In a quiet battle that needs to get louder and more visible. Rep. Denise Provost (27th Somerville) is fighting for a rational ballot-initiative process. She and Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem are flanking this key field from different sides.
Provost is driving her bill H1830 to increase signatures required to advance an initiative toward ballot from 3% of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to 7%. Creem’s S12 would limit matters for plebiscites to eliminate such travesties as voting on the rights of any citizen group.
We spoke today at Left Ahead about “how our democratic processes can be hijacked,” in Provost’s words. The right to petition to amend the MA Constitution or pass a law has been law since the Progressive Era (passing in 1917 and 1918 here). She lamented though that they have “become less and less about people and more and more about money.” This has gotten worse since Citizens United as well.
For her bill, she noted that the 7% requirement would bump us up from the easiest of the 24 states and DC that allow initiatives. It would bring us more in line with other states as well as the original requirements here. As it is, with fewer and fewer eligible voters going to polls, effectively our current 3% translates realistically in 1% of voters making these seminal decisions.
She spoke of those opposed to initiative reform. Of course, some special interest political groups, even those who pay professional signature gatherers to create the impression of citizen support, cry foul at the efforts. She said that some of her historic allies in progressive legislation who do not get it say bills like H1830 “cut into grassroots democracy.”
Click below to hear how and why she disagrees.
Her reform, like Creem’s, is not going to be easy, Provost admits. “Changing our Constitution in any way is always a hard struggle,” she said, adding that it should be for anything so fundamental. She also forecast that she may not have enough traction this time to get it passed. However, assuming her reelection, she intends to file it again in January and until it does pass.
This is a particular interest of mine as well. She and I agree that here, as in many states, the initiative/referendum processes have been abused and have gotten away from their original aims. In small, steady ways, I intend to support these reforms, by blogging, podcasting, social media posts, and of course, letting acquaintances know what’s up and what’s possible.
The other side is writing, calling or visiting my legislators to voice support. It’s the usual, critical drill, and real grassroots populism. You know those who want to keep things easy and cozy will be doing their do at the State House.
…that ONLY constitutional amendments should be subject to popular vote. Otherwise, that’s what we have the legislature for. I also think those amendments should be approved by a majority of ALL registered voters at the time of the vote, not just a majority of those who happen to show up.
As groups start buying laws they can’t convince full-time legislators to adopt, it’s not a bad idea to make sure it’s something that the voters really want. Government-by-initiative has destroyed California’s governability, and I don’t want the same thing to happen here.
Provost, not so much.
Creem’s amendment is exactly the kind of protection I’ve said should be added to our Constitution. Civil rights should not be curtailed by a majority.
But raising the bar for initiative petitions? Pray, exactly what is the problem that this measure would solve? Are the House Speaker and the Senate President not powerful enough for you?
It can’t be (as sabutai suggests above) that California has been rendered more or less ungovernable my initiative petitions, because (1) Provost’s bill has been filed in Massachusetts where (2) a fundamentally different kind of referendum law obtains. (In California, the Legislature can’t amend or repeal a law passed by referendum.)
7% empowers the Kochs, who can easily buy all the signatures they could possibly need, at the expense of the grass roots.
Hey, you want to solve a problem? Tax all income from gathering signatures on initiative petitions. At 95%
But I digress. I guess I am one of those who “do not get it.”
But it seems to me that making it harder to put a law before the voters will please exactly “those who want to keep things easy and cozy” at the Statehouse.
It’s those who think it otherwise who are in need of a reality check.
I believe in republican government whereby legislators and their staffers who have the time and resources to research the legislation that comes before them take votes much more educated than the rest of us, most of whom work in other fields and don’t have the time or interest. We have biennial opportunities to replace legislators who stray too far from popular will. Also, I prefer other methods to strip power from the Speaker and President.
but Provost says she wants to protect direct democracy from being “hijacked.”
Personally I think we’ve got it about right in Massachusetts, where referendums have the exact force of a law passed by the legislative process (but no more), and can be repealed or amended by same.
I also think if Creem’s bill gets linked to Provost’s it will sink Creem’s.
Creem has the right idea. Her proposal to outlaw ballot questions that take away freedoms is a great idea and should be supported. I can tell that she hates the bigots, as do I.
If there are concerns about outlawing gay marriage by getting petition signatures for a ballot question, they are unnecessary. It was tried here years ago, and it was a FLOP. Why?
1. The straight voters didn’t care because gay marriage did not affect them in any way, good or bad.
2. Outlawing gay marriage, in a place where it was legal for a period of time, could create a confusing legal situation that could be hard to administer. Most people believe that the laws should make sense.
Attempts to try that again will be a miserable failure and a pathetic, sad joke, as it should be.
Provost’s idea, to make it harder to get questions on the ballot should be opposed.
In the state and the nation, the inability to implement rapid change has resulted in tyranny, poverty, and misery for a lot of people. If anything, the avenues available to change policies should be made easier, not harder.