Sunday, June 24, 2012

Discussion # 3, Initiatives and Referendums


Sorry to have gotten a bit behind in the blog post. On Thursday, June 24, 2012, the panel briefly discussed the history of the initiative process in Washington State, and we were presented with a description of the pros and cons of the process.

While elected officials in today’s panel were comparatively under-represented, Representative Reykdal and Joni Balter of the Seattle Times presented points of view that discussed the challenges legislators face and the effects on policy-making as a result of the initiative process.

Tim Eyman is a strong defender of the initiative process, even in the light of a growing initiative industry and out-of-state influence in the Washington state initiative process. He felt it was “condescending” to assume that Washington voters were unduly influenced by media campaigns and made informed decisions regardless
.
Allison Holcomb presented an interesting perspective as a representative of the ACLU, which is supporting the marijuana initiative, yet seems to take issue with the initiative process in general. She pointed out that when we elect people to public office, we are essentially “hiring” them to do a job that most of us don’t have time to do. The process of government should include hiring the right people, and then letting them do their job.

An interesting note was Friday’s headline story in the Bellingham Herald regarding the alleged fraudulent signatures found in signatures gathered for I-74. (see Apparent fraud discovered on some I-74 signature sheets http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/politics/apparent-fraud-discovered-on-some-r-74-petition-sheets/)

In light of this, we would like to hear your perspectives. Please consider the following when formulating your response:

-Having an understanding of the initial populist orientation of the initiative process, and its current evolution to the “Industrialized” of process that exists in many cases today, how do you feel about the role of the initiative process in the state of Washington? Is the process simply part-time public micromanagement of government and ties the hands of elected officials? Or do the benefits of direct democracy outweigh the costs? 

13 comments:

  1. Direct Democracy is a wonderful element to Washington State Government, it is what makes Washington unique. However, several points were brought to my attention during the third panels discussion on the issue. The initiative was introduced in Washington as a way to combat big corporations corrupting politicians in the 19th century, but are they necessary now? The answer, in my opinion is yes, but I tend to think reform is needed to the initiative process and the power of the people. Corruption in office, in many people's opinions, is abundant today, so in order to balance the power and get the "little guy's voice" heard is important. I am a firm believer in the right to petition government, but in rough economic times when strong leadership is required to steer the state out of depression, initiatives make governing hard. For example, government needs a source of revenue to fund various agencies and programs, the revenue comes from the people in the form of a tax of some sort, whether it be paying for car tabs or an income tax. When the people have the right to vote on a tax during harsh economic times, I am skeptical to believe they will pass something that will force them to shell out a couple extra bucks. When people pass initiatives that require governmental funding but will not pass a new tax, it creates a deficit in the budget and makes matters worse. I do believe some good can come from initiatives and referendums though. When the government has not acted on a growing issue and the people grow impatient, they set out to seek change to the law through the I/R process. This demonstrates their wants to the office holders and even if the I/R did not get passed, the legislators know that the citizens want change! Initiatives and Referendums are fundamental to checking the power of government and play a key role in Washington State Government, but reform is necessary to keep the I/R process from hindering governmental leadership in rough economic times. But again, I am a firm believer in the power of the people so eliminating these from Washington Government is not the answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say that you think reform is needed to the initiative process and the power of the people. What type of reform are you considering? You list many reasons why you do not agree with the process, one being that in tough economic times we need strong leadership to steer the state out of depression, what is a way to involve the I/R process but keep educated officials making the decisions? In my opinion, while we do have these processes, there is still high discretion when passing the small amount of initiatives that even get on the ballot. I think that is enough.

      Delete
  2. Since its creation by populists in the beginning of the 20th century, the initiative and referendum process has evolved into something that would be unrecognizable by those who first implemented it into the state’s constitution. The influence of money from wealthy interest groups seeking a particular policy outcome is said to have created an “initiative industry” (Long, 85). Though the original reason for having the initiative was in response to the influence of money, I still see the biggest change from the initiative’s original intent in the creation of paid signature gatherers. To some extent in this day and age I think it’s almost impossible to keep money out of politics, so I see paid-signature gatherers as more antithetical to the initiative’s grassroots origins. Since its implementation, the signature threshold for getting an initiative on the ballot has been 8 percent of turnout for the most recent gubernational election. The population of Washington has increased drastically since this time, making the task of collecting the required amount of signatures increasing difficult. After the panel, the campaign director of Initiative-105, Alison Holcomb, said the campaign had no choice but to hire a private firm to conduct signature collection if it had any chance of getting on the ballot. She suggested reforms to the process such as lowering the signature threshold and allowing a longer time period for signature collection. Along with more transparent campaign contributions, I agree with Holcomb about these reforms. I think these would lessen the need for paid signature-gatherers making the process more grassroots.

    Besides the aforementioned reforms that need to be made, I believe the initiative process is beneficial to Washington politics. Though the initiative has been known to throw a monkey wrench in the legislative process, Washington legislators usually have the courts on their side to strike down these initiatives. In this way I think there is a fair give and take between the government and the people. Even if an initiative is not voted into law or if it gets struck down by the court, a signal is sent to the legislators about what their constituents and other Washingtonians care about, which in the long term makes for more representative government.

    Specifically, I think the legislature should encourage the use of the indirect initiative by lowering the signature threshold and allowing a longer time period for signature collection. I think the direct initiative encourages an “us versus them” attitude toward government and is ultimately inefficient. The process of the indirect initiative--where legislators may strike down an initiative because there is no way for it to work in a budget or suggest another version of the bill to the public--would make citizens more aware of the law-making process and the tradeoffs that have to be made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the initiative process is important to Washington State. You suggest that we make changes to limit the need for paid signature gatherers. How do we limit outside spending? At some point if the money comes from out-of-state, isn't simply an out-of-state initiative. Or should we allow any amount of spending, and focusing on educating the populace in critical thinking skills so we can make more informed decisions?

      Delete
  3. ***This is a response to blog #2 about higher education. For some reason blogspot is not allowing me to post this in the previous blog



    After attending the panel I found that I was embarrassingly in the dark about the state of higher education in Washington. I was unaware of the staggering number of 25-year-olds who are less educated than their parents or that tuition has risen almost 600 percent since the 1980s.

    As a college senior, having spent four years in higher education, I truly believe in the value of a college degree. In the last four years I have grown as a person and others have recognized this growth as well. My education has made me a better-rounded individual and citizen. I whole-heartedly believe that even if there is only a relatively small increase in the percentage of the overall population attending college that a society will be better off in all aspects of social life.

    The panelists mentioned several solutions to increasing higher education funding, however the overall message was that we need to find another source of revenue. To find this revenue in the current economic climate will be difficult because of many factors. Senator Litzow suggested the solution may be to cut other services or reorient the tax structure (possibly a property tax shift). Representative Hans Zeiger suggested cutting from regulatory agencies, bureaucracy and social programs. Yet, it is easy to assume that changing the tax code or cutting programs would cause bipartisan conflict and may mean changes won’t be seen in the near future. For these reasons I believe the state should focus on manageable solutions such as encouraging more online and hybrid courses. These would help students struggling financially to for pay high tuition prices by allowing them to graduate sooner and possibly work while attending school.

    Online courses, such as those offered by Western Governor’s University, are only a short-term fix to Washington’s higher education deficit. I think these courses offer a quick solution to producing more STEM degrees and creating a more stable economy, however, I don’t see them as equivalent to a four-year university degree. The benefits of teacher-to-student, peer-to-peer teaching can’t be found in online education and I think these benefits are very important to creating more trusting and involved citizens. I think the ideal would be for all students that want to get a degree to be able to afford attending a traditional brick and mortar institution.
    This leads me to what I thought was the most important solution: invoking the importance of higher education in Washington citizens. It is easy for educators and students to see the importance of education, however, every tax payer should understand the value of having an educated workforce. As Representative Carlyle pointed out, education is about creating the educated citizenry that is central to our type of government. This is why we need to create a connection, an ownership and a value between all Washington citizens and their education system. Carlyle’s main point was that Washingtonians need to have a conversation about investing in higher education. I think, as many of the panelists concluded, that this conversation would start with (enough) people contacting their representatives about their concerns for higher education and giving representatives no choice but to make it a talking point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Online universities do in fact offer accredited online degrees, including Western which will be offering a master's degree in adult education starting fall 2012. What this may simply mean is that there will be many more options for adult education in the future. Those that prefer and are able to have an on campus experience will still be able to, while those who have reasons for not being able to get to a campus, still have access to higher education, possibly providing more access for all.

      Delete
  4. The Washington State Constitution reserves the right to the people to approve or reject any state law through referendum and initiatives. The way to get a referendum or initiative passed is to get enough signatures by the people to put it onto the ballot. This is an interesting way to give the people a voice, however, as Allison Holcomb puts it, "it is a difficult process". Tim Eyman let everyone know that money cannot persuade peoples' decisions, however money lets the word out to the state.

    I learned that once an initiative is passed it is left alone for two years. I also learned that initiatives and referendum are checks and balances. What I wanted to know though, was how difficult it is to pass an initiative particularly? After the panel, Allison Holcomb was telling everybody what exactly needs to be done to pass an initiative. First, over 240,000 signatures need to be collected. Well that sounds difficult enough right? Even more difficult is finding where people can ask for signatures, and it is another matter completely to keep peoples' attention when they are trying to get some shopping done.

    This leads into the role of money. Tim Eyman called it "condescending" to say that money can change the mind of the voter. And I know that Tim Eyman is just advocating, but I believe that the bottom line is that money is a factor. It gets the word out to the people, and if an argument is presented, and that is the only argument the people hear, then they are more than likely to vote for that initiative or referendum. It is the people who don't know what to vote for that will decide what is passed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Often it can be quite costly to process these initiatives; to elaborate Allison stated that you need a lot of money in order to get the word out there and also the initiatives often need to pay signature gatherers. On the other hand, Tim Eyman strictly stated that the side that spends the most money usually loses and stated that “ you cannot put lipstick on a pig”, meaning that you cannot make a bad argument presented with beauty if you spend some money to maintain it...it will remain ugly. He compared this argument to the ⅔ initiative and stated that the opposing side spent $1.6 million on banners, flyers, bumper stickers, media advertising etc. where Eyman’s campaign spend $0. Consequently, Eyman won and he emphasized that the content of the initiative campaign was more valuable than spending.

    The costs of direct democracy using the initiative process can be beneficial because I recollect in the lobbyist panel, Nick Federici stated that for 6 consecutive years, Nick and others were attuned* to ban smoking in public areas. It was being rejected continuously and as a result, he used the initiative process and it was passed the next year. The negative is when there are initiatives processed that are not intellectually voted for (ex: initiative passed to increase gun licensing..

    The elected officials are not tied down by the initiative process because the representatives are usually able to work around the direct democratic initiative via lobbying. Rep. Reykdal had stated that initiative process is not a process for the state constitution, however it can amend it. Eyman stated that 80% of initiatives do not make it Olympia and ⅙ of the initiatives that do make it are passed. The representatives have much greater influence than the campaign directors in the constitutional process because they are elected to provide insightful and intellectual decisions that will abet the state’s political function. The threshold for gathering signatures is incredibly high for the initiative process; thus, we do not need to fear that the representatives ‘hands are tied down’. Contrarily, I believe that initiatives still can be costly that require careful planning and require adequate reasoning as to why the initiative will help the state. I think that Allison did an excellent job elaborating on the Marijuana initiative for why we should support it.

    In essence, the initiative process is a good method for checks and balances. The initiatives give a chance for activists to influence voters; however, the initiative process does not have complete sovereignty to change Washington’s constitution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an interesting interpretation of the panel discussions but I am not sure I can totally agree with your position. For the most part, I think you are right on the money, but you credit the the legislature with too much power when it compares to the power of the people. Maybe 80% of the initiatives not making it to Olympia are bad, anyone can come up with an initiative so there is a huge possibility that they are struck down because nobody was buying what they were selling. I do believe, however, initiatives serve a good purpose in Washington State Government but at times they detract from the leadership that the elected officials could provide, revisions to the initiative and referendum processes are needed, maybe even just miniscule ones but if you take what all the panelists are saying about education and how we are 48th in the U.S. in college degrees, I don't think I'm totally convinced everyone knows what they are voting on all of the time, not because they are stupid, but because, like Allison suggested, they are busy hardworking folks.

      Delete
    2. I agree with most of what you say. However, you downplay the role initiatives play forcing the hand legislators to find revenue to properly fund the initiative forcing cuts to agencies to systems that were already in place. Referring to your statement of Tim Eyman saying 80% of initiatives don't make it to Olympia, have you considered, that they did not make it because they did not have the support of the majority of the people. You can assume that they either lacked sufficient funding or were not popular enough with the people. But ultimately, initiatives are used as a check and balance system against government but reform might be necessary in today's age with the current economic problems.

      Delete
  6. Jon- I myself am fascinated by the two year ‘initiative cage’ that says ‘hands off’! Allison stated that the bare minimum number of signature needed to get on the ballot is 240,000 signatures; this means that you actually need about 320,000! Allison emphasized that the timing to attract people to sign is highly essential to the initiative process. If you start late, it obviously is hard to even consider the ballot. With the plethora of initiatives, voters often get confused regarding the initiatives. For instance, when Allison was gathering Initiative-502 signatures, a lot of voters were under the assumption that they already voted, where that actually was another initiative. It is a complex process, but if you have a backed up argument, you can attract voters to sign more effectively. On the other hand, if it is an ethical/controversial issue, like marijuana, people will have a propensity to not want to expose any information of them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Again I would ask at what point do initiatives lose their original intent? As an outgrowth of the populist movement, they were designed to balance the influence of wealthy, powerful interests. If they simply become the tool of the wealthy, then they no longer exist to give the general population more influence in government, they are simply a tool of the powerful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What was interesting to me was hearing Joni Balter talk about the history of the initiative process and what it was first implemented in our state. To me, it’s pretty clear to see that Washington is a progressive state, and it always has been. Being a state in the US that has the initiative and referendum process shows this. Ms. Balter discussed how initiatives were created to give the little guy power over the railroad companies. We can see today that we have moved far from using this process to gain control over the railroad companies, but we still use it to question authority and to have the power rest in the people, not just elected officials.

    I found it very interesting what Allison Holcomb said about elected officials being elected an official for a reason: to do their job. I can see the I/R process intruding on this significantly, but the power and discretion still lies in the Washington State judges. I think Ms. Holcomb had a great point when she said that these officials were elected, because they are educated in the process and what is best for our state. But, does the state always have our best interests in the mind?
    I feel that with the initiative and referendum process, we are able to conquer biases and corruption.

    Overall, I am a strong believer in the direct democracy of Washington State. It is an important contribution to a successful democracy and representation of the people in our state.

    ReplyDelete