How Arizonans came to have two choices on this year's ballot.
By Scott Alexander
WHEN THE ARIZONA Constitution was adopted in 1910, its
crown jewels were progressive provisions for initiative, referendum,
recall and direct primaries.
After 49 years of Territorial governance where the citizens had
practically no say about how they were governed, their demands
for a government that they could control were the prominent issues
in selecting delegates for the Constitutional Convention.
When statehood finally came in 1912, America's 48th state was
proclaimed to have the most modern and progressive form of government
in the country.
The idea of the people's right to participate directly in the
lawmaking process was simply to have a check on Legislatures that
might fail to be responsive to the will of the voters.
It was said, "the voice of the people is next to the voice
of God." It was also said "that the wrath of the people
was next to the wrath of God and much sooner felt."
In the years that followed, the people enacted many notable laws.
Women's suffrage, the right to vote, was the first. Prohibition
followed soon after.
Laws created through initiatives enjoyed certain protection from
future tampering by the Legislature with a Constitutional fiat
that made any law adopted by a majority of the people who voted
in that election (the total number of votes cast for Governor)
exempt from future amendment by the Legislature. In 1952 in a
case called Adams vs. Bolin, the Arizona Supreme Court
ruled that only those laws adopted by a majority of all "registered
voters before the election" could be exempt. The effect of
this ruling virtually removed protection from every initiative-created
law on the books.
In spite of the ruling, legislators continued their high regard
for the "Voice of the People" and refrained from making
many changes in voter-made law, at least until recently.
Some of those laws have undergone significant changes, some quite
contrary to the intent of the people when they were passed. The
Legislature found a number of problems with the Medical Marijuana
issue and legally made the changes to correct them.
This infuriated the Medical Marijuana proponents, who had spent
a fortune buying its passage.
In retaliation, they put their paid petition passers back on
the street to refer the amendments to the ballot and concurrently
announced their intent to seek a constitutional amendment that
would prohibit the Legislature from doing this again in order
to "teach them a lesson." That measure appears on the
ballot as Proposition 105.
At the same time another group of citizens undertook an in-depth
review of the initiative and referendum problems with the intent
of solving them by including a wide array of citizens with talent
and expertise in our state government. Organizations invited to
participate involved many civic, labor and trade organizations.
A second initiative campaign, "By the People," was
launched and was headed by former Arizona state officials, including
a governor, a chief justice of the Supreme Court and a former
state senator.
Members of the Legislature joined the issue by introducing a
variety of measures related to initiative and referendums.
By the People and the organizations that worked on framing the
issues went to the Legislature and worked closely with the members
and staff to produce a comprehensive approach to tuning up and
correcting the ancient provisions adopted in 1910.
The citizens and the lawmakers made sure that the vision of our
forefathers, with regard to the relationship between the people
and their Legislature, would be restored by these proposed
changes. Thousands of Arizonans were able to participate in creating
Proposition 104.
The private initiative process by the Medical Marijuana interests,
Proposition 105, was limited to a few.
The moral to this story is found in comparing one set of citizens
who regard the government as an extension of their citizenship.
They use the initiative process as leverage to bring something
to the attention of their Legislature.
They respect the legislative process as a means of extending
an opportunity to all citizens to participate in the deliberative
process of making public policy expressed by law. Proposition
104 is a product of this philosophy and deserves vigorous public
support.
The others are identified as those who believe that the way to
make public policy is to avoid the Legislature and buy it with
paid attorneys, paid petition passers and slick TV ads.
Their net product is to "teach the legislature a lesson"
without regard to the quality of what they can get passed. In
this process there is no citizen participation in the framing
of issues, identifying courses and costs of alternative solutions
and determining the action to be taken.
The product here is Proposition 105. The voters should vote no.
Scott Alexander is a member of the By the People Committee and
a former state senator.
|