merit but there are certain noxious points,
they will amend it.
The proponents have the option of ac-
cepting the issue. They also have the op-
tion of going beyond the legislature and to
the people on the ballot.
We have attempted to make the provi-
sion strict. We have required that there
be 90,000 signatures obtained by the pro-
ponents on a petition, ten per cent of the
entire gubernatorial vote before they can
even enter the halls of the legislature.
We also require in order to assure that
there be full public debate that they ap-
proach the legislature with this proposed
law ninety days prior to the legislative
session's convening.
There are nineteen states in the country
with some form of initiative. Most have
what many consider to be a more noxious
version of initiative than the direct initia-
tive which has been used frequently in
California. As I say, we do not. suggest
direct, rather indirect, we also suggest a
petition with a higher signature require-
ment than is the average across the coun-
try.
You might ask, and rightfully so, why
don't we have it now in the present Con-
stitution? The Senate in 1914 approved by
majority vote the initiative and referendum
together. I might 'point out, I think you all
know, initiative and referendum are always
considered in tandem. Only Maryland and
New Mexico do not have both, only refer-
endum.
The Senate passed it but they did not
have a constitutional majority, therefore it
was not included in the Constitution.
Our subcommittee of Suffrage and Elec-
tions did approve this. This is not only a
minority report of the committee, but it is
a majority report of the subcommittee of
the Committee.
We took the opportunity to study the
transcript of the Constitutional Convention
Commission and it was debated from our
calculation about ninety seconds. Approxi-
mately one page and a half of their tran-
script was devoted to a discussion of initia-
tive. We thought it in the best interests of
the people, since we only have a Conven-
tion every 100 years, to bring to your at-
tention what we think was a very effective
device for self-government.
The Commission did not include it in its
commentary at all and the transcript is |
fairly devoid of any deep discussion of it.
Most importantly, I think, it is good to
know that a fairly effective and efficient
and comprehensive staff report was pre-
pared at the request of the Commission and
submitted to the Commission a good many
days or weeks after the Commission de-
cided the issue. That is to say, the Com-
mission did not have the benefit of that
staff report in making its decision.
So I would like to share with you the
conclusion only of that staff report. It is
this. I quote from that staff report.
"It has been argued that the referen-
dum protects the people from measures
passed by a poorly apportioned legisla-
ture, or one that was elected from highly
gerrymandered districts. The current
trend toward more equitable apportion-
ment does not cancel this argument.
Political consequences will continue to
get high priority when legislative dis-
tricts are drawn. Reapportionment will
prevent the legislature from being un-
der the control of certain minorities, but
there will always be minorities which
should not be denied a valid means of
protecting their interests.
"These arguments hold true for the
power of initiative also. There is no good
reason for having referendum without
initiative. Initiative has often resulted
in good legislation in states that offer it,
frequently resulting in establishment of
laws which would have been extremely
difficult to pass in the legislature. An
example of this is the repeal of prohibi-
tion in Oklahoma."
Whether or not we think that prohibi-
tion is good or bad, the point is, as the
staff reporter indicates, that a majority of
the people of Oklahoma wanted the repeal
of prohibition but that there was a strong
feeling, strong enough for the legislature
to feel it, against repeal, so it was not re-
pealed.
He goes on to say this:
"Resolving highly controversial issues
is not the most important reason for in-
cluding initiative in the new Constitu-
tion. More important is the fact that
denying the right of initiating legislation
gives rise to a contradiction in our sys-
tem of government. The theory upon
which our government rests places all
sovereignty in the people; the people
delegate powers to the three branches of
government. If a sovereign can grant a
power, surely it has the right to exer- |
