OP-ED; For real reform, rein in referenda

Thomas M. KEANE Jr.
787 words
26 July 2002
Boston Herald
All Editions
027
English
(Copyright 2002)

Liberals were thrilled when Senate President Thomas Birmingham last week used a parliamentary maneuver to quash an anti-gay marriage referendum. Those favoring the measure were appalled: Democracy, they said, had been "hijacked."

On the other hand, many of those fighting against the gay- marriage initiative were squarely behind the effort to put Clean Elections to the vote several years ago. They're the same ones who have spent the past year outraged while the Legislature has been doing its best to kill the law.

Whether it's these issues, or others, there's a lot of confusion, perhaps even hypocrisy, when it comes to ballot questions. People of all political stripes -at least publicly -support the referendum process. At the same time, though, they're not averse to doing what they can to stop a measure with which they don't agree. They may feel guilty about it but principles usually give way to pragmatism.

It's time they stopped feeling guilty. Direct democracy has been oversold. It's usually a lousy way to make public policy.

The use of ballot questions to decide political issues was pretty much invented by the Swiss in 1848 and is still used extensively in that small and largely homogenous country. The Swiss in turn inspired a movement in the United States that burgeoned at the turn of the 20th century. According to the Initiative and Referendum Institute, South Dakota in 1897 became the first state to adopt the use of state referenda. Other states followed, with Massachusetts joining the ranks in 1918. Today, the movement has slowed, leaving only 27 states with referenda in some form.

Massachusetts hardly wrapped itself in glory with its first referendum. In 1920 voters defined beer as "non-intoxicating liquor," a clever effort to exempt beer from Prohibition. That question neatly illustrated one of the problems with referenda: They too easily detach themselves from reality.

Clean Elections was a more recent example of the same problem. The impulse behind the question --was certainly worthy. But as the law has played out, it's by no means clear voters ever really intended the consequences of what they passed. Clean Elections costs money, lots of it, yet at the same time voters approved another referendum question cutting the income tax rate. Apparently, we wanted something for less than nothing.

Moreover, ballot questions almost inevitably are defined in the most simplistic of terms. Complicated issues get reduced to bumper stickers. Proponents of Clean Elections, for example, defined it as pro-reform; those who voted against it were, of course, anti- reform. The nuances of the law were lost in the referendum fight.

Nor is the referendum process particularly virtuous. Those with a stake on either side of a question pour millions into their campaigns, and that spending is much less tightly regulated than in conventional elections. Indeed, direct democracy is often not even democratic. A few years ago, a statewide referendum that banned rent control largely affected just three cities - but those cities actually voted to keep rent control in place. The same charge could be made against the anti-gay marriage referendum: It's an effort to have the majority decide the rights of a minority.

So if referenda are such a bad idea, who should decide?

How about the Legislature?

You laugh. Yet, in fact, legislatures are a much better way to make decisions, even in Massachusetts and even with Tom Finneran as House speaker. As much as we may mock them as a group, most of us feel differently about our own state representatives and senators. They generally are thoughtful and conscientious about their jobs, responsive to their constituents and communities.

More importantly, most public-policy issues are complicated. There are few cases where one position is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Rather, good policy-making means balancing competing values and trying to achieve a reasonable result. That's something for which legislatures are well suited. It's something that referenda do poorly, if at all.

At some level, of course, referenda can make sense, particularly when it comes to fundamental issues such as amending the state constitution. But HMO regulation? Drug-treatment policy? Recycled packaging? Those shouldn't be the subjects of referenda, yet they all have been. We've let a 19th-century idea that wasn't very good to begin with get out of control. It's time for Massachusetts to think about reining in or even abolishing the referendum process.

Of course, doing so would itself require a referendum.

Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.

Graphic: BIRMINGHAM: This time, he appeases the left.

Document bhld000020020726dy7q0000t