Resolving highly controversial issues
is not the most important reason for
including initiative in a constitution.
More important is the fact that by deny-
ing the right of persons to initiate legis-
lation, an inherent contradiction arises
in our system of government. The
theory upon which our government
rests recognizes that all sovereignty rests
in the people; the people then delegate
powers between the three branches of
government. If a sovereign can grant
a power, surely it has the right to exer-
cise that power.
Here we are concerned with the pow-
ers that are granted by the people to the
legislature to draft and enact laws. To
deny initiative leaves the subordinate
body, the legislature, with those powers
granted by its superior, the people, but
not exerciseable by the superior. It may
be argued that this situation also exists
with respect to the other two branches
of government; however, in those cases
it is not feasible for the people to exer-
cise the powers in question. On the
other hand, it has been demonstrated
in other states that it is feasible for the
people to draft and pass legislation.
Whether or not initiative is adopted,
it would seem imprudent to remove ref-
erendum from the Constitution since it
appears that this is also an inherent
power of the sovereign people.
Assuming that there will be a referen-
dum provision in Maryland's new con-
stitution, such a provision must be
workable. To limit this power un-
reasonably defeats its purpose. A pro-
vision so limited would be mere words,
without rendering value. Whether the
present signature requirement hinders
the provision's effective use is a matter
for debate. Prior to 1962, 10,000 signa-
tures were required. Although this seems
76
|
liberal, only ten statewide questions have
been submitted since the adoption of
Article XIV in 1915. In 1962, the sig-
nature requirement was amended to
require a petition to bear the names of
3 per cent of the number of persons
who voted for governor in the preceding
gubernatorial election. In 1964, only
one question was submitted under this
new requirement.
Since only one petition was prepared
for the 1966 election, there would seem
to be no pressing need to raise the sig-
nature requirement. The voting popu-
lation in the State is increasing. If one
million votes are cast for governor (in
the 1966 gubernatorial election there
were 919,760 votes cast for the candi-
dates for governor), 30,000 signatures
would be required for a subsequent
petition. Collecting this number of sig-
natures would be a formidable task for
any person or group.
Any increase in the percentage of sig-
natures required, if thought desirable,
should be kept to a one or, at most, a
2 per cent increase. It should be remem-
bered that the 3 per cent requirement
was adopted in 1962.
Collecting signatures is a difficult task
in itself, but when the time for gather-
ing them is short, the burden is even
heavier. Most states provide petitioners
90 days in which to compile signatures;
but this is not the case in Maryland.
The governor, if he desires, may shorten
the time permitted to about 25 days,
requiring the solicitors to gather over
500 signatures a day in order to amass
the required 15,000 signatures by June
1 for a petition requiring 30,000 signa-
tures. It would seem that all petitioners
should be expressly guaranteed 90 days
from the passage of a measure (passage
being the date on which the governor's
|
