I think referendums are permitted in most states, since they came into vogue early in the last century.
But now, instead of a way for plain folks to get things done when the legislature drags their feet, it has become a way for whole industries to gang up on each other with cleverly, some say deceitfully, crafted multi-page proposals and multi-million dollar campaigns.
So in my state we had a choice that looked like it was for or against a cigarette tax, but was really a way to exempt hospitals from certain lawsuits. Tying two things together like that is not supposed to be allowed, but every single proposition this year, out of a dozen, was in a similar vein, with a good guy premise but a sneaky hidden agenda by some high rollers hiding behind deceptively named committees.
What to do?
I’d say the main reform that referenda need is to simply turn them into an alternate way of passing a state law. When a referendum = state constitutional amendment, and a state like California has bunches of them, hamstringing the legislature in dozens of ways, then it’s hard for them to actually, you know, govern.
If you want them to be a bit stronger than ordinary legislation, you could require a 3/5 majority to overturn referendum provisions. But structuring things so that what referenda do, the legislature and governor can’t undo, is dangerous in several ways. One is the one you point out - that it’s easy to fool the voters about the true intent and effect of the referenda they’re voting for. And the other is that while the legislature has to balance the consequences of their laws, taken together (if only to pass a balanced budget), the voters don’t: they just have a referendum in front of them and go “good or bad?” in a contextless manner.
An example of that was a Florida referendum a few years back, where the voters passed a referendum mandating high speed rail connecting the state’s major cities. We’d all like a pony, and the voters didn’t have to decide where the money would come from, and what the tradeoffs were between wanting high-speed rail, lower taxes, better schools, and so forth. That’s what you have a legislature for.
Making things a state law would be an improvement, all right.
One thing that might also work is requiring a roll call vote on them when they are first qualified to be on the ballot, so legislators who are not working the issue out of fear of commitment would be forced to show their hands. If it passed, it wouldn’t have to be on the ballot, and if it failed, at least everyone would be on record.
My home state has referenda, both for “Proposotions” & const. amendments, & I think it’s mostly a good idea, so long as each proposed law/amendment must be a single issue. I’m not sure how or whether they can override const. amendments legislatively, but if something is totally unworkable, it can be dealt with by various means, including calling a new constitutional convention.
In Colorado we do. Our state constitution has become bollixed by amendment referenda that there has been serious talk of a constitutional convention. The requirements are so flimsy that any group of eager college freshmen can gather the required number of signatures on a couple of weekends at a Denver area shopping mall – and get paid for doing it! Once it’s on the ballot, just keep lying to Coloradans that it’ll (a) cut taxes, (b) keep out Mexicans or © make our kids smarter, and we’ll vote for the damn thing.
Referenda are the public’s way of saying, “I don’t like what the Legislature did! Waaaahhhhh! I want my tax cut! Waaahhhh!” It was intended to be a check/balance against the representative General Assembly, but it has become a club over the Legislature’s head. I can’t speak for other states, but here in Colorado, it needs to be made a whole lot harder to get referenda on the ballot.
I recall from my time in California that every election included several bond measures, which usually passed. My faith in the system would have been higher if I’d had some reason to believe that the people voting for these things understood what bond measures are. Perhaps someone could start a campaign to inform the public about how much of their taxes go to pay interest on previous bond measures.
A nit…
Isn’t “referendum” being misused here? In California, we have the power of Initiatives, Referenda, and Recalls. Initiatives allow citizens to propose new laws, referenda allow citizens to vote whether an existing law should be repealed, and recalls allow citizens to “unelect” someone holding an elected office. So aren’t you really talking about the Initiative process?
But then, maybe I’m wrong…
J.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’m comfortable with sloppily using the word “referendum” as an umbrella term that covers all forms of plebescite-based creation and repeal of legislation. The individual poster, IMHO, should assume the responsibility of differentiation in the arguments he wishes to present, if he wishes to insist upon one.
Personally, I feel the initiative process in California has become such an easily-wielded tool of cynical and self-serving professional manipulators, that it needs serious reform.
I understand that in, say, Hawaii, ballot initiatives are largely advisory in effect. That is, they are not binding upon the Lesiglature. I’d lke to see a reform in California that at least directs the legislature to address certain topics in a satisfactory manner within a given time frame (satisfaction to be determined by a plebescite after the Legislature’s action has had an opportunity to be field-tested).