Utah’s Referendum Process Needs Revision
The Senate Site, one of the better blogs from the right in Utah, had this to say about Utah’s apparently successful petition process for a referendum on the voucher law:
Word on the Street is that our anti-voucher group has amassed enough signatures to put an referendum on the ballot. If so, some congratulations are in order – that was not an easy task.
Getting a referendum on the ballot should be an easier task.
When the Republican legislature repeatedly enacts controversial legislation opposed by most Utahns (vouchers, the very foolish soccer stadium give away, the blank check for Energy Solutions, etc.) more and more citizens see that the process for overriding the offending political party’s mischief needs to be simplified.
Government by referendum is ugly but government by an easily corruptible party machine which faces little effective opposition is worse. Until Utah’s Democratic party becomes more politically effective Utahns need protection from the negative effects of one party rule. We need an easier petition process for overriding bad legislation like that which the Republicans gave us last session. 93,000 signatures is an unreasonably high threshold for getting a referendum on the ballot.
4/10/2007 08:36 UPDATE:
Jesse commented: “I don’t think that it’s the number of signatures that’s unreasonable, but rather the time allowed to gather them. 45 days? That’s nothing. Our western neighbor allows several months to get that many signatures for a ballot question and ends up with at least 5 questions per election.”
This is a good point. Extending the period for signature gathering is probably the best way to open the referendum process to more extensive use. Eliminating the requirement for getting 10% of voters from the last election within multiple counties should be considered as well.
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I don’t think that it’s the number of signatures that’s unreasonable, but rather the time allowed to gather them. 45 days? That’s nothing. Our western neighbor allows several months to get that many signatures for a ballot question and ends up with at least 5 questions per election.
I certainly agree with you, though: Utah is a state controlled by the party machine. We might as well start calling the capitol building Tammany Hall.
Comment by Jesse Harris — April 10, 2007 @ 7:21 am
I wonder if having a longer time period to get the signatures would solve or create more problems. Can we prove that more time in fact help show the real position of the people? In an instance like that of the funding of the land and infrastructure for the private soccer stadium Utah did not have the time to wait for even a month or two without loosing the opportunity to decide altogether.
If we had enough time for the public to listen to propaganda and come to some kind of conclusion on every issue there in fact would be no point in having elected officials in the first place? There is not enough time in hell to take each issue at hand to the masses for a vote.
That is why I feel that there does need to be a time limit set, and if 45 days is not enough time will 360 days be enough? What about 1800 days or even 36000 days?
I do not feel that the referendum process is flawed. I feel that the way Utahan’s continue to blindly and ignorantly elect officials that do not truly represent the people is the heart of this issue.
When will we learn that we are the ones fueling the one party machine? Maybe it will take a few “very foolish” bills to slap Utahan’s in the face and help us see what we are doing here.
Comment by Dignin — April 10, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Dignin: There’s no doubt that there is some disconnect between legislators and voters. The problem, however, is with the creation of a myriad number of “safe” districts that entrench one party or the other and protect incumbency. It becomes very difficult to vote the rascals out when they have stacked the deck so heavily in their favor.
From your bad reaction to the suggestion that we relax the referendum process, I’d guess you’re looking at states like California where the process has been abused to the point of being a joke. (It’s not an uncommon occurrence in the Golden State to even have conflicting questions on the same ballot.) However, California simply demonstrates what happens when the bar is set too low. Have you ever participated in a referendum process? It’s a heck of a lot of work with very little guarantee of success. Many ballot questions in Nevada fail even with up to 6 months to collect the same number of signatures that Utah requires. (Their requirement, however, is for 15 of 17 counties. OUCH!)
If the anti-voucher groups tapping over 45,000 school district employees and PTA members can muster only 130,000 signatures, what hope is there for less-organized groups? Pretty much none. The soccer stadium opponents have more support than the anti-voucher crowd and yet likely failed to get the required number of signatures. By leaving the time requirement so high, we rob all but the well-organized and well-financed from being able to use the referendum process. Sure, there needs to be a limit, but we can’t make it so low as to ensure that almost nothing makes it.
Jeremy: I fully support requiring signatures from a certain number of counties. It helps protect rural counties from urban counties, something that our Senate redistricting process no longer guarantees. (So much for the “republican form of government” you “one man, one vote” guys on the Supreme Court.) Even though I live in an urban county, I’m loathe for us to use our numbers to trample folks in Moab.
Comment by Jesse Harris — April 10, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Regarding your comment about the one-party rule in Utah, if the Democrats want to end it in they need to do it the old fashioned way - get elected. If it wasn’t for the Democratic National Party’s rigid stand on abortion, I think there would be more Mormons willing to vote with the Democrats.
Comment by Dave Calder — April 10, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Dave,
Thanks for your comment!
I’m a little curious why the Democratic National Party’s support of abortion on demand compels you vote against local and state Democratic Party candidates, the vast majority of whom are pro-life?
Comment by Jeremy Manning — April 11, 2007 @ 8:00 am
I think I voted about 1/3 Democrat last election, mostly for county offices. The party affiliation matters less and less to me the more local the office, especially for something as narrowly-defined as County Assessor or Clerk. It’s not like the party is going to make everyone “fall into line” at anything less than the state level.
Comment by Jesse Harris — April 11, 2007 @ 9:08 am
There would be little need for the referendum process (and it’s burdensome costs) if my suggested piece of legislation was enacted: move the start of the legislative session to the third Monday in September, so it would end on October 31, just prior to the biannual general election. Perhaps then voters would still recall just how boneheaded their legislators are.
Comment by Part of the Plan — April 11, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Jeremy,
I hate to take this off topic, but since you asked…
I wouldn’t be one of the ones to start voting for Democrats if the party dropped the abortion plank, but I think it is a sticking point for other Mormons who otherwise agree with the rest of the party’s positions.
I do think the local dems get tarred by the national plank. I could be wrong, here, but I venture a poll of the average Joe and Jane would reveal they think the democrat candidate in their district supports the DNC position on abortion (regardless of the candidate’s stand or whether the office the candidate is running for actually matters in the abortion debate). I’m just saying ’cause deep down I like the two party system; and it works best when you have two parties.
Comment by Dave Calder — April 11, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
“government by an easily corruptible party machine which faces little effective opposition is worse. Until Utah’s Democratic party becomes more politically effective Utahns need protection from the negative effects of one party rule.”
This is what makes me feel hopeless sometimes, living here in Utah as a Dem. But I also realize that if it weren’t for people who are willing to try to stand up and gather support, we wouldn’t even have the party that we do. It definitely works best when you have two parties– I agree. But I don’t think we’ve tried three. Three, anyone?
Comment by nosurfgirl — April 18, 2007 @ 2:57 pm