make, execute, and adjudge the law. Is it
a display of lack of confidence? No, I do
not think so. I think a refusal to elect or
re-elect is the only true sign of no con-
fidence in a legislator.
Indirect initiative and referendum round
out the picture of governmental checks and
balances by giving the people a check and
balance against deficient government. Does
it lend itself to promiscuous use? No.
We have already addressed ourselves to
this by suggesting 90,000 signatures under
our suggestion would be required for any-
body to go to the legislature. They must
undergo a rigid legislative scrutiny. It must
be submitted ninety days before the Gen-
eral Assembly convenes and there must be
a sixty day intervention before if goes on
the ballot. All of this is designed to in-
crease to the extent humanly possible all
the public deliberation, dialogue, and dis-
cussion that is possible.
It is impossible to believe that any other
than those really with an issue justifying
public scrutiny would survive. With less
stringent requirements, since 1915, it has
been noted that only twelve measures have
been used by way of the referendum.
There are some objections raised to our
particular proposal and I should like to
deal with those quickly if I may. The first
is, once you give the proposal to the legis-
lature and it agrees that it is a good idea
or that it will consider it with amendments
how does a group of people take it back
and take it away or out of this indirect
initiative process? The answer is we give
the legislature the power to enact laws to
facilitate that kind of inter-reaction and
dialogue so if the legislature responds
favorably, it would seem to us, that the pro-
ponents who perhaps might number ten
could submit this law to the legislature and
then withdraw and it never goes on the
ballot.
The second question is is this necessary
since reapportionment? Malapportionment
is only one cause of failure of the legis-
lature to respond to majority interests.
There are others: first, there is reluctance
on the part of the legislature to initiate
broad or narrow changes without a dis-
play of significant interest by the citizens
and they certainly are not to be blamed
for that. Secondly, there are political prob-
lems such as reapportionment or reforms
affecting political interests, which often are
involved in some of the critical and sensi-
tive issues. And third, there is the simple
lack of time and interest by the strong
legislative leadership. |
This very Convention, I submit to you,
ladies and gentlemen, is a monument to the
needs for some mechanism to be placed in
the hands of the people for change and re-
newal which does not rely exclusively on
the legislature.
We cannot deny the possibility of needed
change of the same fundamental nature
even though not of constitutional quality
in the future. We suggest that people
should have the opportunity to respond to
these problems, jointly with the legisla-
ture, to meet the problems and to make a
decision at the polls if that is necessary.
There is a great advantage to a de-
mocracy if the people know they have a
continuing authority over their own wel-
fare. Every time the people participate in
an election in a referendum or in an initia-
tive proceeding, they must feel a greater
confidence in their right and ability to par-
ticipate and influence their government.
This confidence psychologically encourages
additional participation in the future in
ways perhaps less dramatic but more effec-
tive.
The essence of indirect initiative and
referendum, which are usually considered
in tandem, is public participation in gov-
ernment, participation both real and po-
tential. Knowing one has the right and the
ability to participate directly is as impor-
tant as the actual participation.
In a Constitutional Convention we are
concerned with fundamental power, and
checks and balances among those powers.
The people are a factor in these constitu-
tional equations. What are their powers
vis-a-vis their formal structural govern-
ment? We submit that three formal powers
are or should be vested in the people: elec-
tion, referendum, and initiative.
The elections deal with choice of person-
alities. Referendum and initiative deal
with policies. Why should the people not
have this right to participate so long as we
design a method which will discourage
frivolous use and assure that only impor-
tant issues will survive to the polls. Thank
you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions for
purpose of clarification? Delegate Winslow.
DELEGATE WINSLOW: Mr. Chair-
man, did your group take into account the
idea that a law might be submitted by
petition and be amended by the legislature
and then passed? What would the status
be then? |
