Citizen initiatives provide for the inclusion of constitutional or statutory proposals on the ballot at an election if enough signatures are collected in support of the proposal. The number of signatures required to place an initiative on the ballot varies, but is usually a proportion of the number of voters who voted at the most recent election, or a fixed number of registered voters. Depending on the design of the initiative process, if the ballot measure is passed by voters, it may become part of the state or country's law. The initiative process therefore provides citizens with an opportunity to directly frame the laws and/or constitution under which they live.
Use of the initiative process varies substantially across different countries and in different regions within them. The following are examples of common types of citizen initiative and the design features that distinguish them.
Types of citizen initiative
Constitutional
Constitutional initiatives can be used to propose amendments to a country or stateÕs constitution. The number of signatures required to place a constitutional measure on the ballot is usually higher than the number required to place other types of measure on the ballot.
Statutory
Using a statutory initiative, citizens can propose statutory measures to be placed on the ballot. A lower signature threshold is usually required for this type of initiative.
Direct
If an initiative is a direct initiative, then the measure that is circulated in petition or placed on the ballot automatically becomes law if it is approved by voters, without any involvement by the legislature.
Indirect
In contrast, indirect initiatives allow for the involvement of the legislature in framing the laws that arise from the initiative process. This involvement might take a number of different forms. In some countries or states, when a petition has met the required threshold, the legislature is able to formulate its own proposal to go on the ballot as well, to offer voters an alternative between the citizen initiative and the legislature's response. Alternatively, the legislature may have a role after a measure has passed, e.g. if a ballot is approved by voters, the legislature may have some scope to amend the measure.
Abrogative referendums/recall
There are two other types of direct democracy mechanisms which are commonly labelled as initiatives, because they are invoked when citizens collect enough signatures in support of a measure. These are the abrogative referendum and the recall. Details about these mechanisms can be found in the sections on referendums and recall.
Issues
In order to start an initiative, proponents of the measure are required to collect the signatures of a small, specified number of supporters of the initiative and file it with the relevant government office (in some countries and states, the requirement is as low as 25 signatures). Once an initiative has been filed, its proponents must begin the process of collecting the relevant number of signatures required to get the initiative on the ballot. If and when the relevant number of signatures are collected, the initiative is normally included on the ballot of the next election in the appropriate jurisdiction.
A number of important issues arise in relation to process of preparing, circulating and approving a citizen initiative. The significance of each of these issues varies, however, according to the relevant constitutional and political context.
Ballot title
Once a proposition is filed, the first key issue is the wording of the ballot title to be circulated in petition and which will appear on the ballot. Typically, the ballot title will be a short summary of the proposed measure. The proposed measure will normally have been drafted by the individual or group proposing it, or by a legal team engaged by them, whilst the ballot title will normally be drafted by the office responsible for overseeing the administration of the initiative process.
Agreeing the ballot title can be a long process, since whilst administrators aim to ensure that the ballot title clearly and accurately reflects the measure being proposed, proponents seek to put forward a title that maximises the chances of it being passed. Well funded initiative campaigns may file various versions of the same proposition then conduct opinion polls to assess the relative popularity of each, in order to ensure the proposition that is taken forward stands the highest chance of success.
Signature collection and verification
After an initiative has been filed and the ballot title agreed, the proponents of an initiative are required to gather a specified number of valid signatures within a specified time period from the date on which the initiative was filed. The number of signatures required varies; clearly, the lower the signature threshold or the longer the time allowed for signature collection, the more likely it is that the initiative will qualify for the ballot. Signatures must normally be collected from registered voters; usually, a proportion of signatures collected will be found to be invalid, so proponents must collect a number of signatures in excess of the actual threshold. Signature verification is undertaken by the department responsible for administering direct democracy and will normally be undertaken on a random sampling basis. The signature collection and verification process does not always run smoothly (see the recall section).
A sample of petition forms from the US state of Oregon can be found at the link below:
- http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/electionforms.aspx
Campaigning and the provision of information
During the petition circulation stage and in particular once an initiative has qualified for the ballot, proponents and opponents of initiatives will run campaigns for and against the measure. As with a referendum campaign, in some places, campaigning is regulated; contributions or expenditure may be capped. In others, however, there may be difficulties in implementing campaign controls because of the constitution; in many US states, for example, courts have ruled that expenditure limits are unconstitutional, because campaign expenditure has been equated with freedom of speech, which cannot be restricted. This has become a contentious issue because of concern in the US over the role of money and the initiative industry (see below).
In addition to campaigns run by organisations campaigning for or against the initiative, the administration responsible for overseeing the initiative process will often publish an information pamphlet providing voters with information about the proposal. Typically, this might include a statement from the pro- and anti- campaigners, as well as a non-partisan analysis of the measure produced by the government. It might also include statements from other individuals and organisations who support or oppose the measure.
Details of how campaigners can arrange to place a statement in an information booklet in Oregon, and an example of a Californian voter information guide, can be found on the links below:
http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/forms/sel405.pdf
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop_summary.html
Number of initiatives on the ballot
Because there are not normally any limits on the number of initiatives that can be included on a ballot, it may be the case that there are multiple initiatives on any given ballot. The number of initiatives on a ballot normally depends simply on the number of initiatives that have qualified for the ballot in the relevant period before the election (some initiative proponents will deliberately time petition circulation in order to ensure that the initiative appears on the ballot for one particular election rather than another) In the US state of Oregon, there were 26 different initiatives on the ballot at the 2000 Presidential election.
The link below provides an up to date record of the initiatives that have qualified for the Californian state ballot at the 2004 US Presidential election:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2004General
The initiative industry
In a number of US states in particular, concern has been expressed that the use of citizen initiatives is increasingly professionalized, and that the "initiative industry," rather than citizens, determine which measures make it onto the ballot.
Professional firms can assist with virtually all aspects of the initiative process, including: initial drafting of the initiative; opinion polling and focus group research; negotiation over the ballot title; securing endorsements to be used in campaigning; petition circulation; proposing counter-initiatives; and campaigning for the initiative once it has qualified.
One area of concern to some observers has been the use of paid signature collectors to circulate the initiative in an effort to qualify the measure for the ballot. This is perhaps because the use of companies acting for profit to collect signatures arguably seems most at odds with the concept of citizen backed initiatives which are promoted by volunteers who believe in a measure. It is almost accepted in some countries that, without the assistance of professional signature collectors, it will be virtually impossible to get an initiative on the ballot, meaning that only well-financed campaigners are able to get initiatives to the ballot. Some US states have tried to legislate against this by banning the use of paid signature collectors, or requiring professional firms to pay collectors by the hour rather than per signature. This has been ruled unconstitutional in some states, however.
Counter-initiatives
In some places where citizen initiatives are proposed frequently, one trend is for opponents to propose a counter-initiative as a means of opposing the original initiative measure. This tactic can be successful in that the existence of two related but opposing initiatives increases voter uncertainty and confusion about an issue, increasing the likelihood that voters will simply oppose both measures. Use of this tactic may be effective for opponents of specific initiatives, but it also increases the number of initiatives in circulation and potentially on the ballot.
Role of the legislature, government officials and courts
The role of the legislature, government officials and courts in relation to citizen initiatives tends to be strictly defined and rather limited. As outlined above, there is a role for the legislature in relation to indirect initiatives, where there may be an opportunity for it to amend initiative measures, or propose their own alternatives. However, in cases where the design of the initiative process does not provide for the involvement of the legislature, the only reviews that are permitted by the state in relation to initiative proposals is whether or not they comply with the administrative requirements imposed, i.e., are there enough proponents, have enough valid signatures been gathered? A further administrative task is to draft and agree the summary of the ballot title. In some places, where there are strict controls on the number of issues that an initiative can deal with, administrators might also be responsible for checking that the initiative proposal deals only with one issue. In systems where initiatives need to be translated into more than one language, administrators might also be responsible for confirming whether the translation of the initiative proposal means the same in all the relevant languages.
However, other than these legally defined administrative tasks, there is often no role for officials or the courts in reviewing the constitutionality of initiative proposals, for example, the compatibility of the proposal with human rights measures. In some US states, this has led to a situation in which a significant proportion of initiative measures are struck down by the courts after they have been passed by voters.
Advantages/disadvantages
In addition to the general advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy (i.e. reducing the democratic deficit versus undermining representative government, see referendums) there are a number of perceived advantages and disadvantages specific to citizen initiatives.
Advantages
It is argued that the simple existence of the initiative mechanism acts as a check on the activities of the legislature. This is because legislators are more likely to introduce certain reforms and measures if the initiative mechanism exists, because it is likely that if they do not, an initiative on the issue will be launched. One example is that US researchers have shown that US states that use the initiative process are more likely than those that do not, to have introduced governance reform policies (e.g., term limits, campaign finance controls). Another indication of this is the number of initiatives that are introduced but subsequently withdrawn in Switzerland, because the introduction of the initiative has in itself forced the legislature to address the issue. It is therefore claimed that the initiative process makes legislatures more responsive.
Disadvantages
One often cited disadvantage of citizen initiatives is that they result in badly drafted law, since (except in the case of indirect initiatives) the wording of the measure as initially proposed ends up as statute if the measure is passed. It is argued that the failure to use the expertise provided by government lawyers and officials who are familiar with the drafting process leads to laws that can be meaningless or ineffective, or have to be re-drafted, because the individuals or lawyers who draft the measures are not experienced in legislative drafting. Additionally, in some cases, statute created by the initiative process is found to be unconstitutional.
A further disadvantage is the sheer number and complexity of issues that voters are expected to vote on. It is argued that it is impossible for voters to make informed decisions when they there are a substantial number of initiatives on the ballot, and that the likelihood of simple no votes increases the more initiatives are placed on the ballot. A related argument is that citizens cannot be expected to make decision on complex issues that they, unlike elected representatives, do not have the time to learn about.
A frequent criticism of citizen initiatives is that they are only really accessible to well-resourced organisations and interests, and that the process is therefore hijacked by special interest groups promoting their own interests. Empirical evidence about the success of well-financed interest groups is mixed: some research has suggested that money does not in fact have a major effect on the outcome of citizen initiatives, whilst other studies have highlighted the role of money, in particular in defeating initiatives. However, there can be no doubting the importance of professional firms in the initial stage of the initiative process, in particular in terms of signature collection.
A common criticism of citizen initiatives (and other forms of direct democracy) is that they enable the "tyranny of the majority." This term refers to the electoral power of majority groups in society being used to restrict of hinder the rights of unpopular minority groups. Critics argue that without the moderating influence of the legislature, legislation may be passed which actively targets the rights of groups within society which are unpopular. However, research undertaken in the US has produced different conclusions about whether initiatives do actually restrict the rights of minorities or not.
Possible reforms
In places where it exists, the citizen initiative process is generally an accepted feature of the political system. However, many people familiar with the initiative process have outlined possible reforms to refine the initiative process. Most possible reforms of the citizen initiative process focus on reducing the importance of money in the process and/or ensuring that voters are best able to make informed decisions about initiatives.
Reducing the importance of money
Various reforms could be enacted to limit the role of money in the initiative process. In relation to signature collection, banning the use of paid signature collectors and/or payments per signature, or requiring signature collectors to identify whether or not they are paid collectors or volunteers, might reduce the importance of professional firms in the process. Another alternative is to require a fixed proportion of signatures to be collected by volunteers, although this might be hard to regulate.
In terms of the campaign, imposing campaign or contribution limits reduce the significance of campaign funding, although in some places these may be constitutionally difficult to introduce. Subsidies for less well-funded campaigns might be one way of trying to ensure that well-financed campaigns are not able to completely outspent less well-financed opposition campaigns.
Minimising complexity of issues
To ensure that voters are able to make better informed decisions about ballot initiatives, it has been proposed that the number of initiatives on the ballot is limited, the argument being that it is impossible for voters to make informed decisions about complex issues when they are faced with several initiatives on the same ballot. Other proposals include limiting the reading-age level of the ballot title, or restricting the number of words in the title, to ensure that initiatives are presented in as clear and straightforward terms as possible.
Ensuring a role for the legislature and court
It has been argued that statutory provisions arising from initiatives could be improved by involving the legislature and/or court in the initiative process. On one level, this could simply mean providing assistance with the drafting of initiatives, which would mean that they are better written. Another improvement to the process would be to allow courts to screen initiatives to judge whether or not they are constitutional. This would prevent initiatives being struck down by the courts as unconstitutional after they have been passed by voters. Alternatively, it would also be possible to give the legislature a more significant role in the initiative process, effectively turning it into an indirect process. As indicated above, such reforms could include allowing the legislature to draft its own proposals in response to initiatives and allowing the legislature to make minor amendments to initiative statutes.
Next: Recall
