Legislature Should Undertake Reform

The initiative process brought about the direct election of U.S. senators, a woman’s right to vote and the cessation of poll taxes.

It is a popular tool that is available when elected representatives systematically ignore the wishes of the people. But used incorrectly, this tool can provide a turbulent brand of direct democracy that our founding fathers did not intend. Though the ultimate responsibility for legally sound initiatives lies with their authors, the reality is that sloppy measures can do damage, even if they are overturned.

Initiative 695 provides an excellent example. Tim Eyman’s brainchild asked that the motor vehicle excise tax be repealed and replaced by a flat $30 fee. It also asked that all proposed taxes and fees be put to a vote of the people. Early on, legal experts noted that the initiative was a clear violation of the state Constitution on several counts, one of which was asking the voters to make two policy choices under one initiative.

Eyman dismissed this as a scare tactic. Predictably, on Oct. 26, the state Supreme Court overturned the initiative. Although I-695 was ultimately killed, state and local governments had to put projects on hold for nearly a year while awaiting the outcome. The state attorney general’s office was forced to spend about $225,000 defending the indefensible.

Meanwhile, Eyman floated Initiative 722, the “Son of 695.” This legally flawed measure also passed and has been put on hold by a judge. We expect that it will also be overturned.

Some have questioned the wisdom of this “vote first, ask questions later” system. We think the process can be tightened without placing insurmountable hurdles in the path of initiative seekers. Some possible reforms are:

Creating a bipartisan panel of legal experts that would review proposed initiatives before signature gatherers hit the streets. The panel’s ruling would be nonbinding but initiative authors would be on notice that their cause, however popular, could be hopeless. Conversely, if the panel ruled in favor of an initiative, this would provide a powerful argument for the proponents.

Asking the state Supreme Court to review possible initiatives. Two drawbacks: Courts don’t usually deal in hypotheticals and it might be a waste of time to have justices review initiatives that may not make the ballot for lack of signatures.

Pushing back the implementation date of successful initiatives. Unless an initiative says otherwise, governments have only 30 days from the date of passage to cope with big changes. That’s not enough time.

We hope the Legislature takes up this debate in an effort to end the confusion, costs and cynicism the current process creates.