Initiatives flawed, but consider the alternatives

Peter Callaghan;

Comes now the season for ponderous thumb-sucking among politicians, journalists and other deep-thinkers about the initiative process.

The deadline for submitting signatures is July 7, and voters can expect more handiwork from Initiative 695 sponsor Tim Eyman. And any assessment of Republican candidate for governor John Carlson will detail his success at floating and passing initiatives.

But are initiatives good for us, or bad?

The latest analysis comes from the Washington Research Council titled "Has Populist Reform Become Too Popular?" It follows David Broder's recent book "Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money."

The message is the same - that direct democracy via the initiative was a great idea when it emerged from the Populist movement 100 years ago but has now become corrupted by money.

Volunteers used to be needed to win a place on the ballot. To attract enough volunteers, an idea had to have some popular support. Now, one person with an idea and enough money can hire canvassers and get on the ballot.

Broder, a political writer and columnist for The Washington Post, worries that initiatives lack the fine-tuning that the legislative process brings.

There are other complaints. Initiatives tend to be debated in a vacuum. A school-funding initiative, for example, is voted on without considering all of the other demands on state revenues.

All of these criticisms are valid. They identify the most glaring flaws in the initiative process. But each must be followed with a more fundamental question: So what?

Legislatures pass bad bills too, but few would propose dismantling them. And the chances that any changes to the process will be adopted are tiny.

The federal courts have tossed out every attempt to halt paid signature gatherers or limit the money spent promoting initiatives. And voters are unlikely to vote to limit their own power.

Even with its flaws, even sullied by money, the initiative remains the best way to disrupt the cozy relationship between elected officials and powerful special interests.

Without the initiative, we wouldn't have public disclosure of campaign contributions and lobbying expenses. We wouldn't have state spending caps, campaign finance reform, the Shorelines Management Act or the toxic waste cleanup law.

Without the initiative we might still pay sales tax on groceries, might still have an inheritance tax, might still have a patronage-based civil service. Each of these ideas had powerful opposition in the Legislature and might never have passed if left in that domain.

Broder says initiatives lack the checks and balances envisioned by the drafters of the U.S. Constitution. But judicial review applies to initiatives just as it does to bills passed by legislatures. And the courts have not been shy about tossing out popular ideas such as term limits and I-695. Also found unconstitutional were an anti-pornography measure and an anti-school busing initiative.

Upset about that? It cuts both ways. Had the top court not found Initiative 69 unconstitutional in 1932, Washington would have an income tax.

But, critics say, the trends are for more and more initiatives, many offering simplistic solutions and unintended consequences. Yeah, but voters aren't dumb - collectively at least. If they see that initiatives are producing bad results, if they become more numerous, voters will grow leery and weary and start turning them down.

But don't ask voters to give up any power the initiative gives them. They won't do it. And even asking makes them trust the insiders even less than they do now.

- - -

* Reach Peter Callaghan at 253-597-8657 or peter.callaghan@ mail.tribnet.com.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), June 25, 2000

Answers

Peter:

The direct initiative process can be a "double-edge sword" that is sometimes abused by push groups; attempting to load the ballot with numerous measures. None-the-less, the initiative is the best balance over our republic form of government.

-- Richard Henderson (grassroots3@earthlink.net), June 26, 2000.