There have only been three federal referendums in Canadian history: one on Prohibition, one on conscription, and the Charlottetown referendum.
I take it those uppity quebequois have finally settled down?
It’s my crude way of giving you your props.
The US does not have them at the Federal level, since the US Constitution makes no provision for them.
California has propositions, which are a bit different. It does not have referendums, as far as I know. Propositions are quite popular in California, though I am dead-set against them.
I believe that South Dakota has referendums; other states may as well. This week’s New Yorker reports that the anti-abortion bill in South Dakota is scheduled for a referendum this year.
A proposition is a measure designed by the members of the electorate and placed on the ballot. In California, you must collect a set number of signatures to have a proposition put on the ballot. If the electorate approves the proposition by a simple majority, it becomes law.
California law allows competing and/or contradictory propositions! That’s only one of the reasons I dislike them. The main one is that it’s a bad way to make law. Politics is compromise, but the proposition process makes no allowance for compromise.
A referendum is a measure designed by the government and placed on the ballot. That’s what happened in Italy just in the last few days. That’s what is happening with EC referendums in European countries. The government “refers” a matter to the electorate.
While I was writing this, it struck me that the 1938 vote by Austrians to join with Germany (Anschluss) was called a “plebiscite”. It could have also been called a referendum, I suppose. Their dictionary definitions imply that referendum is the more general term to describe government-initiated actions at various levels of government and various levels of importance, while plebiscite is more of a vote by the entire nation on a matter of great importance.
Here in Virginia, even amendments to the state constitution are put before the voters from time to time.
The Constitution doesn’t have a provision for referendums, but couldn’t Congress pass and the President sign a bill that includes the provision that the proposed law becomes effective upon approval by the electorate (through whatever process the bill specifies)?Unless the proposed process violates somebody’s civil rights, I’d think Congress could put any condition they wanted on a law.
My first reaction to this is – no, they can’t. My memory of constitutional law might be faulty, but what I recall is that Congress is not allowed to alter the procedures for making law as set forth in the constitution (subject to constitutional amendment, of course).
It’s bicameralism and presentment: approval by each house of Congress and signature by the president. That’s the only way in which Congress is allowed to create law.
There is also something called the non-delegation doctrine, which says that Congress is not allowed to delegate its essential functions to someone else. I would think that the legislative process is an essential function that it would not be allowed to farm out in the form of a plebiscite or referendum.
The Congress could theoretically pass a bill (subject, as usual, to a Presidential signature or an override if the President doesn’t sign it) authorizing a non-binding national referendum on some issue, and they could announce that they would pass the appropriate law (again, subject to the Presidential signature or an override) if the referendum votes a majority (or whatever) on the issue. Look at all the problems that would then arise if they did this. First, there is no more compulsion on the Congress to vote for the law after the referendum than before. A non-binding referendum is non-binding. If all they want to do is find out the sense of the nation, they could just look at the polls. Second, who would pay for the referendum, and who would run it? Remember that all elections in the U.S., even ones for federal offices, are run and paid for by the states (and the local governments as authorized by the states). I can’t imagine Congress wasting time on such a thing.
The Congress could pass such a law, and the President could sign it, but it would be unconstitutional. The US Constitution has rules for making laws, and Congress can’t change them in a bill. Allowing or requiring approval by the electorate would require a change in the Constitution itself.
The situation is even trickier. The US really doesn’t have a “national” election mechanism. Everything really goes through the states, even presidential elections. I don’t think the states would want to organize elections that were only for a national referendum.
Congress would then have to set up a national mechanism. By the time you get to this, you have a process that looks a lot like the amendment process.
An interesting hypothetical, but I think you’re more likely to see Congress vote to reduce its pay!
That’s because the courts have ruled that the Legislatures cannot abdicate their legislative authority, including the legislative authority of the Lieutenant Governor. Back in the early part of the 20th century, the courts struck down an attempt to establish binding provincial referendums as unconstitutional, because it amounted to the Legislature circumventing the power of the Lieutenant Governor to grant or refuse royal assent.
Doris in a wet-suit on a See-doo! swoon!
You could, but not seriously.
Acsenray, Wendell, and 633sqadron:
Thanks for the great replies. I was aware of the practical problems, including the lack of a national election system (which was the reason I left the process for approval vague), but I wasn’t aware of the Constitutional issues, especially the doctrine of non-delegation. Very interesting.