Our constitutional right to initiative and referendum creates havoc, or so we’re told by those who would restrict it. The people’s periodic populist interventions disrupt thoughtful legislative processes, they say. Voters substitute single-issue mania for the Legislature’s skillful balancing of competing interests.

I’m no fan of the process, which typically reduces complex issues to simple-minded slogans. Voters often get only the illusion of a solution. The arrival of the mercenary menace, the professional populist, has taken us a long way from the progressive reformers’ vision of direct democracy.

And yet. …

In the last 20 years, voters used the initiative to increase the minimum wage, ban smoking, limit property taxes, require performance audits, and pass tax and spending limits. While some special interest measures passed, most successful initiatives have had broad grass-roots appeal. Poorly financed campaigns have succeeded, while big bucks operations have failed. They’ve been noisy and unruly, but no more misleading than other political campaigns. Scandal and fraud have been absent.

So it’s puzzling to see so much legislative enthusiasm for making it harder to run an initiative campaign. Several proposals target signature gathering. One would require signature gatherers to wear ID saying whether or not they’re paid. Another would prohibit sex offenders from collecting signatures. Yet another would require that the signature gatherer personally sign the petitions. Foul up and the petitions are rejected. The measure getting the most attention would outlaw per-signature compensation.

All this looks like harassment. Regardless of what supporters say, each of these so-called reforms is designed to make it more difficult for citizens to exercise their rights. Next they’ll require paid signature gatherers to wear silly hats, become notary publics, and demand two witnesses, a driver’s license and voter registration card before accepting a signature. It’ll be harder to sign a petition than to cast a vote.

Jonathon Bechtle of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation questions these “basically unjustified burdens” on a fundamental First Amendment right, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has said petition circulation is “core political speech.” When Washington tried to ban per-signature compensation a decade ago, a U.S. District Court judge tossed the ban on First Amendment grounds. Since then, federal courts have upheld a similar prohibition in Oregon and rejected one in Ohio.

Even if legal, the restrictions are lousy policy and lousy politics. Washington voters like initiative and referendum. Conservatives and liberals have found success at the ballot box, as have environmentalists, unions and businesses. Most have used paid signature gatherers.

Again, there’s no evidence of fraud, sex offenders with clipboards or systematic forgery. Undoubtedly some unsavory people hire on to rustle up signatures. Paying for signatures surely does provide an incentive to get folks to sign. That’s the point. But the incentive is for turning in valid signatures. The guys getting paid get paid for doing it right. Volunteers are more likely to make mistakes. Besides, the Secretary of State has a good system for checking the petitions.

So what’s the problem?

“It’s not about me,” says Tim Eyman, who’s made a career of initiative politics. At least, it shouldn’t be. He’s not the factor he once was, although the legislative proposals have, ironically, given him new life as the little guy’s champion.

He may be mistaken. Eyman’s antics have gotten under the skin of more than one legislator. He’s mocked the process and lampooned folks who take themselves and their work seriously. Sometimes when you’re in the driver’s seat, a mosquito flies in the window. When it does, it’s easy to lose concentration. Twisting around, you try to swat the pesky thing and drift off track, possibly hitting a wall. There can be a lot of collateral damage.

It’s not as if recent ballot measures have made life difficult for Democrats. In November, voters rejected initiatives requiring compensation for regulatory takings and repealing the estate tax and supported a renewable energy proposal. The prior year the people passed performance audits and a smoking ban and defeated gas tax repeal. Key Democratic constituencies prevailed across the board. As Eyman says, nobody likes a sore winner.

It’s early in a legislative session with important issues to consider. They should leave this one alone.