In 1910 California became one of a handful of states to allow the initiative and referendum process, a political reform designed to make democracy more direct and bring citizens closer to the process of legislation. In its nearly 100 year history, the process has resulted in a variety of new legislation.
Several weeks after the passage of California's contentious proposition 8 restricting marriage to "between a man and a woman" activists are suing in the state supreme court on the grounds that the proposition amounted to such a large change in the constitution that it constituted a revision. If indeed it is a revision than it must be approved for the ballot by 2/3 of the legislature or a constitutional convention.
Only twice has the court struck down an initiative: the last time was in 1991 when the court invalidated the results of a proposition that would have restricted the granting of greater rights to criminal defendants beyond those allowed by federal laws. In 1948 the state struck down a ballot initiative that would have made wholesale constitutional alterations in a number of areas. But these propositions are just two examples of the often overreaching, unwise, and tyrannical power of special interests and/or the majority. The 1978 proposition 13, which limited the revenue that could be gained from real estate tax, has placed a huge financial burden on local governments, weakened schools, and fire departments. Proposition 187, designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from social services and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court is yet another example of the often discriminatory and reactionary intent of California's popular initiatives.
Direct democracy, as envisioned in its purest form, is impossible in a nation of over 300 million individuals and even in a state of over 30. The Ancient Athenian city state is often cited as the only historical example of a true direct democracy, but even this imagined golden age was restricted to free citizens with property and excluded women, slaves, and youth. The initiative and referendum as it functions in California today is direct democracy gone awry. Every election a new slate of propositions are put before the state, voted on by an electorate generally ignorant of the policy details and knowledge that they ought to have to make sound decisions. Sometimes, it is true, these measures turn out to do good: to extend rights, provide needed funds, or revise outdated restrictions. But this year's proposition 8 sadly falls into a much more shameful category: a step backward for civil rights and direct democracy. Proposition 8 is an example of the flawed democracy that French observer Alexis de Tocqueville described in his 1830's Democracy in America, a "government exposed to the whims of the majority." This was also the very type of populist excess that founding father James Madison cautioned against in his Federalist Papers.
As the old adage goes, "what is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular." I do not contend that the will of the people should be superseded by the minority, but too often in contemporary America it is in fact a loud and vocal special interest minority who controls political discourse and can pass through wedge issues with little oversight. The authors of proposition 8 were required to gather signatures of merely 8% of the voters who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election. This is indeed a minority.
California's flawed system must be fixed. Not being a seasoned legal scholar I can only assume some possible options include raising the number of signatures required, limiting the number of propositions allowed in a given election, or perhaps prohibiting initiative for constitutional ammendments. Because, the last time I checked, a constitution was supposed to guide the governing structure of a state and ensure its residents's basic freedoms, not take them away.
Several weeks after the passage of California's contentious proposition 8 restricting marriage to "between a man and a woman" activists are suing in the state supreme court on the grounds that the proposition amounted to such a large change in the constitution that it constituted a revision. If indeed it is a revision than it must be approved for the ballot by 2/3 of the legislature or a constitutional convention.
Only twice has the court struck down an initiative: the last time was in 1991 when the court invalidated the results of a proposition that would have restricted the granting of greater rights to criminal defendants beyond those allowed by federal laws. In 1948 the state struck down a ballot initiative that would have made wholesale constitutional alterations in a number of areas. But these propositions are just two examples of the often overreaching, unwise, and tyrannical power of special interests and/or the majority. The 1978 proposition 13, which limited the revenue that could be gained from real estate tax, has placed a huge financial burden on local governments, weakened schools, and fire departments. Proposition 187, designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from social services and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court is yet another example of the often discriminatory and reactionary intent of California's popular initiatives.
Direct democracy, as envisioned in its purest form, is impossible in a nation of over 300 million individuals and even in a state of over 30. The Ancient Athenian city state is often cited as the only historical example of a true direct democracy, but even this imagined golden age was restricted to free citizens with property and excluded women, slaves, and youth. The initiative and referendum as it functions in California today is direct democracy gone awry. Every election a new slate of propositions are put before the state, voted on by an electorate generally ignorant of the policy details and knowledge that they ought to have to make sound decisions. Sometimes, it is true, these measures turn out to do good: to extend rights, provide needed funds, or revise outdated restrictions. But this year's proposition 8 sadly falls into a much more shameful category: a step backward for civil rights and direct democracy. Proposition 8 is an example of the flawed democracy that French observer Alexis de Tocqueville described in his 1830's Democracy in America, a "government exposed to the whims of the majority." This was also the very type of populist excess that founding father James Madison cautioned against in his Federalist Papers.
As the old adage goes, "what is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular." I do not contend that the will of the people should be superseded by the minority, but too often in contemporary America it is in fact a loud and vocal special interest minority who controls political discourse and can pass through wedge issues with little oversight. The authors of proposition 8 were required to gather signatures of merely 8% of the voters who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election. This is indeed a minority.
California's flawed system must be fixed. Not being a seasoned legal scholar I can only assume some possible options include raising the number of signatures required, limiting the number of propositions allowed in a given election, or perhaps prohibiting initiative for constitutional ammendments. Because, the last time I checked, a constitution was supposed to guide the governing structure of a state and ensure its residents's basic freedoms, not take them away.
