From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In U.S. politics, the initiative and referendum process is one of the signature reforms of the Progressive Era. It is written into the state constitutions of several U.S. states, particularly in the Western United States.

The Progressive Era was one of reforms aimed at breaking the concentrated, some would say monopoly, power of certain corporations and trusts. Many Progressives felt that state legislatures were part of this problem and that they were essentially "in the pocket" of certain wealthy interests. They sought a method to counter this – a way in which average persons could become directly involved in the political process. One of the methods they came up with was the initiative and referendum. Although the process varies considerably by state, the method usually works something like this: Citizens petition to put a certain measure (an "initiative") to be put on the ballot for voter approval. A certain number of signatures of legally registered voters, often equal to a percentage of persons who voted in the last gubernatorial election (which usually varies between five and fifteen percent), is collected within a specified time frame. If sufficient signatures are gathered, the proposition is put upon the ballot, either at the next scheduled election or perhaps in a special election. If a majority votes in favor, the initiative has passed the referendum and is enacted. In many jurisdictions the initiative becomes a state constitutional amendment so that it cannot be readily undone by statutory law passed by the legislature but can only be undone by another referendum.

This process has many critics. Conservatives often state that it undermines the entire concept of representative government; namely that the voters are to elect representatives to make law on their behalf and not to do so directly themselves. Liberals generally find the process to have potential to threaten civil rights and liberties, with some noting that polling shows the First Amendment and other bulwarks of constitutional freedom likely would not survive this process if they were to be subjected to it and that minority groups in particular could be subject to the whims and caprices of a majority. Other criticisms are that it results in provisions being added to constitutions that would be better subjects for the more flexible statutory law, which can be more easily revised to fit changing circumstances, and that it clutters constitutions, which are supposed to be basic frameworks of government and not excessively detailed plans, with minutae, making them unwieldy. Many from both sides of the political spectrum further feel that lawmaking is best left to legislators, who presumably have a deeper interest in and more than a passing familiarity with issues and are best equipped to deal with them, a position which strikes "I & R" supporters as both anti-democratic and elitist. A further criticism is that an excessive number of propositions makes ballots too long and too incomprehensible to voters with only an average or less interest in the process and makes the entire voting procedure take too long, with very long lines forming as voters attempt to read initiative after carefully-worded initiative. In response to this criticism, some jurisdictions place a limit on the number of initiatives which can be submitted to the voters at any one election. The metropolitan charter of Nashville, Tennessee, for example, limits the number of voter-sponsored initiatives which may be considered in any one election to two, a rather extreme example, but many other jurisdictions which have "I & R" as a part of their government have taken similar steps to limit it.

• Initiative
• Referendum