"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." - Thomas Jefferson


We as Americans all remember being taught when we were young about our nation's founders, the patriots who stood up to the tyranny of the crown of England, the drafters of the declaration of independence, the constitution, and the bill of rights, the documents that became the framework for a system of governance that they believed would maintain a balance of power within a truly representative government, that would preserve the basic rights and liberties of the people, let their voice be heard, and provide to them a government, as Lincoln later put it, "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

What we may not be so quick to recall, however, is that there was much debate between the founding fathers as to what model our system of government should follow. Those such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry on one side favored a pure and direct democracy with the legislative power vested in the very hands of the people, while others such as James Madison, John Adams and George Washington held that a representative democracy would better serve the people than a true democracy because they believed it would protect the individual liberties of the minority from the will of the majority. Alexander Hamilton even went so far as to support the creation of a monarchy. In the end, those favoring representative democracy won the day and that is the system they put in place in the hopes of creating a "more perfect union."

Now we must ask ourselves, what would the founding fathers think if they were resurrected today to see what has become of their vision? One can only assume that they would begin to search for modern day patriots to meet them once again at the liberty tree in order to plan a new struggle for freedom and self governance. Although we continue to praise and honor those who founded our nation and sought to create a truly just form of government for it, do we really stop to reflect on whether we as a nation have in fact succeeded in preserving what they fought so hard to create?

Today, in contrast to our revolutionary ancestors, we as citizens of the United States generally observe politics from afar and the vast majority of us may participate in the political process only to the extent that we go to the polls once a year to vote. Over the decades and centuries we have allowed the erosion of the ideals of the founding fathers and the corruption of the principles which they enshrined in those so carefully conceived documents. We have been left with essentially no real power to influence our "democratically" elected officials. We may write an occasional letter to our senator or representative that generates a form letter in response and a statistical data entry that may or may not be weighed against the influence of some powerful corporate lobby. We may be permitted to participate in a march or demonstration of thousands or even millions, something our patriots of old would have marvelled at, only to be dismissed as a 'focus group' with no bearing on policy decisions.

How then is the government held accountable to the voice of the people? Are the people meant to speak only at the polls when given a choice between a select few candidates that may be equally corrupt? No, as Jefferson and his allies rightly believed, the people should be heard much more than that.

In spite of their good intentions, the system of representative democracy that the founding fathers opted for has been systematically undermined and has ultimately failed in preserving the well being of the people of this nation. Most of us accept this reality as being beyond our control and continue to observe, comment, and complain without aspiring to achieving any real change. Our local leaders and activists in our communities, and even those local elected officials who may have the best of intentions are for the most part powerless to make real positive change happen in our neighborhoods, towns and villages when there is so much corruption from above.

We have become so accustomed to this failed system of representative democracy that it may not occur to us that there are other alternative forms of democracy. In various places around the world participatory or direct democracy has been instituted both in concert with representative democracy, and as a replacement for it. It is a form of democracy that is designed to take directly into account your views, and the views of your neighbors, and to politically empower you to make real positive change possible in your communities. Initiative, referendum & recall, community councils, and grassroots organizing are but a few ways in which direct/participatory democracy is achieving great success around the world.

This site will attempt to explore in depth the concept of participatory democracy and how this grass-roots based form of governance could help bring us back in line with the principles this country was founded upon if it were allowed to take root here. In the hope that one day we can become a nation working together as a united people practicing true democracy as true equals, we open this forum…



WashingtonOregonCaliforniaAlaskaHawaiiIdahoNevadaArizonaMontanaWyomingUtahColoradoNew MexicoNorth DakotaSouth DakotaNebraskaKansasOklahomaTexasMinnesotaIowaMissouriArkansasLouisianaWisconsinIllinoisIndianaMichiganOhioMississippiAlabamaGeorgiaSouth CarolinaNorth CarolinaFloridaTennesseeKentuckyVirginia West VirginiaPennsylvaniaNew YorkMaineVermontNew HampshireRhode IslandConnecticutNew JerseyDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaMassachusetts

Friday, October 3, 2008


Prop. 105: Tax relief or end of initiatives?

by Matthew Benson - Sept. 21, 2008 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic
Source: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/09/21/20080921majorityrule0921.html

Proposition 105 is just one sentence. Seventy-one words about Arizona's ballot-initiative process.

But uncertainty abounds within the relatively few words of the seemingly simple initiative. Would it effectively kill all citizens initiatives or just make it more difficult to pass a few dealing with tax increases?

Prop. 105's hazy implications have sparked a war of words between those who see it as a common-sense way to limit tax increases and critics who say it represents no less than an assault on Arizona's initiative process and tradition of direct democracy. The claims and counter-claims flying on both sides could hardly be more charged leading up to the Nov. 4 general election.

Essentially, Prop. 105 would amend the Arizona Constitution by specifying that a simple majority vote at the polls would no longer be sufficient for any future citizens initiative to raise taxes and fees or mandate government or other spending. Such measures would require approval by a majority of all registered voters, including those not participating in the election at all.

Arizona Education Association President John Wright said Prop. 105 "initiates an attack on the very act of voting."

Leading Prop. 105 backer Jason LeVecke said opponents' real fear is the loss of a ballot process often used to skirt a tax-averse Arizona Legislature. Without initiative reform, he warned, it's only a matter of time before special interests come to voters with a proposal to increase taxes.

"We will be bankrupt if we continue to tax and spend," said LeVecke, who owns a series of Carl's Jr. and Pizza Patron fast-food franchises. "This is a dangerous scenario for the future of Arizona."

Majority rules

Also known as the Majority Rule - Let the People Decide Act, Prop. 105 would redefine what constitutes victory at the polls. That much is clear.

If approved by voters, the measure would require that any future initiative that "raises a tax, fee or other revenue, or mandates a spending obligation" receive for passage the approval of not just a majority of ballots cast but a majority of all registered voters. Non-voters essentially would be counted as "no" votes under this scenario, significantly raising the bar for victory.

Roughly one in three registered voters sits out Election Day in Arizona. Since 1978, voter turnout has exceeded 70 percent five times and reached 80 percent just once.

Even in a year with exceptional voter turnout, say 75 percent, an initiative affected by Prop. 105 would have to claim support from 68 percent of the ballots cast to be approved. If turnout were lower, which is more typical, the percentage of votes needed for approval could climb to 80 or higher.

For evidence, look no further than 2006. That year, Arizona voters agreed to hike the state's tobacco tax and devote the revenue to early-childhood health and other programs.

The measure, Prop. 203, passed with a margin of victory of nearly 6.5 percentage points, a cushion of more than 95,000 votes cast statewide. But it would have come up nearly 500,000 votes short had it been proposed under the stricter rules envisioned by Prop. 105.

"The initiative process is dead if this goes through," said John Spears, a Mesa Republican and retiree who told The Arizona Republic he sees initiatives as "a very strong check and balance against our Legislature - Republicans and Democrats."

But LeVecke is mindful of the impact that even an innocuous-sounding citizens initiative can have on private business. He argues that tax increases should have to pass a higher threshold at the polls - similar to the supermajority, two-thirds vote they must receive for passage at the Arizona Legislature.

"We must right this course and be certain these special interests don't hijack our state," LeVecke said.

Mystery surrounds much of the rest of Prop. 105.

'Ambiguous' language

Opponents wonder whether the measure would apply not only to statewide initiatives but also to local citizen-led initiatives.

The No on Prop. 105 Committee, led by Wright, of the Arizona Education Association, has been stoking those fears, while LeVecke and his representatives insist they have no interest in regulating local initiatives.

The nonpartisan Arizona Legislative Council, a research wing of the Legislature, has issued a preliminary opinion that Prop. 105 applies only to statewide initiatives, though Executive Director Mike Braun concedes that its ballot language "is ambiguous."

A second major dispute centers on how broadly Prop. 105 would be interpreted. Supporters say it would do just what it says: hold to a higher standard of voter approval any initiative that would raise taxes or fees or mandate state spending. Ballot measures that require state funding for a specified program are blamed by critics for tying legislators' hands even as the state faces growing budget shortfalls.

Over the past decade, Arizona voters have approved a handful of initiatives increasing taxes or mandating spending, including three measures in 2006. Kevin McCarthy sees Prop. 105 as a means to help slow that tide.

"Our Constitution never contemplated this level of citizen initiatives with regard to public finance," said McCarthy, executive director of the Arizona Tax Research Association, which has endorsed Prop. 105. "Does it mean (Prop. 105) would stop all initiatives? I can't fathom it would do that."

Opponents aren't so sure.

They note that nearly every initiative has a state cost associated with its implementation, especially those that require resources for enforcement. Would Prop. 105 apply to an initiative toughening regulations against illegal immigration? Or banning the use of cellular phones behind the wheel?

While Prop. 105 supporters call the issue little more than a red herring employed by opponents to scare voters, the question remains in dispute. Braun said the Legislative Council hasn't researched it and likely won't unless Prop. 105 is approved in November.

Most likely, he said, the full extent of the initiative won't be known until there are lawsuits that throw the issue into the courts.

Said Braun: "Really, it'll come down to what five live (Arizona) Supreme Court justices decide." And that won't come until after the election.


Editors note: We received the following insightful comment from an Arizona citizen in response to this post:

Goldwater has left a new comment on your post "ARIZONA: INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM UNDER THREAT?":

Prop 105 is simple--it counts people who don't vote and that is just wrong. Vote No on 105. Join the campaign against this unAmerican proposal by going to http://thevotersofaz.com/

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Prop 105 is simple--it counts people who don't vote and that is just wrong. Vote No on 105. Join the campaign against this unAmerican proposal by going to http://thevotersofaz.com