State-Level Direct Democracy in the U.S. Faces Legislative Challenges
In stark contrast to many democratic nations, the United States does not allow its citizens to engage in national referendums. Nevertheless, approximately half of the state constitutions across the country empower citizens with a form of “direct democracy.” This system enables citizens to propose statutory or constitutional changes via ballot initiatives, contingent upon the collection of a sufficient number of signatures.
Originally adopted in the Progressive Era of the early 20th century, direct democracy was designed to act as a counterbalance to legislative authority. However, in recent years, lawmakers have sought to reclaim exclusive policy-making rights by introducing various measures aimed at complicating the process for citizen initiatives. These measures include heightened signature requirements, restrictions on who can collect signatures, and narrowing the scope of initiatives. Despite these efforts, voter and judicial decisions have frequently thwarted such legislative attempts.
This year, Arizona and North Dakota legislatures introduced measures following successful citizen initiatives on topics like healthcare, labor laws, and government ethics, but voters rejected these measures.
Arizona’s Battle with Proposition 134
Arizona’s history with direct democracy is noteworthy. It is one of only two states where women gained voting rights through a citizen initiative, predating the national constitutional amendment. Recently, voters have utilized initiatives to raise minimum wage and increase tax revenues for education, healthcare, and child development.
Legislators proposed Proposition 134 to dramatically increase the difficulty of citizen initiatives. It proposed that initiative sponsors must collect signatures from 10% of qualified voters for statutes and 15% for constitutional amendments in each of the state’s 30 districts, effectively allowing any district veto power. This was in contrast to Idaho’s Supreme Court, which struck down a similar, yet less stringent, rule.
Additionally, another proposal would have allowed pre-election court challenges to citizen initiatives, adding a costly obstacle. However, Arizona voters decisively rejected these changes. They also voted against a legislative proposal that would have curtailed their ability to vote judges out of office.
North Dakota’s Legislative Efforts
In North Dakota, citizen initiatives have been used to enact ethics reforms and impose term limits on state legislators and the governor. These actions prompted legislative pushback this election cycle. State Sen. Janne Myrdal (R) expressed concerns about external influence on state law, citing that the constitution was vulnerable to out-of-state interests.
Myrdal sponsored a measure that aimed to introduce stricter requirements for future initiatives. This included increasing the number of required signatures, banning non-resident signature collectors, allowing the secretary of state to reject overly broad initiatives, and requiring initiatives to be passed twice to take effect. Despite these proposals, 56.5% of voters opposed the measure.
Ongoing Legislative Trends
The strategies employed by Arizona and North Dakota are not unique. Many states where citizen initiatives are allowed see similar legislative proposals aimed at narrowing or obstructing the initiative process. Although such measures rarely pass, they pose minimal cost to legislators. Occasionally, they do succeed, as seen in Florida. The significance of voter education remains paramount in safeguarding direct democracy in the face of these persistent legislative efforts.
“`
