cise that power. Here we are concerned
with powers granted by the people to the
legislature to draft and enact laws. To
deny initiative leaves the subordinate
body, the legislature, with powers
granted by its superior, the people, but
not possessed by the superior. It may be
argued that this is also true with the
other two branches of government. In
those cases, however, it is not feasible
for the people to exercise the powers in
question. On the other hand, it has been
demonstrated, by other states, that it is
feasible for the people to draft and pass
legislation."
What are the practical advantages of
indirect initiative? Simply it permits the
minority or majority interests, as we found
in Oklahoma in that one case, an orderly
and controlled method of placing proposed
laws before the legislature and then the
people. The legislature, and properly so, is
rarely moved to effect significant changes
in politics without a real demonstration of
popular support. The petition plus the
possibility that the issue could go on the
ballot will guarantee consideration by the
legislature. It is believed that this consid-
eration will often lead to either exposure
of blatant defects or passage of a substan-
tial equivalent of the proposed law.
The second advantage is it stimulates,
this is most important, I think in this day,
it stimulates public involvement in issues
and policies just as elections involve the
people in choices of personalities for office.
Great latitude is provided by our recom-
mendation for public discussion. We re-
quire that the bill be submitted ninety days
before the legislature convenes. We require
that the legislature itself deliberate in pub-
lic. We require that 60 days intervene be-
fore it can be placed on the ballot.
A third practical advantage is that since
referendum is essentially negative in char-
acter, it would seem to be preferable to
balance this off-, and this may be why both
are usually found together in other state
constitutions. Indirect initiative is more
positive, encourages a public dialogue be-
fore enactment rather than after and per-
mits those who might advocate something
to do so in a positive constructive way with
the legislature rather than simply to react
against the legislature.
Most importantly, we can anticipate that
the new constitution will strengthen gov-
ernment as a whole by making it a more
efficient instrument. There is a prevalent
feeling that government is growing further
from the people. |
There can be little doubt that the more
efficient you make government, the stronger
you make it, and the stronger you make it
and the more efficient you make it, and the
further it grows from the people.
It cannot be doubted that the inclusion
of an indirect initiative provision will make
this constitution more attractive to those
seriously and rightly concerned about the
growing power of government. We submit
that without regard to whether the new
constitution would be more attractive, we
in Convention have an obligation to look
to measures which will strengthen the
people's control. Elections are not enough
and referendum being negative is also in-
sufficient. Indirect initiative would comple-
ment both.
Who of us here can say with any degree
of confidence that there will never be a
political-social-governmental issue in the
future in which the people by indirect in-
itiative should not have a direct voice.
Why is it Necessary in pursuit of this
Convention's common desire to strengthen
our three branches of government to con-
clude that the right of the people, which
is superior to all three branches, to speak
with a forceful voice on issues, should be
diminished.
True, we should be confident that harass-
ment of our government is made difficult or
impossible. In the scales of democracy we
always weigh the advantages to our free
society resulting from the people's exer-
cise of their right of involvement in gov-
ernment against the inconvenience to the
government that inevitably results from
that exercise. It is our tradition to suffer
the inconvenience.
Some of the same questions raised about
referendum are raised about initiative. Is
this interference with legislative process?
Is it a display of no confidence in the legis-
lature? Can it be promiscuously used? We
answer an emphatic no to each question.
Is the veto or bill signing an interference?
No, it is part of or a supplement to the
legislative process. Is referendum an inter-
ference? No, it is part of or supplement to
the legislative process. Initiative is also a
part of or supplementary to the legislative
process. But there are others who submit
an entirely different theory and they say
that referendum and initiative are foreign
to the legislative process as distinguished
from the law-making process, that they are
separate and distinguishable instruments
of self-government on a par with the in-
strument of election of representatives to |
