> 6. INITIATIVE REFORM--I'll be introducing an initiative reform bill to
> State Affairs on Tuesday. Ron Rankin doesn't like it and told Rep.
> Jim Clark that I was a Communist for trying to interfere in the
> initiative process. The bill calls for the organization of a Citizen's
> Committee to review each initiative that qualifies for the ballot.
> The Committee is appointed by the Governor, ProTempe of the Senate,
> and the Speaker of the House (9 members with equal political party
> representation if legislators are included). The Committee would
> review each initiative in terms of legal and constitutional questions
> (with the Attorney General's Office), drafting issues, technical
> issues, and a financial impact analysis. Upon completion of the this
> process a public hearing would be held and then a report issued to the
> initiative sponsors, Governor, and the press. Statements in the
> Sec. of State's Voters Guide would come from the report.
>
> The proposal does not interfer in any way with the initiative process--
> a common complaint of defenders of the initiative process. It would
> hopefully encourage sponsors of initiatives to do a comprehesive
> and thorough job in drafting the initiative. The most important
> goal would be to provide the citizens of the state with detailed
> and understandable analysis of the impact of each initiative. Voters
> would be in a better position to make intelligent decisions on each
> initiative. Lund Lindquist, Speaker of the Oregon House of Representa-
> tives has introduced a similar bill.
I feel compelled to address this issue since I authored a
1996 Idaho initiative. Ron Rankin and I are probably on opposite
ends of the political spectrum but we both believe in keeping
the initiative process open and accessible. Rankin is right
about this legislation. This is a political
solution in search of a problem.
1) Let's define the problem. How many initiatives in Idaho have
actually become law in Idaho in the last 10 years? I don't
remember *any* in the time that I lived in Idaho though there may
have been a few. Could Tom point to a single initiative that passed that
actually posed a "problem" for the state of Idaho? Then compare this
figure to the number of incompetant laws introduced by state legislators
over the years.
2) The Attorney General's Office already reviews initiatives
for legal consistency. These reviews provide an effective
means to improve potentially inconsistent (in a legal sense)
initiatives. I would argue the only check and balance that
is desirable is a legal one. The Citizen's Committee
a classic double standard. Where is
the Citizen's Committee that reviews all the inane, incompetant,
and/or special legislation proposed by state legislators?
3) An unfavorable review by the "Citizens Committee" (Big
Brother by any other name) will effectively kill the initiative
before it even has a chance to be publicly debated. That is
not in the interest of democracy. In a Republic, we expect to
have civil discussion about proposed laws. This change
would not permit that all important dialogue. Tom claims
the initiative proposal does not interfere in any way with the
initiative process. I beg to differ. Those that know
political power know that the most important power is the one to
set the agenda. The Citizen's Committee, through
its "review" and "opinion" will establish the agenda
and debate over the issue. It does not give free-willed
individuals a chance to come to their own conclusion
about the legislation.
4) A thorough analysis occurs with or without
a Citizen's Committee. Can anyone point to a single
initiative that did not receive adequate analysis in
the press? Every initiative has been carefully scrutinized
by all sides after (and even before) qualification
(which remains a long shot at best).
5) The intiative process is currently so onerous that
few initiatives qualify. Even fewer actually become law.
Unless money is a free commodity today, no one is going
qualify an initiative that does not have some merit.
I don't agree with the 1% proposal but I will ardently
defend Rankin's desire to put it before the people of
Idaho.
6) The initiative process is called the Citizen's
Legislature. Would will we call it after it
goes through a set of filters designed to check
change in government? The Citizen's Committee
will be appointed by people who are, by definition,
friends with those in government. How can government
reform occur when those sympathetic to government sit
in judgement of an initiative that proposes to reform
government?
Sorry Tom...this a very bad idea. I'm interested
(as I'm sure your constituents are) in listening to
your justification for further burdening
the initiative process.
-- Greg Brown (gregb@siu.edu) Assistant Professor,Dept. of Forestry Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4411 (618) 453-7465 FAX: (618) 453-7475