related issues, Californians banned horsemeat sales and the use of steel leg traps. Minnesotans passed constitutional protections for hunting and fishing. Utah voters made it harder to change wildlife management practices through citizen initiatives.

California voters narrowly adopted a 50-cent-a-pack cigarette tax hike to pay for social services for families with children under 5. The outcome was not known for several days, after absentee ballots were counted.

“This is wild. Talk about a horse race,” said Rob Reiner, the director-actor who was the measure’s backer.

Arlene Levinson writes on national issues for the Associated Press.

The current attack is House Concurrent Resolution 1998-1004. HCR-1004 will frustrate petitions for amending the Colorado Constitution, by increasing the signature requirement by 20%. HCR-1004 masquerades as reform by reducing the signature requirement for citizen initiated statutes, and protecting citizen-initiated statutes from legislative tampering for 2 years (unless 2/3 of the Legislature wants to tamper with the statute, in which case tampering would be allowed).

HCR-1004 is founded on several false beliefs:

One: There are too many initiatives. “Too many” is subjective. One is too many, for someone who disagrees with the idea of citizens controlling the government. All petitions are offensive to politicians, because the initiative process is an alternative method used only when the Legislature does not act. Petition use increases when legislative bodies are out of touch. The already difficult Colorado procedures insure that over 90% of petitions fail to reach the ballot. Should the voice of the people be further restricted or should the Legislature do more to respond to the peoples critical needs?

Two: There are too many amendments to the Colorado Constitution. Who should say what is “too many”? The low pass rate for proposed constitutional amendments suggests that voters are rightfully cautious about citizen initiatives. Elections work. Only 36 of 113 (32%) on the ballot in 86 years have passed. On the other hand the Legislature has originated 62 amendments. Since 1962 over 70% of amendments to the Colorado Constitution have originated in the Legislature. Because HCR-1004 does not seek to limit the Legislature, it fails in its alleged objective of reducing excess constitutional amendments.

Three: Many constitutional amendments should be statutes. This is true for a few, but not “many.” There have been only 36. Over half are indisputably constitutional, because they deal with governmental structure: home rule, recall petitions, judicial reform, reapportionment, number of legislative seats, annexation votes, and term limits. Probably half of the remainder are properly placed in the Constitution. Thus, a maximum of 9 issues would have been potential candidates for statutory instead of constitutional initiatives.

The authority to legislate is delegated to the Legislature by the sovereign people of Colorado. In so delegating, the people “reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments” by petition. The legislature has no duty or authority to subvert petitions. In fact the legislature is entrusted to protect, defend, and enlarge the process. As the Colorado Supreme Court explained, “the general assembly is vested with power, subject to limitation(and) is divested of all discretionary authority(and) may not make any other limitation than that provided in the constitution” (Yenter v. Baker, 1952).

In another case, the state court affirmed the importance of the petition right: “The initiative power reserved by the people is to be liberally construed to allow the greatest possible exercise of this valuable right.” (Glendale v. Buchanan, 1978).

Improvement must begin by recognizing that direct initiatives deal effectively with “conflict of interest” issuesissues where the legislature is reluctant to act because the issues involve restrictions of legislators power. Valuable public service can be provided by reforming procedures that encourage abuse. In particular, citizen initiatives are a good way to cure problems that the government has created in the initiative process itself. These include: excessively long and confusing titles, unnecessary delays in assigning ballot numbers, inconsistent court rulings in both time delays and substance, subversion of referendum petitions, arbitrary signature invalidation, technicalities, unreasonable cure methods and periods, dysfunctional recall petition procedures, and prejudicial blue book (citizen election guide) drafting.

Initiatives are an essential part of the system of check and balances in our state Constitution. The legislature, instead of treating initiatives like a nuisance, ought to honor them, and enact reforms to simplify the process.

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute, a free-market think-tank located in Golden, Colorado. http://i2i.org

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org

By Dennis Polhill

Life would be so much more pleasant for Colorado elected officials if they could somehow figure out how to be representatives of the people. Their failure to act on various popular ideas, viewed by them as repugnant, proves their reluctance to represent. The legislature’s most recent display of contempt is SCR-2, which will appear as a referendum on the November ballot. If passed, this proposal would practically derail citizen initiatives by requiring them to pass by a vote of 60% instead of the current 51%.

Tax limitations first made it to the Colorado ballot by citizen initiative in 1966. Subsequent tax initiatives were defeated in 1972, 1976, 1978, 1986, 1988, and 1990, before passing in 1992. The Colorado legislature failed to comprehend or to respond to the unsubtle message of the people. Had tax reform been enacted, it is unlikely that the voters would have passed the 1992 measure. The fact that the people would not approve tax limitations in the first eight attempts over 26 years suggests not only that the people are very cautious, discrete, and responsible in approving initiatives, but that they would prefer for legislators to deal responsibly with issues.

Colorado elected officials were offended again by the term limits issue. When term limits were proposed into the Colorado Senate in 1988 by Terry Considine, only three other Senators could find their way to support the bill. Considine became the proponent of a citizen initiative and succeeded in getting term limits on the ballot in 1990.

The initiative is the process by which a citizen may propose a law to the voters by circulating petitions. Not only did the people approve term limits by 71% but the issue took on a life of its own sweeping the nation. The Republican Revolution of 1994 used term limits as its anchor issue in the Contract with America.

The reaction of the Colorado legislature has been to attack both the message and the messenger: Term limits and tax limits are a bad idea. The citizens are uninformed and incapable of making prudent judgments. The initiative process is being abused by extremists who must be stopped. The initiative process, in spite of repeated court rulings against the actions of the State of Colorado as blatant violations of constitutional rights, continues to be attacked by the legislature. In a 1988 unanimous ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court against the state of Colorado prohibition of paid circulators was stricken. The court stated The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment. A 1994 U.S. district court used similar reasoning to strike down Colorado s requirements for circulator badges, black ink signatures , and blue ink petitions. The fact that the initiative is a “reserved power” in the Colorado Constitution and is not a right bestowed by the legislature, has done little to deter legislative infringement.

The initiative process is the most pure representation of popular will that exists today. By definition, it is philosophically neutral. It cannot lean to the left or to the right. It can be abused only to the extent that moneyed interests wish to influence an election outcome via campaign. Because it is far more difficult and expensive for the moneyed interests to influence a statewide election than to influence the legislature, they oppose the initiative process. These moneyed interest are the natural allies of the entrenched career politician. Together they represent a powerful, controlling, ruling elite. They look down and patronize the masses with their insider clichs, “those who are organized win and those who are not organized pay the bill.

To keep the masses divided they have tricked the people into believing that the political battle is between the left and the right. They allege that all that is needed is for a few more of the correct label to join in the fray. The peasants dutifully fight the good battle. One side or the other wins the election, but not in sufficient numbers. The truth is that the political battle is as it has always been. It is the people versus the rulers.

Instead of choking the initiative process, like the legislature is trying to do with SCR-2, it should view it as a tool to sense and to measure the will of the people. With a fresh outlook the legislature would find that the ballot can be used to their benefit by diffusing hot issues, by dismissing conflict of interest issues, by sensing the pulse of the people on marginal issues, and by forcing themselves to act on critical issues. The right to petition will not die. Why not be in tune with the people?
——————————————————————————–

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email) webmngr@i2i.org

——————————————————————————–

Copyright 2000 II

PART I

“We must disenthrall ourselves from the past. Otherwise becomes a barrier to the future.”
- Abraham Lincoln

The American Civil War was the final desperate effort of agricultural society to survive against the onslaught of industrial society. The transition from first wave (agricultural civilization) to second wave (industrial civilization) transcended a 300 year period — roughly from 1600 to 1900 – and included social change so massive as to be beyond the human capacity to fully comprehend. Not only did this transition include the obvious Industrial Revolution and Civil War, but it included the Renaissance, the European scientific and cultural awakening and the American Revolution with its invention of democracy.

Common understanding of history gives us, at best, superficial understanding of these events: Feudalistic monarchs were rejected from France to Japan in successions of bloody civil wars. Most countries did not have the benefit of a profoundly deep intellectual and moral leader, like Thomas Jefferson. The norm after revolution was to have a decade of anarchy followed by a return to some form of authoritarian rule. Real democracy did not come to France for 100 years.
The systems of society must be compatible. To be compatible, they must be parallel. So as civilization moved to industry; all of its systems came to be factory-like. Labor was centralized; corporations became conglomerates; capital was centralized; fortunes were made for families such as Rockefeller,-Kennedy, Dupont, Carnegie, and Hughes; education become mass produced; cities grew; housing was massified; transportation was massified; the military became a machine; democracy was invented; political parties came into being; government became centralized and bureaucratic. Small farmers were dislocated. Artisans and craftsman were displaced. The farms that survived became factories. Dislocations produced disenfranchisement of group after group with the product labor riots, sabotage, violence, massacres, strikes, etc.

To say that the scale of social change associated with the transition from first wave to second wave was gigantic is an understatement.

Today upheaval, turmoil, and discontent can be witnessed at every turn. The scale of conflict appears to compound daily. Alvin Toffler defines the third wave as information civilization. Information civilization started about 1950 and its impacts have accelerated due to the introduction of the personal computer in 1980, and subsequently, Internet. Already a thousand individuals in the Denver Metro area have set up personal bulletin boards on their home computer (third generation Internet systems). It is predicted that Internet servers such as Compuserve, Prodigy and AOL will be obsolete and out of business in less than a decade. Some say that TV’s will be obsolete in five years. The transition to information civilization will be no less traumatic than to industrial society. Conceivably, the trauma will be greater because the time to adjust will be compressed. The fact that we are not more aware that we are in the midst of this giant change is simply a “forest for the trees” issue. One of the most difficult things in life is to maintain an objective perspective.

The move to information society cannot be stopped, slowed, or steered. Individuals and institutions with a vested interest in the second wave will do all in their power to resist change.
Industrial society gave both economic freedom and personal freedom to individuals. Information society will give even more economic and personal freedom to people.

Systems that were massified for industrial society now must be de-massified for information society. All of the systems that were made to look like factories must now be reshaped in order to respond to the unique needs and demands of individuals. Education, labor, capital and corporations must change. The entire thought basis upon which we have built regulation, legislation, political parties, and political processes is no longer relevant.

Attached is an article by Alvin Toffler that began to make some of this picture clear to me. This article motivated me to purchase and read all of his works. I recommend that you do the same. The third wave is the reason people are angry. The third wave is the reason UWSA exists and has clout. The third wave is the reason that the two parties are “out of it” – they have no clue and know not what to do. The third wave is why there is schizophrenia within UWSA – that is, 750 of the members clamor for a third party and 25o argue that a third party is not the solution. The solution is something bigger; something to be yet visualized and articulated.

PART II

Unfortunately, Toffler offers no specifics. The solutions are up to those who have the courage to innovate, to lead, and to implement. There is augmented risk to society in the fact that our political systems and leaders are lagging behind and are the least flexible systems of society. Instead of acknowledging that there is a problem (take taxation as an example) and leading, elected officials attack the people and/or citizen activists. This is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Such conduct only increases the prospect of irresponsible acts by extremist kooks like Timothy McViegh. Because citizens enacted term limits and other controls when legislative bodies have a conflict of interest to act, elected officials moved to restrict the right of petition. This conduct will not get society where it needs to go. There will be more, not less, democracy in the future.

Four categories of change to come to political systems are minority power, semi-direct democracy, decision division, and PI-STEMS.

Minority Power – Majority rule is obsolete. It fails to account for impacts on minorities. It fails to measure how important an issue is to voters, what trade-offs people are willing to make, and whether the minority is injured beyond repair. It is likely that various forms of proportional representation, formalized systems of conflict resolution, and mechanisms that find and capture “efficient frontiers” in public policy will be invented.

Semi-direct Democracy – The form of democracy (representative democracy) invented by the Founding Fathers was appropriate for their time. At least 90a of the people were illiterate. The masses had to spend every waking moment in productive effort just to survive. Transportation and communication systems were primitive. Direct democracy carries the weight of “tyranny of the majority” (which is obsolete). Thus, semi-direct democracy is a moderate and reasonable middle ground reform. The initiative and referendum process should not be restricted or killed. It should be reformed, modified and expanded. Why do the people not have the right by petition to propose a bill, to modify a bill, to bind the vote of their legislator, to set up public hearings, to establish a legislative committee, to make a formal expression of priorities to the legislature either for policy action or for spending? Why do not the constituents of county and special district governments in Colorado have the right of I & R? These and other semi-direct democracy tools will come. When they do, the role of elected representatives will be vastly different.

Decision Division – Decision division is the collapse of centralized decision making. As the amount of information grows and as the pace of decision making necessarily accelerates, it becomes functionally impossible for decision making to be dominated by central control. Decisions that appropriately should be decentralized, delegated, and devolved, can be, will be, and must be reassigned. The Gulf War pitted a third wave army against a second wave army with predictably one sided results. As Don Shula once said, “people who know exactly what
to do, thrive under pressure.”

PI-STEMS – PI-STEMS are “Political Information Systems.” The role of the parties will be replaced by PI-STEMS. Soon the idea of a majority party will be obsolete. The information available to voters who wish to be informed about issues and candidates is slanted and appallingly deficient. Access to, information will be facilitated by various PI-STEMS, many through Internet. Voting records, ratings, etc. will soon be readily available. Competition between the two parties will motivate them to lead in the invention of some PI-STEMS that will, in turn, diminish the relevance of both parties. Already independent candidates and splinter third parties are mounting attacks against rules and procedures t-hat discriminate against their involvement in the process.

Of course, the scope of the ideas contained herein is trivial and in a few short years will appear as primitive as the Mayflower or the vacuum tube. But it is time that the discussion be opened and quickly expanded. We are on the verge of an opening of the democratic process: a second awakening of democracy. The appropriate conduct for political leaders at all levels is to be alert to the trend, to anticipate it, and to facilitate it. The sooner we can get in tune with the future, the sooner we can begin to share in the benefits the future will bring. Our generation has a destiny to reinvent democracy.

By Dennis Polhill

It is about power. Power over the people. If the people have more power, then there must be less for elected officials and those who influence them. Conversely, if elected officials and their minions wish to have more power, then they must take power from the people.

In the 1995 general session of the state legislature, a resolution was passed to overhaul the initiative process. SCR-2 was originally worded to make it harder for constitutional amendments and easier for statutes to access the ballot by initiative. However, SCR-2 was hijacked via amendment and steered away from its original intent to improve the initiative process, Senator Ray Powers withdrew his name as the prime sponsor and voted against it. Normally, when a sponsor does this, his peers respect his wish and the bill dies. But the desire for power knows no bounds in the hearts of Colorado’s elected officials.

The legislature voted to put SCR-2 on the ballot in the next statewide election in November 1996. It would amend the Colorado Constitution with a simple majority so that all future amendments require a 60% super majority.

The evidence shows that the people are extremely responsible and discreet in exercising their right to vote. Only 33 of the 106 citizen initiated amendments have passed since the right of petition was formalized in Colorado in 1910 with the Initiative and Referendum process. In contrast 60 of 109 referred amendments were approved over the same time period. It is inconsistent for the legislature to argue that there are too many amendments. What they mean is that there are too many citizen initiated amendments. When one is in the business of power, even one citizen initiative is one too many. In the 84 years that the people have had the right to petition in Colorado, only 14 of the 106 amendments would have passed had the 60% rule been in place. In all likelihood the moneyed interests, who find it more convenient and less expensive to influence the legislature would pour money into opposition campaigns. This would force the pass rate to be even less than the 14 in 106. They may claim that the right to petition is still alive, but for all practical purposes it would be gone.

SCR-2 goes even further. It gives the legislature the authority to change citizen initiated statutes after 4 years. Current practice is that citizen initiated statutes are regarded as above legislated statutes. Thus, they are rarely and reluctantly changed. SCR-2 would give the legislature license to dabble, further infringing on the people’s right of petition.

The legislature’s disdain for petitions has a long history and is well known. The process is further restricted nearly every year. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the State of Colorado for such infringement in 1988.

The right of referendum has been co-opted since 1932. Once the legislature passes a law the people have the right to petition to put the law to a vote of the people, except when there is a statewide emergency. So, the legislature simply declares every law they pass to be an emergency.

Aside from the abusive conduct of the legislature there are a few compelling reasons to preserve the right of petition. The mere prospect of its use encourages better legislation. It provides a degree of accountability of legislators and a mechanism to deal with the conflict of interest and hot potato issues. Voter interest, competence and participation increases. At least four independent studies have found that voter turnout is about 10% higher when issues are on the ballot. It is a right that belongs to the people and for which the Founding Fathers pledged “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

It has always been and always will be that those who control power want to preserve it and want more. This has been the struggle of humanity since we first stood upright. Those who dislike the rights of petition are elected officials, political parties, and established special interests (big money, big business, and big labor.)

As the Declaration of Independence states, “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a Free People.” Keep these words in mind the next time you vote for your state legislator. Term limits on state legislators take effect in 1998. Can we wait until 1998, or shall we fix the legislature in 1996?

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute, a think tank in Golden Colorado.

THE

CONSTITUTIONAL

CONTROVERSY

OVER

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

INVOLVEMENT

IN

TRANSPORTATION

By Dennis Polhill

Research assistance by

Dominque Tarpey and Steve McWhirter

Presented at

American Legislative Exchange Council

Seattle, Washington

July 2004

At least 9 Presidents of the United States

issued public statements to Congress

indicating that the U.S. Constitution

required amending before

the Federal government could

become involved in Transportation policy.

In 2004 the question is rarely raised.

INTRODUCTION

The controversy over whether the Federal government is permitted by the Constitution to be involved in transportation improvements began soon after adoption of the Constitution.

At least nine United States Presidents very strongly believed that the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution excluded Federal involvement in transportation improvements.  Evidence of their convictions is expressed in unmistakable terms in their veto messages.

CUMBERLAND ROAD – An ambiguity that emerged from early American history is the Cumberland Road.   The first Federal funded highway connected the head of navigation on the Potomac River (Cumberland, Maryland) to the head of navigation on the Ohio River (Wheeling, West Virginia).  Construction was authorized by Congress on March 29, 1806.  Contracts were issued in 1811, but the War of 1812 interfered and construction did not begin until 1815 and was finished in 1818.  America’s eagerness to solidify its claims on western lands was in conflict with Constitutional limitations on Federal authority.

In 1803 Congress passed the 5 percent law.  Five percent of the revenue generated from the sale of Federally owned public lands was deposited into a fund.  Funds generated from 60% of the five percent (three percent) were granted to the States upon admission to the Union for roads, canals, levees, river improvements and schools.  Funds generated from the remainder, two percent, were dedicated for constructing roads “to and through” the West.  Bitter debate ensued when the two percent funds were allocated in 1806 to build the Cumberland Road.  Jefferson chose expediency by not vetoing the bill, but issued his important message[1] to Congress later in 1806 suggesting that the Constitution should be amended to allow Federal involvement in “internal improvements.”

The Cumberland Road became so heavily used that it fell into disrepair.  When Congress sought to again intervene by establishing tolls for maintenance in 1822, Monroe issued his only veto, arguing that Federal collection of tolls implied a power of jurisdiction, that was not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.  By 1835 the Cumberland Road was known as the National Road and extended into Illinois.  The dilemma was resolved when control was devolved to the respective States that operated it as a toll facility until toll roads were bankrupted by railroad competition.

PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS REGARDING ENUMERATED POWERS

JEFFERSON – In his December 2, 1806 message to Congress, President Thomas Jefferson considered the problem of a revenue surplus.  Reduction of the import duty on salt would give “advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures.”  Jefferson recommended “continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers.”  That is, Jefferson favored acceleration of Federal sponsorship, but was of the view that the U.S. Constitution must be amended to allow it.

Jefferson commented again on this topic in a February 14, 1824 thank you letter to Robert J. Garnett.  Garrett had given a copy of a book by Colonel Taylor, “New Views of the Constitution.”  The letter mentioned “the three great questions of amendment:” presidential term limits, popular election of the president, and giving to Congress the power over internal improvement on the condition that each State’s federal proportion of the moneys so expended, shall be employed in the State.

MADISON – James Madison, author of the U.S. Constitution, succeeded Jefferson as President in 1808.  In Madison’s last official act as President he issued a veto on March 3, 1817.  The bill, passed in February 1817, provided for setting aside the Bank bonus of $1,500,000 as a permanent fund for internal improvements.  To circumvent the constitutional prohibition, the bill language cleverly mixed rhetoric including “internal commerce,” “general welfare,” and “common defense.”  Madison replied specifically to each of these claims of authority.

Madison favored the policy but vetoed the bill as unconstitutional, “I am constrained, by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States.”[2]

He refers Congress to the Constitution, “The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the 8^th section of the first article.”  He adds, “The power to regulate commerce among the several States, cannot include a power to construct roads … without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms.”

“To refer to the power in question as ‘common defense and general welfare,’ would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation … such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation … It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States, in all cases not specifically exempted, to be superseded by laws of Congress.”  Finally, Madison points out “the assent of the States … cannot confer the power.”  In other words the states must agree by amending the Constitution, but may not agree to ignore its structurally imposed limitations on Congressional powers.  In the final paragraph Madison asserts, “that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State government, and that no adequate land-marks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress, as proposed in the bill.”

Madison’s veto message closed with sympathy for the policy objective, “I am not unaware of the great importance of roads … and hope that (the bill’s) beneficial objects may be attained …”

MONROE – James Monroe was elected in 1816 to succeed Madison.  His only veto was issued on May 4, 1822.  Monroe, like Madison and Jefferson, approved of the policy, but vetoed the Cumberland Road Bill as unconstitutional, “Congress does not possess the power under the Constitution to pass such a law.”[3]  Monroe reiterated Madison’s points, “This power can be granted only by an amendment to the Constitution.”  In addition to the indirect claims of authority refuted in Madison’s veto (commerce, general welfare and common defense), the Cumberland Road Bill claimed Congressional authority under post roads, the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested by the Constitution in the government, and the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States.  Monroe, “it cannot be derived from either of those powers, nor from all of them united, and as a consequence it does not exist.”  He closes by suggesting that “Congress (exercise) the propriety of recommending to the states an amendment to the Constitution.”  Monroe’s veto message is brief, less than two pages in the Congressional Record, but he elaborates exhaustively in his May 4, 1822 “Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements.”  This document is nearly 30,000 words, is not part of the Congressional Record.[4]

JACKSON -Congress became more aggressive.  Andrew Jackson (President 1828-1836) vetoed four transportation bills as unconstitutional.  Like his predecessors he favored federal participation in internal improvements, but understood the Constitution as not allowing, and therefore prohibiting, it.  Jackson offered support to advancing the necessary Constitutional amendment by suggesting public agreement made the amendment possible, “If it be the wish of the people that the construction of roads and canals should be conducted by the Federal Government, it is not only highly expedient, but indispensably necessary, that a previous amendment of the Constitution, delegating the necessary power, and defining and restricting its exercise with reference to the sovereignty of the States, should be made.”  In other words, public consent made an amendment achievable and preservation of both the Constitution and State sovereignty requires it.  Congress elected to not advance the suggested Constitutional Amendment.

The Maysville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company was vetoed as “unconstitutional”[5] on May 27, 1830.  This is one of the longer veto messages consuming 10 pages (over 6,000 words) in the House Journal.  Jackson reviewed the history of his predecessors on the question and summarized the arguments on both sides of the issue.  In the end he agreed with his predecessor-Presidents, “When an honest observance of Constitutional compacts cannot be obtained from communities like ours, it need not be anticipated elsewhere; and the cause in which there has been so much martyrdom, and from which so much was expected by the friends of liberty, may be abandoned, and the degrading truth, that man is unfit for self government, admitted.  And this will be the case, if expediency be made a rule of construction in interpreting the Constitution … No good motive can be assigned for the exercise of power by the constituted authorities, while those for whose benefit it is to be exercised have not conferred it.”

Jackson’s Maysville veto message reiterates language from the Monroe veto message supplement, which evolved into another criterion, “purely local character,” that appears in subsequent vetoes in various forms.  This is discussed in a subsequent section.

The Washington Turnpike Road Company was vetoed as “unconstitutional”[6] on May 31, 1830.

Jackson’s next “unconstitutional” veto was of “An Act to authorize subscription for stock in the Louisville and Portland Canal Company” passed near adjournment and he provided the veto message to Congress on December 7, 1830.  Again he refers Congress to the Maysville veto for edification.  “The practice of thus mingling the concerns of the government with those of the States or of individuals, is inconsistent with the object of its institution.  The successful operation of the federal system can only be preserved by confining it to the few and simple, but yet important objects for which it was designed.  A different practice, if allowed to progress, would ultimately change the character of this Government, by consolidating into one the General and State Governments, which were intended to be kept forever distinct.”[7]

Jackson’s last transportation veto as “unconstitutional” came on December 2, 1834 of “An Act to improve the navigation of the Wabash River.”  “I cannot refrain from expressing my increasing conviction of its extreme importance, as well in regard to its bearing upon the maintenance of the Constitution … the dangers of unconstitutional acts which, instead of menacing the vengeance of offended authority, proffer local advantages, and bring in their train the patronage …in my opinion, the Constitution did not confer upon (Congress) the power to authorize the construction of ordinary roads and canals … I could not consider myself as discharging my duty to my constituents in giving the Executive sanction to any bill containing such an appropriation.”[8]

TYLER – John Tyler vetoed as “unconstitutional” “An Act making appropriations for the improvement of certain harbors and rivers,” on June 11, 1844.  “At the adoption of the Constitution, each State was possessed of independent sovereignty … (which) expressly reserve(d) to the States all powers not delegated … (Congressional) power, in order to be legitimate must be clearly and plainly incidental to some granted power, and necessary to its exercise.  To refer it to the head of convenience or usefulness would be to throw open the door to a boundless and unlimited discretion and to invest Congress with an unrestrained authority.”[9]

Tyler also pocket-vetoed “An Act making appropriations for the improvement of the navigation of certain rivers” on January 28, 1845, but issued no veto message, suggesting that he had said all that he wished to say on the issue in his June 11, 1844 veto message.

POLK – On August 3, 1946 James Polk delivered a veto message to Congress for “An Act making appropriations for the improvement of certain harbors and rivers.”  The bill appropriated $1,378,450 to more than 40 objects of improvement.  Because of the “local character” of these projects, Polk said, “it is difficult to conceive … what practical constitutional restraint can hereafter be imposed … The Constitution has not, in my judgment, conferred upon the federal government the power to construct works of internal improvements … The approved course of the government, and the deliberately expressed judgment of the people, have denied the existence of such a power under the Constitution.  Several of my predecessors have denied its existence in the most solemn forms … The general proposition that the federal government does not possess this power is well settled.”[10]  Polk also advances a test for constitutionality originally laid down by Madison, “Whenever a question arises concerning a particular power, the first question is whether the power be expressed in the Constitution.  If it be, the question is decided.  If it be not expressed, the next inquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an expressed power, and necessary to its execution.  If it be, it may be exercised by Congress.  If it be not, Congress cannot exercise it.”

Polk issued a second veto of a transportation bill on December 15, 1847 of “An Act to provide for continuing certain works in the Territory of Wisconsin, and for other purposes.”  Polk’s first objection was the bill’s misleading title.  It passed on the last day of a session and appropriated $6,000 for “continuing” work, while $500,000 was appropriated for numerous new projects.  The veto message opens by referring Congress to his prior veto message of August 3, 1946 and referenced to comments found in the veto messages of Madison, Monroe, and Jackson.  Polk also quotes Jefferson’s 1806 message to Congress recommending “an amendment to the Constitution.”  Restating the obvious Polk writes, “No express grant of this power is found in the Constitution.”[11]

PIERCE – Franklin Pierce issued seven transportation vetoes, more than any other President.  “An Act making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works theretofore commenced under the authority of law” was vetoed as “unconstitutional” on August 4, 1854.  This bill is “not, in my judgment, warranted by any safe or true construction of the Constitution.”[12]

His first veto message was brief because the bill reached him in the “expiring hours” of a session, but Pierce elaborates at length in his December 30, 1854 (read on January 2, 1855) message to Congress.  He recites the 10^th Amendment to the Constitution as further evidence to clarify the intended specificity of the enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8.  He reasoned, “If the framers of the Constitution, wise and thoughtful men as they were, intended to confer on Congress the power over a subject so wide as the whole field of internal improvements, it is remarkable that they did not use language clearly to express it.”  In response to the assertion that language in the Constitution’s Preamble inferred a power vested Congress with authority over internal improvements, he wrote, “To assume that anything more can be designed by the language of the Preamble would be to convert all the body of the Constitution.”

On March 3, 1855, Pierce vetoed “An Act making appropriations for transportation of the United States mail by ocean steamer and otherwise, during fiscal years ending the 30^th of June 1855 and the 30^th of June 1856.”  In addition to citing that the appropriation was both a bad spending priority and a poor policy, Pierce stated that the bill was “of doubtful compatibility with the Constitution.”[13]

Congress persisted by passing “An Act to remove obstructions to navigation in the mouth of the Mississippi River at the Southwest pass and Pass a l’Outre.” It was vetoed on May 19, 1856, with “my views were exhibited in full on the subject … the Constitution does not confer on the general government any express powers to make such appropriations.”[14]

“An Act making an appropriation for deepening the channel over the St. Clair flats, in the State of Michigan” was vetoed on May 19, 1856 as violating the Constitutional “restriction on the power of Congress.”[15]

“An Act making an appropriation for deepening the channel over the flats of the St. Mary’s River, in the State of Michigan” was vetoed on May 22, 1856, as “not a necessary means for execution of any of the expressly granted powers of the federal government.”[16]

“An Act for continuing the improvement of the Des Moines rapids, in the Mississippi River” was vetoed on August 11, 1856.  For elaboration Congress was referred to his prior veto messages.[17]

“An Act for the improvement of the navigation of the Patapsco River, and to render the port of Baltimore accessible to the war steamers of the United States” was vetoed on August 14, 1856.  Pierce again referred Congress to his prior veto messages.[18]

BUCHANAN – President James Buchanan vetoed “An Act making an appropriation for deepening the channel over the St. Clair flats, in the State of Michigan” on February 1, 1860, as “a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.”  Buchanan declined to provide a protracted reply, “The question of the Constitutional power of Congress to construct internal improvements within the States has been so frequently and so elaborately discussed that it would seem useless on this occasion to repeat or to refute at length arguments which have been so often advanced.”  Suffice it to say, he agreed with his predecessors.  He specifically refers Congress to the Polk veto of December 15, 1847 and offers, “The corrupting and seducing money influence exerted by the general government in carrying into effect a system of internal improvements might be perverted to increase and consolidate its own power to the detriment of the rights of the States.”[19]

ARTHUR – Chester A. Arthur was the last President to unambiguously express his Constitutional views in a veto message.  On August 1, 1882 he vetoed, “An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes.”  “I regard such appropriations of the public money as beyond the powers given by the Constitution to Congress and the President.  I feel the more bound to withhold my signature from the bill because of the peculiar evils which manifestly result from this infraction of the Constitution.”[20]

PRESIDENTIAL VETO SUMMARY – This research of transportation vetoes finds that eight president vetoed 19 transportation bills as unconstitutional violations of enumerated powers.  Jefferson provided the same language in his December 2, 1806 message leaving no doubt of his views on this question (Jefferson issued no vetoes during his presidency).  Links to Senate and House Journals where the exact and complete language of the respective messages may be reviewed are provided in Appendix A.

COOPERATION BETWEEN THE BRANCHES

The most significant power of a President is the power to veto legislation.  Thus, a veto represents the most solemn and sacred act exercised by a President.  A veto may be advanced for any reason or no reason at all.  Most are due to disagreement over scope, methods, nature or priorities of legislation; or philosophical differences.

All Presidents wisely strive to sustain a positive and constructive working relationship with the legislative branch.  Clearly, all of the nine veto-Presidents (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, and Arthur) had the option to not use confrontational language by issuing their vetoes on other-than-constitutional grounds.  But they did not, inferring both a powerful strength of conviction and an enormous sense of obligation to express their Constitutional understandings.  That many also exercised these vetoes contrary to their own preference for policy, strengthens the message in their words.

Each of the above vetoes in effect accused members of Congress of ignoring their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, of failing to comprehend the Constitution’s meaning and intent, or of being unwilling to abide by clearly enumerated Constitutional limitations.  Such accusations are neither trivial nor conducive to a positive working relationship.  Their principled stances provided no rewards.

GENERAL OR LOCAL BENEFIT – The views of the nine veto-Presidents above as represented by unmistakable language directed at Congress are unequivocal.  The specific views of other Presidents are less clearly decipherable from their veto message language.

The Jackson Maysville veto advanced Monroe language that evolved into criterion that appears in several subsequent vetoes in some form, “general welfare” of “purely local character” and eventually became the slippery slope that yielded current Federal involvement.  Did the vetoes of the subsequent Presidents seek to be more subtle and less offensive with their rhetoric toward Congress?  Did these words mean to say with less insult to the integrity of Congress, “unconstitutional under enumerated powers?”

This research does not attempt to comprehensively inventory all vetoes with this ambiguous language.  The cited veto messages sometimes included words like, “for the benefit of particular localities”, “of local interest”, or “lacking a general benefit.”  A partial list of such vetoes follows:

• Benjamin Harrison, April 29, 1890 “a matter of local interest”
• Benjamin Harrison, June 4 1890 “the public needs do not suggest or justify such an expenditure”
• Grover Cleveland, May 23, 1888 “(not) necessary for the transaction of public business”
• Grover Cleveland, May 29, 1896 “for the benefit of limited localities”
• Grover Cleveland, July 7, 1896 “I (am not) satisfied that the legislation proposed is demanded by any exigency of the public welfare”
• Theodore Roosevelt, March 3, 1903, “for local improvement”
• Woodrow Wilson, July 11, 1918 “not in the public interest”
• Herbert Hoover, July 11, 1932 “Fraught as it is with possibilities of misfeasance and special privileges”
• Franklin D. Roosevelt, June 11, 1940 “the public interests are not such”
• Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 2, 1941 “benefits of such expenditures are dependent upon local enforcement”

A Calvin Coolidge veto on May 18, 1928 comes close but does not quite state “local interest” as his reason, “Having in mind the increasing ability of the States to finance road construction due to the general adoption of the gasoline tax and the increase in revenue from this source which would accrue to States from roads.”  The State gasoline tax was a comparatively new innovation.  A Federal gasoline tax was, as yet, nonexistent.  Coolidge was, in effect, arguing against a Federal program of taxation and redistribution, the net effect of which would have advanced Federal involvement in State transportation decisions.

SEPARATION OF POWERS – As adherence to the Constitution slipped further from public perception, Congress acted to enlarge its power by including in legislation that Department Secretaries report directly to Congressional Committees.  Presidents objected to this infringement in another series of vetoes.  These are on Constitutional grounds, but because the limitations of Article 1, Section 8 seem to have been largely forgotten, the basis is encroachment on Executive Powers by the Legislative Branch.  These illustrate Congress’ insatiable thirst for more power.

• Dwight D. Eisenhower, July 16, 1956 “violate the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers”
• Lyndon B. Johnson, June 4, 1965 “undesirable and improper encroachment by the Congress and its committees into the area of executive responsibilities”
• Lyndon B. Johnson, August 21, 1965 “repugnant to the Constitution (by) encroachment (on) the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches”
• Richard Nixon, April 5, 1973 “conflicts with the allocation of executive power to the President”
• Jimmy Carter, July 10, 1978 “directs Secretaries to report to congressional committees”

OPENING THE FLOODGATES

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM – On June 29, 1956 President Eisenhower signed into law the “National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.”  Title II, the Highway Revenue Act, was its financial component that raised the Federal gasoline tax from 1 cent (implemented in 1932) to 2 cents (raised to 3 cents in 1958 and to 4 cents in 1959) per gallon and was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1972.  The 40,000 miles of new highways would be State owned and operated.  The Federal role was fiscal, to collect and redistribute revenues to expedite construction by States.  Conformity of construction among the States was an important goal of the legislation.  The Clay Committee estimated the total cost at $27 billion.  The bill authorized $25 billion.  By 1958 the system had increased to 41,000 miles at a total estimated cost of $41 billion.  In 1966 the Bureau of Public Roads became the U.S. Department of Transportation.  The Interstate System was completed in 1982.  In 1976 the Federal gasoline tax was extended and in 1990 increased from 9 cents to 14 cents.  Currently the Federal gasoline tax, at 18.4 cents, generates about $40 billion per year.

GROWTH OF PORK – In “Breach of Trust” former U.S. Representative Thomas Coburn of Oklahoma defines pork as “one member of Congress determines where the money is to be spent.”  Congress uses the friendlier label: “earmark.”  By this definition Federal Transportation Legislation contained only ten pork projects in 1982 at a cost of $386 million.  The 1987 bill contained 150 pork projects for $1,300 million, motivating a Reagan veto.   By 1991 the number of projects had grown to 539, at $6,200 million and the 1998 bill contained “a record shattering 1,467 pork projects for $9,500 million.”  “Shuster consistently argued that setting aside 5 percent … was a very reasonable thing to do.”  The debate had moved quite considerably afar from the points so eloquently articulated by Madison, and others.

Coburn elaborates on how these projects are generated by vote-buying.  Maverick Congresspersons who say, “My vote is not for sale” are punished.  The going rate of $15 million for a vote for the 1998 bill was corroborated by several Congresspersons.  House Transportation Chairman, Shuster, lividly denied the accusations as “McCarthyism.”  But Budget Committee Chairman, Kasich, called the bill an “abomination,” introducing a short-lived amendment to the bill that would reduce the federal gasoline tax to 4 cents per gallon.

TRUST FUND HISTORY – The Reason Public Policy Institute Policy Study 216[21] by Bob Poole in 1996 reviewed the history of the Federal Highway User Trust Fund, seeking to account for all costs in order to reveal a more accurate listing of donor versus recipient states aggregated over the life of the Fund.  Conventional wisdom is that 21 states are donor states.

RPPI reasonably underestimated the costs of Federal administration, mandates, delays and distortion of priorities.  This exercise revealed that the number of donor states is 33, 12 more than are generally considered donor states.  Because RPPI conservatively estimated and because other costs exist that were not included in the analysis such as the significant resources state and local governments use lobbying to recover “free money,” 33 donor states is an understatement.  In a yet-to-be-released CATO study, author Gabriel Roth, estimates that at least 42 states are donor states.  Thus, few states receive more money than they pay into the Trust Fund and the vast majority of states are injured by the continued movement of funds through the D.C. money-filter.  The value of money is not enhanced when it goes thru D.C.  A listing of the donor and recipient states based on RPPI’s 1996 research, along with their current representation in Congress is provided in Appendix B.

CONCLUSION – Notwithstanding, the Constitutional foundation, the historical evolution and the political promises, the trend toward higher levels of Federal waste, inefficiency and corruption should disturb all who care about good government.  This is exactly what the Polk veto of 1860 predicted, “The corrupting and seducing money influence exerted by the general government in carrying into effect a system of internal improvements might be perverted to increase and consolidate its own power to the detriment of the rights of the States.”

• The Federal gasoline tax was created as a temporary tax to construct the Interstate Highway System.
• The Federal gasoline tax has achieved it mission.
• The Interstate Highway System was completed in 1982.
• Since 1982 the number of “pork” projects has grown exponentially.
• Continuation of the Federal gasoline tax is injuring transportation in at least 33 states.
• The states injured by continuation of the Federal gasoline tax represent 88% of the U.S. House membership.
• The Founders and several successor presidents stated that the U.S. Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government the authority to be involved in transportation improvements.
• The Constitution has not been amended to allow Federal involvement in transportation.
• All of the indirect claims of authority by Congress have been answered by the various presidential vetoes of proposed transportation legislation.
• The warnings that ignoring the limits imposed by the Constitution would open the door to unbounded authority and centralization by Congress have come true.
• The warning that money would become “corrupting and seducing” has come true.
• The warning that ignoring the limits imposed by the Constitution would subjugate the states to Congress has come true.

State Departments of Transportation are sufficiently prepared to handle the added responsibility of prioritizing and managing their own transportation systems.  Devolving to the states responsibility for transportation is not only the right thing to do, but will result in improved fiscal efficiency and accountability.  After all, this is how the problem of the Cumberland Road was reconciled in 1835.  The era of massive transportation construction has ended.  The future challenge is to operate and maintain the world’s foremost transportation system with efficiency.  This cannot be achieved well with continuing top-down mandates.  Rather, devolution and liberalization of Federal restrictions will free those with the most innovative and creative leadership solutions to act.  There is a time to lead and a time to follow.  Less Federal involvement in transportation will facilitate more leadership in some, if not all 50, states, which will help America to be more competitive in this time of global competition for markets and jobs.  We owe it to the future to devolve transportation responsibilities to the states where they rightfully belong.

APPENDIX – A

LINKS TO CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

REGARDING ENUMERATED POWER

APPENDIX – B

[12] See Appendix A for a link to the Congressional Record.

[13] See Appendix A for a link to the Congressional Record.

[14] See Appendix A for a link to the Congressional Record.

[15] See Appendix A for a link to the Congressional Record.

[16] See Appendix A for a link to the Congressional Record.

[17] See Appendix A for a link to the Congressional Record.

[18] See Appendix A for a link to the Congressional Record.

[19] See Appendix A for a link to the Congressional Record.

[20] See Appendix A for a link.

[21] http://www.reason.org/ps216.html

[22] http://www.reason.org/ps216.html

1. The structure of the Confederate Constitution (and government) was extremely similar to the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Confederate Constitution was written with the benefit of over 70 years experience with the U.S. Constitution.
3. Except for the provision of slavery, the Confederate Constitution offers some worthy innovations and improvements on the U.S. Constitution.
4. The CC offers no Bill of Rights.  Rights are integrated with the basic document.  This was one of the difficulties that Thomas Jefferson had with the U.S. Constitution.  He said that attaching a Bill of Rights at the end made it appear as an afterthought.  For this reason he gave serious thought to and nearly did oppose its ratification.
5. Article I delegates legislative authority to Congress.  In so doing the authority of Congress is enumerated in 18 sections.  These parallel the U.S.C. with variations such as the Post Office must operate out of its own revenue.
6. Article I limits the powers of Congress in 20 sections that repeat most of the USC Bill of Rights.  #20 is an omnibus bill prohibition, meaning that no bill may have provisions attached to it that are unrelated to the title.  #9 requires that all appropriations be approved by a 2/3 super-majority of Congress.
7. Article II relates to the Executive.  The President is limited to a single 6 year term.  All appointments (judicial and executive) are approved by 2/3 of the Senate.
8. Article V in both documents deals with its amendment.  This is the most extreme variation between the two documents.  The CC takes away from Congress the power to propose Amendments.  Only States may propose Amendments.  When 3 (of 11 states = 25%) States concur on a proposed Amendment, Congress is obliged to convene a Constitutional Convention to consider the proposed Amendment.  When 2/3 of the States ratify, the Amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
9. Elected Officials and Judges are bound by their oath to uphold the Constitution.
10. The 9^th and 10^th Amendments to the USC (which reserve rights not specified to individuals and powers not delegated to the Federal government for the states) appear in the CC prominently immediately prior to Article VII, the ratification article. 

Uncle Jay’s educational “vacation” episode, explaining why Congress needs so many vacation days.

This course makes the moral and philosophic case for free-market capitalism. One of the most important concepts of Western Civilization is the acquisition of property as an unalienable right. The course develops the relationship between economic liberty and political liberty. Participants learn the principles behind wealth-creation. They are introduced to the philosophy of the Austrian School of economics and its connection to the founding ideas of the American experiment. Participants are awakened to their heritage of economic liberty.

http://www.freepeoplefreemarkets.org/

Force of Finance: Triumph of the Capital Markets

“The Force of Finance: Triumph of the Capital Markets” by Reuven Brenner, Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited, Toronto, 2002 and Texere Publishing London & New York, challenges unsupported conventional thinking in many areas including economics, finance, capital markets, prosperity, freedom and democracy.

“Prosperity is the consequence of one thing and one only: matching talent with capital, and holding both sides accountable,” as illustrated by the economic successes of 17th century Netherlands and the modern Asian Tigers. Brenner warns of the injury caused by public policies of confiscation and unproductive regulations, but reports, “for the moment, the U.S. alone has the fundamentals right.”

Chapter 2 considers the relationship between capital markets and democracy and elaborates extensively about the 1997 observations of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., “democracy requires capitalism, but capitalism does not require democracy.” More simply stated capitalism thrives where democracy cannot. The legal recognition of private property, open capital markets and dispersion of political power augment both democracy and capitalism. More than any other single factor, “low taxes” bring “economic miracles.”

Brenner calls macroeconomics the “twentieth-century pseudo-science” because it is built on the false Keynsian view that governments can or should manipulate economic outcomes.

In Chapter 4 Brenner points out that “voting rights were not much of an obstacle to governments intent on doing harm.” Thus, Brenner reasons that democracy and capitalism are safer when politicians possess less, rather than more, power: “referenda significantly diminish the power of politicians and bureaucrats.” Experimentation with political change and tools of citizen involvement was truncated and stalled by the Great Wars, the Depression, and the Cold War; but now the time is ripe for renewed interest in reforms, which should be cause for optimism.

Chapter 7, titled “Extracting Sunbeams out of Cucumbers,” explores how “ideas that have no foundation gain scientific status.” For decades economists have used the lighthouse analogy to advocate government intrusion. If government did not provide lighthouses, then there would be none. However, private-sector lighthouses existed for centuries. How could so many great minds get this fact wrong? Ronald Coarse published the historical correction in 1974, but the false analogy continues to appear in new textbooks. Students “arrive at the intended but utterly misleading conclusion. The frequently repeated idea thus passes for fact.” “Students are not being taught science; instead, they are being taught obscure linguistic exercises masquerading as science.” “Matching ideas to real-world events is the meaning of being scientific. It is unscientific to either ignore or reject discovered patterns.” The non-science of the social sciences and humanities hide in a maze of obscure rhetoric designed to bar critical review by outsiders and to ridicule innovators as lacking understanding. “Aesop was right: Obscurity often brings safety.” It is the conformist who survives. “Followers are taught to be blind.” Chinese inventiveness ceased when state power increased; it always does.

That so many politicians and economist were attracted to Keynesian views is simply evidence that people respond to incentives. The opportunity for bigger and more intrusive government benefited both groups irrespective of whether the ideas had merit.

“Precedents are incorporated into behavior and institutions, and often outlive the circumstances that created them.” “Prosperity requires people to abandon old industries and old ways of doing things, and bet on new ones and new ways.”

“Backward-looking societies stay poor.” “Stable currency does not guarantee prosperity” … but “it is a necessary part.” “Out-of-the way Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand are all prosperous and technologically up to date. They are not close to either big markets or principal sea routes. … they have open capital markets.”

“In the absence of democratized capital markets, “freedom” is an empty word.” “With open markets the poor can move up.” “Limiting access to capital markets is the means by which groups can stay in power.” “Indeed, the democratization of financial markets and the adoption of the institutions of direct democracy are, the keys to lasting prosperity.”

“The United States has its share of bad laws, outdated regulations, complex taxes, and controls inherited from the past, many of these are still unquestioned.”

“… as a condition of receiving Western capital, countries should open up their financial markets.” Brenner predicts, “If Putin carries out his promise to impose a 13 % flat tax … Russia will soon prosper, attracting critical masses of talent and capital, reducing corruption, and leapfrogging over many other countries.”

In short “The Force of Finance” offers a comprehensive vision for freedom not yet appreciated by many leaders. All peoples will benefit when economic and political freedoms are enlarged. The key is the opening of and access to financial markets and the dispersion of political power, which tends more to interfere with, rather than facilitate, open financial markets. The sooner people gain the courage to confront and change archaic regulatory and political institutions the sooner people will benefit from increased wealth and freedom.

“The Force of Finance” is recommended reading for those interested in deeper understanding of the interdependency of economic and democratic freedoms.

THE SECRET ELECTION:

FOOTHILLS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

By Dennis Polhill

July 9, 2006

The Foothills Fire Protection District (FFPD) has long been the pride of Lookout Mountain.  Hundreds of people support the district both financially and by volunteering. In 1996 three small fire districts merged into a single district to share resources and capture economies of scale.  Its 85 volunteer firefighters would serve about 3000 resides scattered over the 25 square miles that surround Genesee in Jefferson County.  In retrospect those benefits seem fleeting as costs have escalated, the number of volunteer firefighters has shrunken by half and communications with the community have become strained.

No Pride – No one thought much of occasional assertions of malfeasance or impropriety, until last year.  The very next day after the June 2005 Annual Pancake Breakfast a sign went up proposing the construction of a “Taj Mahal” station addition.  If FFPD had had pride in what was being considered and confidence that it was defensible, they would have been more open and above board.  There is no better forum than the annual breakfast to share plans and ideas with the community.  That they chose otherwise suggests a hidden agenda.

Jeffco Planning – The next event was a Site Approval Hearing with the Jefferson County Planning Commission on June 22, 2005.  County staff incorrectly advised neighbors that the hearing was of no consequence.  Mostly hoping to learn what was in the works 30 to 40 people showed up at the hearing.  FFPD lied to Planning Commission when they asked whether there had been community meetings and outreach efforts.  The Planning Department staff recommendation to the Planning Commission was “minimal impact” and “recommend approval.”  However, when several citizens offered questions in testimony, three of the six members of the Planning Commission voted against the “minimal impact” conclusion.  A tie vote equals no action by the Planning Commission.  Evidently there is a proviso deeply hidden and generally unknown in county regulations that no action by the Planning Commission within 30 days is considered approval.  The Jeffco attorney alerted FFPD to this, but did not offer equal treatment to citizens.  Rather than inform the community or otherwise address the growing community concerns, FFPD eagerly grabbed at this loophole falsely claiming Jefferson County approval.

Minute-Readers – Seeking answers as to how and why things had gotten to this point, individuals read all of the Board of Directors meetings minutes over the prior 5 years.  Because FFPD insisted on $1.50 per copy, the readers made copies by taking photographs.  There was no record in the minutes of any decisions to build an addition.  Nor was there evidence of any of the appurtenant decisions, such as a decision to hire or pay an architect, or to allocate funds, conduct a property line survey, etc.  Neither was there a record of the “gift” from the tower companies or any record of discussions thereof.  The minute-readers did notice that the Board started adjourning into executive session at every Board Meeting beginning in October of 2004 without announcing an executive session agenda any more than to say “attorney client privilege.”  Interestingly, the minutes decreased in volume by about 25% starting at the same time as estimated by number of pages.  Is it possible that FFPD was violating open meeting rules and conducting business secretly?

Budget Off Limits – Other citizens with financial expertise began looking at the budget.  Of the $1 million budget, half was going to “administration.”  The accounting method used makes it difficult to ascertain specifics.  When specifics were asked at board meetings, citizens were stalled with the reply, “You must bring these concerns to the annual budget hearing meeting in November.”  When November finally arrived and the questions were being presented, the board (probably illegally) shut off public comment with, “We don’t have time for this” and quickly approved the budget.  They did promise to reply by letter which finally arrived in March (4 months after the fact … and many more months after various concerns were initially raised) with a statement that there would be a fee charged for further information requests and such requests must be filed under Colorado’s Freedom Of Information Act.  In 2003 the mill levy was increased from 8.0 to 9.196 without the knowledge or consent of taxpayers.

Gift, Bribe or Pay-Off – Along the way it was discovered that FFPD had received a “gift” of $280,000 from “local businesses” which turned out to be the broadcasters who wish to expand towers on Lookout Mountain.  The size of the building for the new tower required enhanced fire protection and it was claimed that donating the money to FFPD was the least expensive of three options.  FFPD was obliged to spend half on a new tanker truck and the remainder was extra cash.  When citizens asked to see a copy of the “gift” agreement, they were told “There is no agreement. The money is a gift.  There are no conditions on its use.”  It is unknown whether the “gift” was solicited by FFPD or offered first by the property owner.  Either way the objective judgment of FFPD became predictably impaired.  Some believe the “gift” from the beginning was a grand plan contrived by the tower owners to cause infighting within the community and to distract people from the tower issue.

Ineligible Director – Two of the five Board seats were due to be elected on May 2, 2006.  In January it became widely known that another Board member, Richard Kunter, who was elected to a 4 year term on the board in 2004, had sold his home in December 2003 and moved out of the district.  By law one ceases to be eligible to serve on a district board when one ceases to be eligible to vote in that district.  When Mr. Kunter was confronted about this, he requested the face-saving dignity of the opportunity to draft a formal letter of resignation and he agreed to act immediately in order that his successor could be determined via the May election.  When the resignation did not come, he was again contacted and he restated his prior intention.  This happened a third time.  Mr. Kunter indicated that he was being pressured by FFPD to stay on the Board.  See Appendix below for expanded details of events and facts that illustrate inconsistencies and prove the actions of the FFPD Board were intended to be manipulative and deceptive.

Vacating the Ineligible Director – The cut off date for candidates to declare for the May election was February 24.  Dennis Polhill contacted DOLA (Colorado Department of Local Affairs) in early February.  The DOLA person was extremely adamant that the Board member had ceased to be on the board the moment he moved out of the district, he was not entitled to the privilege of resigning, and that the third vacant seat must be immediately announced to the community and elected in May.  Since neither the FFPD Board nor Kunter were moving, Mr. Polhill crafted a letter repeating the DOLA comments, presenting it at the February 21 Board meeting.  One Board member said “The personnel committee was aware of the situation, had been looking into it for some time, and they would adjourn to executive session to consider it.”  FFPD issued a letter dated February 23 stating “the issue of Mr. Kunter’s qualification was brought to the attention of the Board of Directors for the first time.”  Evidently FFPD meant to say “for the first time in writing and any less notification does not count as notification.” Director Kunter knew and had discussed the situation numerous times with numerous people, including the Board.  And John Findling, another Board member, discussed this with at least one member of the community.  And Miller knew, because he was the chairman of the Board’s personnel committee and was the one who made the comment at the Board meeting.  It is very likely that all of the Board members knew.  That they failed to act in a timely manner is, at least, a clear dereliction of duty, if not a subversion of election laws and a conspiracy against voters.

More Deception – The February 23 letter also deferred to an impending review by the attorney of the Lookout Mountain Water District, that Mr. Kunter also served on, stating “qualifications … would have the same applicability.”  (Isn’t this interesting? This is the first time they know of the eligibility issue. Yet, they know the water district is reviewing the same matter.)  But when the water board met on March 13 and removed Mr. Kunter from the Board as ineligible, the FFPD no longer wished to conform.  Mr. Miller asserted in a newspaper column published on March 8, “He rents a room and maintains a voting address in the district.”  Not quite true: the voting address is his former residence (It is absurd to claim that because one fails to update one’s voter registration record that one is eligible to vote where one no longer lives).  As for the room, someone bumped into the wife from whom the room was supposedly being “rented” and when asked she stated unequivocally that Mr. Kunter was “neither renting a room nor residing with them.”

Denying The Right to Vote – This sequence of deceptions became publicly disclosed as a product of a face-to-face confrontation at the March 21 Board meeting.  Mr. Kunter stated “I do not want to cause any more problems.”  The FFPD attorney suggested that they would look into it (inferring that there might be a way for Kunter to continue on the Board).  The very incriminating exchange was captured on the FFPD tape of the meeting (Whether the tape still exists is unknown.  The minute-readers had asked for tapes when they discovered the minutes lacked critical information.  They were told tapes are destroyed after the written minutes are approved.  This seems like an odd practice (if legal), but it might be true).  Mr. Kunter resigned prior to the April 18 Board meeting.  But the damage had been done.  It was too late to announce the third seat for the May election.  Voters would not have an opportunity to vote to fill the third seat.  Special District Board vacancies that occur between elections are filled by appointment by the Board.  The practical result of these actions, whether intentional or not, was to deny citizens the right to vote; exactly opposite of the repeatedly stated intention of Mr. Kunter.  Was it Mr. Kunter or FFPD who contrived this result?  If the May election does not go to their liking, FFPD is empowered by their foot dragging and obfuscation to deadlock any reform actions by the new Board with a 2-2 vote, including appointment to fill the vacant seat.

Election Decisions – FFPD made a series of questionable, to say the least, decisions relative to the May election.  Every FFPD election in recent history (longer than a decade) has been by mail ballot.  Some voters who knew of the election expected to receive a ballot in the mail.  This would be a polling place election.  The pancake breakfast is held at the Lookout Mountain Station because it is most central to the population.  The single polling place in May would be at the Grapevine Substation.  Grapevine is a mere two truck garage that houses backup fire equipment that is rarely called out and virtually no ordinary citizen is aware of its existence or whereabouts.  It does not even have plumbing or a restroom.  The address of Grapevine on the FFPD web site was incorrect.  The only announcement of the election was a single legal notice in the Canyon Courier.  Normally there is at least a post card notice that an election is being held.  The Courier may be the closest there is to a publication of general circulation, but a small minority of citizens read it regularly.  When asked about the Grapevine polling place decision, a Board member said “The Lookout Mountain Station has to be ready to respond to a call.”  Yet, the same concern does not apply for other events, such as the Pancake Breakfast.  Is it possible FFPD was trying to make voting difficult?

Citizen Committee – Citizens had grown increasingly alarmed and an election committee was formed, Committee to Reform Foothills Fire Protection District.  The CRFFPD made two mailings to all voters in the district.  The second mailing merely restated the names of the reform candidates and when/where to find the polling place.  The first mailing included some background on the nefarious actions of FFPD, numbers to call to ask election questions, a map to the polling place and a copy of the application for an absentee ballot.  To insure that absentee ballot applications were not “lost in the mail,” the committee encouraged applicants to keep a copy of their application for their records and call the CRFFPD if they did not receive a ballot.  FFPD took offense to this precaution and rather than send absentee ballots to applicants, they sent a letter calling the precaution “an unlawful and unauthorized alteration,” clearly a tactic designed to intimidate voters and to suppress voting.  After a confrontation at the April 18 Board meeting, FFPD agreed to mail absentee ballots to all citizens who requested them.  Some damage was irreparable, because at least one person had to leave the country on business before finally receiving her ballot.  It was also discovered on April 18 that the DEO intended to be out of state for 5 consecutive days between April 18 and April 28 (the last day to request an absentee ballot) with no plan to distribute ballots.  Again due to confrontation by citizens at the April 18 Board meeting, FFPD finally agreed to make ballots available.

Election Day – On Election Day CRFFPD stationed several people at the I-70 exit nearest the Grapevine Substation with signs.  Numerous individuals indicated that they were unaware of the election.   The unofficial election results were Bartlett (414), Carney (412), and Wittrock (183).  The two reform candidates captured the two seats overwhelmingly with close to 75% of the vote.  In spite of FFPD efforts to obfuscate the election and suppress voting, voter turn out was nearly 20%.  In early March, when it was learned that voters would not be allowed to vote for the third seat, the third reform candidate (Steve Close) withdrew as a candidate to avoid diluting the reform vote.

Term Limits – Voters count on honest management of their elections.   When an individual is not eligible to run for office, the election official (typically the Secretary of State or a County Clerk) respectfully notifies the individual and declines to allow the name to appear on the ballot.  In 2004 FFPD appointed the district administrator as the DEO (Designated Election Official).  Thus, the district administrator, the employee of the Board, was put in a position to potentially deny ballot access to his bosses.  It was in 2004 that Mr. Kunter declared himself eligible to run for the Board after having sold his home in the district.  It was also in 2004 when Mr. Miller was permitted to run for another term.  Mr. Miller would not have been eligible to serve due to term limits.  FFPD has term limits of two four-year terms.  Mr. Miller served on the Lookout Mountain Fire District Board prior to consolidation in 1996.  As of the 2004 election he would have served over 8 years already.  Declaring one’s boss ineligible to run is not a good formula for long term job security.  Mr. Kunter also became a FFPD Board member as a byproduct of the 1996 consolidation and had served continuously, also exceeded his eligibility to serve under term limits.  Board Chairman, Jack McKenry, served on the Idledale Board for 15 years prior to consolidation and from 1996 to 2006 after consolidation.  The term limits clock for special districts started in 1994.  It is likely that McKenry was ineligible to serve after 2002, in which case a majority of those on the Board were not eligible to serve on the Board, raising questions about the legality of all Board actions over the period of time in question or even the ability to achieve a quorum to convene a legal Board meeting.

Attempted Cover Up – When the minute-readers announced at one of the Board meetings (probably September or October) that none of the actions relevant to the station addition were recorded in the minutes, FFPD attorney Scheurer recognized the difficulty and immediately attempted to cure the situation by proposing that the Board then pass seven retroactively effective motions.  The first was discussed but not voted on.  Evidently the Board did not comprehend the attorney’s efforts at damage control for failure to formally act on these important items of business.  Is it possible that these items were discussed and decided in the numerous “attorney client privilege executive sessions?”  Had the Board been conducting a series of “secret meetings?”

Filling the Vacancy – All three May election candidates attended the April 18 Board meeting and agreed to expedite filling the Board vacancy by advertising immediately for parties interested in being appointed.  With the election outcome so overwhelming, the rightful choice should be an easy one.  Three individuals applied and were interviewed by the full “new” Board prior to the June 20 Board meeting: Donna Wittrock the non-reform candidate who was overwhelmingly defeated in the May election; Steve Close, the reform candidate who withdrew when the third seat turned out to be unavailable for election; and Paul Wells.  In the interview Paul Wells was asked why he did not run in May.  Wells replied, “I did not know there was an election.”  He wasn’t the only one.  On June 20 the Board decided to vote on each candidate individually.  This decision about process doomed it to deadlock, notwithstanding a revelation by one of the carry over Board members that the May election actually expressed a message of concern-about-the-current-direction-of-FFPD from the community of some merit.  There was no such revelation, so the vote on all three candidates was deadlocked at 2-2.  Director Medved argued with backwards logic in favor of Wittrock, “She should be selected because she was on the May ballot and Steve Close dropped out.”  A motion was passed to send a letter to the County Commissioners requesting that they immediately intervene to break the deadlock.

CONCLUSION

More Scandals in the making – When people hear the FFPD story, they often react with, “FFPD is on the take.”  Until the truth is known, this remains a possible explanation.  Some suggest the motive is ego or political power.  FFPD is a tiny volunteer fire district. Why would Board members serving so many years jeopardize their service and risk their personal reputations over a petty power struggle?  The big picture is scary.  With over 2300 special districts statewide, there must be others that are as out-of-touch and out-of-control or self-serving as FFPD.  It is quite possible that multiple scandals of enormous proportions will one day explode into the limelight.  Worse yet, the citizens of Lookout Mountain are educated, successful, informed, engaged and affluent.  Thus, citizens elsewhere might find it more difficult to successfully confront similar situations.

Consolidated Elections – The County Clerks attempted to pass a “Consolidated Election” bill about ten years ago.  It would have moved all regular elections to November.  This would have reduced election costs and increased voter turn out.  Not everyone likes these two benefits. The Colorado Municipal League and the Special Districts Association are among Colorado’s most powerful lobby forces (read: taxpayer funded lobbying) and succeeded in deleting cities and special districts from the bill.  Outlawing obscure election dates (calling them “secret elections” is a minor exaggeration) is pro-democratic, pro-citizen participation, and pro-open government.  Some European countries require a voter turn out of 50% for an election to be valid.  Such a rule would end “secret elections.”  By manipulating election dates and election notices it is fairly common to see special district elections with single-digit voter turn outs.

When to Start – As for FFPD, the new Board has a lot of work to do.  Potentially every Board action over the last few years needs to be reviewed and validated or reconsidered.  They have to get a handle on the finances and extract FFPD from the perceived or real conflict of interest caused by accepting the tower money.  Until the vacant Board position is filled, FFPD will remain deadlocked and the large backlog of difficult work will continue to grow.  Lookout Mountain is fortunate and thankful that highly qualified and competent individuals continue to step forward and offer their time and talents in public service.

APPENDIX

Supplemental information to paragraph above entitled:

“Ineligible Director”

Mr. Kunter indicated that he was in discussions with other FFPD Board members, its administrator and counsel, and was being urged to stay on the Board.  Mr. Kunter did not tender his resignation prior to the cutoff date.  A closer look at dates and information indicate members of the Board have not been telling the truth and were obviously attempting to frustrate the election process in an effort to control or at minimum deadlock the future Board.

January 26, the Paradise Hills Homeowners Association held its annual meeting at which a signed letter was read and called to the HOA’s attention, noting that Mr. Kunter, a former resident and member of the FFPD and Lookout Mountain Water Boards, had moved out of the district and raising issue with his continued service on both Boards.  At least two members of the FFPD Board (Findling and Miller) were immediately contacted regarding the issues raised in that letter, including Mr. Kunter’s seat.  One of the other Board members (Findling) immediately indicated he was not seeking a second term and that another member of the Board (McKenry) was term limited.

February 8, Mr. Kunter was contacted directly and was aware of those conversations and acknowledged that information about his seat on the Board had been circulated by those Board members initially contacted.  Mr. Kunter indicated he was inclined to resign but requested a few days to consider and discuss it with other members of the Board, its administrator and FFPD counsel.  In follow-up discussions, he reaffirmed his intention to resign.
February 20 (Monday), Mr. Kunter was again contacted and specifically noted that he intended to resign and was having discussions with other FFPD Board members, Administrator and counsel regarding this matter.  In the course of the conversation, he noted that he was being encouraged not to resign but that he was inclined to resign from the FFPD Board and let the community fill the seat in the May election.

February 21, the FFPD had held its monthly meeting where it was anticipated the Board would announce the resignation and third vacant seat for the May election.  However, to the public’s surprise neither occurred and the matter was for that meeting killed.  When a member of the community specifically asked about the Board’s determination and the status of the seat, Mr. Miller dismissed the question stating that the Personnel Committee is looking into it.

Unbeknownst to the public, Mr. Miller had already the day before (February 20), purportedly on behalf of the Board, submitted a letter to the Canyon Courier that was published March 8 in which he said “There is also some misunderstanding about a board member moving out of the district.  He rents a room and maintains a voting address in the district.  He is also in the process of buying property again in the district.  The separate attorneys for the two boards he serves (FFPD & the Lookout Water Board) consider that he meets the requirements for service to those boards and the community.”  Canyon Courier, Wednesday, March 8.  That however was false.

February 24 (cutoff date for May 2 election) Mr. Kunter was again contacted and again indicated he was inclined to resign and let the public fill his seat, but didn’t know if they would get it done yet that day, had been in multiple discussions with FFPD counsel (Scheurer) and other members of the Board about this matter, that he was being urged not to resign, and that he was told that there was no point in resigning yet anyway since the Board could not act on it before March.

March 13, only 3 business days after Mr. Miller’s letter appeared in the Courier, at the Lookout Mountain Water Board (LMWB) regular Board meeting was held.  Their attorney reported that he had determined that Kunter was NOT eligible.  The Water Board determined Kunter’s seat to be vacant.

March 22, via email and fax Mr. Miller and Mr. Scheurer were specifically challenged with respect to the contradiction.  Mr. Miller responded prior to the FFPD Board meeting later that evening saying “I had sent the published letter the Monday before the February board meeting shortly after hearing of the anonymous letter to the Paradise Hills Homeowners meeting.” And went on to say Kunter had said he was renting a room and that he had contacted Mr. Scheurer “and he concurred that the legal residence would be qualified.”

Later that evening, at FFPD Board meeting March 22, Mr. Scheurer first, and then Mr. Kunter presented a bit of a dog and pony show.  Mr. Scheurer opened to specifically state that he had not made a determination and did not have enough facts to do so.  Mr. Kunter further elaborated and reiterated an unbelievable story about renting a room on Lookout Mountain.   Community members took issue with the inconsistencies and the story, asking Mr. Scheurer to explain how he could advise Mr. Kunter (ethically or practically) prior to the February cutoff if now he did not have sufficient facts to do so.  Mr. Kunter was specifically asked how the spouse of the house in which Mr. Kunter was purportedly renting a room had no knowledge of such an arrangement.

March 22, Mr. Miller and Mr. Scheurer were asked to explain the contradictions between the Courier article, what had been announced by LMWB, what was known about the Lookout Mountain house story and what had been said at the FFPD Board meeting.

March 28, Mr. Miller responded indicating that he had sent his article in to the Courier February 20, the day before the February 21 FFPD Board meeting.  He did not respond to the inconsistencies.

March 29, Mr. Miller responded again that he only had the information he had “3 or 4 days” prior to the February 21 meeting (still unresponsive, but now clearly raising the question of why it hadn’t been properly and definitively addressed Kunter’s seat at the February meeting) – he then closed saying “And now it must be a moot point!!” (referring presumably to the fact Kunter was going to then resign…Mr. Kunter purportedly then resigned a few days later although he did not at the time circulate copies to others in the community).

April 18, Mr. Scheurer replied by fax basically acknowledging that he hadn’t made any independent determination but claimed to have been justified in deferring to and waiting for a decision from the LMWB (albeit a separate entity, separate district, and separately represented).

Basically, Messrs Miller and Scheurer had changed their story from that of promoting the rental argument, to now purportedly waiting for the LMWB.  Nobody was explaining why they hadn’t made the determination themselves in the first place, or how the Courier article and the later correspondence were so contradictory themselves, and with what LMWB did do March 13.

April 29, FFPD sent out a mailing just three days before the election, in which they inserted a specially framed “Editor’s note” stating “At the March FFPD Board Meeting, the Board heard that Director Richard Kunter’s qualifications as a director had been challenged because it was believed he was no longer a resident of the District…” and attempting to justify failure to act earlier on this matter or allow the public the ability to vote to fill the seat.   If the contradiction of that opening line was not enough, the balance of the piece was at least as significant for what it said had not happened as what it said had – it essentially said they had not themselves made any special investigation despite repeated contacts and information regarding the same since January, but instead drug their feet as long as they could.  And finally they had to acknowledge the situation by virtue of the fact that the LMWB, despite much later notice, took action and declared the seat vacant. The above quoted opening sentence itself misrepresented and fails to disclose that this matter had come to their attention already in January (if not earlier).  The above quoted opening sentence and the entire discussion is contrary to the so certain and strongly worded Courier article Mr. Miller acknowledged submitting already February 20.

Corroborating Proof – All of the above referenced specifics can be backed up with copies of letters, faxes, newspaper articles, meeting tapes, emails, and testimony of the various citizen-witnesses.

This sequence-of-events, outlined in this appendix begs the relevant question that Kunter was not entitled to a resignation nor was the Board entitled to procrastinate about critical election decisions per the DOLA comments in the paragraph above titled “Vacating the Ineligible Director.”  At some point this clearly dishonest, inconsistent and unethical behavior crosses the line into the realm of criminal.  The right to vote is a fundamental right and these people have not just denied it to 3000 FFPD voters, but put a lot of effort into the task.

By Dennis Polhill, Nathan Pawlicki
The tax spenders (politicians, lobbyists, and special interest groups) claim that Colorado has a budget crisis. They say the $150 million shortfall in the $15.2 billion State budget can be remedied only with more taxpayer money. This same budget was $6.3 billion in 1992 and $3.4 billion in 1984.

Referendum C would retain an estimated $3.7 billion in constitutionally required taxpayer refunds over the next 5 years to cover the $150 million shortfall. The extra revenue would be used for new programs or to grow existing programs.

As if addressing Colorado, President Calvin Coolidge said, “Nothing is easier than the expenditure of public money. It doesn’t appear to belong to anyone. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.” The process of “bestowing” is fun and beneficial to politicians. Interest groups reward them in subsequent elections. In other words, it is natural for politicians to focus on the revenue side. When Ref-C fails, perhaps politicians will look elsewhere. Washington State did.

In 2002, Democrat Washington Governor Gary Locke faced closing a budget gap of over $2.7 billion, a 15 percent shortfall. The historic budgeting process of adding taxpayer money to cover inflation was a nonstarter.

Director Marty Brown of the Office of Financial Management asked, “Why aren’t we asking the right questions? Why are we so focused on the cuts and not on the keeps?” Indeed! It was this creative and iconoclastic thought that helped Washington State to emerge from the wilderness.

By asking the right question Washington was able to focus on maximizing results. This helped to validate the missions of respective departments rather than accepting the assumption that everything being done should forever continue. “Outcome Budgeting” is one of many budgeting methodologies. Unfortunately these methodologies are theoretical abstractions because virtually all government budgeting merely adds more taxpayer money to the last budget. Without a “budget crisis” there would be no “political will” to exercise fiscal discipline.

Governor Locke’s staff designed five key questions for the budget process: “Is the real problem short or long term?; How much are citizens willing to spend?; What results do citizens want for their money?; How much will the state spend to produce each of these results?; How best can that money be spent to achieve each of the core results?” These spawned a challenge list and detailed purchasing plans.

Ten “Results Team” leaders divided up the 1300 state functions, assisting department heads with the process. Fiscal pressure yielded creative cooperation. Spending in one area can contribute to outcomes elsewhere. The higher education team used some of its funds to pay for better K-12 education, to better prepare its incoming students and reduce its funding of remedial programs. Two teams jointly brought forth increased effort to protect water quality.

The budget would be painful. It eliminated health insurance for 60,000; limited Medicaid coverage; and ended 2,500 state jobs. Cost of living increases for state employees were frozen, university tuition would increase, 1,200 low risk felons would be released from prison and several small programs would be shut down.

The Tacoma News Tribune reported, “Few Washingtonians will find much to like about the brutal state spending plan. But as ugly as the result was, there’s a lot to like about the way Locke and his staff arrived at it, using a new process that forced hard choices about the core priorities of state government.”

“Core Priorities” is the foundation principle. By passing TABOR, Colorado voters stated that their government was big enough. Voters left to legislators the tough task of debating and deciding “core priorities.” Because spending is more fun and focusing on “core priorities” is hard work, legislators have put Ref-C on the ballot. Ref-C essentially asks Colorado to validate the 1992 TABOR decision, “Are you really sure you want fiscal discipline in state government?”

Without a “budget crisis,” Washington State would not have implemented “Outcome Budgeting” and would not have saved its 6 million taxpayers from a $2.7 billion budget debacle. Perhaps Colorado’s $150 million “budget crisis” is too small to spark interest in budgeting reform or to motivate political leaders to have a serious look at “core priorities” or to focus on the spending side.

Why wait for a “budget crisis?” Nothing precludes forward thinking political leaders from exercising innovative action in the absence of a true “budget crisis,” except their will to do so.

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute

Nathan Pawlicki is a former Independence Institute intern and a graduate student at Regis College.

By Dennis Polhill
What is wrong with this picture?

Traffic congestion is the worst ever and is worsening. Congestion imposes costs that exceed the cost to eliminate it. Half of the gas tax goes to the Federal government, which neither owns nor operates any highways, railroads, airports or transit facilities. Congress increasingly uses transportation revenues for non-transportation purposes and imposes rules that make it difficult for states to solve problems.

One could conclude that Congress wishes to damage both the mobility and economic well-being of America. Instead, Congress’ motivation is merely a quenchless thirst for more power, control, and self-gratification.

It is said “spending to politicians is like drugs to addicts.” There may be no better proof than Federal Transportation legislation. Even though there is no longer a national transportation policy, taxpayers spend $40 billion per year to fund it.

The Federal government was slow to involve itself in transportation, because the U.S. Constitution clearly identified “internal improvements” as outside Federal domain enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. At least nine presidents issued no less than 20 vetoes of transportation legislation as “unconstitutional.” The importance of mobility to the outcome of World War II provided the rationale for ignoring the Constitutional limitation.

The Federal gas tax, implemented in 1956, would finance construction of the 40,000 mile “National Defense Highway System.” Scheduled to expire in 1972, the tax was repeatedly extended and increased. The prohibition against Congress designating specific projects in transportation bills ended in 1982, coincidently (or not) the same year Interstate construction was finished. Reagan vetoed the bill because it contained 152 “earmarks.”

The current reauthorization was debated for over 2 years as Congress contemplated the amount of pork and the extent to inhibit state leadership in transportation. The prospect of a Bush veto was a beacon of hope for those wishful of enlightened or less damaging policy.

The veto threat ended talk of a tax increase and reduced spending to $286.4 billion. H.R.-3 passed both houses with veto-proof margins, increasing “earmarks” to 6,371. Freshman Oklahoma U.S. Senator, Tom Coburn, in his book “Breach of Trust” writes about his tenure as a U.S. Representative during the 1998 reauthorization, “Representative Largent accused the Transportation Committee of trying to buy his vote. Largent said the committee asked him where he wanted to spend $15 million in his district. A disgusted Largent said, ‘My vote is not for sale.’”

This practice continues and explains the bipartisan veto-proof majorities in both houses. It also explains the coincidence that four of Colorado’s seven U.S. House Districts are “earmarked” for $16 million each. Committee members and leadership receive more “earmarks.” This is why Alaska’s per capita “take” is over 10 times that of second place, Washington State. The 92 percent return of taxes to Colorado is an improvement. It means Colorado taxpayers lose only about $350 million.

The behavior of Congress has become so outrageous that scholars from both the left and the right now advocate that the Federal gas tax should be delegated to the states. In a recent lecture, Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institution suggested, “It is time to seriously look at the possibility that we need to devolve all transportation funding out of Washington.”

Congress prefers more power, control and ego-gratification, not less. The reauthorization had included the creation of the Transportation Finance Corporation. Fortunately the Bush-veto threat helped to kill TFC. TFC would have used the gas tax to finance debt for more spending. As with the slippery slope of earmarks, the concept would have begun small at $30 billion. Taken to the extreme the $40 billion annual revenue might eventually add another trillion to the national debt, rapidly nearing $8 trillion. TFC spending would serve as an obstacle to devolving the tax to the states. To the extent that debt is wise, the decision is better-made by the respective states.

There is no example in history of a corrupt political institution reforming itself. At Runnymede, under threat of death King John reluctantly signed Magna Carta. Amazingly tolerant of Congressional abuses, citizens patiently await reform. Understandably fearful of being denied their states’ rightful funds, state legislators are cowed. Yet hope for leadership persists. In 2003 Colorado overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution (97-3) asking that the Federal gas tax be devolved. Arizona passed a similar resolution in 2004. How outrageous does Congressional behavior have to be before this corruption ends?

Abe Lincoln wisely commented, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

By Dennis Polhill, Alex Schroeder
If one could put $100 in the bank and get back $4000, one would be a fool to not do it. A $10 million prize offered by a St. Louis group has stimulated $400 million in research and development since 1996. Equally important, the X-Prize accomplished in eight years what NASA considered impossible. The contest motivated Burt Rutan to build the world’s first privately funded spacecraft. Space Ship One went into space for the third time on October 4, 2004 to win the X-Prize.

Since X-Prize inception, twenty-four teams strove to be first to send three passengers to a 100 km altitude twice in two weeks. These privately-funded competitors have changed the perception of space. By reducing the cost of access, the X-Prize promises to open the door to many new space industries. In addition to tourism, we may soon see faster computer chips, perfect ball bearings, and time-release insulin manufactured in the zero gravity of space. Even more exciting possibilities are likely.

The concept of “inducement” prizes illustrated by the X-Prize is not new. In fact, prizes contributed significantly to the framework of early aviation. The most notable example is the prize that inspired Charles Lindbergh’s famous 1927 Atlantic crossing.

In 1714 the British Parliament sponsored a prize to solve the problem of calculating longitude. Isaac Newton proclaimed, “It is the only problem that ever made my head ache.” John Harrison, an English peasant, solved the longitudinal positioning puzzle by making advances in physics.

The effectiveness of inducement prizes is being noticed. The National Academy of Engineers was commissioned by Congress in 1999 to study the use of prizes to complement existing systems of contracts and grants. The commission recommended implementing inducement prizes for federal research. The Defense Department reacted with the DARPA Grand Challenge. The Challenge is designed to advance automated vehicle technology that may one day save the lives of military personnel. NASA’s Centennial Challenges Program will offer several “inducement” prizes.

Aerospace success with prizes is the tip of the iceberg. Prizes have proven to be useful due to their many inherent advantages. The astonishing leverage demonstrated in both dollars and time cannot be ignored. Additionally the X-Prize has served to demonstrate the viability of space markets. Twenty-four-teams-competing for the Prize shows that many believe in the future of space. X-Prize moved mental attitudes from “whether” to “when;” from doubt to certainty.

Prizes efficiently fund research and development because they automatically back the “winner,” rather than having to choose between contestants early in the process, as research grant awards must. In addition teams that do not win the prize may hold the technology that prevails in the market. The “Betamax” was first to the market, but VHS came to dominate the video tape market due to superior technology. It is evident by John Harrison’s successful quest for the Longitude Prize and shows that inducement prizes succeed partly because of non-traditional thinking. Harrison’s resume could not match Newton’s, but Harrison solved a question that stumped one of the world’s greatest intellects.

The ability to attract public attention can be another important benefit of inducement prizes. The public interest gained by X-Prize has helped to change public attitudes about space. The notion that space access should be a monopoly controlled by government has collapsed. Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic Airlines has contracted to purchase five space vehicles from Rutan for $100 million to be delivered by 2007. Similarly, within three years following Lindbergh’s flight, the number of airports in the United States doubled and airline passengers increased by 3000%.

Considering the enormous benefits of inducement prizes, the fact that they were largely forgotten for half a century is surprising. Modern famous prizes are more of the Nobel Prize kind. These are known as “recognition” prizes, because they recognize an after-the-fact occurrence. They award accomplishment, but do nothing to set the agenda. Inducement prizes focus great thinkers on problems that need solving and reward their achievement.

Many great creative geniuses await the challenge. Inducement prizes can provide the needed incentive to solve the worlds many waiting problems in energy, transportation, resources, and medicine. It is within our grasp to improve the quality of life for people everywhere. All that is needed are more aggressive efforts to employ the leverage that inducement prizes offer.

For more information read Independence Institute Issue Paper: Application and Administration of Inducement Prizes at http://i2i.org/articles/IP_11_2004.pdf.

Alex Schroeder is a graduate student at the Colorado School of Mines and works with the Colorado Energy Research Institute.

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute.

by Patrick Basham and Dennis Polhill

American representative government suffers from the handicap of a largely uncompetitive political system. American politics has fewer and fewer competitive elections. In arguing that political competition matters a great deal, this paper traces the increasing trend toward uncompetitiveness and details the role and nature of incumbency advantage in fostering an uncompetitive political system.

Current redistricting practices and campaign finance regulations, in tandem with publicly financed careerism, have significantly negative consequences for the health of the political system. This study analyzes several of the major instruments of campaign finance regulation, such as contribution limits, public financing, and the ban on soft money, in terms of their relationship to political competition. Simply put, campaign finance regulation and public financing have not improved political competition.

In the past, campaign finance restrictions and taxpayer-subsidized elections have generated unintended consequences. The most recent regulatory round is no exception to that rule. This study also looks at other reforms, namely, term limits and improvements to the redistricting process, in light of their comparatively successful record regarding political competition.

Changes in the manner in which districts are designed, campaigns are funded, and politicians are tenured require immediate implementation. In short, elected officials should be disconnected from campaign and election rule making and regulation. There will not be an improvement in political competition until the incumbent fox ends his tenure as guardian of the democratic henhouse.

Full Text of Policy Analysis no. 547 (PDF)

© 2005 The Cato Institute

By Dennis Polhill
The wealth Americans enjoy depends upon the efficient movement of goods and services.

When the Pennsylvania Turnpike opened between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, trip time halved. Suppliers suddenly had twice as many people to sell to. Consumers had twice as many purchasing options. Efficient transportation yielded benefits to both suppliers and consumers.

The same benefits accrue at the micro-level, proportionately smaller in scale. A new traffic signal that hastens traffic flow produces economic benefits. Similarly, one that hinders more than hastens, cause economic damage.

America’s transportation system is the envy of the world. Yet, managers have failed to keep pace with growth. The inevitable result, growing traffic congestion, imposes economic cost many times greater than the cost to eliminate it.

Users seem paradoxical in their willingness to pay for better service and in their simultaneous resistance to higher taxes. This apparent conflict frustrates political leaders who fail to recognize the consistency in the paradox. A coherent new policy has yet to crystallize.

Scholars from both the political left and right have been in agreement for at least two decades that transportation must move to market-based financing. Resistance to change is centered in the most powerful of special interest groups: the political class. Empowerment of markets or consumers means less power for politicians.

The Federal gas tax, scheduled to expire in 1972, was introduced in 1956 to finance construction of the Interstate Highway system. The Federal tax is currently at $0.184 per gallon. State taxes range from Georgia’s $0.075 to Wisconsin’s $0.321 with Colorado at $0.22.

This generates 40 billion Federal dollars annually and most of this money eventually finds its way back to the states in some form. There are no federally-owned highways, airports, railroads or transit systems. Colorado gets about 1.275%, but about 1/3 is diverted.

Since completion of interstate highway construction in 1982, Congress has turned the Federal gas tax into the nation’s most outrageous pork program. Reagan vetoed the 1982 transportation bill because it contained 10 earmarks. Historically, specific project designations in federal legislation were prohibited. There are currently 3,248 earmarks.

Colorado gasoline taxes fund the Highway User Trust Fund. HUTF revenues are shared between CDOT and nearly 400 Colorado local governments with roads. Three intractable trends are shrinking HUTF revenues: fuel economy, inflation, and diversion. Their combined effect may exceed 5% per year. This halves the HUTF every 15 years. The politician who advocates doubling taxes will have a short career. A different finance system is inevitable. The challenge is to conceive one that works better than the gas tax.

Gas tax user fees have two fatal flaws. Centralization of funds creates a target for special interest groups and political interests. More significantly, paying at the pump conveys the perception that system-use is free, causing a tragedy of the commons. That is, disproportionate numbers try to use the system at the same time, rush hour, resulting in system failure known as traffic congestion. This, in turn, motivates infrastructure to be unnecessarily enlarged. A close look at traffic count data reveals that the most congested roads are capable of moving twice as many vehicles.

Electronic toll collection has made tollbooths obsolete and facilitates variable tolls. ETC eliminates tollbooth accidents and reduces collection costs. Variable tolls vary with demand insuring that a lane is never congested. Never-congested lanes move more vehicles during peak periods than do congested lanes. Moving traffic consumes less fuel per mile traveled, reducing emissions. Excess revenue generation is a signal that more infrastructure may be needed and provides a funding source.

Prior to 1956 Eisenhower, who favored tolls and McDonald, his highway chief, who favored the gas tax, struggled to decide the future of transportation finance. The gas tax accelerated rapid development of a four million mile roadway network. A finance system that helps operate and maintain the existing system is now appropriate for the future.

Tolls are inevitable. Enlightened political leadership will work to educate the general public of the benefits by strategically located demonstration projects. As dependence on the gas tax decreases, those revenues can be reassigned to local governments to help address their funding shortfalls.

Dennis Polhill is a former City Public Works Manager, a Consulting Transportation Engineer and a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill

RTD’s FasTracks boondoggle is about much more than wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and the implementation of destructive policies. It is about increasing government control over people and redistribution of wealth. The damage caused by similar authoritarian policies has resulted in death and impoverishment for millions.

Philosopher Thomas Sowell notes, “…(leftists)… love to say things like, ‘We’re just asking everyone to pay their fair share.’ But government is not about asking. It is about telling. The difference is fundamental. It is the difference between making love and being raped, between working for a living and being a slave.” Joseph Sobran adds, “Today, wanting someone else’s money is called ‘need,’ wanting to keep your own money is called ‘greed,’ and ‘compassion’ is when politicians arrange the transfer.” Using words to mean other-than-their-meaning is demagoguery and serves to muddle the search for truth. Demagogues resort to spin when facts fail to support their biases. Coercive charity is not charity; it is Taliban-style tyranny. Morality has no merit when force replaces “free will.”

Socialism in all its forms is a failed philosophy. After Marx authored the Communist Manifesto in 1848, civilization was drawn hypnotically to Socialisms’ seductive false promises of plenty: “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Abraham Lincoln countered with yet-to-be-proven wisdom, “the poor cannot be made rich by making the rich poor.” But Lincoln’s assertion was hypothetical and lacked empirical evidence that would eventually follow. All of the world’s nations gravitated to Socialism over the subsequent century. Because the United States drifted more slowly, it became an island of wealth and prosperity; an aberration to the abject poverty that humans had suffered in perpetuity.

Had Lenin lived, the twentieth century might have ended differently. Only 5 years after the Russian Revolution he recognized Socialism’s failings and advocated a return to “limited capitalism.” Later that year a stroke denied Lenin the opportunity to act on his revelation.

Lenin’s successor lacked the courage and strength to avert peril. Socialism requires conformity. Stalin dealt with the nonconformists. In “Poisonous Power,” psychologist June Stephenson estimates that Stalin was responsible for 50 million deaths.

Another version of Socialism surfaced with Adolf Hitler’s, National Socialism. He said, “Let them own land and factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

Hitler’s preaching motivated fellow-Austrian and economics professor, Friedrich Hayek to confronted Socialist dogma in “Road to Serfdom.” Hayek pointed out that all forms of Socialism lead to authoritarian tyranny. Hayek elaborated, “Whoever talks about potential plenty (under socialism) is either dishonest or does not know what he is talking about. Yet it is this false hope as much as anything, which drives us along the road to planning.”

The second half of the twentieth century ratified the views of Lincoln, Lenin and Hayek. Korea and Germany serve as indisputable proof. In each case a pre-existing nation was divided with each part pursuing the opposite ideological path. With identical history, geography, culture, climate, customs, language, and ethnicity, Socialism resulted in every form of injury and imposition upon the respective populations; conversely Capitalism resulted in wealth, abundance, freedom and opportunity. Other examples provide corroboration: Eastern versus Western Europe; Red China versus the Asian Tigers; and the Post-Soviet-Union performance of its various pieces. Not a single feature of Socialism can be offered as superior. Therefore, discussions about a middle ground, or trade-offs, or optimizing, are rather futile.

The experience of the twentieth century proves that no version of Socialism works. Ongoing experimentation serves no constructive purpose. Because a mixture that is half-poison and half non-poison is still poison, there is no yet-to-be-discovered third way. A hybrid system that is part Socialism and part Capitalism cannot save this failed ideology. Alternative labels, such as “progressive” or “liberal” merely distract bystanders from gaining understanding.

The significant wealth in American society works to hide the injury done by Socialist institutions, such as RTD. Competition can and will improve regulatory-protected, tax-subsidized, State-controlled monopolies in education, transportation, and Social Security. When these institutions are de-socialized, decentralized and de-bureaucratized, Americans will be freer, wealthier and better served.

The future is clearly in the direction away from Socialism and toward more individual freedom and more individual empowerment.

(c)2004
The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536
www.independenceinstitute.org

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is the President of the Independence Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute.

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute
or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill, Orogdol Sanjaasuren

The 20th century gave witness to a Titanic ideological struggle between collectivism and property rights. The 1990s closed the century with dramatic events symbolizing the victory of freedom over tyranny. The Berlin Wall sought to contain East Germany’s population. Its fall in November 1989 signified colossal economic and political change. Every week another dictatorial regime fell. The Soviet Union ceased to exist on March 17, 1991. Newly Independent States (NIS) rushed to draft constitutions enumerating individual rights comparable to those of Western nations. But the declaration of rights and freedoms was insufficient to yield instant affluence. These NIS would suffer tragically, while struggling to make their economies serve their people. Collectivism had destroyed the fundamentals: property rights, rule of law, work ethic and incentives. In their place were oppressive regulations, burdensome taxes, and proliferation of black markets, graft and corruption. Some would suffer more than others. The differences are a product of political courage, wisdom and leadership. The comparative experiences of the NIS offer valuable lessons.

In little more than a decade after disintegration of the Soviet Union, Estonia has become one of the most economically free nations in the world. The Heritage Foundation 2004 Index of Economic Freedom rates the nations of the world and gives Estonia an index of 1.76 that ranks it as 6th behind Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Luxembourg and Ireland. The United States is ranked tenth. Estonia’s 1.4 million people enjoy a GDP/capita of $4,984. By contrast, the economies of other NIS, Moldova and Mongolia produce only $678/capita and $430/capita and are now known as the most impoverished nations in Europe and Asia respectively. By what means did Estonia create so much wealth: 7.3 times that of Moldova and 11.5 times that of Mongolia?

Estonian Prime Minister during six of these transition years, Mart Laar, credits three fundamentals: (1) “There can be no market economy and democracy without laws, clear property rights, and a functioning justice system;” (2) “be decisive about reforms and stick to them despite the short-term pain they bring;” (3) change the culture of socialism so that people think for themselves to make decision and take responsibility. Estonia became a free trade zone in 1992, abolishing all import tariffs. Also in 1992 all subsidies, support, and cheap loans to businesses were stopped, forcing them either “to die or to begin working efficiently.” With tax reform, “we had to make clear that if somebody works more and earns more, he will not be punished.” Taxes were decreased sharply and a flat tax was instituted. There is no tax on corporate income that is reinvested. “We realized quickly the danger of extensive reliance on aid” and adopted a “Trade, not aid” policy in 1993.

While the Heritage Foundation rates the Economic Freedom of the world’s nations annually, the Fraser Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis rate the comparative Economic Freedom of the American states and Canadian provinces. Even though these 60 sub-national governments equally enjoy some beneficial fundamentals, such as the rule of law, the differences are significant. For example, the top rated state scored an index of 8.2, while the 50th ranked state scored only 5.7. This translates to a wealth difference of $7,391/capita. A differential of 0.1 in the index represents a $295/capita wealth difference. Greater wealth is a magnet for both new jobs and new talent.

Colorado is tied for first place ranking with Delaware, South Dakota and Tennessee. However, the other three states are improving faster than Colorado. Unless Colorado commits to more aggressive policies favoring economic freedom, it will fall to 4th place or worse next year.

The structure of the index should not dictate Colorado policy. But, it may provide clues about where to improve. The index is composed of 10 variables that are combined into 3 areas that are then combined to yield the overall index. The three areas are: Size of Government; Takings and Discriminatory Taxation; and Labor Market Freedom. Colorado ranks among the top 5 states in all areas except “Takings and Discriminatory Taxation”, where Colorado comes in 15th. “Taxes that have a discriminatory impact and bear little reference to services received infringe on economic freedom.”

Some Colorado taxes are used disproportionately to redistribute wealth, rather than to recover the costs of government services from those who use them. Fewer taxes, lower taxes and less regulation would help create jobs and add to the wealth and freedom of Colorado citizens.

Communist politicians know something that American politicians have yet to grasp: governments must get smaller.

(c) 2004
The Independence Institute
14142 Denver West Parkway, Suite 185
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536
www.independenceinstitute.org

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is the President of the Independence Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute.

OROGDOL SANJAASUREN is a visiting scholar from Mongolia studying free market economics in the United States.

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill

Summary
By using the power of the market to help the T-REX project, congestion-free, free-flow traffic travel can be made available to both carpoolers and single occupant drivers. Further, $600 million can be pocketed by the state. By contrast, a decision to forego over a half billion dollars of desperately-needed transportation revenues will doom travelers to sit again in traffic congestion in the not-too-distant future.

T-REX

T-REX, the transportation improvement to I-25 through the Denver Technological Center, is due to be completed in 2006 and will provide the long overdue capacity enhancement to the corridor.

Scope
Before T-REX, three traffic lanes in each direction served the area. The project is currently estimated at $1.7 billion(1), with the construction cost split roughly equally(2) between adding one traffic lane and light rail in each direction. T-REX will improve 19.7 miles of corridor.

1999 Election

The two transportation modes were implicitly joined by the November 1999 election. Voters authorized light rail construction contingent upon the Regional Transportation District’s promise that the Federal government would cover at least 60 percent of the rail cost.

Entire Paper – It’s Not Too Late: To Avoid Congestion After T-REX (PDF)

1 “TREX Budget Tops $1.7 Billion,” by Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News, April 21, 2003.
2 “RTD estimates that the total cost of the rail project will be about $874 million.” Quoted directly from the 1999 voter guide, as written by RTD.

By Dennis Polhill, Tiffany Dovey

Anyone who’s ever had the misfortune of traveling on I-25, or rather, of
sitting in the parking lot otherwise known as Interstate-25, knows that as
you head from downtown to the Tech Center things go from bad to worse.
T-REX will add capacity. But, will the improvements increase mobility?

Before T-REX, three traffic lanes in each direction served I-25 through
the Tech Center. T-REX improvements add one traffic lane and light rail in
each direction for $1.7 billion. The November 1999 election authorized
rail on the condition that at least 60% of the cost be borne by the
Federal government. The highway portion is financed by debt called
Transportation Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS). By exhausting future
revenues for immediate projects, Colorado’s ability to address future
transportation needs has been hampered.

Will Tyrannosaurus Rex, the dinosaur predator, gobble up gridlock or feast
on taxpayers?

Colorado’s Highway Users Tax Fund gets 22 cents per gallon of gasoline to
finance the state’s 85,412 roadway miles. Another 18.4 cents goes to the
Federal government to finance Interstate highway construction. Since
completion of construction over a decade ago, Congress has used the funds
for items increasingly unrelated to the stated purpose. The remainder,
about 62%, eventually finds its way back to Colorado, but with strings.
Penalties are assigned for failure to adhere to Federal mandates, like the
$50,000,000 against Colorado for not lowering DUI blood alcohol limits to
0.08 percent.

Fuel economy and diversion of funds to projects that do not significantly
enhance mobility increasingly erode the ability of the gasoline tax to
finance transportation. HUTF strength will probably diminish by one-half
to three-quarters over the next 20 years. Politicians who advocate
comparable increases will quickly be out of office. What to do?

Is there an alternative to tax increases? Gas tax dependence should be
phased out and replaced with a better, more market-oriented user fee:
tolls. Because construction of the interstate system is finished, enormous
resource transfers between states is unneeded. The Federal gas tax can be
quickly and significantly reduced or reassigned to the states.

Rush hour traffic jams prove that the system has more value at some times
and flat rate tolls are inadequate. Variable rate tolls are effective at
allocating the scarce resource of available capacity. Before T-REX,
traffic counts show that 43% of the capacity was unused. The most
congested road in Colorado could have served nearly twice as many
vehicles. Adding one lane to three lanes increases capacity by 33%.
Because most light rail users are former bus riders, light rail does not
significantly help congestion. Given that I-25 traffic increases 2.6
percent per annum, growth will consume most of the new capacity before
T-REX opens.

How can variable tolls help? By making the new lane a restricted lane it
can be shared by high occupancy vehicles (HOV), bus rapid transit (BRT)
and others willing to pay a toll (thus, the term “high occupancy toll” or
HOT lane). As demand on the system changes, a variable toll rate is
displayed on a message board, allowing drivers to weigh the urgency of
their travel against the current toll. Varying the toll with demand,
insures that the road never becomes congested.

Tolls are a better user-fee than the gas tax because individuals
experience the cost for service at the time benefits are delivered. Under
the collectivist gasoline tax users who consume more of the system gain
disproportionate benefits at the expense of others. This phenomenon, known
as the “tragedy of the commons,” is avoided with variable tolls.

“Let Those Who Receive the Benefits Pay the Costs,” Independence Institute
Issue Paper 13-99 by Stephen R. Mueller and Dennis Polhill exhaustively
evaluated 22 possible configurations for I-25. The scenario being
constructed in T-REX would generate about $600 million after operating
expenses, if the new lane were a HOT lane.

By using the power of the market, congestion-free, free-flow travel is
also available to both carpoolers and single occupant drivers.

So, what are the options? Colorado can either proceed accepting that the
corridor will soon return to gridlock, or the new lane can be changed to a
restricted lane before it is opened. The restricted lane insures that
corridor users benefit because they will forever have a free-flow travel
option; Colorado gains a windfall of millions of dollars; and the corridor
benefits by moving more people more efficiently. Only in the political
world could this decision be tough.

Is the political control of transportation more important than allowing
users choice and providing higher service at lower cost?

###
Copyright 2003 The Independence Institute

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank.
It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax
exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic
growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and
Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is President of the Institute.

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute. Tiffany
Dovey is a graduate of the University of Washington and a summer intern at
the Independence Institute. This opinion editorial is a summary of a more
extensive discussion in Issue Backgrounder, soon to be posted on our
website IndependenceInstitute.org.

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the
views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any
election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted
provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill

As the possibility of a strike grew nearer, stronger threats against the Regional Transportation District union were made: contracts with private companies might weaken discipline, or break the unruly union. RTD union members missed an opportunity to declare independence. The RTD Board lost an opportunity to increase service and lower cost.

As demand for transit declined after WW II, privately owned trolleys became privately owned buses, and later turned into publicly owned buses. Enjoying the coercive power of government taxation and regulation, publicly owned bus systems passed laws prohibiting competition. Hundreds of sole proprietor suppliers, many racial minority entrepreneurs, were forced out of business to benefit government monopoly. This happened in Denver along with every other major city in the United States during the 1960s.

In spite of the controls, demand for transit continued to decline, requiring that the initially small tax subsidies regularly increase to the point that the average bus-user now pays less than one fourth of the cost of a trip. The nature of the service is that some smart guys in big offices decide where and when the buses will run and where and when they will stop for passengers. Users merely need to shape their lives to fit the schedule. To sustain non-competition, when a route is canceled, customers on these routes are prohibited from having service from any other provider. This Soviet-style command-and-control approach elevates costs and minimizes service.

In 1989, the Florida State legislature inadvertently decriminalized transit competition. Within months independent providers proliferated. To end the evil trend, corrective legislation was quickly passed and the criminals (again mostly racial minorities) were restrained and their vehicles impounded.

These service providers are called “jitneys.” Jitney is the same name used for providers prior to government monopoly. Jitney vehicles can be any size, but generally they are vans that run on semi-fixed routes and semi-fixed schedules. Consumers simply wave an arm to get a lift or to get off.

A 1992 Federal Transit Administration study captured some interesting facts. In Miami an estimated 400 jitney vehicles carried an average of 46,000 passenger-trips per day, approximately 25% of Metrobus ridership. Jitney fares were comparable to Metrobus fares at one dollar, but obviously enjoyed no tax subsidy. Thus, the one-dollar jitney fare covered all jitney costs.

About half of jitney-riders were former bus riders, amounting to about 12% loss in fare box revenue to Metrobus. But the other half were not former bus riders, meaning that close to 20,000 fewer automobiles were on the roads, decreasing traffic congestion and trip times, increasing mobility and decreasing auto-related air pollution.

Jitneys interfere less with normal traffic flow and do not cause excessive damage to pavement structures, as opposed to lumbering oversized, mostly-empty buses. For customers, route and schedule flexibility result in faster service, shorter waits, faster trips and delivery closer to destinations. Centrally controlled fixed-route, fixed-schedule transit can never match jitney service.

During the 1982 strike, carpooling caused traffic counts to go down slightly. Mobility is best measured by speeds. Fewer total vehicles and no buses interfering with traffic flow yielded a noticeable improvement in mobility.

A decentralized problem cannot be solved with a strategy of centralization. Both traffic congestion and mobility are decentralized problems.

A strike would have empowered both RTD and its union to depart from the norm. The union could have demanded a contract with more freedom for its drivers to suggest routes and/or stops, as well as the opportunity for small groups to separate from RTD to service specified routes as independent operators.

Odds are good that 2000 drivers have more knowledge of consumer needs than the smart guys in big offices. If so, then the consumer-friendliness of jitney services would be further enhanced.

By using jitneys temporarily during a strike, RTD would have had the opportunity to elevate service without increasing costs, simply by temporarily lifting the regulatory prohibition. As has happened in the past, leadership might also have come from the General Assembly as a directive to experiment with jitneys.

Lacking the opportunities offered by a strike, perhaps RTD and its union can cooperate to test the workability of a Miami-style system. In a willing community, RTD drivers should be free to provide independent service to that community. Obviously, RTD would waive regulatory prohibitions in that community. If jitneys work well in one area, other areas can be tried. With jitneys RTDs biggest problem might be figuring out how to consume $500 million every year.

###
Copyright 2003
Independence Institute

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is President of the Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL is a Senior Fellow at the Institute.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject can be found at: www.i2i.org

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill

The cost of traffic congestion exceeds the cost to eliminate it.

An ongoing project of the Texas Transportation Institute estimates traffic congestion annually. TTI calculated the cost to the U.S. economy at $68 billion in 2000. Because the cost is growing faster than the population, congestion is making Americans worse off. This is more than enough money to add an additional lane to every interstate highway in the United States in each direction. Less extreme proposals could instantly eliminate all traffic congestion. The reason traffic congestion exists is political.

Americans are patient and tolerant. We trust elected officials to be honest, conscientious and diligent; generally, they are. The time grows closer when tolerance for traffic congestion will cease. Perhaps the many failed tax measures in the November 2002 election are a sign of how thin patience is growing. To fix traffic congestion, systemic and political problems must be attacked at their roots.

First, transportation finance is collectivized. Taxes are put into a big pot so smart guys can do the right project in the right place at the right time. The theory sounds good, but the Soviet model has failed miserably in every trial. Expecting a different result is a triumph of hope over experience. Wise public policy recognizes this failing and seeks to decentralize by employing market-driven incentives.

Second, because the bosses of the smart guys are politicians, transportation inevitably becomes politicized. Colorado politicians have determined that nearly 60% of Denver-metro transportation funding over the next 20 years will go to transit. This outlay is expected to increase transit’s market share from 1.53% to 2.23% of total trips. This policy means that traffic congestion and mobility will become much worse. The politicization of transportation leads to the misapplication of limited resources.

Third, the Transportation Industrial Complex, the contractors, consultants, suppliers and bureaucrats, whose unchallenged survival hinges on sustaining the status quo, resists change. Combined with the demagoguery of special interest groups and government agencies, not bound by service or truth, this Complex Plus makes up a formidable political force.

Fourth, some interests intend harm. Injury to consumers, taxation, mobility, environment and economy are “collateral damage” to their mission. Ray Barnhart, former head of the Federal Highway Administration, reflected recently on his 1991 recommendation to President Bush to veto Federal transportation legislation, “if ISTEA becomes law politics, not engineering principles will determine. Congress has given official standing (to groups) not interested in transportation per se, but rather in gaining control of transportation programs in order to require a social agenda.”

There is hope! Reform comes as a byproduct of catastrophe. “A transportation crisis is brewing. Commerce will snarl, costing billions,” said the November 27, 2002 Kiplinger Letter. By 2009 there will be a “12% slower average road speed and about a 10% increase in the average delay.”

Tax subsidies to institutions yield bigger, more bureaucratic, less accountable, and less efficient institutions. Conversely, subsidies to individuals, when appropriate, empower consumers, and create accountability, choice, market growth, competition, lower prices, and innovation. Proof is in the success of the food stamp and G.I. Bill programs.

When groups such as the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council of the Democratic Party, begin to suggest that, “Our nation’s surface transportation system is broken” and fixes must “harness market forces,” then a convergence of thought has begun. If the contemplative elements of both the left and right concur, but the politicians continue to refuse to lead, then is this because solution might diminish their importance?

Certainly, when projects like converting the I-25 High Occupancy Vehicle lanes to High Occupancy Toll lanes (mandated in 1999 by Andrews’ Senate Bill 88) would do no injury, while relieving some traffic congestion and raising revenue, are stalled for years by governments, their true agenda is revealed. Is the stalling-benefit that RTD and the Federal Transit Administration perceive, that a cheap and functional method of solving traffic congestion without tax increases might jeopardize their goal of more taxes and bigger bureaucracies?

Government monopoly of transportation is failing. The sooner this failure is recognized, the sooner leaders can implement innovative systems to increase mobility, job growth, and commercial viability. Those who seek to diminish mobility, strive for the impossible and the undesirable.

The “transportation choice” movement has started. As the term “transportation choice” becomes part of the lexicon, intelligent debate over how to implement and balance the wide variety of alternative possibilities will commence. Let the debate over “transportation choice” begin.

###
Copyright 2003
The Independence Institute

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is President of the Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject can be found at: http://www.i2i.org

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill, Matthew Edgar

The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) recently updated its Metro Vision 2020 Regional Transportation Plan. Although their transportation agenda is not directly stated, hints are revealed in their rhetoric. One stated mission is to offer a ‘variety of travel opportunities.’ As with all rhetoric this is a nice and non-agitating statement that no one would readily disagree with. But what does it really mean? A close look at their report reveals facts seen by few and understood by fewer.

Travel Demand

(Person Trips)

DRCOG predicts a 48% increase in travel demand by 2020 in the Denver Metro area:

Source: DRCOG Metro Vision 2020, Regional Transportation Plan, page 107

Transportation Investment

(Billions of Dollars)

DRCOG inventoried all sources and applications of transportation funding through 2020 and discovered that $9.63 billion of $16.93 billion (58.9%) will go to mass transit (buses and light rail). The rest of DRCOG’s money will go to all other forms of transportation, including, among other things, roads, bike paths, and sidewalks.

Source: DRCOG Metro Vision 2020, Regional Transportation Plan, page 107

Market Share

(Percent)

DRCOG predicts that mass transit’s share of all trips will grow from 1.53% to 2.23% in 2020, meaning that transit will accommodate just 4.04% of the new trips. Thus, if DRCOG’s numbers are accurate the benefit of applying 59% of transportation funding to mass transit will be a 0.7% increase in mass transit’s market share.

Source: DRCOG Metro Vision 2020, Regional Transportation Plan, page 101.

Summary and Conclusion

DRCOG’s ‘transit plan’ will nearly double severe freeway congestion by 2020. How can such a plan be acceptable? Is it because DRCOG dictates a single view, as NO information is provided in their plan about costs, benefits, or critical analysis of potential competing alternatives that might offer more mobility at less expense? DRCOG’s approach is like saying, ‘I like blue.’ The statement reveals nothing about green, yellow, or red.

DRCOG’s failure to offer analysis of other alternatives, which can compete with each other on the basis of costs and benefits, raises serious doubts about DRCOG’s objectivity, allowing pro-transit ideologues and pro-transit lobbyists to use the power of government to force their preconceived (and ill-conceived) agenda upon others and upon the political process.[1]

Copyright 2002, Independence Institute

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is President of the Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL is a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute.

MATTHEW EDGAR is a Research Associate with the Independence Institute.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject can be found at:

http://independenceinstitute.org/Centers/Transportation/index.htm

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

[1] Additional detail is available in Independence Institute Opinion Editorial, ‘Colorado’s Anti-Transportation Policy’, by Dennis Polhill, September 20, 2000

Copies of DRCOG’s MetroVision 2020 report are available from DRCOG, 2480 W. 26th Ave., Suite 200B, Denver, CO 80211.

By Dennis Polhill

The Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” Since 1990 Americans have sought to “alter” an out-of-control government by imposing new limits: term limits.

Other limits proposed include tax and expenditure limits, balanced budget limits, campaign finance limits and others. Forty-one state Constitutions prohibit omnibus bills. Omnibus bills, also called “Christmas Tree” bills, are those that append unrelated provisions (read: payoffs) in order to attract enough votes to pass. They offer a little something for everyone, but end up authorizing things that lack merit — bad public policy. Omnibus bills make virtually everyone worse off, except politicians. Acknowledging this flaw, the original Confederate constitution, with comparatively few departures from the U.S. Constitution, prohibited omnibus bills. If omnibus prohibition or term limits or other ideas are worthy, by what mechanism are they to be achieved? “Alter” infers a means for achieving alteration, short of revolution or creating an entirely new document.

A written constitution defines the structure of government and specifies the limits under which it may operate, partially in the form of enumerated individual rights. That is, we the people delegate limited powers to be governed by. Laws are conformity agreements between all citizens negotiated by representatives. Constitution limits government. Statutes are the rules for the people.

Thus, legitimacy is ascertained by who a Constitutions owner is; irrespective of the quality contained within, who controls the amendment process? If a government controls the amendment process, then the government owns the document, not the sovereign people. This problem is evident in fledgling democracies all over the world. They draft Constitutions, copying provisions of others, but rarely come to grips with the notion that the people are sovereign, not the state.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution addresses the amendment process. Three-quarters of the states must agree to ratify a proposed amendment. The control question hinges on drafting proposed amendments. Most familiar is drafting proposed amendments in Congress, because all 27 amendments originated via this path. Congress can effectively draft the proposal when there is a national consensus and no conflict of interest. However, limits on Congressional power, such as term limits, are conflicts of interest. Like a first-grader setting his own bedtime, Congress is paralyzed.

Aware of the problem, the Founders included a second path for drafting proposals: “two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” Since 1787 there have been about 400 applications from 49 states, including Colorado. Congress has neglected to define the rules that would either convene or govern a convention. After all, Congress would lose power if a convention occurred. Constitutional scholars are divided over interpreting the 400 convention applications and it is likely that someone will file suit to clarify the situation. Is it proper that Congress may frustrate efforts to set Congressional limits merely because Congress has neglected to set the rules? Should dereliction of duty be rewarded by empowerment?

Interestingly, the widely supported proposals for new limits originate from the left, the right and the center, suggesting a very broad and growing awareness of the need for new Congressional limits.

Some defend Congressman Tancredos betrayal of his word with “unilateral disarmament.” Meaning: with seniority Colorado will more effectively rip off other states using the corrupt omnibus system. For Colorado to win, other states must lose. This reasoning was rejected overwhelmingly in 1990 when Colorado became the first and only state to impose term limits on its Congressional delegation. Sixteen other states agreed in 1992. Colorado reaffirmed statewide support for Congressional term limits in 1994, 1996, and 1998.

Now the politicians hope that interest in term limits has faded. The statewide 65:35 vote against lifting District Attorney term limits proves otherwise. A Rocky Mountain News poll in mid-October discovered 62% support for term limits, virtually the same level as the 1990s. Support for term limits will not fade merely because politicians declare it so, or because they deceptively delete part of the Colorado Constitution under a false ballot title, or because they fail to exercise leadership and are unresponsive or lack accountability.

Did voters send Tom Strickland a term limits message when he appeared on the ballot as the only one of five U.S. Senate candidates who did not support term limits? Pundits and pollsters have thus far failed to offer an explanation for Allards surprise victory.

Arrogant politicians should be cautious in their contempt for term limits. How likely is it that Americas political establishment can continue to succeed in denying the peoples will? We, the people, patiently, but eagerly, await political leaders who will provide the kind of government we wish. The longer they dawdle, the more this is a measure of power and control without merit, and an indication of the need for possible further limitations to be placed on the politicians.

###
Copyright 2002, Independence Institute

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is President of the Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL is a SENIOR FELLOW with the Independence Institute.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject can be found at: www.i2i.org

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

Decision 2002: Referendum D Yes: Get Rid of Outdated Laws

By Jerry Kopel Almost everyone agrees: Get rid of dead and obsolete laws. For the past 14 years, I’ve taken on the Herculean task of cleaning out the Colorado stables.

And I’ve been successful in spearheading the removal of many dead and obsolete statutes and constitutional sections.

This year, Referendum D, sponsored by Sen. Dave Owen and Rep. Tambor Williams, both Republicans, removes 12 obsolete constitutional sections. No one minds removing 11 of the 12 sections. David Ottke and Dennis Polhill of the Colorado Term Limits Coalition object to repealing their 1996 term-limits amendment.

Their amendment required federal and state legislators to vote exactly as they were told to place a term-limit amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Raise your hand when you’re not supposed to, or be in the restroom when a vote is taken, and you would be branded on the ballot as having “disregarded voter instruction on term limits.”

“No way,” wrote the Colorado Supreme Court, seven to zip. “No way” wrote the. U.S. Supreme Court, nine to zip on the same boilerplate language from Missouri. Both ruled the language violated Article 5 dea1ing with amending the U.S. Constitution. Freedom to debate and voting your conscience are essential in a republic, wrote the courts. The coalition doesn’t deny the court decisions. They argue “we wuz robbed” when the legislature voted on Referendum D.

They explain, “The term-limit repeal wasn’t in the bill title,” but they fail to mention that none of the 12 repealed sections appear in the title. The legislative drafting office drafts the title. They concentrate on the word “obsolete” and tie it to constitutional articles where the sections appear.

After the bill title, a one-page bill summary describes the repealed sections. In this case, “A congressional term limit amendment held unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1998.” Some legislators don’t read bills. Almost everyone reads a one-page bill summary. Probably everyone read this bill summary except the Colorado Term Limits Coalition. The legislature voted 100 to zip for Referendum D.

The coalition complains, “It was introduced near the end of the session.” The constitution only allows the legislature to amend six articles every two years. Dumping obsolete sections had to wait until 16 substantive amendment bills were decided. Then Referendum D was introduced.

The coalition claims, “It wasn’t discussed in committee,” How would they know? They weren’t there. I testified in the House and Senate committees and discussed the term-limit repeal. All legislators there voted for Referendum D.

The coalition whines, “Why pick on us and not other unconstitutional amendments?” We repeal six pages, of which the term-limit language is one and a half.

The coalition argues, “Some court in the future might rule in our favor.” Well, the word “obsolete” has legal meaning: “That which is no’ longer used, disused, neglected, not observed.” The term-limit amendment fits each of those definitions.

The coalition claims, “The proposal eliminates the will of the people (on term limits).” Repeal of every constitutional amendment since 1876 does that, whether it’s refusing persons who engage in duels to be legislators, or ending civil service bonus points to Spanish-American War veterans.

Jerry Kopel is a retired state representative. He lives in Denver.

NO: Term limits not obsolete

By Dennis Polhill

Politicians eagerly assert that term limits are obsolete. They aren’t. The zeal of these tricksters illustrates bias and underscores the merits of term limits.

Haven’t the people said repeatedly (1990, 1994 1998 and 1998 in Colorado and in 23 other states) that they want term limits for politicians — especially Congress? Subversive and dishonest Referendum D seeks to delete the people’s directive that elected officials implement congressional term limits. Both the ballot title and the Blue Book are controlled by legislators and add to the deception by failing to properly inform voters.

When the U.S. rejected monarchy, we embraced the idea that we the people, are sovereign. Doesn’t this mean that government is created by and for the people? Neither politicians nor courts are superior. Those who view things differently undermine the foundation of self-government.

The term-limits issue is neither left nor right; it is the people versus the rulers. Americans intuitively grasp the inconsistency of lifelong officeholders. Though politicians don’t get it, the people do. We reject both monarchy and near-monarchy.

Polls show overwhelming support for term limits. The movement wanes only in that the political establishment is neither responsive nor accountable.

Citizens of 26 states are denied the right to petition their governments. Just as the move for women’s suffrage motivated the expansion of initiatives and referendums, the clamor for term limits is likely to do the same. The notion that the political establishment can frustrate the people’s will in a free and open society is absurd and cannot be allowed to prevail.

The contempt politicians hold for term limits influences their judgment of “obsolete provisions.” Obsolete items should be deleted. The list waiting a turn for deletion raises priority questions. Why the rush to delete a comparatively new law initiated by grueling statewide citizen petition drive in 1996? Their urgency to delete suggests that term limits are NOT obsolete after all. There is NO harm in retaining obsolete items; however, deleting non-obsolete items causes substantial harm. The cautious and informed vote on D is ”NO!”

The tricksters’ desperate and hostile actions provide compelling evidence of the effectiveness and importance of term limits for positive political change. For what other reason would politicians object so strongly?

Politicians control the ballot. If term limits have waned and men deletion, why not an honest ballot title saying “Delete Term Limits?” Why not use the Blue Book as a means of presenting pro and can arguments to help inform voters? Their success depends upon trickery. Voters would never agree, if told the truth.

Just like the unfaithful spouse, once the General Assembly has lowered itself to the use of misleading tactics, can we never trust them again? Must we the people forever doubt their integrity and sincerity? The Colorado General Assembly has proven itself cowardly and dishonest.

The deception and dishonesty of D demands that even those few people who still doubt the benefits of term limits must vote “NO.” Don’t allow Halloween trickster to play games.

More information about term limits is available at www.coloradotermlimits.org or 303-278-3636.

Don’t be duped by a deceptive title. Vote NO on D.

Dennis Polhill is co-chairman of the Colorado Term Limits Coalition.

By Dennis Polhill

Professional politicians hate term limits. Their actions in 2002 reveal how much.

Voters know that term limits are most needed for the U.S. Congress. Colorado’s 1990 term limits initiative spawned nationwide clamor, because it included Congressional Term Limits. By 1994 twenty-three states, all but New Hampshire by citizen initiative, had term-limited their state’s Congressional delegation. In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court said that Congressional Term Limits required a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Also in 1995, the Republican controlled Congress proved by its hypocritical and manipulative handling of their “Contract with America” that Republican politicians are no more supportive of term limits than Democrat politicians and that politicians of all flavors must be forced if the will of the people was to be implemented. This is the genesis of Colorado’s “Congressional Term Limits Amendment” approved 1996.

Knowing that politicians would resist, the CTLA instructed all elected officials to do all in their power to achieve Congressional Term Limits, stated the exact language of the U.S. Constitutional Amendment, and implemented a means to inform voters about the actions of their elected officials. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that elected officials could not be held accountable by this mechanism. The United States Supreme Court also ruled the enforcement mechanism to be unconstitutional in a case from another state.

The Colorado Supreme Court may have declared CTLA as a whole to be unconstitutional, but the statements it contains that term limits are the will of the people, can neither be overruled nor should they be ignored or deleted.
Yet not a single Colorado state or federal legislator has made any effort to follow CTLA’ s term limit instructions. Their refusal-to-act displays a high level of arrogance and contempt toward their constituents.

State legislator term limits swept out dozens of lifelong politicians in 1998 replacing hundreds of years of myopic Capitol dome experience with hundreds of years of experience of many kinds from the outside world. Legislation is no worse than before and occasional glimmers of innovative policy leadership fuel hope. But politicians are still politicians and though many of the newcomers might not have had the opportunity to serve for decades, they exhibit no more loyalty for term limits than their careerist predecessors. That politicians should stay in office forever is sheer dictatorial reasoning. Such reasoning is blatantly undemocratic and has been long-settled by the pro-term limits votes of 1990, 1994, 1996, and 1998.

In the 2002 legislative session, legislators decided that the CTLA was an “Obsolete Provision.” This will appear on the November ballot as Referred Measure “D.” During the last week of the session it cleared both Houses unanimously in a week. Duped legislators have expressed remorse for having been deceived. Had there been opportunity for public testimony, two-thirds votes would have been unlikely. The House Sponsor had to be convinced that deletion of CTLA was included in obsolete provisions and initially promised to take aggressive actions to stop it.

Generally the deletion of obsolete provisions is reserved for truly obsolete items; things that have fulfilled their purpose. When the Denver Post commented about Measure “D,” they wrote about items that had been obsolete since 1902, but failed to mention the 1996 initiative. If there is any question about obsolescence, then that information should be made known to the public. To do otherwise is deception. An honest title would be “Deletion of Congressional Term Limits.”

Supposedly there is a long list of obsolete items waiting to be deleted. If this is true then, why is a 1996 initiative at the top of the list? There must be a hidden agenda.

The Blue Book’s (voter information guide) reputation of objectivity is in jeopardy. Staff refused to allow any information to go to voters about the CTLA. Complaints are adjudicated by a committee of legislators; is there a little conflict of interest in this process?

The misguided attempt to delete the CTLA exposes the need for numerous legislative reforms: deceptive titles should be banned; limits should be installed on the last weeks of the legislative session; who controls legislature output deserves a look, since legislators evidently do not; Blue Book information that goes to voters is suspect; a mandatory mechanism of insuring testimony from informed parties is needed. Obfuscations aid those who wish to manipulate election outcomes, but injure the search for truth.

###
Copyright 2002, Independence Institute

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is President of the Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL is a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute .

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject can be found at: www.i2i.org

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representative democracy is a system of government whereby citizens rule the government through chosen representatives. In the U.S. representatives increasingly choose those they will represent, as elections tend to be predetermined by gerrymandering.

Originally the states decided their system of representation. At-large representation and single member districts have been the most common. Mixed representation systems and multi-member districts have been used. Only single-member equal population districts have existed since implementation of the 1962 Baker v. Carr U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The “one person, one vote” reasoning corrected outrageous population disparities among districts.

The U.S. House of Representatives with 65 members in 1788 grew to 435 members in 1910 and has stayed at 435. The U.S. Constitution requires that these be “apportioned” among the states based on population following the census. Congress must pass an apportionment statute each decade defining its number of members and the method of apportioning them among the states. Twelve U.S. House seats moved from one state to another to adjust for population changes after the 1990 census and again after the 2000 census.

The début of opposing political parties introduced the motivation for gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is named for the 1812 Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, who “packed” political opponents to yield more representatives for his party. By “packing” and/or “diluting” the opposition, the gerrymander exaggerates the influence of his ideological allies.

Proof that gerrymandering is active is overwhelming and indisputable. The surprise is how openly and with such great pride gerrymanders tout their work. The redistricting done in 2001 and 2002 will predetermine most election outcomes in the U.S. (particularly at the state and federal levels) for the next decade or more.

The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s was the impetus for finally achieving equal population districts. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 required the creation of majority-minority districts. This has resulted in a greater number of minority elected officials. But evidence is surfacing that the ability of minorities to influence policy may be diminished by pro-minority gerrymandering.

The U.S. has always had a two party system; but it has not always been “closed” to third party challenges. Third parties regularly challenged the two parties with new ideas and occasionally displaced one of them. The advent of ballot access restrictions, beginning in 1888 has insured that the two parties cannot now be similarly challenged. This leads to an unhealthy complacency, stagnation of ideas, and lack of accountability for both parties and does injury to American democracy.

Turnover, as measured by the number of freshmen members, in the U.S. House has been as high as 74% in 1842, but has declined steadily to the current level of less than 10%. Subtracting turnover due to death, health, scandal, and indictment, leaves only 1% to 2% turnover due to election defeats. The U.S. Congress has become an aristocracy. Nearly 80% of U.S. House races nationwide are won with an overwhelming landslide (a victory margin in excess of 20%).

At the state level the problem is equally bad. Of the roughly 6000 state legislative seats elected every two years nationwide about 40% are so “safe” that one of the two parties declines to offer an alternative candidate. Profound insight and wisdom are not required to accurately predict the vast majority of state and federal election outcomes.

The trend to more gerrymandering should be no surprise. Lacking counterbalancing reforms, the introduction of powerful computers, extensive demographic databases and computer mapping tools, the gerrymander is executing his task with increasing skill and precision. More clear-cut abuses are forcing the courts to be more actively involved to moderate gerrymandering extremism. The barrage of post-1992 lawsuits will be eclipsed this election cycle.

The courts should not be the source for political leadership and reform. Judicial activism diminishes both the stature of the judiciary as well as the other branches of government. However, most political leaders acquiesce to their obvious conflict of interest. Perhaps the most viable path to cure gerrymandering abuses and to reform the redistricting process is via the exercise by citizen-statesmen’s of the initiative petition process in the states.

Redistricting can be improved by removing control from politicians and using rigid objective redistricting criteria, such as equal population, continuity and compactness.

INTRODUCTION

“It used to be the voters chose the politicians,” said Rep. Tom Davis. “Now the politicians choose the voters.”[1] Technology has introduced a new era. One thing proven by the 2000 presidential election in Florida is that things will never be the same. Systems that worked adequately in the pre-technology era are ineffective for the new world. Those reluctant to embrace new technology are doomed to be manipulated by it. With respect to how we elect representatives we are already there.

The introduction of every new technology brings with it the opportunity to use it for good or ill. Thus far computing abilities, married with Geographic Information Systems and Census Bureau DIME files and TIGER files have been a boon to the gerrymander. It is time to rethink the relevance of districts and the decision-criteria for creating redistricts so the powers of these new technologies can be used to improve rather than injure self-government.

SELF GOVERNMENT
Democracy – Democracy is a form of government in which a substantial proportion of the citizenry directly or indirectly participates in ruling the state.[2] Under indirect democracy citizens elect officials to represent them. The word democracy is derived from the Greek words demos (”the people”) and kratia (”rule”). All citizens, rich and poor, participated equally in the Athenian direct democracy. However, only 10% of the people qualified as citizens; the remainder were minors, women, slaves, and foreigners. The Greek democracies eventually fell to imperial rule.

Rome developed representative democracy for a time with popular assemblies called “comitia,” in which the citizens met to elect officials and make laws. The comitia lost their power first to the aristocratic Roman Senate[3] and ultimately to emperors. Interest in democratic institutions was overshadowed by the need for security during the Dark Ages, yielding to rigid systems of feudalistic and monarchical government. Democratic ideas did not reappear on a significant scale until the 17^th century. Over the centuries, councils of knights, church clergy and feudal lords advised their kings. At first council was mandated by the king; later they claimed advisory powers to their kings; and eventually they asserted themselves as representative bodies. The Baronial Council with its genesis from Magna Carta in 1215 eventually evolved over hundreds of years into the British Parliament.

The modern understanding of democracy is that citizens are sufficiently free in speech and assembly to form competing political parties and voters are able to choose among them in regularly held elections. All modern democracies outside of Europe and North America are products of the 20^th century. Although most governments now call themselves democratic, many unaccountable political leaders dictate: “in the name of the people.”

Representation – Representation, in politics, is the type of democracy by which one person stands or acts on behalf of a larger number of individuals in formulating the policies and operations of a government.[4] Direct democracy is awkward and impractical. As people become more democratically enlightened, more peaceful and government functions become more devolved, opportunities for greater citizen participation will increase. Forms of democracy that exercise representation, indirect democracies, are called Republics. Republics that are too far removed or otherwise fail to represent the interests of their constituents may not work well. The inadequacy of colonial representation in the British parliament was a contributing factor to the American Revolution.

The notion of representation is complicated by two diametrically opposite views of the representative’s duty. The Thomas Hobbes view is that representatives are empowered by their election; unlimited in their subsequent authority to act. On the other hand, the Jean Jacques Rousseau view is that representatives must articulate the views of constituents; limited by the people’s will. Is representation defined by initial authorization or by final accountability? In the real world elected officials display a mix of both philosophies. The extent to which a given personality gravitates more to one extreme is reflected in their actions. Generally citizens are content to yield great latitude to their elected officials. When persistent excess is evident, citizens set new limits, such as the taxpayer revolts of the 1980’s and 1990’s that resulted in tax and spending limitations in many states and took the nation as near to a Federal constitutional convention as did woman’s suffrage and direct election of U.S. Senators.

Another controversy relates to when the representative should decide against the wishes of his constituents because of superior knowledge, enlightened perspective or refined judgment. A large number of elected officials are as content to dictate when they know little, as when they know much. Politicians and political institutions are not only reluctant to change; they are resistant it. The thought of them reforming themselves is a fantasy. They do not exercise leadership to invent mechanisms of improved governance. There is not a single issue that at least a few citizen-constituents could not add to the knowledge of their representatives. Yet, systems to incorporate citizen-knowledge into policy lag. Is there no will to improve governance?

Effective Representation – All forms of democracy give a voice to the majority. The challenge is how to effectively provide a reasonable voice to every minority. Fundamental individual rights are enumerated in and are protected by the Constitution. Ensuring that minority voices are considered during policy making is another matter. Majorities sometimes impose unfair burdens upon a minority. This problem is most grievous when the state involves itself in policies of redistribution and of rewarding the worthy through a modern pork-barrel spoil system. To consider the extent and implications of spoils upon representation, the role of constitutional protections to individuals, the ultimate minority in any society, or the proper role and size of government in society is outside the scope of this analysis.

Monolithic Constituencies – Constituencies are not monolithic. People are different and view issues differently. People who agree on one issue do not necessarily agree when the issue changes. The two political parties preserve control by perpetuating the myth that people view issues monolithically: “If you don’t agree with me on this, then you must agree with them on everything.” The form precludes that you might actually think and have unique perspectives that permit you rationally to possess a variable set of ideas, change your mind, or even oppose both party-lines. As society grows more complex, issues become increasingly multidimensional and less bipolar. When there are many perspectives, the number of minority views increases dramatically. Because the number of issues is very large and the different ways people see them is also large, the number of minority views is nearly infinite.

HISTORY OF U.S. REPRESENTATION
The Evolution of Districts – Four states did not have Congressional Districts in 1788 when the first Congress was elected. All members of the U.S. House from these states were elected at-large from their respective state. At-large means, everyone votes for each Congressional seat. If a sharply dividing issue defined the election of Pennsylvania’s eight Representatives, all eight seats might be captured by the 51% side. This effectively leaves 49% of the population without representation.

Single Member Districts – A step in the direction of curing the problem of minority representation was to create smaller geographic districts. Though it is not specified in the Constitution, the Founders intended that states would create districts. Geographic districts do not necessarily insure minority representation. All of Pennsylvania’s seats could be won by the 51% if they were uniformly distributed over the entire geography or if district boundaries were artfully gerrymandered to capture or exclude pockets of voters. Without gerrymandering the randomness of concentrated pockets of minority voting interest would allow large minority interests to achieve a majority in some geographic districts. The first Federal mandate of single-member districts came in the Apportionment Act of 1842.[5]

Creating districts was a prerogative of the respective state. Conformity and consistency among the states evolved slowly. By the time of the 1790 election, ten of fifteen states had created geographic districts (two states had a single representative and three states elected representatives at-large). County boundaries were sacrosanct; the notions of equal-population, continuity, and compactness had not yet been conceived.

At-Large Districts – The trend from at-large elections was slow. At least one state elected all of its representatives at-large through the election of 1862. In the 53 elections between 1864 and 1968 one or more states elected all of its representatives at-large in 36 (68%) elections. No state with multiple representatives has elected representatives at-large since 1968. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s resulted in a barrage of court rulings and Federal legislation that changed districting forever, mandating single-member districts and equal population on the grounds of “one person, one vote.”[6] Hawaii was the last state to use an at-large Congressional election in 1968; New Mexico used it in 1966. Redistricting difficulties produced concerns that Oklahoma would be forced to return to at-large elections in 2002.[7]

Mixed Representation – Sometimes states chose to have both a number of geographic Congressional Districts as well as other representatives elected at-large. In 1862 Illinois became the first state to mix geographic and at-large representation with thirteen geographic Congressional Districts and one seat at-large. Nine other states mixed representation after the 1870 census.[8] Indifference to equal population allowed redistricting to be bypassed. Because there was no Congressional reapportionment after the 1920 census, only four of 48 states did any Congressional redistricting prior to the 1922 election. When additional Congressional seats were apportioned to a state, the need to redistrict was sometimes postponed or skipped altogether by electing the additional seat(s) at-large. The number of at-large seats nationwide regularly spiked up in the election following the census reapportionment year and diminished in subsequent elections as redistricting was achieved. Had Utah prevailed in 2002 to capture a North Carolina’s seat, the additional seat could have been an at-large seat.[9] Similar problems arose after the 1990 census when a Federal court stuck down Florida’s 3^rd Congressional District as excessively racially gerrymandered. As a quick fix one suggestion was to revert to the pre-census districts and to make the additionally apportioned four congressional seats at-large statewide.[10]

Internal At-Large Districts – Another approach used was internal at-large districts, sometimes called multi-member or plurality districts. A state with several representatives designated an area as a single district with a number of seats. This was first done in 1792. Massachusetts divided its fourteen seats into three Congressional Districts; two with four and one with two representatives; one representative was at-large statewide. Maine was part of Massachusetts in 1792 and was treated as a single district with three internal at-large representatives.[11] Massachusetts went to fourteen single-member Congressional Districts in 1794. In 1796 Pennsylvania made eleven single-member districts and one two-member district. After the 1800 census Pennsylvania was apportioned eighteen representatives, redistricted into eleven districts: seven were single-member; one was two-member; and three were three-member districts. Maryland also placed two of its nine representative in a two-member district. New York experimented with six two-member districts after the 1810 census. After 1830 the practice declined and it ceased after 1840.

Apportionment – Apportionment is the process whereby the members of the U.S. House are allocated among the states. “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states … according to their numbers.”[12] The number of Representatives and the method of apportionment are not specified. Thus, there is an Appropriation Law approved by Congress in association with each census. It specifies the number of Representatives, the method of apportioning them among the states and the number each state shall receive. The size of the U.S. House changed regularly until reaching 435 members in 1910. The size of the House increased to 437 members when Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1958 but returned to 435 after the next census. Congress must choose from five known methods to apportion its members among the states. The Huntingdon Method has been used since 1950.[13] It first assigns one seat to each state and then distributes the remaining 385 seats. Although there has not been great controversy over this step, there is some. Utah contended in 2002 in a Supreme Court challenge that Congress erred in apportioning to the states and that Utah should have received a 4^th seat that was mistakenly assigned to North Carolina.[14] The court ruled against Utah.

THE EXPERIMENT IN SELF GOVERNMENT

Republican Form – The Founders determined to “guarantee to every State a Republican Form of Government.[15]” This meant first that no state could have a monarchy; and secondly, of the many types of democracy conceivable, one that employed some form of elective representation was required. The specific design of a state’s “republican form” would be addressed outside of the U.S. Constitution. How many state representatives would there be; how would the representatives be chosen; how many branches and houses would there be; what qualifications might be there be for office; what would be the degree of and means of accountability; how would authority be granted or limited; what would be the state’s scope of responsibility; how much staff support would there be; what would be their compensation; what would be their privileges of office, and so on?

Initial Representation – Representation in the U.S. House shall be recalculated every ten years after the census beginning in 1790.[16] With no census data in 1787, the Founders agreed to 65 Representatives for the First Congress apportioned among the states as follows in Table 1.
Table 1

U.S. REPRESENTATIVES PRIOR TO THE FIRST CENSUS

Apportionment Ratio – The U.S. House would now have over 9500 members, if the ratio of one Representative to each 30,000 of population were still used. But the Constitution says, “at least 30,000,”[17] which gives Congress the authority to adjust its number of members. Fear of loss of influence because of heavy immigration and rural to urban migration motivated rural interests to stall the 1920 apportionment legislation for nearly a decade. Table 2[18] is a History of Apportionment of the U.S. House seats to each state after every census. Table 3[19] shows the History of Apportionment in terms of the Changes. Twelve U.S. House seats changed states after the 2000 census. The number of seats that change after each census will slow as each district grows to represent greater population. With growth geographic population density disparities will moderate, making the threshold for moving Congressional Districts among the states increasingly difficult to achieve. Table 4 shows Apportionment of House seats assuming Uniform Population Density across the entire U.S. Although uniform population density is not likely to occur, this table provides a glimpse of future possibilities. For example, it is very unlikely that Colorado would ever grow to exceed thirteen Representatives; and if this happens, it will not occur for many decades.

Table 2

CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT HISTORY

Table 3

CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT CHANGES

Table 4
CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT

UNIFORM POPULATION DENSITY

Genesis of Parties – Aware of the difficulties they caused in British government, the Founders opposed political parties and naively anticipated that there would be none in the U.S. Evidence of their error soon surfaced in the form of increasing friction between the members of George Washington’s superstar cabinet. Believing that Washington too frequently sided with Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson resigned his post as the nation’s first Secretary of State in December 1793.[20]

The friction did not end there. Alarmed at Washington’s choice of John Adams to be his successor, Jefferson opposed Adams for the presidency in 1796 and 1800. The election of 1800 is called the “Revolution of 1800,”[21] referring to the first peaceful transfer of power between ideological opponents. Adams left in the night before Inauguration to avoid meeting Jefferson. Both the military and the judiciary had become heavily populated with Federalists. During the eighteen months that the Alien and Sedition Acts were in force 25 writers, publishers and printers were prosecuted[22] and ten were imprisoned for making statements against the government. They were freed and their fines returned in 1801. In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, Jefferson called for less partisanship. “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans; we are all federalists.”[23]

GERRYMANDERING

Origin – As quickly as the U.S. decided to have Congressional Districts, the controversy about how to create them began. The reality of two competing parties was alive. The Democratic-Republicans (Jeffersonians) advocated the polar-opposite perspective to the Federalists (Hamiltonians). Elbridge Gerry, Democratic-Republican, signer of the Declaration of Independence, delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention, and fifth Vice President of the U.S. was Governor of Massachusetts. The Democratic-Republicans controlled the Massachusetts legislature and “packed”[24] known pockets of Federalist voters into a state senate district. This left a long meandering narrow Democratic-Republican district surrounding the Federalist district. Gerry disliked the district, but refused to veto it. The Federalist press likened the shape to a salamander and initiated the term “gerrymander.” [25]

How Gerrymandering Works – Consider a hypothetical state with ten districts. The Blue Party accounts for 41% of voters; the Yellow Party has 59%. If the Blue Party controls redistricting, it can maximize the number of Blue representatives by concentrate eight districts with 51% Blue voters. On the other hand, if the Yellow Party controls redistricting, the number of Yellow representatives can be exaggerated by “packing” the Blues into a few districts. This might yield four safe Blue and six safe Yellow districts. The Yellows may also “dilute” Blue representation by creating ten districts, each with 41% Blue population. At-large districts would yield ten seats for the Yellows.
TABLE 5[26]
GERRYMANDERING SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The potential effect of gerrymandering is not trivial. Blue’s 41% of the population might yield anywhere from zero to eight representatives out of ten. As long as gerrymandering is permitted, control of redistricting will have more influence on election outcomes than any other factor, including voters.

Gerrymanders also ply their talents locally. That is, the gerrymander can insure that Sally Smith ends up with a district friendly or unfriendly to her election. “Representative Peter Deutsch (D-Florida) chaired the Congressional redistricting committee in 1992, when he drew himself a House seat.”[27] It appears that Florida’s redistricting committee chairman in 2001, state Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, will also soon become a Congressman.[28] In North Carolina, “the chairman of the state redistricting committee is running for a new congressional seat that he himself mapped out.”[29] In 45 states redistricting is the domain of the state legislature.[30] The conflict of interest is brutally obvious when legislators are allowed to determine their own districts. To the extent that political parties cooperate and compromise with each other, the process degenerated into a conspiracy against competitive elections, undermining the notions of representation and accountability. At least 80% of the 80 state house seats in California will be “safe” as a byproduct of redistricting: 38 “safe” Democratic and 27 “safe” Republican.[31]

Gerrymandering Sensitivity – The example illustrated in Table 5 shows the possibilities when 41% of the voters favor the Blues. Figure 2 shows the effect of Blue-Controlled redistricting versus Yellow-Controlled redistricting as the percent of voters loyal to Blues varies. This illustration reveals that control over the redistricting process can result in a swing in representation of about five out of ten seats (50%).

Figure 2. The effect of redistricting control on the number of seats elected.

In the real world the gerrymander’s mission is complicated by additional variables: about one-third of voters are not affiliated to either party; about half of affiliated voters are not loyal to their party; 1% does not provide sufficient margin of risk protection for fixing elections; voter loyalties are not clearly identifiable or conveniently concentrated. That said, the concept holds true and gerrymandering at the beginning of the 21^st century is as serious a problem as it has ever been in American history and he who control redistricting has an enormous advantage.

Redistricting Rules – Redistricting was a state-right. Federal Apportionment Statutes did not attempt to impose gerrymandering uniformity rules until 1842. That law required contiguous single-member districts. The contiguity requirement was the first Federal effort to reign in gerrymandering. No longer could a state use disconnected pieces to make up districts. The 1872 Act added the requirement: “nearly equal population.”[32] “Nearly equal” is not the same as “equal” and morphed into a subjective term. In 1901 the word “compact” appeared for the first time as a districting criteria. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of many reforms during the Civil Rights Movement. It prohibits practices that “dilute the effectiveness of votes cast by racial and ethnic minorities” and prevents practices “designed to make it difficult for racial minorities to elect candidates of their choice.”[33] Redistricting has evolved from state-control to Congressional-control to court-control.

Malapportionment – Malapportionment is the process of creating districts with unequal populations. Although Federal law required equal population districts beginning in 1872, districts did not become equal in population until the Baker v. Carr[34] Supreme Court ruling of 1962. The logic of “proportionate share of political influence”[35] easily evolved to “one person, one vote,” when contrasted with outrageous population disparities. Tennessee had not redrawn its state legislative districts in over 50 years. Population migration from rural to urban setting resulted in over-representation of rural areas and under-representation of urban areas: de facto pro-rural/anti-urban gerrymandering. Baker v. Carr applied to Congressional and state legislative districts, but more importantly the court intervened, asserting jurisdiction as a “political concern.” Baker v. Carr distinguished, “the defense of political rights from imprudent intervention into political disputes.”[36] In 1946 the court had refused to consider, on the grounds that redistricting was a political concern outside the court’s jurisdiction, the Colegrove v. Green[37] case in which neighboring Illinois Congressional districts had population disparities of 8:1. In the summer of 1964, 130 resolutions and bills were introduced to restore Congressional jurisdiction over redistricting.[38] None passed. Remarkably similar to the Pope’s effort to invalidate the Magna Carta in 1216,[39] the actions of Congress illustrate that political institutions are incapable of reforming themselves and resist reform with every fiber of their might. The Baker v. Carr ruling was expanded by a flurry of court cases. The Reynolds v. Sims[40] case was against the Alabama practice used since 1901 whereby one-quarter of the population could elect a majority of state senators and representatives. Population variation between state house districts was as high as 41:1.[41] Chief Justice Warren wrote, “The weight of a citizen’s vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests … The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”[42] Wesberry v. Sanders[43] reconciled a Georgia Congressional District population disparity of 3:1. Kirkpatrick v. Preisler tightened “nearly equal” to “no population variance is excusable without compelling evidence.”[44] In 2002 a Pennsylvania Court invalidated a Congressional redistricting plan supposedly because of a population disparity of 3/1000^th of one percent.[45] Population equality, like continuity, has evolved to be a rigid objective redistricting criteria.

VOTING RIGHTS

Color-Blind Society – In a truly color-blind society blacks and whites would be unaffected by race. All would consider the character, intellect, leadership and creativity of individual candidates and both blacks and whites would vote indiscriminately for candidates irrespective of race. In office the color-blind legislator would also advance color-blind policies. The same would hold for every race, nationality, religion, and ethnic group: Hispanics, Asian, Native American, Arab, Jew, Muslim, or Buddhist. This color-blind legislator would apply the same neutral values in formatting policy regarding other oppressed minorities; the disabled, obese, short, blind, baled, insomniac and asthmatic. The potential list of minorities is inexhaustible. Every conceivable trait of an individual personality might also be defined as an oppressed minority. Every possible combination of traits is another minority, each a potential victim of oppression. Even the context for traditional racial, religious and ethnic minorities is clouded as more families become inter-racial, inter-religious and inter-ethnic. Tiger Woods’ deflected focus from his ethnicity by labeling himself: Cablinasian (Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian). When America someday achieves this color-blind ideal, elected bodies will more closely approximate the demographic profile of the population. Congress will have more minorities, more women, more teachers and more engineers; and fewer attorneys and professional politicians.

America’s obsession with black racism is fueled by a history inconsistent with the Founding principles and the simple fact that the black minority is large (12% of U.S. population). How smaller minorities are handled will reveal how much has been learned from the sad and embarrassing plight of blacks. Are we truly as enlightened and compassionate as we convince ourselves we are?

Bad History – By the end of the Civil War, the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, stated that no law shall deny any citizen—determined now by birth or naturalization—the privileges of U.S. citizenship. This meant that the right to vote would not be denied or abridged to any male of 21 years of age. The 15^th Amendment followed two years later, in an attempt to override state laws that directly prevented black suffrage. It stated that the right to vote would not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Laws disenfranchising blacks arose instituting poll taxes, literacy tests, vouchers of “good character” and disqualification for “crimes of moral turpitude.” These measures were successful at removing nearly all black legislators from state posts, and barring black voters from significant involvement for decades.[46] Figure 3 illustrates the disfranchisement of black voters following reconstruction that led to the elimination of black southern legislators by 1900, and the re-enfranchisement of black citizens after 1960.

Section 5 – Section 5 of the VRA lists sixteen states guilty of discriminatory redistricting practices. These states are required to submit redistricting plans for approval by the U.S. Justice Department. After the 1990 Census, North Carolina created a reapportionment plan with one of twelve Congressional Districts being a “majority-minority” district. Majority-minority means the majority of voters in that district are of a racial minority. But the Justice Department rejected the plan under the VRA stating that because 20% of North Carolina’s population was black, that North Carolina must have two majority-minority districts. This was the genesis of the infamous NC-12^th Congressional District (Figure 5). It snaked along Interstate 85, occasionally ballooning out to capture pockets of black residents and, at times, remaining contiguous only at a single point. The district’s bizarre shape was challenged in Shaw v. Reno.[51] It was remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court to federal district court for review under strict scrutiny. The lower court upheld the shape, but the district was challenged again in 1996 in Shaw v. Hunt and the Supreme Court ruled against the shape.

Limits – The Shaw cases set an important historic voting rights precedent. It is possible to go too far in creating majority-minority districts. Voting rights observers eagerly await each successive court ruling for clearer direction as to how much racial gerrymandering is proper. A standard for compactness appears to be lacking, but a plausible means of reconciling apparently conflicting redistricting criteria has yet to be devised.

Black Representation – The VRA has resulted in greater numbers of black-majority districts and more black state legislators and U.S. Representatives. But whether these numbers have helped or hurt black representation is a different question. The VRA assumes that people vote racially. Gradual achievement of the color-blind ideal will reveal the impropriety of the assumption. “Is it better for political minorities to wield a modest amount of influence in many districts or substantial influence in only a few?” is the question posed by Columbia University political scientists in their work, “Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?”[52] The professors found that dilution of minority influence in surrounding areas leads to an overall decrease in support for minority-sponsored legislation. Using regression they empirically determined that “Outside the South, substantive minority representation is best served by distributing black voters equally among all districts. In the South, the key is to maximize the number of districts with slightly less than a majority of black voters. We note that black candidates have a healthy chance of winning election outside majority-black districts and that the 65% rule enforced by the court is almost certainly too stringent; it dilutes rather than increases overall minority voting strength. Overall, maximizing the number of minority representatives does not, necessarily maximize minority representation.”[53] Another researcher interviewed all black members of the U.S. House in 1990 and concluded, “black representatives can win election outside majority-black districts by emphasizing issues important to their broad constituency and white representatives will advance some of the issues important to their black voters. A majority-minority districting strategy has only limited possibilities and multiracial districts offer the greatest avenue of advancing minority political interest.”[54] Craig Washington, black U.S. Representative from Texas in 1993, said, “If you have four districts in a state like Alabama, for example, with a sufficiently large black population to neutralize Republicans on some issues, and if you can create one black district by gathering up all the blacks, and in the process you lose the leverage that you had in the three other districts, then that’s foolish to me. Every time the one person votes for the things that the black community is for, the other three will probably vote against them.”[55] “Voices from within and without the civil rights community have begun to doubt the efficacy of majority-minority districts.”[56]

THE TYRANNY OF TWO PARTYS
Contentment or Control – The U.S. has always had two dominant parties. Two major parties had far more support than other parties. The “winner-take-all electoral system ensures that we will have only two major parties.”[57] A major distinction between the 19^th and 20^th centuries is the movement to a closed-two-party system. The National Republican Party displaced the Federalist Party in 1820; the Whig Party replaced the National Republican Party and in 1854 the Republican Party replaced the Whigs.[58] Competition surfaced for the last time in the 1890’s when the Populist Party captured numerous Governor and Congressional seats. There has been no serious challenge to the two current major parties in over a century. Is this because of contentment or because two-party control?

Ballot Access – “The Democrats and Republicans, who control ballot access procedures, would have us believe that no major third party has emerged because the voters see no need for one. … voter apathy, low turnout and the decline in major party affiliation would seem to indicate otherwise.”[59] The parties have insulated themselves from competition with difficult and restrictive ballot access laws. There were no ballot access laws before 1888.[60] In 1924 a new party could reach the ballot in every state with 50,000 signatures, or 0.15% of voters.[61] A party can achieve the same thing in Russia now with about the same (0.15%) percentage. However, in the U.S in addition to the complexity of different requirements and deadlines in every state, the qualification requirement is estimated to have grown to over 3.5 million signatures,[62] about 3.5%, over 20 times more restrictive. The two parties do not impose similar restrictions upon themselves. “America’s ballot-access laws are so stringent, and third parties are repressed to such a degree, that the U.S. is probably in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement the U.S. signed in 1990.”[63] It states, “… respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of equal treatment before the law and the authorities.” Billionaire, Ross Perot, spend hundreds of millions to overcome ballot access barriers, to mobilize disaffected voters, and to form the Reform Party. In 1992 he received 20 million votes, but no electoral votes. His staggering effort produced only minor shockwaves to the intransigent status quo.

Need for Competition – Closing off competition from third parties also closes off the two parties to new ideas, injuring them, the election process and the formation of viable and relevant public policies. The two parties need the threat of being displaced in order to be open to issues and ideas important to the people. Isolation from competition leads to electoral and policy stagnation. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that “46% of Americans want to take on the two-party system”[64]
Voter Turnout – Observers lament the persistent decline in voter participation. “According to Census Bureau figures, almost 80% of the eligible population went to the polls from 1875 to 1892.”[65] Voter turnout is now less than 50%. Gridlock and low voter turnout are “signs of a two-party system that is not operating properly.”[66] The right of voters to abstain is as inherent as the voting right itself. Voter turnout critics see problems with the individuals who chose to not vote, but fail to recognize the deeper message sent by their refusal to vote. Efforts to make voting easier such as mail-in-ballots and early voting are good, but fail to address the serious problem that elections no longer matter.
Elections are Destabilizing – The two-party doctrine identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other.[67] Defenders of the closed-two-party system argue that it provides stability. If stability were the critical measure, then their logic would weigh equally in favor of monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or a one-party system. Such alternative forms are absurd and fundamentally undemocratic. Democracy is a relative term. More citizen-control is generally better than less. Democratically mature societies are more capable of keeping the stress of political conflict within a rational perspective. No American was willing to harm others or himself over the Gore or Bush vote-counting debacle. The same maturity is developing in younger democracies. Who should decide how much democracy is the right amount?

Believers in self-government owe gratitude to John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, defeated-Federalists, for their actions during the “Revolution of 1800.” This was the first example of peaceful transfer of political power between ideological opponents and teaches an invaluable lesson to other democracies and to subsequent generations. The U.S. might have gone down the path of violent civil conflict. But instead, the U.S. showed the world that elections are civilized tools for reconciling conflicts wisely.

Elections do fuel the same passions as violent conflicts. Election losers find no contentment in defeat. Therefore, every player who courageously congratulates his victor reinforces the legacy of Adams and advances the goals of civilized self-government for all people. Americans now share over 200 years of similar experiences. It seems trite, disingenuous and self-serving of those who suggest that more competitive elections would destabilize American society.

THE STAKES

How Big? – As long as government is doles pork to its friends, the two parties must compete to determine the friends. This “modern spoil system” is the rationale for special interest campaign contributions as “investments.” Contributors are rewarded for investment. Some donors cover their odds by investing with both political parties. Privilege is financed at the expense of wise and fair public policy. Similar incentives were far less extreme in 1902 when all government combined consumed only 5.4%[68] of the nation’s wealth. The pork incentives worked and by 2002 combined outlays for federal, state and local governments consumed 32.1%[69] of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Over the last 100 years the U.S. economy has grown by 90 times; government has grown 5.9 times faster than the economy, to be 535 times bigger. Another source estimates consumption of the nation’s wealth at 43% and Nobel Prize Economist, Milton Friedman believes that 43% is low.[70] As government pork distribution grows, so do special interest campaign contributions. It would be unnatural indeed if enlarged rewards were not sought more aggressively with more funding. Counterbalancing systems that resist growth of the spoil system are inadequate.

Public Choice Theory – Every special privilege government grant does injury to every citizen. Though each tyranny is ever so small the net effect is not small and equates to a torturous death by a thousand cuts. Dr. James Buchanan earned the 1986 Nobel Prize in Economics for the development of “public choice theory.” The theory asserts that the behavior of political actors is predictable on economic grounds. That is, special interests succeed most when benefits are concentrated and costs are distributed widely. Public choice theory is proven by the disparity in testimony. In Colorado, “chances are 96% that a witness is a beneficiary”[71] of the bill. Before the U.S. Congress, a witness favors more spending over 99% of the time.[72]

Resistance is Futile – The cards are stacked such that even the fiscally restrained legislator is overwhelmed. In fact their willingness to resist diminishes with tenure. The spending that Federal legislators support increase by 8.5 times[73] after only 6 years of Federal service. It does not take long for them to learn that they can use the spoil-system to buy votes and media exposure with taxpayers’ dollars, a benefit of office that no challenger can match.

WHEN ELECTIONS ARE NOT ELECTIONS
Election – The word election comes from the Latin electus meaning “to pick out” or “choose”. The dictionary defines election as: 1) The act or process of electing; The act or process of choosing a person for office, position, or membership by voting; An instance of the electorate’s exercising its function. 2) The fact or status of being elected.[74] All of these infer choice, competition, risk of losing and more. The data show that American elections no longer offer these elements. Lacking these features, Americans are fooled into believing that their votes matter.

Incumbent Protection Systems – Much has been written about the special advantages elected officials (especially Congresspersons) confer upon themselves to make challenges difficult. An abbreviated list of incumbent protection systems follows:

• Pork to the home district. This type of pork takes the form of a museum, highway, disaster relief, etc. The impact on election competition is enormous.
• Access to Media. They appear at every event, parade, disaster and catastrophe and are quoted. They orchestrate media coverage at will by releasing the results of a study, announcing a grant, calling for an investigation, or simply issuing a media advisory.
• Name recognition. Over the span of election cycles, by repetitious drumbeat a name is conditioned into the psyche of voters.
• Pork to special interests. Special interests reward a favorable voting record at election time with money and votes. Even a marginal voting record is preferred over an unknown challenger.
• Closed Two-Party System. It insures that no third party or independent can mount a serious challenge.
• “Safe” Districts. The two parties work together to minimize their respective election risk. It is better for the minor party to have a level of certainty regarding their base number of legislative seats.
• Expense-paid District trips. Taxpayer-paid trips started in 1962 with three trips and increased gradually to become unlimited after 1977.[75]
• Franking. This is a privilege that incumbent Congresspersons enjoy, whereby they send free mail to inform constituents. The average “frank” (from the Latin francus meaning free) allowance in 1995 was estimated at $109,000.[76] The frank rivals the average total funding a challenger is able to raise for the entire campaign.
• Fundraising ability. U.S. House incumbents outspend challengers by five to one[77] and typically retain more in reserve for the next election than a challenger is likely to raise.
• Constituent Services. Constituent service means bigger Congressional staffs. A single support person amounts to a taxpayer-paid re-election advocate. Before 1893 there were no personal staffs in the U.S. House. These grew to exceed 12,000[78] people in 1994. More constituent service safely secures more votes for the next election and leaves less time for the sticky business of legislating difficult policy issues. Less involvement in policy work also yields less exposure to voter accountability.

Imperial Congress – Table 6, U.S. House Turnover History, shows that Congress has become an aristocracy. The ratio of Representatives seeking reelection has increased
and their rate of reelection has also increased. Voters are increasingly obliged to return them to office hoping that they will recover pork due for taxes yielded. For most of history it was common for the number of freshmen in the U.S. House to exceed 50%. In 1842 the U.S. House had 74% freshmen. Total turnover in the second half of the 20^th century has declined steadily to be less than 10%. The number of freshmen is an aggregate of all turnover factors. In addition to the occasional election loss, retirement, death, indictment, scandal and health are some of the other factors that elevate turnover numbers. As a matter of fact, losing an election is one of the smaller risk factors. “Many Congressmen feel that they’ve been elected for life. If they can control redistricting, stay alive and out of jail, they know that 99 times out of 100 they can have the job for as long as they want it,” said former representative James Coyne of Pennsylvania.[79]

Figure 4 shows turnover graphically. An aristocracy would have no turnover because of election defeats. Turnover in the British House of Lords, appointed for life, is virtually identical to turnover in the U.S. House. Thirty or forty fresh faces in a body of 435 and out of a population of 285 million people are hardly noticeable.

Figure 4. Freshmen in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Full Federal Picture – Of the 435 seats in the U.S. House after the 1990 census, experts estimated that redistricting yielded about 100 competitive[80] seats nationwide. This means, of course, that 335 (or 77%) were not competitive. They were “safe” seats. These estimates are reinforced by the Landslide Index computed by the Center for Voting and Democracy. CVD defines landslide as a winning margin of 20%. In 2000 landslides occurred in 337 U.S. House races (77.5%).[81] Experts predict even more “safe” seats after the 2000 census redistricting is completed. “Amy Walter, the House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, predicted that 50 seats will be contested by the parties in 2002.”[82] Mark Gersh, Democratic Party redistricting guru, predicted “50 to 55 competitive seats.”[83] Of the 105 seats from California, Texas and Illinois, no more than four or five races in those three states combined[84] are expected to be competitive. A mildly informed political observer should be able to accurately predict the outcome of 90% to 95% of the 2002 U.S. House races.

2002 Redistricting Manipulations – “The two major parties have once again carved up the United States into bizarre little fiefdoms.”[85] “Many of the new maps were created with the help of computer programs that allow parties to design, with pinpoint accuracy, advantageous districts.”[86] Professor Michael McDonald, a University of Illinois redistricting expert calls the Illinois map “probably the most egregious case of incumbent-protection gerrymandering in the history of the United States.”[87]

The notion of fairness and objectivity evades the redistricting process. The general shift of twelve seats (both after reapportionment in 1990[88] and again in 2000) from predominantly Democratic Party north and eastern states to predominantly Republican Party south and western states might predictably have strengthened the Republican Party in the U.S. House. After the 1990 census with a majority of 100 seats it was not so important to Democrats, but after 2000 the Republicans had a six-seat majority. Democratic Party strategists determined to negate this Republican advantage after 2000 through state redistricting. The Democratic National Committee budgeted $13 million to “minimize expected GOP gains”[89] by influence on state redistricting. Greg Speed, spokesman for the Democratic Party said, “Redistricting has been an incredible success so far for Democrats.”[90]

In West Virginia, the lone Republican Congressman will unexpectedly retain her seat because “two veteran Democrats declined to remake their own districts substantially.”[91] “Members (of Congress) are all concerned about making their districts better, even if they have good districts, said Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.”[92] When Brown threatened to run for governor against Republican Robert Taft, if he was not granted a “safe” seat, Taft made it clear that Brown’s Congressional seat was to remain “safe.”[93] In New York, “the goal is … to give as many legislators as possible seats so safe that nothing short of a murder indictment could pry them out of power.”[94] In Pennsylvania an incumbent Congressman opened a media campaign on behalf of his preferred district.[95] A typical tactic of the gerrymander is to place two incumbents of the same party in the same district. The longest serving U.S. House member from Michigan was expected to have a primary contest for the first time since 1964 because he was placed in the same district with another Democrat incumbent.[96] In Florida an incumbent Congressman hired a lobbyist to insure that he received his preferred district.[97] Congressmen in New York also hired lobbyists to help form a favorable district.[98] In effect politicians are choosing the constituencies they wish to represent. The realization that such events occur proves that politicians manipulate the redistricting process and that gerrymandering is as much a malignancy today as ever.

“If elected officials were half as imaginative at solving the problems voters care about as they are in perpetuating themselves in office, government would have a much better reputation and voters would be much less cynical.”[99]

Friction – It is only natural that the two parties have friction over redistricting, especially when gerrymandering is allowed. Friction is better than the alternative. Like children at play, tranquility should be the greatest concern. Less friction implies agreement and cooperation between political opponents, which ought to trouble all people interested in fair and competitive elections. Agreement between the parties to carve out “safe” seats is not an alternative to friction; it is a conspiracy against democracy.

Relief in the Courts – It is not the role of the courts to provide leadership for political reform when leadership is otherwise lacking. “In five states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, New Jersey and Washington), Congressional redistricting is done by an independent commission. In remaining 45 states, redistricting is addressed by the legislature and the governors. When both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office are not controlled by the same party, an agreement often cannot be reached, and the redistricting map is then drawn by a court. … the political affiliation of the judges involved often makes a big difference.”[100] The naïve view is that the courts are objective, apolitical and above the political fray. Yet, in 2002 it appears that courts agree with redistricting when done by members of the same political party, and conversely: they change redistricting when the process was controlled by the opposite party. In Pennsylvania a Republican-created plan was overturned by a Democratic-controlled court.[101] In Michigan a Republican-created plan was upheld by a Republican-controlled court. And in Colorado a Democratic-created plan was upheld by a Democratic-controlled court. Redistricting problems invite the courts to enter the political realm and to exercise political will. Yielding to this temptation diminishes the stature of the court and compromises the court as fair arbiter for determining the rules of the political contest. Wise courts are well advised to stay clear of politics and to insist that redistricting be achieved with the utmost fairness and objectivity.

The Problem in the States – The problem of politicians creating “safe” seats for themselves is not limited to the U.S. House. Table 7 is a state-by-state itemization of the last five election cycles. “Safe” seats typically find a token opponent. But some seats are so safe that it is futile for anyone to bother. Of the roughly 6000 state legislative races nationwide elected in 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000 one of the two major parties failed to field a candidate in 32.8%, 35.8%, 32.7%, 41.1%, and 40.6% respectively of those races. State-by-state detail data is presented in Table 7. In 1988 and 1990, 36.6% and 35.9% respectively of state legislative races were uncontested. [102]

In 1992 over half of the state legislative seats were uncontested in nine states, with Arkansas being the highest at 75.6%. In 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 the number of states with over 50% uncontested state legislative races was twelve, six, fifteen, and eleven respectively.

In a North Carolina court case, plaintiffs submitted deposition testimony of John N. Davis, Executive Director of NCFREE, a nonpartisan organization, that has forecast North Carolina state election results since 1992. In 2000 Davis correctly predicted the outcome in 193 of 200 elections (96.5%).[103] Davis asserted that the number of competitive state senate seats had dropped from fourteen in 1992 to six in 2001 out of 50; and the number of competitive state house seats had dropped from 32 in 1992 to fourteen

in 2001 out of 120 seats. These percentages are strikingly similar to those for the U.S. House and are probably very similarly in most states. Defining a landslide win as 55:45, most Colorado state legislators win by landslides; specifically 83%, 80%, and 80% in 1994, 1996, and 1998 respectively.[104]

MODERN GERRYMANDERING

It is more comforting to believe that gerrymandering is a thing of the past, a political abuse long since corrected. But gerrymandering is alive and more severe than ever. In the early 1960’s, political scientists aware of computer capabilities forecasted an end to gerrymandering.[105] Columbia University Professor William Vickrey noted, “Whenever the drawing up of the boundaries is left even slightly to the discretion of an interested body, considerable latitude is left for the exercise of art.”[106] It was thought that technology would rescue society from partisan bickering avoiding unneeded criticism, court challenges, pressures and delays. The process would evolve to one of intellectual purity based on mathematically unique solutions.

Figure 5. 1812 gerrymander (left) and New York’s 12^th Congressional District in 1992 (right)[107]

Figure 5 tells us that gerrymandering is as aggressive now as ever and that technology has made things worse, not better. The 1992 New York 12^th Congressional District rivals the infamous 1812 Massachusetts gerrymander. The introduction of greater technological capabilities, coupled with the experience of 180 years has yielded the most sever gerrymandering of history. But New York is not alone. Other states display equal

Figure 7. Illinois’ 4^th Congressional District in 1992[109]

excess with their 1992 districts. North Carolina is famous for creative work with the 1^st and 12^th Congressional Districts in 1992 (Figure 6). Not as well known, but easily as extreme was the job done with the Illinois 4^th Congressional District in the same year (Figure 7). Figure 8 shows three Texas Congressional Districts (30^th, 18^th, and 29^th) as gerrymandered in 1992 and in 1996 as less-gerrymandered subsequent to court actions.

the need for action. “New software has made it easier to draw more reliable electoral maps—i.e., to be more exact in your partisanship.”[114] New technology “has turned gerrymandering—sorry, redistricting—from an art into a science.”[115] “This time around, faster and cheaper computers have allowed more people with an interest in the outcome – such as House incumbents – to use that software for their own benefit.”[116]

REFORM SUGGESTIONS

PART I

The history of redistricting is essentially a story about correcting abuse by moving in the direction of harder-to-abuse, objective criteria. Subjective criteria, because they are judgment-dependent, will always be the victim of manipulation. Redistricting that is favorable to one group is equally injurious to others. Recognition of this reality is the basis for the current dilemma unveiled in recent court rulings against some VRA districts. Voting rights observers eagerly await successive ruling for guidance. The Court seems equally frustrated at the lack of more objectivity.

The foregoing discussion proves that the U.S. has severe election problems. Defining the problem correctly is half of the solution to the problem. The political realm seems so intransigent and so resistant to change that it might intentionally misdefining the problem in order to avoid the remedy. As James Madison said, “the truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” Beginning with Madison’s view leaves room for the occasional refreshing surprise of enlightened proactive political leadership.

The Broader Perspective – To focus strictly on redistricting cures, presupposes important questions. These are not mutually exclusive, meaning that any one or all can be implemented independently. None precludes the other. Any combination is viable. In addition to redistricting reforms, a hard look should be given to:

• End the modern pork-barrel spoil-system.
• Devolve government service.
• Reduce the cost of government services.
• Consider alternative representation systems.
• Do no harm.
• Reconsider ballot access restrictions.
• Enlarge citizen participation systems.

Pork-barrel spoil-system – Voters are rational. The vast majority live without constant concern over personal injury, that political zealots might cause them. The freedom to focus on things relevant to their lives is positive. Political systems requiring less direct citizen-supervision would be viewed by most as an improvement.

Issues of true national concern are not particularly contentious. The two parties regularly form a unified front on national security, foreign policy, law enforcement, judicial administration, terrorism, trade, the economy, and more. Ideological differences about details stimulate debate and compromise to improve outcomes.

Petty partisan friction is more often than not over the distribution of spoils. The majority party takes credit for getting spoils to the right place. The minority party counters by pointing out the outrageous waste of taxpayer funds. These spoils are the “free money” boondoggles that would not happen except for “free money.” That these boondoggles would not happen without “free money” is proof that their value is less than their cost. Thus, all citizens are injured and are society more impoverished by “free money.” A system with less pork would enrich all. Deciding the special interest that should be winners or losers in the contest for pork is not the most important task of elected officials. Their talent and leadership should be freed to focus on important policy questions. Fewer spoils would leave less reason for partisan friction and diminish the incentive for aggressive gerrymandering.

The Founders warned that the natural course was for more power and control to gravitate to the central government. This is the reason they wrote a constitution that rigidly decentralized government functions. Irrespective of the forewarning and constitutional limitations, government has become too large and too centralized. Devolution, decentralization and privatization would free elected officials from the burden of the spoil system to do the job of setting important public policies that protect and improve the lives of the people.

Devolve government services – The implications of government redistribution policies would be lessened by devolving services to the lower levels. This will empower citizens with more customization of the services they elect to have. Congress’s conflict of interest to move in this direction raises questions about methods and systems to implement such policy, or for that matter any policy Congress does not like.

Reduce the cost of government services – When government services are privatized, individual taxpayers have more money, because of less tax, and individual consumers are empowered to use or not use the services they wish.

Alternative representation systems – The perception that single-member small geographic winner-take-all district elections are the only or best alternative should be challenged for what it is: an assumption. There is not sufficient knowledge or experience for informed evaluation. There are many ways to rethink how votes are counted, whether geography is more or less important than other factors, and whether larger districts with more representatives might result in better representation or better public policy. The alternative systems are too-many to discuss and consider in this work. Experimentation and objective evaluation of the effectiveness of every conceivable election innovation is encouraged. Such experimentation is easiest to first implement and observe at the local government level. Also, the risk of damage is lessened, isolated and more easily corrected at this level.

For more information about alternative systems, visit Elections: Results and Voting Systems at http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/vote.html or The Center for Voting and Democracy at www.fairvote.org. Books by Douglas J. Amy entitled Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems and Real Choices/New Voices and The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design by the international Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance are helpful tools in learning the functions of different electoral systems.

Do No Harm – Once there is common recognition of a problem, exuberance sometimes overshadows reason. The popularity of campaign finance limitations falls into this category of issues. The false assumption is that all parties will abide by the law and the influence of special interests will diminish, ultimately lead to better policy. Is it possible that CFR increases the advantage of incumbents over challengers? By what stretch of logic do people believe that Congress would pass any law that would give more advantage to their challengers than to themselves? In achieving the goal of a more level playing field so that there may be more competitive elections to gain greater citizen representation and better policy, CFR as it is currently conceived probably tips the field more in favor of incumbents and therefore is the wrong direction.

Reconsider Ballot Access Restrictions – All ballot access restrictions were put in place masked as needed reforms. Many of these do more harm than good and some may do no good whatsoever. These restrictions should be reviewed from the vantage of open, free and competitive elections. The method of modifying or lifting these is unclear, because of the hostility that state and federal legislators of both political parties have for political reform. Perhaps well-healed patriotic citizens will step forward in the exercise of the citizen initiative petition process in those states that allow it.

Enlarge citizen participation systems – Citizen involvement in government is a critical aspect of self-government that is under-appreciated and under-exercised. Citizen participation systems, such as the Initiative and Referendum process, merit considerable expansion. Systems that capture the right information at the right time and motivate good and timely legislation are pre-embryonic in development. Innovative students of democracy should exercise creativity to conceive and implement new and better systems. Systems that tap the vast wealth of knowledge and experience of the masses will evolve and will improve governance and will make the jobs of legislators less difficult.

REFORM SUGGESTIONS

PART II

Redistricting Reforms – Changes in the way districts are formed must be implemented immediately. In short, the fox must be removed from the henhouse. The political community must be disconnected from redistricting. Non-partisan or bi-partisan citizen commissions are insufficient. The Arizona model is a commission of two Democrats, two Republicans and one mutually agreed tiebreaker. This approach concedes that the process is and must continue to be politically dominated. When confronted with reform questions, the Arizona model degenerates to four partisans ganging up on one possible reformer. Worse, it concedes to subjective criteria and human judgment. As one of the five most reform-minded states, Arizona does not go far enough.

• Install the Iowa System. “Iowa … draws the lines without referring to voter registration or even to where the state’s politicians live.”[117] The process of considering where an incumbent resides makes that a high priority redistricting criteria. It makes the process unnecessarily complicated and forces gerrymandering to accommodate incumbents. In effect this gives a heavier weight to incumbent residency than to rational formation of districts.
• Install the Minnesota System. In many states senators are elected for 4-year terms with half of the senate elected every 2 years. In Minnesota senators elected in the census year serve a 2-year term so that the entire senate is elected from new districts after redistricting. The converse, the Colorado system, attempts to retain half of the senate in their districts while district boundaries change. This forces the redistricting process to consider where senators live and gives a heavier weight to the senator serving a full 4-year term than to the citizens choosing who should represent them.
• “Nesting” should be considered. “Nesting” is the process of incorporating some districts completely within others. For example, a state with seven Congressional Districts and 35 state senators would first make its Congressional Districts and then make five state senate districts within each of the Congressional Districts. Among the benefits is that the messy task of redistricting is lessened.
• Adopt and rigidly apply objective criteria. Objective criteria are those that are based upon fact and can be applied without the exercise of judgment. It took many years to fully implement the notion of equal population districts. Continuity is another objective criteria that initially did not exist, but was adopted and became accepted as a proper redistricting norm. Compactness should be added to the list of objective redistricting criteria.
• Add Compactness as an objective redistricting criteria. Compactness, first mentioned in Federal law in 1901, has been clay in the hands of the gerrymander. Also required in many state constitutions, compactness sinks as a priority when it conflicts with the aims of the gerrymander. This conflict provides a clue. In order to gerrymander, compactness must be ignored. Installing compactness as another objective redistricting criteria would end gerrymandering.
• Use technology to reduce gerrymandering. Eventually, possibly before the 2010 census, redistricting software will have the ability to create, evaluate, and compare a sufficiently large number of redistricting alternatives to insure that the most compact plan is found. Currently these software programs are effective at evaluating alternative plans. They should be used to apply a compactness measurement method.[118] Then the redistricting commission must be bound to select and implement the most compact plan.
• Create positive incentives. Currently redistricting plans are devised and subsequently seek citizen input. Each political party uses redistricting software in private to find gerrymandered plans that benefit them. Then, they submit a plan to the redistricting commission. Any citizen should have an equal right to develop and introduce a plan. When the commission is obliged to implement the most compact plan, the citizenry will serve as a check against the possibility of both parties working together in private to create a mutually beneficial plan.

That things might stay the same or continue to regress is absurd. Soviet elections were less hypocritical. They made no pretense about being fair or competitive. Defenders of the status quo align themselves with Benito Mussolini, who said, “Give me the right to nominate and you can vote for whomever you please.” The many lawsuits about to transpire over 2001 redistricting will serve as a reminder that reform is needed.

CONCLUSION

Redistricting has come to mean gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is as widespread and as energetic today as it has ever been in U.S. history. The arrival of new technology has empowered the gerrymander. Under the control of politicians, redistricting is the most significant and controllable variable for predetermining the outcome of elections. Fewer elections are in doubt. To restore integrity to representative self-government in America:

• Control of the redistricting process by the “political community” must cease.
• Political criteria for redistricting, such as party, race, ethnicity and other demographic criteria and the incumbent’s place of residence must be replaced with objective criteria, such as equal population, continuity, and compactness.
• Modern technology using rigidly applied objective redistricting criteria must be used to end gerrymandering.
• The efficacy of single-member districts should be questioned. A wide array of alternative systems of voting and of representation merit experimentation and objective evaluation. These experiments may be most effective first at the local government level.
• The rewards for gerrymandering should be diminished. Less tax money should be available for politicians to fund the current pork-barrel spoil-system.

Glossary
Apportionment – Apportionment is the process of determining the number of Congressional Districts that each state shall have.

At-Large – At-Large representatives are elected from the full population of a state. When the first Congress was elected in 1788, the U.S. Constitution specified the number of representatives from each state. All representatives from each state were elected “At-Large” in 1788.

Cumulative Voting (CV) – Cumulative Voting is a system that allows the voter to express the strength with which they favor or oppose certain candidates. It is used in a multimember district. Each voter has many votes and may allocate them however desired among the candidates, including giving all votes to one candidate, distributing them among several candidates, or not using all of them.

Democracy – Democracy is a form of government in which a substantial proportion of the citizenry directly or indirectly participates in ruling the state.

Districting – Districting is the process of dividing a state or an area into districts. After the Congressional seats are apportioned among the states, each state divides itself into districts.

Gerrymander – Gerrymandering is the process of dividing a political unit into election districts to give a political party or interest group greater advantage.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) – Voters mark their priority preferences for candidates. The poorest showing candidate is eliminated from the list and those votes are reallocated to other candidates based on the voter’s second preferences. The process is continued until one candidate achieves a majority.

Malapportionment – Malapportionment is the process of apportionment where populations are not made to be equal between districts.

Majority-Minority District – A district in which a majority of the voters are of a minority; generally a racial or ethnic minority. Some sources use the term Minority-Majority or Black-Majority to mean the same.

Plurality District – A plurality district is an Internal At-Large district. It is a district that is represented by more than a single elected official.

Proportional Representation (PR) – Parties are allocated legislative seats in proportion to the share of the vote the party receives.

Representation – Representation, in politics, is the process by which one person stands or acts for a larger number of individuals in formulating the policies and operations of a government.

Safe Seat – A “safe” seat or safe district is one in which the outcome of an election is effectively predetermined because the party affiliation of voters in the district is sufficiently large to insure the outcome.

Voting Rights Act (VRA) – The VRA, a byproduct of the Civil Rights movement, became law in 1965 and protected the right of African American citizens to register and vote.

[1] “Redistricting Battles Come Down to Personal Issues as Well as Political.” By David Espo, Associated Press, June 18, 2002.

[2] Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Deluxe Edition, 2000.

[3] Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Deluxe Edition, 2000.

[4] Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Deluxe Edition, 2000.

[5] “Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems,” by Douglas J. Amy, Praeger, Westport, CT, 2000, p. 28.

[6] Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

[7] “Oklahoma Plan May Force At-Large House Races,” by Chris Cillizza, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, May 1, 2002.

[8] “The Historical Atlas of U.S. Congressional Districts,” by Kenneth Martis, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 5.

[9] “Oklahoma Plan May Force At-Large House Races,” by Chris Cillizza, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, May 1, 2002.

[10] “Oklahoma Plan May Force At-Large House Races,” by Chris Cillizza, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, May 1, 2002.

[11] “The Historical Atlas of U.S. Congressional Districts,” by Kenneth Martis, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 52.

[12] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2.

[13] “Congressional Redistricting: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives,” by David Butler and Bruce Cain, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992, p. 18.

[14] “Oklahoma Plan May Force At-Large House Races,” by Chris Cillizza, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, May 1, 2002.

[15] U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.

[16] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2.

[17] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2.

[18] Assembled primarily from data available in “The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress 1789-1989,” by Kenneth C. Martis, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1989.

[19] Assembled primarily from data available in “The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress 1789-1989,” by Kenneth C. Martis, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1989.

[20] “Thomas Jefferson – A Life,” by Willard Sterne Randall, 1993, Henry Holt & Company, P. 510.

[21] “The Federal Union,” by Hicks, Mawry and Burke, 1964, Houghton Mifflin Company, P. 302.

[22] “Thomas Jefferson – A Life,” by Willard Sterne Randall, 1993, Henry Holt & Company, P. 537.

[23] “Thomas Jefferson – A Life,” by Willard Sterne Randall, 1993, Henry Holt & Company, P. 548.

[24] “Bushmanders and Bullwinkles,” by Mark Monmonier, University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 1.

[25] “Bushmanders and Bullwinkles,” by Mark Monmonier, University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 2.

[26] Table is modified from “Congressional Redistricting: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives,” by David Butler and Bruce Cain, 1992, Macmillan Publishing Company, p. 77.

[27] “A look at Florida Redistricting,” by John Mercurio, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, Feb. 7, 2002.

[28] “Familiar Faces of 2000 Recount Line up for Seats in Congress,” by Mark Silva, Orlando Sentinel, July 15, 2002.

[29] “How to Rig an Election,” staff, The Economist, April, 27, 2002.

[30] “As Redistricting Unfolds, Parties Leverage Power to Get More of It,” by David E. Rosenbaum, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, 2002.

[31] “Choosing a Future California Assembly,” by William Saracino, California Political Review, April 2002, p. 23.

[32] “The Historical Atlas of U.S. Congressional Districts,” by Kenneth Martis, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 7.

[33] “Full Representation,” by Bob Holmes, Goro O. Mitchell, and Robert Richie, Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy and Center for Voting and Democracy, 2001, p. 2.HoHH

[34] Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

[35] “Voting Rights and Redistricting in the United States” by Mark E. Rush, Greenwood Press, 1998, p. 37.

[36] “Congressional Redistricting: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives,” by David Butler and Bruce Cain, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992, p. 27.

[37] Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946).

[38] “Congressional Redistricting: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives,” by David Butler and Bruce Cain, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992, p. 28.

[39] www.iamm.com/uni-uni/caselaw.etc/magnacar.htm

[40] Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

[41] “Voting Rights and Redistricting in the United States” by Mark E. Rush, Greenwood Press, 1998, p. 23.

[42] Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

[43] Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).

[44] Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969).

[45] “Pennsylvania Redistricting Ruling Upheld,” by Steven Ertelt, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, April 12, 2002.

[46] “Before the Voting Rights Act,” U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, online at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_a.htm

[47] “The Effect of the Voting Rights Act,” U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, online at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_c.htm

[48] “Full Representation,” by Bob Holmes, Goro O. Mitchell, and Robert Richie, Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy and Center for Voting and Democracy, 2001, p. 2.HoHH

[49] “Full Representation,” by Bob Holmes, Goro O. Mitchell, and Robert Richie, Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy and Center for Voting and Democracy, 2001, p. 2.

[50] “Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?” by Charles Cameron, David Epstein, and Sharyn O’Halloran, American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 4, December 1996, p. 810.

[51] Shaw v. Reno, 113 U.S. 2816 (1993).

[52] “Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?” by Charles Cameron, David Epstein, and Sharyn O’Halloran, American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 4, December 1996, p. 794.

[53] “Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress by Charles Cameron, David Epstein, and Sharyn O’Halloran, American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 4, December 1996, p. 809.

[54] “Black Faces, Black Interest: the Representation of African Americans in Congress,” by Carol Swain, Harvard University Press, 1993.

[55] “Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?” by Charles Cameron, David Epstein, and Sharyn O’Halloran, American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 4, December 1996, p. 798.

[56] Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?” b by Charles Cameron, David Epstein, and Sharyn O’Halloran, American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 4, December 1996, p. 798.

[57] “The Importance of Ballot Access,” by Richard Winger, 1994, Massachusetts School of Law.

[58] “The Importance of Ballot Access,” by Richard Winger, 1994, Massachusetts School of Law.

[59] “The Barriers to Third Parties,” by Editor, October 9, 1995, Rocky Mountain News.

[60] “The Importance of Ballot Access,” by Richard Winger, 1994, Massachusetts School of Law.

[61] “The Importance of Ballot Access,” by Richard Winger, 1994, Massachusetts School of Law.

[62] “Obstacles Litter Perot’s Path,” by Tony Snow, October 2. 1995, USA Today.

[63] “The Importance of Ballot Access,” by Richard Winger, 1994, Massachusetts School of Law.

[64] “Obstacles Litter Perot’s Path,” by Tony Snow, October 2. 1995, USA Today.

[65] “The Importance of Ballot Access,” by Richard Winger, 1994, Massachusetts School of Law.

[66] “The Importance of Ballot Access,” by Richard Winger, 1994, Massachusetts School of Law.

[67] “The Tyranny of the Two-party System,” by Lisa Jane Disch, Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 7.

[68] “Total Power of One in America,” by Fred Holden, Phoenix Enterprises, 1991, p. 386.

[69] “America Celebrates Tax Freedom Day,” Tax Foundation, April 2002, p. 2 & p. 10.

[70] “Gridlock in Government,” by Roger E. Meiners and Roger LeRoy Miller, Independence Institute, 1996, p. 15.

[71] “Who Testifies and Why,” by Dr. Barry Fagin, Independence Institute, Feb. 7, 2001, p. 1.

[72] “The Congressional Brainwashing Machine,” by J. Payne, Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991, pp. 3-14.

[73] “The Longer They Stay, The More They Spend,” National Taxpayers Union, September 1, 1994.

[74] Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, Merriam-Webster Inc., Publishers, 1993.

[75] “The End of Representation: How Congress Stifles Electoral Competition,” By Eric O’Keefe and Aaron Steelman, Cato Policy Analysis No. 279, August 20, 1997, p. 5.

[76] “The End of Representation: How Congress Stifles electoral Competition,” by Eric O’Keefe and Aaron Steelman, CATO Institute, August 20, 1997, p. 3.

[77] “How to Rig an Election,” staff, The Economist, April 27, 2002, p. 29.

[78] “Who Rules America: The People vs. The Political Class,” by Eric O’Keefe, Citizen Government Foundation, 1999, p. 33.

[79] James Coyne, letter to the New York Times, January 12, 1990.

[80] “Redistricting Creates Fewer House Battles Than Expected,” by Chris Cillizza, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, Oct. 24, 2001.

[81] www.fairvote.org

[82] “Redistricting Creates Fewer House Battles Than Expected,” by Chris Cillizza, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, Oct. 24, 2001.

[83] “Redistricting Creates Fewer House Battles Than Expected,” by Chris Cillizza, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, Oct. 24, 2001.

[84] “House Control Up For Grabs,” by David Espo, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, Jan. 20, 2002.

[85] “Redistricting Shifts Clout, But Plays it Safe,” by Liz Marlantes, The Christian Science Monitor, June 10, 2002.

[86] “Redistricting Shifts Clout, But Plays it Safe,” by Liz Marlantes, The Christian Science Monitor, June 10, 2002.

[87] “Redistricting Shifts Clout, But Plays it Safe,” by Liz Marlantes, The Christian Science Monitor, June 10, 2002.

[88] As Redistricting Unfolds, Parties Leverage Power to Get More of It,” by David E. Rosenbaum, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, August 13, 2001.

[89] “DNC Scales Back Redistricting Commitment,” by Ethan Wallison and John Mercurio, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, Jan. 24, 2002.

[90] “DNC Scales Back Redistricting Commitment,” by Ethan Wallison and John Mercurio, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, Jan. 24, 2002.

[91] “Redistricting Battles Come Down to Personal Issues as Well as Political.” By David Espo, Associated Press, June 18, 2002.

[92] “Redistricting Battles Come Down to Personal Issues as Well as Political.” By David Espo, Associated Press, June 18, 2002.

[93] “Redistricting Battles Come Down to Personal Issues as Well as Political.” By David Espo, Associated Press, June 18, 2002.

[94] “Time to Draw the Line,” by Editorial Staff, New York Times, May 11, 2002.

[95] “Members of Congress Fight Redistricting Battles,” by Chris Cillizza, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, Dec. 12, 2001.

[96] “Longest Serving Congressman Could Face Inter-party Challenge,” by Steven Ertelt, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, Jan. 2, 2002.

[97] “Florida Pols Hire Lobbyists to Help Protect Districts,” by Peter Wallstein, Miami-Herald, Nov. 28, 2001.

[98] “Redistricting Battles Come Down to Personal Issues as Well as Political.” By David Espo, Associated Press, June 18, 2002.

[99] “Pushing the Limits: California Legislators Try to Extend Their Terms — Again,” by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2002.

[100] As Redistricting Unfolds, Parties Leverage Power to Get More of It,” by David E. Rosenbaum, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, August 13, 2001.

[101] “Redistricting Challenges Heating Up,” by Robert Tanner, Associated Press National, May 6, 2002.

[102] “Ballot Access News,” by Richard Winger, Bx 470296, San Francisco CA 94147, 415-922-9779.

[103] Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94PA02, North Carolina Supreme Court, April 30, 2002, http://www.aoc.state.ne.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2002/094-02-1.htm

[104] “When Elections Are Not Elections,” by Dennis Polhill and David Ottke, Independence Institute, January 5, 2000.

[105] “Bushmanders and Bullwinkles,” by Mark Monmonier, The University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 104.

[106] “Bushmanders and Bullwinkles,” by Mark Monmonier, The University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 104.

[107] “Bushmanders and Bullwinkles,” by Mark Monmonier, The University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 3.

[108] “Race, Redistricting, and Representation,” by David T. Canon, The University of Chicago Press, 1999, p.111.

[109] “How to Draw Redistricting Plans That Will Stand Up in Court,” by Peter S. Wattson, Minnesota Senate Counsel, October 3, 2001, p. 24.

[110] “How to Draw Redistricting Plans That Will Stand Up in Court,” by Peter S. Wattson, Minnesota Senate Counsel, October 3, 2001, p. 17.

[111] “How to Rig an Election,” staff, The Economist, April 27, 2002, p. 29.

[112] “How to Draw Redistricting Plans That Will Stand Up in Court,” by Peter S. Wattson, Minnesota Senate Counsel, October 3, 2001, p. 18.

[113] “How to Draw Redistricting Plans That Will Stand Up in Court,” by Peter S. Wattson, Minnesota Senate Counsel, October 3, 2001, p. 18.

[114] “How to Rig an Election,” staff, The Economist, April 27, 2002, p. 29.

[115] “How to Rig an Election,” staff, The Economist, April 27, 2002, p. 29.

[116] “House Incumbents Tap Census, software to Get a Lock on Seats.” By John Harwood, Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2002.

[117] “Time to Draw the Line,” by Editorial Staff, New York Times, May 11, 2002.

[118] Mathematicians have invented no less than two-dozen methods of measuring compactness. For more information about the various methods see: “Bushmanders and Bullwinkles,” by Mark Monmonier, The University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 65.

By Dennis Polhill, Scott Barton

Traffic congestion is getting worse and transit is not helping.

Analysis of 2000 Census data by Randall OToole of the Thoreau Institute (www.ti.org) reveals that Americans are turning away from transit and increasingly using automobiles to satisfy their mobility needs.  Between 1990 and 2000, passenger-miles traveled by car increased 30% nationwide, while transit increased only 16.1%.  This means that the $70 billion spent on new transit systems did nothing to help traffic congestion.

In Denver, highway use increased 39 times more than transit use.  If the current plan to divert nearly 60% of transportation funding to transit over the next 20 years is not reconsidered, mobility in Colorado will suffer greatly.

Nationwide, transit continues to carry a small portion of all trips.  On average, transit carries 2% of all urban travel.  In Denver, transit commands 1.4% of the market, and only 4.3% of all commuters.

Transits greatest benefits are for commuters, but auto use by commuters has outpaced transit.  Nationally, the number of commuters riding transit to work declined.  However, the number of American jobs has grown by 13 million, an increase of 11%.  These new commuters are not using transit to get to work, which means transit isnt relieving rush-hour congestion.  Flextime and telecommuting that cost taxpayers nothing yield more traffic congestion relief than the massive expenditures for transit.

Despite low performance, transit is well funded.  In the last nine years, transit agencies nationwide have spent $70 billion dollars on capital projects and $186 billion for operating expenses, but collected only $72 billion in fares.  Thus, transit seems doomed to never ending dependence on heavy taxpayer subsidies.

Transit advocates point to the amount of non-user based fees spent for auto travel, as logic that others should pay their travel.  In 2000, roads and transit received subsidies of $22.4 billion and $23.5 billion respectively.  But passenger-miles traveled on transit are about one percent as much as by auto.  Therefore, subsidies per passenger-mile are one hundred times greater for transit than for auto users!

Moreover, transit worker productivity has declined as much as 19% since 1990.  This decrease in output is primarily the result of diminishing transit use.  As transit agencies gain more funding, taxpayers and users get less for their dollars.

Despite the apparent failure of transit in general, one type shines through as a clear loser: light rail.  In 2000, light rail used 10.9% of capital funding, but carried only 2.8 % of transit riders.  Thats 2.8% of transits 2.5%, or 0.07% of all trips.

Over the last decade, the trend is even more apparent.  Since 1992, transit agencies have spent twice as much on rail as buses, yet buses continue to carry the vast majority of transit trips.  Even though transit agencies throw money at light rail, it remains an inconsequential part of transit service.

Rail also under-performs at the fare box.  The average bus fare is 77 cents, but the average light rail fare is 57 cents.  Does this mean that light rail fares must be lower to attract users or that agencies have exaggerated ridership?  In either case, light rail’s low fares and high expenses result in the need for greater subsidies.  Light rail requires 2.5 times as much subsidy as buses per user and 250 times as much as autos.

Light rail fails because it cannot be targeted to a particular type of urban area.  In high-density cities like New York, Chicago, and Boston, heavy-rail and commuter-rail systems work more efficiently than light rail, and buses work better everywhere else.

With the release of Census data, there isnt much for transit advocates to celebrate.  Transit continues to occupy an extremely small role and even where transit has grown, its numbers are dwarfed by the growth in highway use.  Transit is grossly over funded and hugely subsidized, even as worker productivity declines.

Over the last 2 decades virtually every aspect of American society has been pressed to provide more service at less cost.  The 2000 Census reveals that transit is isolated from this trend.  Transit agencies spend disproportionate and shocking amounts of money on obsolete technologies like light rail, without realizing that the current central-control approach is incapable of significantly helping to solve transportation problems.

The sooner policy makers come to grips with the difficult and unfortunate reality of failing transit, the sooner policies that improve mobility and reduce costs can be embraced.

###

Copyright 2002, Independence Institute

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is President of the Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL is a Senior Fellow at the Institute.

SCOTT BARTON is a summer intern at the Institute.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject can be found at:  www.i2i.org/centers/transportation

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill

Ozone is a known cancer-causing agent. It also causes lung irritation and difficulty in breathing, especially among the very young, elderly, and those with respiratory ailments. Ozone is an unstable form or oxygen. Light rail trains generate ozone. Is there a problem?

In the atmosphere oxygen usually travels in pares of two oxygen atoms together. Chemists refer to oxygen in this form as 02. We need this type of oxygen to breathe and survive.

But sometimes nature gets confused and oxygen appears with three oxygen atoms together. This is ozone: 03; and it can kill people.

Ozone is best known for its environmentally beneficial characteristics. In the upper atmosphere it absorbs cosmic radiation, protecting humans on earth from the effects of the sun. Without the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere skin cancer rates would increase.

In the lower atmosphere ozone is a problem. Denver became a US EPA “non-attainment area” in 1978 when the ozone limit of 0.12 was exceeded. The Denver area has not exceeded the limit since 1988, and was re-designated as “attainment” on October 11, 2001. Colorado would again come under the punitive “non-attainment” rules if weather patters join with man-generated ozone to exceed the air quality limit.

Experts are generally unaware of the sources and behavior of lower atmosphere ozone. They just know that they dont want it around. Large amounts of ozone are generated by electrical storms, but it seems to dissipate quickly. Ozone is also one of the byproducts of automobile operation. Nitrous oxides combine with hydrocarbons, both auto emissions, in the presence of sunlight to yield ozone. Automobiles produce ozone indirectly when conditions are conducive. LRT produces ozone directly and constantly.

Ozone is produced in electric motors when arcing occurs. Arcing is a continuous process within these motors. Higher voltages and higher power demands yield more arcing and in turn, more ozone. Because LRT is powered by electric motors, some environmental assessment of potential affects is warranted. This question was raised in 1994 in Independence Institute issue paper: “Stop That Train” – by Mueller and Polhill.

Lets see how much has been learned in 8 years. Certainly a government concerned with the public well-being, as RTD is, can provide a factual reply. When contacted about this, RTDs Environmental Manager was unable to offer any information whatsoever or name anyone else at RTD or at any other agency with the knowledge to defuse the question.

No expert or other knowledgeable individuals or reports on outdoor ozone could be found at either the US EPA or the Federal Transit Administration. However, there was a study in Southern California of ozone generation by LRT in 1992. It was conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and concluded that one 350 person light rail train produced as much ozone as 8,000 passenger cars and added 0.04 parts per million per train per hour to the ambient air along the light rail corridor. Clearly these numbers understate the problem on the basis of people moved and demonstrate a non-trivial environmental cost of LRT. None of RTDs Environmental Impact Statements has made mention of ozone as a potential problem. The fact that nearly everyone, including those who should know the most, seems oblivious should raise a red flag.

Normalizing the numbers reveals that ozone generated by light rail is at least 50 to 100 times higher than ozone generation by automobiles per person moved.

Denvers “non-attainment” limit for ozone concentrations is 0.12 ppm. Exceeding this limit at any single location carries the threat of loss of Federal funding. EPA sets environmental limits by risk assessment. In theory the 0.12 ppm limit is the level at which one person per million will die. However, not all people are affected the same. One person might contract lung cancer at the .04 ppm level and another might not contract it at all, even when exposed to a much higher level.

Higher concentrations also have more dire health implications. The human body can tolerate a low level of ozone. But once the threshold is exceeded, then the deleterious effects are compounded and magnified. That is, the problems are not arithmetically proportional. If one person per million will die at 0.12 ppm, then at 0.24 ppm more than 2 people will die. It might be 10 or 100 people or more.

Thus, two or three trains per hour in one direction could cause an ozone violation or impose substantial long-term health problems upon some individuals exposed.

RTD apologists have adopted the ostrich philosophy: “Burying your head makes all problems disappear.” Until the ozone questions are answered and to protect the health and safety of innocent citizens, all development near LRT should be prohibited and existing property owners should be warned. Though there may not yet be enough information to warrant evacuation, it is logically inconsistent to conclude that no evaluation is needed.

###
Copyright 2002, Independence Institute

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is President of the Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL is a Senior Fellow the Independence Institute

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject can be found at: www.i2i.org

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill

As a fundamental rule of negotiation and basic courtesy, it is counterproductive to offend ones adversary when first introduced. The predictably defensive reaction among government managers ostracizes the word “privatization” to the lexicon of words rarely spoken in government circles, throttling an open and honest discussion of “privatization” as a tool for governments to improve efficiency. Ambiguous semantics do not help, but hinder the process of making government more efficient and effective.

When intended as an umbrella term encompassing all forms of improving government efficiency, the word “privatization” fails. Are the myriad of management tools, including zero-based budgeting, performance budgeting, leadership-effectiveness skills, management-by-objectives, organizational development, quality circles, and so on, subsets of privatization? If managements efficiency tools were located under the “privatization umbrella,” would they then be called “privatization” when the same management tools are applied in the private sector? How can something private be privatized? Maybe competivized or efficiencyized would be a more accurate term.

Use of the word “privatization” does not help to clarify and focus the debate. Alternate, more precise and less confrontational words would help advance the “privatization” cause.

Government Reinvention

Most private-sector entities are under enormous competitive pressures that cannot be replicated in government. Governments fundamentally perform monopoly functions. Competition is the core motivating force that yields more service for less money than governments can achieve. When competitive forces are unleashed in various quasi-private entities, significant efficiencies emerge. In a study of deregulated “natural monopolies,” the Brookings Institution found on average that deregulation of airlines (1977), trucking (1980), railroads (1980), natural gas (1984), and long distance telephone (1984) yielded lower costs to consumers of 13 percent after two years, 22 percent after five years, and 40 percent after 10 years in inflation-adjusted dollars. These efficiencies are hardly trivial and add several hundred dollars per year to every familys wealth.

Governments have been found manufacturing furniture, selling hearing aids, consulting on international contracts, manufacturing lifeboats, performing photogrammetric flights, operating grocery stores, providing Internet services, and much more. Most people, including most politicians and government managers, would concede that these are not proper government functions. Because this group of examples exploits the tax exemption, tax subsidy, regulatory exemption, and liability exemption advantages of governments to compete unfairly against privately owned taxpaying businesses, it is referred to as “unfair government competition.”

Honest government managers are sometimes blindly trapped into committing similar abuses by their dedication to implementing efficiency. What should the manager of a government-owned asphalt plant do when he learns that 20 percent more product can be produced (the same notion applies to smaller examples, like use of dump trucks, street sweepers, and car washes)? If he fails to produce the excess product, then unit cost of the remainder output is inflated. If he uses the product wastefully, then no efficiency is gained. If he sells it on the market, he enters into competition with private suppliers, potentially injuring the market and causing unit costs to escalate for others at a subsidy expense to his government. What to do? Excess-capacity is a signal to government managers. Any internal function with excess production capacity is a function with inflated internal unit costs requiring internal cross-subsidization. Thus, divesting the function and purchasing the units externally would capture efficiencies. Governments must invent new salary structures, incentives, and bonus systems that reward managers for capturing efficiencies.

###

Copyright 2002, Independence Institute

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.

JON CALDARA is President of the Institute.

DENNIS POLHILL, a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute, wrote this article, which was originally published in the March 2002 edition of Privatization Watch.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject can be found at: http://independenceinstitute.org/

NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole or in part is hereby granted provided full credit is given to the Independence Institute.

By Dennis Polhill
Summary

Issue:

Both the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) can expect a dramatic reduction in highway and transportation funding from traditional sources over the next few years. Colorados highway network is already overrun with travelers, yet widened and expanded highways will not be pursued.

Opportunity:

There exists unused space in Colorados High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, at locations such as I-25, Santa Fe Drive, and State Highway 82, as well as projected unused space in future HOV investments, such as North I-25 and U.S. 36. High Occupancy / Toll (HOT) lanes are a viable and desirable means of effectively using that excess space, without:

1. reducing the congestion-free benefit of the lanes;
2. eliminating the incentives to carpool or ride the bus; or
3. requiring large capital expenditures.