Direct Democracy

In the United States, direct democracy takes its most evident form in ballot initiatives. According to the president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute, M. Dane Waters, a version of this practice was said to have existed as early as the 1600s in New England. The practice then was for proposed ordinances to be placed on the agenda to be discussed by the whole town and later approved by voting on them during their town meetings.However, Dane Waters continued, ballot initiative as it is known today started during the 1900s – specifically in 1978 when Proposition 13 reduced the property taxes in California from 2. 5 percent to 1 percent. That California initiative resulted to limitations in the property taxes of 43 states and a reduced rate in the income taxes in 15 states (Cato Policy Report). A Washington Post columnist, David S.Broder described ballot initiatives as a tool designed to enable the people to directly write laws and in the process, check the influence being wielded by interest groups in the legislative process. Unfortunately, Broder explained, the initiative process is flawed since the opinion of those who are in disagreement is not being heard. Because of this defect, he maintained, statutes approved through ballot initiatives are not being subjected to checks and balances, effectively robbing the minority of their right to be heard.Broder argued that this contradicts the intent of the founding fathers (Cato Policy Report). The chairman of the Cato Institute, William A. Niskanen, disagreed. He stressed that the initiative process is actually a system of checks and balances since it regulates the power of legislatures. In other words, it does not weaken the American system of government. Dane Waters supported the view of Niskanen. He maintained that ballot initiatives were not meant to introduce adverse changes in the American system of government but to enrich it.In fact, he said, even the founding fathers had recognized its wisdom. To prove his point, he quoted James Madison, one of the founding fathers, who said that As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the Constitutional Charter under which the several branches of government hold their power is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government (Cato Policy Report).Ellen Ann Andersen, in â€Å"OUT OF THE CLOSESTS & into the Courts, demonstrated how a ballot initiative works. In her search for a suitable illustration, she decided to look at the effects of the initiative process on the civil rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals (lgb’s). Her decision was baaed on the fact that until 1993, the focus of approximately 60 percent of all ballot initiatives in the country was the civil rights of lgb’s.She therefore concentrated on the most famous of these initiatives à ¢â‚¬â€œ Amendment 2 which was approved by the voters in Colorado in 1992 (Andersen). Amendment 2 was sparked by a proposed ordinance on human rights which was heard by the Human Rights Commission of Colorado Springs in 1991. The proposal sought to prohibit discrimination of any kind based on â€Å"race and color, their religion and creed, their national origin and ethnicity, their age, marital status, their sexual orientation, or their disabled condition.† It immediately encountered stiff opposition mostly from big fundamentalist Christian groups which included the biggest Christian radio ministry in the country – the Focus on the Family. Due to the relentless assault that they made against the proposed ordinance, it was finally defeated in the city council by a vote of 8-1 (Andersen). Things did not end there, however. The defeat of the proposed human rights ordinance started a statewide campaign against gay rights which culminated to the framing of Amendment 2.A grou p named Colorado for Family Values (CFV) was organized at the behest of three individuals, namely: Tony Marco, an anti-gay activist; David Noebel, head of anticommunist Summit Ministries, and Kevin Tebedo, who was the son of Maryanne Tebedo, a senator of the state of Colorado. CFV was able to establish links with national conservative organizations. It obtained the assistance of the â€Å"National Legal Foundation† in drafting Amendment 2 and used the handbook which was written by a lawyer who represented the â€Å"Concerned Women for America† as a guide for its efforts to promote the amendment.The proponents of Amendment 2 appealed to the moral values of the people and capitalized on their lack of adequate knowledge about homosexuality as they painted gays and lesbians as a hazard to society. It distributed a bulletin which alleged that Lately, America has been hearing a lot about the subject of childhood sexual abuse. This terrible epidemic has scarred countless youn g lives and destroyed thousands of families. But what militant homosexuals don’t want you to know is the large role they play in this epidemic.In fact, pedophilia (the sexual molestation of children) is actually an accepted part of the homosexual community (Andersen)! CFV also declared to the people of Colorado that homosexuals represented a great danger to the overall health of the community because they are the most relentless carriers of â€Å"sexually transmitted diseases; they are the most fertile breeders of diseases; and that by the middle of the 1990s, hospital bed would be difficult to come by due to the large number of homosexuals who are infected with AIDS (Andersen).Black propaganda such as these, coupled with the findings of a poll which was commissioned by the Denver Post which showed that 46 percent of respondents considered homosexuality to be morally wrong, 40 percent tolerated homosexuals, and 14 percent declared their neutrality, enabled the anti-gay secto rs of Colorado to deal a crushing blow to the gay militants. The CFV campaign also argued that lgb’s should not be granted protected status or â€Å"special rights† because they were not â€Å"legitimate† minorities having failed to satisfy the criteria set forth by Supreme Court decisions, namely:1. A group wanting true minority rights must show that it’s discriminated against to the point that its members cannot earn average income, get an adequate education, or enjoy a fulfilling cultural life. 2. The group must be clearly identifiable by unchangeable physical characteristics like skin color, gender, handicap, etc. (not behavior). 3. The group must clearly show that it is politically powerless (Andersen). In spite of the sting that black propaganda caused, it was the â€Å"no special rights† campaign slogan that dealt the greatest damage to the gay militants.Lawyer Jean Dubofsky said that The â€Å"no special rights† slogan was very cleve r, particularly given a time when at least white males don’t like affirmative action. The Amendment 2 people spent a lot of time talking about (how) you don’t want gays and lesbians getting in front of you in line for jobs or scholarships or college. Of course, that wasn’t what Amendment 2 was all about overall, but that’s the way it was sold†¦. People I talked with voted for it because they felt gay and lesbians should not get affirmative action (Andersen).In other words, Amendment 2 was ultimately approved by the voters of Colorado, thanks mainly to the underhanded campaign tactics employed by its proponents. Thus ended the political struggle waged by the gay activists. They were decidedly beaten in the political battle. However, it turned out that they were far from accepting defeat. Defeated in the political arena, they then turned to the legal battle. Amendment 2 proponents had only nine days to savor the taste of victory before the lgb’s petitioned the federal district court.A complaint was filed in the name of the following: Richard Evans (he was a former employee at the Mayor’s office of Denver who was open with his being gay); five other lgb’s; and a heterosexual male who was infected with AIDS. The cities of Boulder, Denver, and Aspen were also included as complainants because they had ordinances which protected the rights of lgb’s which Amendment 2 would effectively nullify (Andersen). The second aspect of the initiative process (the legal battle) turned out to be a different matter altogether.Prepared even before the election day as a â€Å"fallback† strategy, the complaint included several allegations. First, it argued that Amendment 2 violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. Then it claimed that the amendment denied lgb’s of their freedom of expression as well as association. Finally, it alleged that Amendment 2 was in violation of due process and the â₠¬Å"right to petition government for a redress of grievances† (Andersen). The difference between the political and the legal aspects of the initiative became immediately evident.Whereas the voters were the center of decision-making in the political exercise, the legal battle transferred the power to decide to the judges. A total of thirteen judges heard the arguments whether Amendment 2 should be considered constitutional. One was a district court judge; three were justices of the Supreme Court of Colorado; and nine justices came from the United States Supreme Court (Andersen). The two sides presented the same arguments that they used during the campaign.The proponents of the amendment argued that they were simply against granting homosexuals special rights and that they were interested in safeguarding the well-being of children and the family, and allow the state to allocate its resources to assisting the legitimate minorities. The gay advocates, on the other hand, argued that in fact â€Å"special rights† as employed by the proponents of the Amendment was merely a red herring to mislead people and that the Amendment would effectively deprive them of their rights and constitutionally-guaranteed protection.They further claimed that Amendment 2 was only motivated by the hostility of its proponents towards lgb’s and that homosexuality was in fact not only a â€Å"life-style choice† but is comparable to race and sexual orientation (Andersen). What happened, however, was while their arguments won for the proponents the battle for the ballot, the same arguments caused them to lose their case in court. Ironically, a dissenting judge claimed that the act of the majority justices from the Supreme Court in striking down the Amendment had been an act â€Å"not of judicial judgment, but of political will† (Andersen). Direct Democracy The assumption underlying the discussion on the initiative process is that the employment of paid petitioners is a harmful development reducing the quality of our democracy and privileging money over true commitment to causes that are put on ballot. However, this assumption is a questionable one, and counterevidence is abundant.Therefore, this essay will have the following structure: first of all, it will show little harms in employing paid signature-gatherers that are offset by possible benefits of such design of the initiative process, and, secondly, the essay will criticize the workability of the solutions offered in the concluding section of the chapter. The perceived danger in allowing paid petitioners is that only causes that enjoy considerable financial support can make their way to the ballot. Another threat, as opponents of this policy argue, is associated with the fact that it is devastating to the spirit of volunteerism and civic involvement.There is a view that ‘[p] aying petitioners degraded the signature gatherer because it came to be seen as a sales job rather than as the precious province of the public-spirited citizen’ (Ellis, 2002, p. 48). Thus, the need for mobilizing and engaging citizens becomes virtually irrelevant to policy-making process. However, there is little persuasive evidence that paid petitioners signify the death of grassroots and the advent of the ‘greenback democracy. ’ Issues that arouse strong public sentiment can recruit a sufficient number of volunteers to push their case through.There are several reasons why volunteer signatures drive will survive in the future. First of all, using volunteers in the qualification phase can help save money for the electoral contest. Secondly, volunteer petitioners often gather signatures with higher validity rates, thus the number of signatures needed decreases whenever volunteers are used. Thirdly, volunteer-based signature gathering campaigns constitute a way to mobilize and inform citizens. Fourthly, volunteer signatures drive is a powerful public relations tool, since such initiatives usually enjoy positive publicity (Ellis, 2002).Volunteer campaigns have potential to succeed only if a campaign issue can easily generate strong feelings among the public. Yet issues arousing strong public sentiment are few and far between; more often, it is an interest of a smaller group of people that is at stake, but it is undemocratic to disregard the plea of such groups of citizens only because their case does not excite hearts and minds of their fellow citizens. In the modern democracy, there are few deeply appalling wrongs that need immediate remedy and can attract crowds of concerned citizen, like the case of African Americans in the 1960s.In the modern democracy, incremental changes need to be made to accommodate different interests and to make their coexistence more efficient and pleasurable for all. Numerous notable initiatives, serving community interests best, made their way to the ballot thanks to paid petitioners. Furthermore, the ban on paid petitioners will affect different states in different ways. It will create a dangerous disparity in the quality of the initiative process in states with smaller and bigger populations.For example, it will create considerable complications for signature gathering in such states as California, where the number of signatures that are necessary for an initiative to be put on ballot can be several times higher than in other states. It is especially relevant given the everyday life constraints on citizenship and civic participation. Consumerist ideology makes long working hours an imperative and leaves people with less time to participate in politics and community affairs. People volunteer in their leisure time, and leisure is a competitive sector.It is hard to expect a large number of citizens to sacrifice their spare time for gathering signatures in favor of their cause, however strongl y they feel about it. Indeed, ‘[t]he main hurdle that most initiative proponents face is finding enough people willing and able to dedicate a large number of hours to gathering signatures’ (Ellis, 2002, p. 53). Moreover, there are legitimate concerns that the ban on paid petitioners will privilege people with abundant amount of spare time over those possessing more financial resources. In fact, paid petitioners democratize the initiative process by making it more inclusive.Many citizens do not hold strong opinions on some issues, but it by no means indicates that these issues should be excluded from the democratic debate. There are issues that are hard to frame in the way that solicits a passionate positive or negative attitude. In addition, privileging people with spare time over those with money borders on classism. For example, unemployed citizens with a lot of spare time can recruit a large number of volunteer to campaign for a welfare reform, while middle-class bus inessmen do not have such time to petition for a tax reduction.In a democracy, all groups ought to have equal access to the mechanisms of democratic participation and should be allowed to make the best use of resources available to them to ensure such participation. Therefore, as Ellis (2002, p. 54) notes, ‘the rise of paid petitioners and professional signature-gathering firms promotes democracy by increasing the involvement of a wider diversity of groups. ’ The ban on paid petitioners will not significantly decrease the role of big interests and money in the initiative process.A fact that is often overlooked by the opponents of paid petitioners concerns the evidence that recruitment, training, and coordination of volunteers mean considerable costs to an initiative sponsor, although volunteers work for free (Ellis, 2002). Moreover, the ban on paid petitioners will give an unfair advantage to organizations with better access to human resources. It ‘would advantage firms that employed large numbers of people and would make it impossible for all but the most popular causes to exercise the right of direct democracy’ (Ellis, 2002, p. 48).The opponents of paid petitioners also overlook the fact that signature gathering firms have a more professional approach to the initiative process. One of the possible advantages, as Ellis (2002) acknowledges, is that such firms have more experience in planning signature gathering campaigns and can offer a clear timeline for the process. However, there is another important advantage in employing signature gathering firms. Professionals working there can inform citizens more efficiently by presenting information about the issue at stake in a more accessible and understandable way.Thus, the indirect benefit of using paid petitioners is greater awareness of the citizenry on a wider array of issues. The proposal to ban paid petitioners also underestimates people’s ability to choose whether to sign a p etition. It is argued that signatories to petitions do not express their real opinion but agree to sign them ‘for a variety of reasons, among which are desire to be rid of the solicitor or to help him earn a day’s wages’ (Register, 1913; in Ellis, 2002). However, citizens are often more aware and concerned than this notion assumes.Many of them refuse to sign petitions that contradict their convictions. If ignorance was the case, volunteer signature drives would be as futile as professional signature gathering firms. Having proven that the harms involved in the process of employing paid petitioners in the initiative process are often exaggerated, there is a need to critique the proposed solutions to the perceived crisis. Providing more information about signature gathering will have little effect, as citizens are already overwhelmed with information on public issues.Few would dedicate their time to studying booklets on how certain initiatives made their way to the ballot. There are cognitive constraints on the amount of information citizens can consume. Furthermore, few would have enough spare time to devote it to reading booklets with information on how many volunteers and how many paid petitioners were employed to gather support for a certain initiative. The proposal to leave petitions with county registration officers can be dismissed on similar grounds: citizens do not have enough spare time to dedicate to public affairs.Valuing signatures collected by volunteers over those collected by paid petitioners is simply non-enforceable. Abandoning signature gathering altogether is also not a viable alternative, since the process of petitioning presents at least some checks on the power of large interests. Paid petitioners ensure that issues of at least some interest to at least some groups of citizens make their way to the ballot. In fact, it does not quite matter how issues are placed on ballot; what matters most is the citizens’ abilit y to express their opinion about different initiatives in a popular vote.