A Brief Summary of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Process of Citizen Lawmaking
Because I don't know who is familiar or not with these instruments of citizen lawmaking or where a reader is in this series of excerpts on A Government By The People, I am including a summary of how the process works with each excerpt:
(1) In the initiative process, if citizens from a specific political unit i.e., town, county, state, or nation, desire as citizen lawmakers to see a specific proposition become law, and they get the legally designated number of signatures of registered voters required by law for that unit of government in support of that law, that proposition goes to the registered voters of that unit of government for a vote, and if the proposition receives the majority of the votes cast, the proposition becomes law.
(2) In a citizen referendum, if the citizens of a specific political unit disapprove of a law passed by their legislature, and they obtain the legally designated number of signatures of registered voters required by law in support of a proposition demanding the repeal of that law, that proposition goes to the registered voters of that unit of government, and if the proposition received the majority of the votes cast, the law is repealed.
(3) In a recall, through the same process, citizens can recall representative or public officials, except that in this instance a super majority is usually required.
Does Big Money Dominate The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Process?
Critics argue that big money dominates the initiative, referendum, and recall process. We will reframe that accusation in the form of a question that asks, can big money and wealthy special interest groups and/or individuals buy the initiative, referendum and recall process of citizen lawmaking in the same way that they can buy influence in Washington? The answer is no. Elizabeth Gerber in her book, The Popular Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Democracy, 1999, conducted extensive surveys of the activities and motivations of interest groups and analyzed campaign records from 161 direct legislative campaigns in eight states and observed that wealthy economic interest groups are less successful than broad based popular citizen groups in getting initiatives passed.
An analysis of 57 ballots measured between 1988 and 1992 reveals that only 31% of initiatives backed by wealthy economic interest groups passed, in contrast to a 50% success rate for propositions backed by broad based popular citizen groups. Gerber’s research was supported by a study by Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan where they found that while 40% of all initiatives on the California ballot from 1986 to 1996 passed, only 14% of the initiatives passed were supported and funded by special interests. (Sabato 174)
However, narrow based, wealthy economic interest groups are more successful and defeating propositions that they oppose. This is reflected in how narrow based economic interest groups spend their money in initiative campaigns. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, between 1981 and 1990, economic interests spent over 78% of their $99 million in contributions to defeat ballot measure. During the same period, citizen groups spent 88% of their $33 million to support proposed changes to the status quo. (Gerber, Interest Group Influence) This is reflected in the following charts. (Gerber 17-18)
Economic special interest groups are successful in opposing propositions for many reasons, but at the heart of the strategy is the campaign to confuse the voters. Initiative voters have been found to be essentially circumspect. If they do not understand a proposition, they will generally vote no or not vote at all. Special interest economic interests will try to exploit this virtue through deceptive advertisement and the introduction of competing propositions that confuse the issue and lengthen the ballot to further confuse the voters with the volume of information that they must absorb. This pouring of money into a campaign to oppose it, however, is a double-edged-blade. For example, studies indicate that the more money that is spent on advertisement, the more the public becomes aware of the proposition, and in many instances the ad campaign does not affect how they vote, it affects their interest in the campaign and causes them to become more informed. Also, studies indicate that if the issues in a proposition are critical to the average citizen, the more money that is poured into the campaign, the more likely that even if the initiative is initially defeated, the issues will appear over and over again in new initiatives until the labyrinth of lies is exposed to the light of day.
Money has always influenced the initiative process and will continue to be an obstacle to the free expression of the will of the people through the initiative, referendum, and recall process, but the fact remains that broad based popular citizen groups have successfully advanced their agenda and the people’s choice about 50% of the time. Using a baseball analogue, it is better to be batting .500 in the initiative, referendum, and recall process than it is to never get up to the plate in Washington where economic special interests know it is easier to bribe and pay off a couple hundred representatives or a couple of representatives on a Congressional committee than it is to bribe the entire voting population of the United States of America or even one state. A million dollars goes a long way in Washington, but it’s not even a dollar-a-vote in California or Washington State.
Finally, if we had an initiative, referendum, and recall process at every level of our government, it would act as a as a check against a representative system that does not represent the will of the people by just being there. The process of citizen lawmaking and oversight is like a presidential veto, its mere existence effects the behavior of our representatives in the United States Congress and our state and local governments. Like the Sword of Damocles, it is ever present as a warning against the excesses of greed, corruption, and influence peddling. With true democracy as a check and balance against a representative system of government that does not represent the will of the people, the American people do not have to go to the streets in order to protest, they can turn out at the voting booth to pass or repeal legislation that will be responsive to their needs. For example, do you think that if we had a national initiative, referendum, and recall process that the United States that Congress could have passed the recent tax cut that overwhelmingly favored the top 1% of the population in income? Never.
Cites:
Gerber, Elizabeth, The Popular Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Democracy, Princeton University Press 1999
Sabato, Larry, Howard Ernst, Bruce A. Larson, Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Hanham 2001
Illustrations:
Illustration #16, Power To the People, Tino, Marcello and Andrea Dalla Bona, Learn or Die: The New American Revolution, Thompson and Prince 2020
Author's Note - Learn or Die: The New American Revolution is a two part revolution of political and economic democracy. Initially in the excerpts from the book that I am sharing, I am focusing on the political revolution and citizen lawmaking. In this study of political democracy, I will cover key questions about the initiative, referendum, and recall process of citizen lawmaking: 1) Does money dominate the process? (2) Does the initiative, referendum, and recall process of lawmaking trample minority rights? (3) Does the process work for everyone? (4) Is the average American capable of being a citizen lawmaker?
Author's Note - I have made Learn or Die: The New American Revolution available to you through Smashwords in a Freedom for Free Edition where you can pay what you want for the book or nothing at all. It is free. I'm doing this because after 50 years of research and study I believe I have found the way for all of us.
Comments