Taking the Initiative
While the rest of the nation is embroiled in electoral races that will determine the shape of the new Congress, the ballot here in my little corner of the world confers upon me the right to rubber-stamp a slate of unopposed judges, state legislators and the safest US Representative in the House (the wonderful “Baghdad Jim” McDermott, whose Republican opponent will be lucky to finish ahead of the Green Party challenger). The big issues in these parts are the annual slate of arcane initiatives – terse little nuggets of legislation that emerge from an increasingly well-oiled petition process to appear before the voters every November.
This year’s crop includes three competing and irreconcilable transportation proposals: one to raise spending, one to direct spending to unfunded projects, and the other to cut off sources of revenue. The last time something like this happened, they all passed, tying the state government up in knots for months. There’s also something having to do with police and fire pensions, and a change to the way the state must ask voters for approval of fire safety codes. In Seattle, there are three initiatives to limit City Council’s obligation to notify the public over changes in legislation, plus the monorail authorization that no one in city government wants to touch with their fingers.
These are all worthy causes to be sure. But excuse me for throwing cold water on the glories of direct democracy here, don’t we pay two houses of a state legislature and a governor to take care of this stuff? Police and fire fighter pensions? Come on! Put it to a vote! Can’t the PBA muster a decent lobbying campaign? This transportation stuff is the worst of all. These are detailed, complex issues: not something that most people are likely to resolve after 15 minutes with the voter’s pamphlet. The Legislature should hold hearings, consult experts, formulate positions and articulate them to constituents. But no – that would mean taking some responsibility and risking being held accountable. Why not just pass the buck to Joe Voter and blame them for the mess that results? Talk about getting the government we deserve.
Meanwhile, a fiendishly well-organized operation has come into existence to exploit the failures of our representative system here in Washington. This charming group, aptly named “Permanent Offense,” is a rabble of hack-and-slash rural conservatives who apparently believe government services should happen for free. Every season yields up some perverse new draconian measure to starve the state of resources with absolutely no thought of the consequences. Since the leaders of this group don’t stand for election themselves, they’re accountable to nobody and the steaming hunks of legislation they present to the voting public lack even the modest discipline imposed by the normal deliberative process. Often, it’s left to the State Supreme Court to quietly chuck out the dried up remnants a few months after the election.
Direct democracy is an appealing concept, but its abuse requires giving some thought to ways it might be reconciled to the increasing complexity and detail of day-to-day governance. Some issues require debate and exploration beyond a 30-second “Vote Yes on I-776!” campaign spot, and even conscientious citizens can’t be expected to invest the time and effort to master the detail of every item of business before the state. This stuff is complicated for a reason: reconciling the legitimate interests of diverse groups around the state is hard. Nevertheless, when asked to choose, most people will opt for the simplest solution – even though that’s rarely the best recipe for success. Permanent Offense is an object lesson in this basic political truth.
Therefore, I propose a modest solution to the problem: henceforth, Initiatives should not appear on the ballot unless they have been proposed and failed to pass in two separate sittings of the Legislature (and then meet the usual petition signature requirements). Put the burden on the advocates of these measures to at least try to operate through the channels of representative government, and subject their proposals to the scrutiny of a rigorous process. What say we put it to a vote?
8:59:35 AM 
|
|
