OPINION: Initiative/referendum process vital for Idahoans

As a first-term freshman legislator, my first legislative session has been a humbling experience. I take seriously my responsibilities and have worked hard to represent my constituents on the entire range of issues we have faced. More importantly, each and every one of my/your fellow legislators does the same, regardless of party, regardless of ideology.

While we may not agree on every issue, and actively, persuasively, argue our positions, we are civil. In fact, Idaho’s Legislature is rated the most civil legislature in the country. One of the many Rules of the House that fosters this civility is the prohibition of assigning motives during debate. On more than one occasion the Speaker has interjected, stopped the debate, and reminded the good member that assigning motive to another is prohibited. Everyone takes a breath, civil debate continues, and we vote on the issue.

I bring this up because in public discussion, in person and in the media, the focus has been shifting to antagonistically assigning motive instead of rational debate. As a freshman legislator, only three months removed from being a constituent, this bothers me. True, we have faced polarizing issues this session, from Medicaid expansion, to 2nd Amendment issues, to initiative reform. Passion and beliefs are to be admired. Bomb throwing and assigning motives need to stop. When we do so, rational discussion and debate will take their rightful place.

With this in mind, let’s discuss initiative reform/improvement-logically and rationally, not impulsively and politically:

The initiative/referendum process is absolutely necessary for the citizens of Idaho. It is provided for by Idaho’s Constitution and serves as a safety valve for the citizenry. 24 states do not have an initiative process. We should all be glad that Idaho is not one of these states, and we need to ensure that Idaho’s citizens never lose their right to run an initiative. At the same time, in our Representative Democracy, the initiative process should not take the place of the ‘normal’ legislative process.

In my opinion, the main reason to change the initiative process is to ensure more participation by the public. Just as those who say that 105 legislators, “should not block the will of the people,” neither should 4.5 counties be able to determine which initiatives are, or are not, put on the ballot, regardless of ideology. To think otherwise would be hypocrisy. Why now? Because all laws should be reviewed and improved, as necessary. Part of this improvement includes not only recognizing conditions today, but also in allowing for the inevitable changes the future will bring.

Let’s discuss the major points that should be involved in any initiative process improvement legislation:

Increasing the number of legislative districts to have a percentage of qualified electors sign a petition:

This is not a Republican or Democrat idea. We should all agree that rural areas should have a say in the initiative process. The idea that a small number of districts/counties can dictate to the rest of the state, on either side of an issue, is contrary to the very ideals of Idaho’s inclusive initiative process. Increasing the number of districts, combined with the appropriate percentage of signatures required, in an appropriate time- frame, will serve to allow more Idahoans the ability to have a voice in determining which initiatives are placed on the ballot.

Changing the percentage of petition signers:

We must realize that the percentage required has changed over time. For most of our history Idaho has had a 10 percent requirement. Currently, we have a 6 percent requirement. There is discussion on whether to base the percentage on voters from the last general election, or on registered voters. The actual percentage needs to be reflective of both the number of districts required and the time-frame allowed. The end-result must focus on allowing more Idahoans to have a say in the initiative formation process.

Time frame for collecting signatures:

We must accurately ensure enough time for the collection of signatures. At the same time, please realize that the current 18-month time frame was enacted in 1933, a far different historical era. In those days we had a far different transportation infrastructure, a far different communication infrastructure, and fewer population centers, more spread-out geographically. Today’s population centers are condensed, and information collection/sharing technology has improved dramatically. What once took days now takes hours to accomplish. While 6-months is too restrictive, 18 months is too long.

Fiscal impact and source of funding for an initiative, and requiring a single subject for an initiative:

These are logical requirements and should have unanimous support.

Transparency:

Should initiative organizers be required to comply with all campaign finance laws? Most would agree that initiative efforts should comply with these laws. More transparency is better.

Payment for signature collectors:

Should we pay ‘by the hour,’ or on a per signature basis? Some would say that paying by the hour will yield ‘better’ results:

Per Ballotpedia, California Rep. Evan Low (D-28) sponsored legislation in 2018 to ban payment-per-signature. He said, “Some signature gathering firms compensate circulators based on the number of signatures they collect, which is known as ‘bounty hunting’. These bounty hunters have an incentive to do whatever they can to get an individual’s signature – even deceit the person or cheat the system. In order to qualify for the ballot, some initiative proponents qualify their initiatives by illegally misinforming voters and forging names.” He said banning payment-per-signature would help “maintain the integrity of the initiative process by eliminating the incentive for paid signature gatherers to approach individuals aggressively and spread misinformation.”

Oregon prohibits paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.

The ban was challenged but upheld in Prete v. Bradbury in 2006.

Training/registration for paid initiative signature collectors:

At the statehouse, those who are paid to advance ideas are called lobbyists. Lobbyists must register with the state. Per Ballotpedia, Oregon also requires that paid signature gatherers are required to register with the state and carry “evidence of registration” with them as they gather. By law, this evidence must include a photo of the circulator and his or her registration number. As part of this registration, petition circulators must also complete a training course. Oregon requires any organization or person that pays persons to gather signatures to register with the state.

Most importantly, while we need the initiative process to reasonably protect the citizenry, we must consider the following:

Both Proposition 1 & 2 were successful uses of the initiative process in that both issues were put on the ballot and voted on by Idaho’s citizens. As we all know, Proposition 1 was rejected, and Proposition 2 was voted in by approximately 60 percent of Idaho’s voters. The major sticking point in its implementation was which version of work requirements was to be adopted. There is reliable polling data that an overwhelming percentage of Idahoans, especially Republicans, agree with work requirements vis-à-vis Medicaid expansion. One can easily imagine a passionate group of citizens in the majority party starting the initiative process to require a more onerous work requirement than that has currently been approved by the House and Senate. Given the polling, this issue has a very good chance of being approved by the voter. The same people today, who tell us to, “obey the will of the people,” will need to stand up and say the same if the above initiative example were to pass.

Another hot button item is HB 203, allowing anyone with an enhanced concealed carry permit to be armed on school grounds. Idahoans are passionately protective of their 2nd Amendment rights. It will be very easy for this passionate citizenry to gather the required 6 percent of Idaho voters in 18 districts, and the state, and carry this issue in an election. This same logic will extend to almost any gun specific legislation considered by these passionate Idahoans. Again, the same people who tell us to, “obey the will of the people,” will need to stand up in support if this initiative example were to pass.

I can list numerous other issues, minimum wage, marijuana, gun issues, abortion issues… issues that hit both sides of the aisle, but the point is obvious. Today’s majority is tomorrow’s minority. This is an issue of governance, not of political party or ideology. The people should have, and deserve, the right and protection of the initiative process. The initiative process is necessary and guaranteed by our constitution. We can and should improve the initiative process, where needed, to include as many Idahoans as possible. My hope is that we do so. At the same time, the best way for our citizens to be heard is when they carefully vote for their legislators who then faithfully uphold their oath of office for their constituents.