Direct democracy.
That description of the statewide initiative process is apt. And, like democracy writ large, the ballot initiative process is under concerted attack nationwide.
Arizona has the unfortunate distinction of leading the assault.
For years, Republican legislators in our state have been irritated with pesky voters who have used ballot measures to do things like raise tax revenue for funding schools, health care and childhood development programs. They managed to get a resolution requiring 60 percent approval for initiatives proposing new or higher taxes approved by voters, so now our state is one of only four to require citizen initiatives to be approved by more than a simple majority.
But that’s not enough for our anti-direct-democracy crowd. On the ballot in November will be Proposition 134, which would require that any group circulating initiative petitions get a certain percentage of their signatures from all 30 legislative districts, which would make it much, much harder to get an initiative on the ballot.
J.D. Mesnard, a Republican from Chandler who crafted the ballot measure, says it ensures that those in rural areas have a say in what goes on the ballot. Mesnard was backed in his effort by the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club.
As state Sen. Priya Sundareshan, a Tucson Democrat, pointed out in a story by Capitol Media Services’ Howard Fischer, Prop. 134 would give residents of any single area of the state veto power over what Arizonans from everywhere else in the state might favor.
She observed that many of the 30 legislative districts in the state are drawn to give one party or the other an overwhelming majority. And therefore it’s not hard to imagine that voters in a single district could strongly oppose an initiative that might find wide support elsewhere.
According to recent reporting by the Brennan Center for Justice, the geographic-requirement stratagem to hamstring initiatives is being tried in many states, including an effort in the Ohio Legislature last year which unsuccessfully tried to derail an abortion-rights initiative in the same manner. Voters rejected that attempt to silence their voices.
Other methods to water down voters’ ability to make or change laws in recent years have included increasing the total number of signatures required; increasing necessary approval percentage; setting prohibitively high filing fees for initiatives; single-subject requirements for initiatives; legislatures passing measures before an initiative can go on the ballot, then later amending them to change their meaning and effect; and state attorneys general attacking passed initiatives they dislike on technical grounds.
Almost all of these have been employed in Arizona.
We find plenty to dislike in Arizona’s list of initiatives this year. But the process of initiative deserves protection.
It’s bad enough to try to obfuscate the meaning of initiatives by using tortured syntax in ballot language. But we find it particularly repugnant for legislators and special-interest groups to try to use the initiative process to effectively eat itself.
The initiative process in Arizona has a proud and productive history, starting with the approval of women’s suffrage in 1912. It remains an effective and essential tool for bypassing a Legislature that has frequently been out of step with the state’s voters.
We urge Arizona’s citizens to protect their “direct route” to democracy by rejecting cynical measures like Initiative 134.
Follow these steps to easily submit a letter to the editor or guest opinion to the Arizona Daily Star.
