Gov. Tony Evers is once again floating a plan to create an initiative-referendum system for Wisconsin. It’s a bad idea
Twenty states — famously including California — have this option where citizens can gather signatures on petitions and, if they get enough, they can put a binding question on the ballot to create or repeal some law. The legislature and the governor can be bypassed entirely.
Evers’ idea is DOA. The Republicans will strip it out of his budget and toss it away, as they should. Of course, those guys are doing something similar. They’ve found a way to get around Evers’ veto pen by taking legislation that they can’t get past him and turning it into a state constitutional amendment, which the Legislature can put on the ballot, without the Governor’s approval.
That maneuver is slight of hand, but it’s different in that it still requires legislative approval — actually twice in two successive legislatures.
But I oppose initiative-referendum for the same reason I support the filibuster in the U.S. Senate — it cuts both ways. Democrats were hot to eliminate the filibuster when they had the majority. Now that they’re about to lose that majority, all of a sudden the idea that 60 votes is required to pass most legislation in a Senate where there are only 53 Republicans doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.
Evers’ argument for initiative-referendum and the Democrats’ argument for eliminating the filibuster were the same: Americans want all kinds of liberal policies and legislatures are standing in the way. Maybe so, but Americans may also want all kinds of conservative policies and the same impediments that frustrate liberals now will work to their advantage in those cases.
In fact, the evidence should convince Evers’ that his idea could easily backfire on him. In the last few years, Republicans have gone around Evers with more or less conservative constitutional amendments, almost all of which have passed easily. Over the objections of liberal organizations and Democrats, they’ve passed amendments that strengthened the rights of crime victims, given judges a freer hand to impose bail on those accused of violent crimes, made it clear that only citizens can vote in Federal, state and local elections and banned the use of private money to administer elections. In fact, the only amendment the Democrats have defeated is one which would have given the Legislature more power over spending emergency disaster relief funds.
And then there’s California. The most famous — or infamous — California referendum was Proposition 13, the one from the 1970’s that more or less froze property taxes. It had all kinds of unintended consequences and it’s still a mess. It creates a “lock-in effect” where homeowners have a strong disincentive to sell their houses. It has probably contributed to the state’s massive housing affordability problem. And just a couple of years ago, Proposition 16 would have restored race conscious affirmative action in the state. But despite proponents outspending opponents 19 to 1, that went down. Even in liberal California, voters were against affirmative action.
And, in recent decades the process has been dominated by big money, precisely what the grass roots advocates behind initiative-referendum say they’re against.
The most fundamental reason to oppose Evers’ idea is that it’s a populist idea. We here at YSDA hate populism in all its forms, right and left. We elect representatives to study the issues, weigh the pros and cons and make decisions that are in the long-run best interests of society as a whole. Of course it doesn’t work that way in its purest form. Okay, so, it doesn’t nearly work that way. But the sausage making of legislation is much, much better than the passion-fueled direct legislation process.
Yes, the give and take in the legislative process makes it hard to enact sweeping legislation. Before you lament that, consider what the other side’s sweeping legislation might do.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
Wholeheartedly disagree with this. There have been some pretty good things done through state referendums and ballot initiatives. Things are hardly “populist” or “liberal” just because liberal representatives want them and conservative ones don’t. Take minimum wage and in some states marijuana legalization. These are bipartisan issues among the population (usually) garnering votes from both Republican and Democratic citizens. It’s only the grid lock and lobbying that prevent them from being enacted at the state or national level. We have gone far too hard toward institutions and centralization of decision making in this country. It’s time to decentralize and give people some more say…or they will turn to true populism not what the New York Times calls “populism”. We don’t have thoughtful representatives or “elites” at this point. Time to devolve some of their power back to the people. I for one am sick and tired of being told what’s “good” for me and what’s not possible in our current political environment as jackdaws continue to sell this country down the river. You’re wrong, a bit of true populism is just what this country needs.
LikeLike
This proposal comes under the heading of “be careful what you wish for.” State lawmaking – for better or worse – should be left to elected state lawmakers. While it’s possible that progressive initiatives may come up for public referendum, it’s equally possible that some batshit crazy stuff may get on the ballot. We just don’t need the drama.
LikeLike
I couldn’t disagree more. Despite what you highlight plenty of good things have been passed in states with the ability to have citizens directly pass laws. Minimum wage and marijuana legalization along with paid sick leave pass in red states despite them supposedly being “liberal” issues. We have far too much centralization and other people making decisions for us. It is time to decentralize and end the technocratic elitism our society has become addicted to. Let the people decide on some issues, it’s the best way to avoid real populism and not the “populism” the New York Times is always prattling on about. Who knows we might even get some effective government and consensus out of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I support democracy, and the closer we can get to it the better. For every critique of a result of direct democracy, I believe there are stronger critiques of the results of representative democracy.
While our host scare-mongers about the influence of big-money in direct democracy, big-money already literally owns our representative democracy. The difference is that in direct democracy we would have potential to do something about it, while in representative democracy there is no such potential.
Trust in regular people. They are the ones that actually make our society function – not our elected leaders, not our rich.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In fact, the only amendment the Democrats have defeated is one which would have given the Legislature more power over spending emergency disaster relief funds.”
I guess it depends how far back you’re going, but that’s not entirely true. In 2018 the GOP backed amendment to eliminate the State Treasurer position also failed.
LikeLike
Right. Thanks for reminding me of that one.
LikeLike
Beyond the other good points made above by commenters, the distinction you make between the current legislative–referendum process and the initiative–referendum process is overstated. Yes, the legislature initiates the referendum, but that is where the legislative aspect ends. The GOP has used that process precisely because it cannot get those policies through the entire legislative process – the passage of a bill and its signing by the governor, or the override of a veto by the legislature. The legislative process is not simply one party proposing a policy, which is what the legislative-referendum process entails. The “sausage making of legislation” and “the give and take in the legislative process” occurs when the entire legislative process is in effect, that is not the case with the legislative-referendum process. Case in point, the voter ID referendum the GOP brought yesterday because it was “ready to go” on the first day of the session. It was ready to go because the GOP does not need to worry about “giving or taking” with Democrats or getting it approved by the only state-wide elected official.
While I appreciate that the initiative–referendum process will cut both ways, it will likely act more like the Governor’s veto than a runaway train. Even with the new maps, due to the reality of political geography, the GOP will likely always have the advantage in the legislature, meaning liberal policies will never be proposed through the legislative-referendum process. When viewed as the statewide check on the legislature circumventing the legislative process, I think the initiative-process makes sense. I’d rather have a system where referendum are available to both liberal and conservative policies, as opposed to current system that only allows for one.
But, as you note, it is DOA, so this is purely academic at this point.
LikeLike