This afternoon I attended a cool event hosted by UF’s Graduate Program in Political Campaigning called “Direct Democracy in the Sunshine State,” at which Rod Smith (former Florida State Senator and Jim Davis’s primary opponent in last year’s gubernatorial race), Mark Wilson (Executive VP of the Florida Chamber of Commerce), Mark Herron (a prominent attorney in the area of election law), and Damien Filer (a political consultant and activist) all spoke.
Now, two of the panelists favored dramatic reforms, such as 2004’s Amendment 2, which pushed the deadline for getting an amendment on the ballot back from August to February, and 2006’s Amendment 3, which upped the vote needed for passage of an amendment from 50% + 1 to 60%. These panelists felt Florida’s constitution shouldn’t be cluttered up with amendements about pregnant pigs and bullet trains, or even classroom sizes. They believe politicians have been using constitutional referenda as a cop-out to avoid legislating difficult issues. They also note that special interests can pay exorbitant prices to out-of-state signature-gathering companies to get amendments placed on the ballot couched in vague/biased language.
The other two panelists believe “citizen initiatives” are the sacred recourse of Floridians who have been failed by their representatives time and again. The reforms championed by their opponents (eg. restrictions on soliciting for signatures on private property), they say, do nothing to stop wealthy interest groups, but do seriously hamper the ability of grassroots organizations looking to make a difference in their communities. They maintain that these measures are not about transparency, but “squashing the process.” Moreover, they remind us, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. Thus, paying signature-gatherers is a legitimate practice that does not amount to “buying” one’s way onto the ballot.
As is certainly unsurprising, I felt compelled to dissent, so after the event I approached one panelist from each side of the issue with the following few questions: Wasn’t the United States meant to be a Representative Democracy? Why is Direct Democracy justified in the first place? Don’t we already have an aparatus for recourse, in elections, to politicians who ignore our demands? Aren’t legislators, who have far greater resources than do average citizens to hold hearings, hear expert testimony, and devote time to thoroughly exploring an issue — and who, by the way, are constrained by cost considerations — better qualified to make law?
I used my earlier research for an example. As I pointed out last week, around the time the State Legislature was gearing up to tackle property tax reform, a group called Florida TaxWatch released a number of studies addressing the different effects of the different proposed solutions. I can say that I have read them, but I’m willing to bet that, even if the amendment does see the vote in January, not a whole lot of others will be able to do the same. Yet these people fancy us equipped to decide for ourselves whether the intricacies of the proposal are truly in our best interests?
So I was curious… what do all ye noble defenders of liberty have to say?
—
As an interesting aside, Senator Smith ended by pontificating on his opposition to term limits in the State Legislature, which reminded me of a quote I once heard on this show I watch sometimes…
“We better have term limits, ‘cause voters can’t be trusted to recognize corruption. Oh, and by the way… I say, by the way, when the playing field is leveled and the process is fair and open, it turns out we have term limits. They’re called elections.” Jed Bartlet, The West Wing
I would agree with the two panelist favoring the amendment to raise the majority requirements necessary to amend the state constitution. For one, it would make it more costly to take the “interventionist” route to solving issues because it would require a larger consensus amongst legislators. This would lead to less government intervention (at least through constitutional amendment means) in a multitude of areas that are far from the true intent of a constitution.
A constitution should reflect the fundamental values, principles, structure, procedures, and powers and duties of a government; not to enact laws regarding bullet trains and pregnant pigs as mentioned in the posting. Furthermore, it protects against the ability of a simple majority to plunder a minority.
The U.S. Constitution reflects the same reasoning mentioned above, hence it requires the ratification of three quarters of either the state legislatures or of constitutional conventions selected in each state. So I don’t understand how the same line of reasoning would not apply at the state level.
there are those (including two of those present) who argue there is a fundamental difference between the purpose of a state constitution and the united states constitution. personally i found their arguments to be vague and unconvincing, but i thought i should point out that some people do take that stance. i tend to agree with you, and with senator smith, who used the phrase “immutable principles” to describe all he feels the state constitution should contain.
effexor effects effexor effects