California's multitude of ballot initiatives rightly points to the difficulties associated with making law by voter petition and ballot initiative. The ballot will be cumbersome, and the voters will be expected to master a large body of information related to the questions. It's the sort of work that legislatures are elected to do.
Nevertheless, voters should have the right to petition to put a question on the ballot when a legislature is unresponsive to a particular issue with wide public support. It is no coincidence that term limits for elected officials have been imposed only in those states where the voters could insist on it via the petition and initiative process.
In California, voters will be expected to decide on 16 questions ranging from medical insurance for workers who aren't now covered to Indian gambling. The number of initiatives is partly a product of a petition threshold that is too low. Requirements should be stringent enough to ensure that the process is used only in extraordinary circumstances.
Clearly, that's not the case with most California measures. Voters can get an initiative on the California ballot with a petition signed by 5 percent of registered voters, according to that state's office of secretary of state. A constitutional amendment can be placed on the ballot with 8 percent.
In contrast, recall of an official elected statewide in California requires a petition of 12 percent of registered voters. A recall vote for state officials elected from smaller districts, such as legislators, requires a 20 percent threshold from voters residing in the district.
The provision for recall, of course, led to the most publicized election in the nation last year, as voters kicked sitting Gov. Gray Davis out of office and elected movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger on the same ballot. That election dramatically demonstrated the power of voter initiative and petition.
That power exists only in the most limited manner in South Carolina. Voters of a municipality may put a question on the ballot with a 15 percent petition of registered voters. There is no provision for statewide petition and initiative, or to recall any elected official, state or local.
The provision for municipal referendum has been used sparingly, perhaps because the 15 percent threshold is substantial enough to deter frivolous initiatives.
The continuing impasse in the town of Hollywood, where a four-man council majority effectively has brought much town business to a halt, underscores the need for a recall provision in state law. In Hollywood, voters will have to wait until municipal elections next June before they have a chance to remedy an unacceptable situation that already has gone on for months. The mere existence of a recall provision would go a long way toward keeping elected officials in line.
The value of petition and referendum should not be obscured by its excesses elsewhere. Indeed, California's recall election has given the state a charismatic governor who so far has succeeded beyond expectations in dealing with the state's fiscal crisis.
If South Carolina voters had the authority to bring issues to a statewide vote, the state wouldn't be in thrall to a few senators who routinely use Senate rules to derail important legislation.
Does anyone question that Gov. Sanford's proposed reorganization of state government wouldn't be endorsed by the voters?
Maybe rule changes will be instituted in the Senate to deal with the obstructionists there. If not, the impasse should fuel popular interest in petition and initiative, and the support of candidates who will back the idea legislatively. With adequate safeguards, it could provide a welcome safety valve to counter powerful special interests.
Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/101804/edi_18edit1.shtml