CONNECTICUT CONSERVATIVES ARGUE FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY THROUGH INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

The following is yet another example of people seeking more effective ways to make their voices heard within their state government, but we also must consider the various contrary arguments cited here that are directed against these efforts . From fear of corporate manipulation to concerns about what laws would be passed were the public given the chance to decide, there are plenty of objections to altering the state's constitution in favor of referendum and initiative, which would give voters more direct control over state government and legislation.

Nevertheless, there is no argument that can negate the fact that every additional element of direct democracy added to the process makes it more of a 'democracy by the people' than before. The article illustrates that, whether they are conservative citizens who wish to use direct democracy in an attempt to block gay marriage or progressive citizens who seek more equitable and sustainable ways to manage their own communities, most people would prefer to have a direct vote on legislation that affects them, rather than leaving it to their elected representatives to decide issues and policy on their behalf.

It has been said by critics that direct democracy would mean 'mob rule.' Although this statement sounds like it should be saying something powerful, I for one have never seen the logic in it. Direct democracy is not 'mob rule,' rather it is majority rule, and as such it is true to the concept of democracy. How does the majority become 'a mob' in the minds of those who put forth that argument, and why do they prefer rule by an elite group of representatives who traditionally have proved to be poor guardians of their interests, security, and well-being? The votes of the majority of the people on any given issue in a democracy logically represent the collective will of the people on that issue, and should determine policy for the collective group.

As far as fears that this would lead to discrimination against those in the minority are concerned, where direct democracy has been or is currently being practiced, this assertion has not proven to be accurate. To cite a recent example, a referendum just put forth in Switzerland by the ultra-right wing Swiss People's Party in an attempt to restrict immigration in a discriminatory fashion was soundly defeated by the Swiss electorate. The party, which had been gaining popularity, now finds itself in a fight for it's political future. This is but one example of the will of the majority providing the kind of checks and balances that have been lost to corruption in our representative system.

So, after considering the arguments against initiative and referendum in the following article, they are not convincing in light of the benefits that direct democracy would provide. Holding leaders accountable to the people rather than corporate interests, determining the distribution of local resources locally, and promoting mass participation are but some of the benefits that would outweigh the doubts people point to in the article below. -Editor

State's constitution doesn't allow ballot initiatives

Source: http://www.rep-am.com/News/346108.txt

BY PAUL HUGHES REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN
HARTFORD --

The people of Connecticut can't vote to define marriage, repeal the state income tax or pass a three-strikes-and-you're-out law.

The Constitution State provides voters no direct constitutional means to put questions and measures on a statewide ballot for an up-or-down vote.

The state's 1965 constitution doesn't permit initiative and referendum. Lawmaking is strictly the province of legislatures and governors. Voters only approve constitutional amendments that legislators propose.

Some in Connecticut want to give voters the right to rewrite the constitution, pass laws and repeal actions of the legislature themselves, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

"It is a bad idea," said Robert Satter, a retired Superior Court judge, former state representative, and author of several books on state government and courts here.

The head of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group also is doubtful.

"I don't know the problem that people think this solves," said Tom Swan, executive director of the public advocacy group. "It just becomes a means for moneyed interests to undermine the legislature and the democratic process."

The state needs initiative and referendum because the legislature oftentimes is the problem, said Susan Kniep, the president of the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations.

The people need a constitutional means to represent their best interests when lawmakers become disconnected from the voters, she said.

"Incorporation of that right in Connecticut's constitution will give all of Connecticut's citizens greater control of their government," said Kniep, a former mayor of East Hartford.

State Sen. Sam S.F. Caligiuri, R-16th District, also believes voters should be able to take matters in their own hands.

Caliguiri said the debate on a three-strikes law showed what the people want doesn't matter if a few powerful legislators disagree.

This session, Caligiuri and Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, forced the first and only vote on initiative and referendum in a legislative chamber in the last 13 years. The Senate rejected an amendment that two co-sponsored in a bipartisan vote.

Today, 24 states have some form of initiative and referendum. Initiative allows citizens to put a proposed new law or a constitutional amendment to a statewide vote. A referendum is a popular vote on a measure that a state legislature passes.

No two states have exactly the same requirements for initiative and referendum. In general, the procedures involve obtaining a specified number of valid signatures on certified statewide petitions. If the legal thresholds are met, then a question goes to a vote at a general or special election.

Another 18 states permit the recall of elected state officials and judges before the end of a term of office, and 36 states allow the recall of local officials. In most of the recall states, specific grounds are not required, and the recall of a state official is by an election.

The General Assembly in Connecticut has never embraced direct democracy -- initiative, referendum or recall.

Interest appeared highest just after the controversial adoption of the state income tax in 1991. Lawmakers proposed more than two dozen constitutional amendments on initiative and referendum in a five-year stretch.

Since then, a handful of legislators have continued to introduce legislation without any success, including Rep. Christopher L. Caruso, D-Bridgeport, House chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

Caruso said a lot of legislators worry that initiative and referendum will unravel legislation and government programs that they have worked hard to enact and protect.

"I am not afraid of it," he said, adding that Connecticut will eventually adopt some form of initiative and referendum, including the ability to amend the state constitution.

On Nov. 4, the ballot will ask voters this constitutionally required question: "Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?"

Kniep and others see the ballot question as an opening to add the right to initiative and referendum to the constitution.

"People from every walk of life are coming to understand that we have a state government that is increasingly unresponsive and unrepresentative of the will of the people," said Peter Wolfgang, president of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action.

He said direct initiative is the surest way to reclaim self-government in Connecticut.

The Family Institute of Connecticut Action wants to pass a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. The group fears the state Supreme Court may soon allow gay couples to marry.

The California Supreme Court voted May 15 to legalize gay marriage. On Monday, state officials announced that an initiative that would overturn that decision qualified for the November ballot. If Connecticut's high court rules for gay marriage, opponents here won't have that option.