At least that's what Lornet Turnbull of the Seattle Times believes.
A proposed referendum by Tim Eyman would overturn a statewide gay-rights measure passed by lawmakers and signed into law by the governor last month.
And as forces line up on either side of the referendum, new attention is being focused on the practice of putting rights and protections to a public vote.
Some legal and political experts say it's inappropriate. Voters can be arbitrary, they say, as reluctant to take away rights as they are to grant them. And they may be too easily swayed or too burdened by biases to make fair decisions on matters crucial to people's lives.
Turnbull follows that with an unimpressive discussion of elections in which various preferences were issues. Instead of discussing her examples, let me just mention three great election victories for civil rights. In July 1964, the United States Congress passed the most important of our many Civil Rights acts. In the fall of that year, Lyndon Johnson, who had campaigned hard for the legislation, defeated Barry Goldwater, who had opposed it.
As the years went by, racial preferences crept back in, though different groups were favored. In 1996, California passed Initiative 209, restoring racial neutrality to the state's laws and practices. In 1998, Washington voters did the same thing with Initiative 200. Both initiatives used language modeled directly on the 1964 law; both initiatives passed easily.
What I conclude from these three elections is that American voters give solid support to equal treatment for all citizens. Which should encourage the Lornet Turnbulls of the world — assuming, of course, that they want everyone to be treated equally.
(Shouldn't this piece have been labeled "analysis" or even "opinion"? Of course. There is no real news in it. In fact, I would have liked it better if the Times had freed Turnbull to write the advocacy piece she has half hidden in this "article". I much prefer op-eds to op-eds disguised as articles.
Of course, voters are not always right. Anyone who lives in Washington state, which has elected and re-elected Patty Murray, may have elected Maria Cantwell, and almost elected Christine Gregoire, has to admit that voters can and do make mistakes. And that is without even getting into the strange choices made by the voters of the 1st district (Inslee), the 2nd district (Larsen), and the 7th district (McDermott). But on the whole, anyone who believes in democracy — which may not include everyone working for the Seattle Times — has to think that the voters are right more often than not.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 28, 2006 01:46 PM | Email ThisSo goes the article. Despite not being able to produce any evidence of discrimination against gays in the blue, blue, Washington, we've got to have legislation creating a special class.
Most conservatives look at the Constitution and automatically interpret it as having equal protection for all...but I guess libs need it spelled out in simpler language. Else how could they carry on their latest feel-good exercise?
Posted by: Steve_dog on February 28, 2006 02:07 PMIn this case, I think that Turnbull might have a good point in that the whims of the majority could have disasterous results on core human rights. All one has to do is to reverse the current case. Can you imagine that one day, a voter initiative passes that denies rights to Christians? Improbable? Well, yes, but that isn't the point. Initiatives are great for taxation-based issues (e.g. School Levies, transportation, etc..) but I don't relish the thought of having my basic rights vary year to year based on the whims of the electorate.
Posted by: Realistic Republican on February 28, 2006 02:29 PMAs my main man John Adams wrote in 1763, "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."
Or check Madison in Federalist 10. He notes one of the problems of society is factions. You have to be able to prevent them, or mitigate their effects, else you end up with anarchy and war.
You cannot prevent them. Only by forcing everyone to think the same is this possible, and this is obviously not freedom.
So you have to mitigate the effects. Problem is, democracy does not do that: in fact, it enhances their effects, rather than diminishing them, such as by funnelling them through representatives who, it is hoped, will be generally wise and patriotic, have a love of justice, and be least likely subject to factiousness: "it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves."
Not that this is a sure thing: "On the other hand, the effect may be inverted." Men may be elected who themselves are more factious than the people they represent. We see much of that now. But I don't think the proper answer is democracy, but adjustment of the way the representatives are elected.
Call me Publius, but I tend to agree that voting on everything -- even having the *ability* to vote on everything, as per the WA State Constitution -- is bad.
As much as I despise much of what comes out of our legislature, I prefer that this is how our laws be passed. There is only one really good argument I see against my view: the fact that our system of electing representatives is in many ways fraudulent. And that's a very good argument; but I would rather see more work put into fixing that than in circumventing the Republic.
Side note: has the (U.S.) Constitutionality of the WA Constitution ever been challenged? Article 4 says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Is WA a Democracy, or a Republic?
Turnbill wrote "And they may be too easily swayed or too burdened by biases to make fair decisions on matters crucial to people's lives."
She's absolutely correct. Look no further then the smoking ban, passed by people who don't like smoking but weren't ever effected by it in their everyday lives.
Ironically, now that I have to go outside to smoke, people pass right by me (including many children) and are exposed to smoke that they never would have been exposed to if I were allowed to smoke inside the bar.
Posted by: Mark D on February 28, 2006 03:25 PMRegarding the U.S. constitutionality of the WA constitution, they wouldn't have been allowed into the Union if it wasn't a republic. Besides, the strutures of the legislature and governor's office are republican in form.
Honestly, putting the issues in front of the people is a good thing. Does the government work for the people, or the people for the government? If initiatives and referendums are so bad, then get rid of them (oh, sorry, our 'betters' in Olympia are already doing/trying to do that through the 'emergency clause' and amending the WA constitution).
This country, and state, have moved far from the nation and government of Adams and Madison. Not all for the good necessarily, but it has changed just the same. The systems are imperfect, but they are the best we have.
If this issue is something that truly needs to be changed, then the general public needs to be convinced that the change is needed, and on this issue, that hasn't happened.
Posted by: dad4 on February 28, 2006 03:32 PM"This country, and state, have moved far from the nation and government of Adams and Madison. Not all for the good necessarily, but it has changed just the same."
Not all for the good? I'd say almost entirely for the bad. With few exceptions, the more we move away from the Federalist Papers, the worse off we've become.
Have you noticed that the Great Society really began when we institutionalized the popular election of Senators? It's because now the people control the Senators, so the Senators answer directly to the people, and therefore give out as much pork as they can, so now our federal government has become a method of perpetual incumbency paid for by the taxpayers.
Score one for democracy, right?
"The systems are imperfect, but they are the best we have."
And giving people direct control over legislation in general makes it worse.
So we are to simply surrender everything to the legislature and governor? What voice (if any) would you give to the people? There are checks and balances built in to the system, so tyranny of one group is extremely difficult. Who would or should make the decisions on what people get to vote on? At the beginning of this country, a majority of the people didn't get to vote. I take it you would like to go back to that. Let our 'betters' decide what is best for us, is that what I'm understanding from you?
You want perfection? Go to heaven.
You want change? Get involved. There are plenty of opportunities, take advantage of them.
Posted by: dad4 on February 28, 2006 04:24 PMI looked at a few of the legislators bill authoring or sponsorship, for example, Kohl-Welles sponsored or co-sponsored over 600 bills.
Last year I think I heard that 15,000 bills were presented. Against this, we had less than a dozen initiatives make it to the ballot?
It is convenient that special interest groups only have to apply pressure on small portion of the states population in order to pass into law something that the state, as a whole, would not necessarily want - this is where the initiative process comes in to play and I think that is good for ALL of the people of the state.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 28, 2006 05:22 PMI understand your point, and your point is on - but your number is off. The typical number of bills introduced ranges from 2,500 to 4,000 or so for a two-year period. Yes. Waaaaay too many, but not 15,000.
Posted by: jimg on February 28, 2006 05:31 PMSounds good for politicians, not just the voting
public. Figures that they would think some things
should be kept away from the voters, they might
make things inconvenient.
Sounds good for politicians, not just the voting
public. Figures that they would think some things
should be kept away from the voters, they might
make things inconvenient.
Seems to me a system very like that was tried in a certain, no-longer-existing eastern European country. Hmmm.....
Posted by: mark on February 28, 2006 09:02 PMIt is her view that not bringing in the resources necessary is a recipe for another election disaster, which I predict will be in 2006.
To See Cheryl Scott, King County Elections Task Force Chair, talking about the final findings and progress on elections reform.
Go to NWCN.com and click on Video on Demand to see this interview! It is worth seeing, especially if you think this mess of a County elections department has been cleaned up enough.
Posted by: GS on February 28, 2006 10:54 PMThe initiative process is not perfect, but at the moment it is the only means we have to try to counteract the lunacy running amok in this state. The process doesn't always work to the people's advantage (I-912 not passing for example), but at least it lets our legislators know about issues important to the public. As for the comment about voters being easily swayed, look at some of the people who get elected.
The real gist is that the legislators know there are a whole lot of us who are not amused with emergency clauses being attached to every tax and spend bill being introduced and the people are going to express their displeasure. The American Revolution did not happen overnight. It came about only after it became quite clear England wasn't listening.
Posted by: Burdabee on February 28, 2006 11:28 PMAfter looking at my latest yearly property tax rip off, some up over 20% from last year, costing me over $1000 and a windfall in new revenues to the Queen and her court, I am ready to get my tea bags out!
What dock we going to meet on? American run preferably?
Posted by: GS on March 1, 2006 06:59 AMOn the whole, I think that initiatives and referendums provide an additional Madisonian check on the legislature. I think they are especially important now that many states have "professional", full time, legistlatures.
Posted by: Jim Miller on March 1, 2006 11:06 AMAnd the water in pot is coming to a rapid boil. Stick a fork in the frog, it must be done.
Posted by: Snuffy on March 1, 2006 07:40 PM