May 4, 2009 12:00 PM
NOTE: in the days since this piece was written, much has changed. Rep. Parson has allowed for the language of his bill, described below, to be replaced with that of Senator Lembke's bill, detailed here. This is good news. Proponents of initiative and referenda should be grateful to Rep. Parson for lending his support. -Patrick Tuohey 5/4/2009
The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided.
The Missouri Constitution clearly states that the people possess the right to initiate laws and constitution amendments, even though they grant those same powers to their representatives in the legislature. This is an important since it permits the people to enact laws directly and without going through the standard legislative process.
Unfortunately, in states where the people enjoy this right, the initiative process is continually under assault from state legislatures—Republican and Democrat alike—even to the point of adopting unconstitutional limitations to them. Such efforts have included the following:
- A 1969 law in Oklahoma required that petition circulators be state residents. In December 2008, the Tenth Circuit Court unanimously struck down that law as unconstitutional. The Court did the same to a similar law in Colorado in 2002.
- A 2005 law in Ohio that restricted petition gatherers from being paid per signature was struck down by the Sixth Circuit Court struck in March 2008. Ohio appealed the decision but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear it. Similar pay-per-signature regulations have been overruled by federal district courts in Idaho, Maine, Mississippi and Washington.
- A Colorado law that required petitioners to wear badges with their name and whether they were a volunteer or paid circulator was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999.
A common argument for limiting the petition process is that it puts too much money into politics or that it invites fraud. Yet courts have found this not to be the case. In the 2005 ruling against Ohio, the Court concluded that prohibiting payment per signature would increase the costs and the time necessary to obtain the required signatures. The Court also rejected the evidence that this particular form of payment resulted in fraud.
Other legislators worry that petition drives can be funded and operated by people living out-of-state. In a December interview with the Springfield News-Leader, Rep. Michael Parson (R-133) said, “What's happening is a company or a special-interest group can come in from out of the state, basically unload the signature gathers (from a bus), do a marketing campaign and change the Constitution of the State of Missouri.” It is important to note that Parson’s legislative efforts do not extend to campaigns for elected officials such as for state representatives. He has no problems with his own campaign taking out-of-state money and using out-of-state campaign worker.
The real intention is to restrict the ability of citizens to circumvent the legislature. Parson admits this when he continues, “There is something to be said about going through the legislative process, going to the hearings and letting everybody have their say.” But elections already let everybody have their say. Parson's intent is to make sure only legislators “have their say.”
In testimony before the General Laws Committee of the Missouri House on his most recent effort to restrict the petition process, Parson admitted that while there were some “constitutional issues” with his bill, it was important to make an effort to curtail out-of-state powers from coming into Missouri and affecting our laws. Parson’s reference to “constitutional issues” turned out to be a euphemism for “unconstitutional”--the bill contains the same residency and payment provisions that courts have rejected elsewhere. As for Parson's other concern, his bill would have done exactly nothing to curtail out-of-state money. And again, if out-of-state money is so bad, why has Parson himself accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from organizations outside Missouri?
If Parson's bill becomes law, expect the courts to throw it out on the first challenge. In the meantime, well-meaning citizens will be denied their rights.
Since 1907, Missouri voters have used the petition process to enact initiatives favored by the Left and the Right; and voters reject more petitions than they accept. Legislators both Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, ought to respect this right and respect the same voter wisdom that put them into office.
Patrick Tuohey is president of Market and Communications Research Inc., a public opinion and communication research firm he founded in 1999. He and his wife Michelle live in Kansas City, Missouri with their three daughters.
Legislators both Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, ought to respect this right [to petition] and respect the same voter wisdom that put them into office.
