No initiative

Why the Democrats are afraid
to vote on voter initiative

by Elissa Silverman

When both the House Judiciary and Senate Special Legislation committees decided to hold voter initiative bills hostage a few weeks ago, everyone was quick to offer a mourner's kaddish. The Providence Journal-Bulletin pronounced the bills dead this legislative session. Democratic leaders said better luck next year. And George Nee, secretary-treasurer of the state chapter of the AFL-CIO, happily extended his condolences. But to the dismay of many at the State House, reports of voter initiative's death may have been premature.

In a dramatic maneuver to force voter initiative out of committee, Susan Iannitelli, a Republican from Smithfield, put forth a motion asking the entire House to override the Judiciary Committee's recommendation to hold the bill for further study, which usually means indefinitely.

All but two of her fellow members in the state GOP voted in solidarity. But in a House with only 15 Republicans, they didn't get very far. The measure was soundly defeated by a vote of 74 to 17. "I'm not surprised that it died," says Iannitelli. "I don't think many people wanted to vote it up or down. They didn't want it to happen."

Maybe not, but Senator Marc Cote (D-Woonsocket) still plans on trying to revive the bill in the Senate. If he amends it, he says, the Senate Special Legislation Committee will have to reconsider. Still, Cote knows he faces an uphill battle in getting voter initiative onto the Senate floor for a vote.

Why would legislators want to keep the bill stalled in committee, particularly since 53 percent of Rhode Island voters voiced their approval for some version of voter initiative in a non-binding referendum last November? Indeed, in an age when public opinion polls have superseded political judgment, an affirmative vote on this bill seemed like a sure winner this year.

But rather than embracing the people's choice, members of the House and Senate leadership ran from it. "I think most people think that it's a threat to the people," says Speaker of the House John Harwood (D-Pawtucket).

According to the House and Senate bills, only 50 signatures would be required to get the initiative ball rolling. After this, the bill would be sent to the Attorney General for approval before petitions in support of the measure were circulated. At least five percent of those who voted in the gubernatorial election (about 18,000) would have to sign these petitions. To change the state constitution, the stakes would be higher -- 10 percent, or about 36,000 signatures, would be required. Then the bill would be placed on the ballot in the general election for the approval of the majority of voters.

Despite the fact that the General Assembly could repeal the measure with a three-quarters vote in both houses, voter initiative essentially would allow Rhode Island voters to bypass elected officials and to act as their own legislature. And this is exactly why Democratic legislative leaders -- and their most loyal supporters -- are scared.

"Legislators generally feel that the initiative process undercuts their authority," says Tommy Neal, a policy specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It goes directly to people rather than through the channels of legislative process."

Last year, Republican Governor Lincoln Almond threw his weight behind voter initiative with much public fanfare, prompting many other members of the state GOP (buoyed as well by the party's anti-government rhetoric and checkbook-style economics) to jump on the initiative bandwagon. With Democrats firmly entrenched in the General Assembly, voter initiative could serve as an alternate forum for some of the GOP's pet issues, including tax cuts, deregulation, and perhaps even the death penalty.

With schoolyard one-upmanship so prevalent in politics, Democratic resistance presents another compelling reason for why Republicans support it. "You're likely to find the folks supporting initiative having difficulty getting from the legislature what they want," says Professor Elmer Cornwell, a Brown University political science professor who studies Rhode Island politics.

Local Republicans, however, stop short of suggesting that their support is a deliberate political strategy. "The governor believes the people of Rhode Island should have the ability to put forth a number of bills that might not be addressed in the Assembly," Lisa Pelosi, Almond's deputy communications director, politely suggests.

When voter initiative had its first hearings in the General Assembly, many Democrats, including some leaders of the House and Senate, voiced their support for the bill. President pro tempe of the Senate, Charles Fogarty (D-Glocester), was even a sponsor of the legislation. "I introduced a bill on behalf of voter initiative, pretty much similar, but not identical [to this year's] in 1994," he says. That year, a bill almost made it out of the House committee -- It was denied a trip to the entire floor by only one vote.

But oddly enough, as the issue draws more support among the citizenry, it seems to attract less from their elected leaders. This year, the House Judiciary Committee vote was practically a knockout -- 13 to 4. In the Senate, the Special Legislation Committee voted unanimously to hold the bill in committee.

"I don't want to attribute it specifically to the leadership or one individual or group, but what I observe is we're tending to get the most resistance from those groups that currently enjoy more influence than the average voter," says Cote, the bill's Senate sponsor.

To be sure, voter initiative has its flaws. But although many legislators publicly voice lukewarm support for it, they treat the flaws as immovable obstacles rather than issues to tackle before the next legislative session. "If the committee came out with something good, I would support it," says Harwood.

Still, the same concerns arise each legislative session, and lawmakers almost gleefully point them out. Case in point: Senator Fogarty. "I can't tell you why an identical bill came through this year," he says, acting somewhat puzzled.

Almost all legislators' objections to voter initiative begin with a lesson in high school civics. "We're a representative type of government. People are busy. They don't have time to get out and vote on every issue," says Harwood.

True, but as Tommy Neal of the National Council of State Legislatures points out, 24 states currently have some type of voter initiative on the books, dating back to 1898. "It's not some radical, untested idea. It's been around a long time," says Cote.

Opponents also point to what might be summed up as the "Proposition 187 problem," the California initiative asking voters to deny specific government benefits to both legal and illegal immigrants. Many lawmakers express fears that the same types of initiatives might be introduced in Rhode Island.

But W. Philip West of Rhode Island Common Cause believes that language inserted into the bill would guard against that. "We have inserted strong civil-rights protections in the bill. We don't want hate speech introduced. Reckless, hurtful, homophobic, racist dialogue will not be recognized," he says.

Indeed, both the House and Senate versions of the bill state, "No initiative shall be permitted which affects or concerns the political, personal or civil rights or liberties, including those guaranteed by Article I of the Rhode Island Constitution, of any individual or group of individuals." With such broad language, though, what exactly can voter initiative address?

That's a problem, admits Cote. A big problem. But with some additional amendments and the advice of legal counsel on the issue, Cote optimistically believes his bill might still reach the Senate floor this session.

Last, but not least, is the money problem. Although voter initiative's origins lie firmly within the progressive movement as a vehicle to create grassroots support for issues commonly ignored by elected lawmakers, many observers note that in recent years business and big-money interests have embraced initiative in a major way. Last November, big business may have lost its man for the White House, but it won on many ballot initiatives across the country. In Florida, the sugar industry spent more than $20 million to defeat an initiative that would have assessed a penny-per-pound tax on sugar to fund the cleanup of the endangered Everglades.

In California, HMOs successfully beat back an initiative -- after pledging to spend whatever it takes -- that would have prohibited them from forbidding a doctor to tell patients about treatments not covered under their managed care plans.

These so-called issue advocacy and independent expenditures campaigns are an incredible campaign finance problem, both on the state and federal level. And to the chagrin of many reformers, the Supreme Court has ruled that financial restrictions may not be placed on this type of spending, as it is covered under the First Amendment.

Still, says Iannitelli, "lots of money gets spent in the General Assembly every year. That doesn't seem to cause too many problems around here."