TAKING THE INITIATIVE

Critics say good riddance to proposed law that might have killed
ballot-box activism in Nevada

It's no secret Nevada is being invaded by California. Whether through
home prices or invading hipsters, the "Californication" of Nevada --
particularly Southern Nevada -- is as plain as the rumpled script in
the apron pocket of a Hollywood waiter.

And that specter of Californication has cast a chill through the
Nevada Legislature as well, which, until last week, was considering a
bill that would make it more difficult to get initiatives on the
ballot -- that part of the election process in which the public writes
its own laws and then votes directly on them -- issues ranging from
legalizing marijuana to ending gay marriage. If voting is the food of
democracy, ballot initiatives are Burger King, where you get it your
way.

But are those Whoppers of direct democracy too much of a good thing?
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani thinks so. Raising concerns about
what she calls the "Californiazation" of representative democracy,
Giunchigliani loaded Assembly Joint Resolution 5 with a number of
proposals that would make it harder to get questions on the ballot and
give voters the chance to sound off on constitutional amendments.
Currently, getting a question on the ballot requires signatures from
10 percent of the last general election's voter turnout; under
Giunchigliani's change, it would have required 15 percent, while a
constitutional amendment would have required 20 percent. Based on
November's election turnout, those seeking to put a question on the
ballot would need about 83,000 signatures under current law;
Giunchigliani's proposal would have bumped the threshold up to almost
125,000.

"Everything they do anymore [in California] is through the initiative
process rather than through legislation or ordinances," she says. In
states where ballots are crowded with initiatives, "[voters] don't
make an attempt to go through the process where they have public
hearings, have discussions and have their representatives make decisions."

California, for instance, has an average of 18 questions on the ballot
per election, including those put on by its Legislature. Can the
average voter intelligently handle all that democratic responsibility?
"I think the public is very smart," says Giunchigliani. "I don't
underestimate their intelligence. I just don't overestimate their
enthusiasm." Giunchigliani also says the initiative process is rife
with deceptive language and shady tactics.

Nonetheless, the bill was gutted last week by a Senate committee,
leaving only the text related to its original language purpose: to
bring Nevada law governing signature-gathering for ballot initiatives
in line with a recent federal court decision. Good riddance, say
critics of the bill -- many of whom don't mind a little
Californication if it means more choices on Election Day.

"Nevada already has one of the toughest initiative processes in the
country," says Paul Jacob of Citizens in Charge, a Virginia-based
advocacy group that ran radio ads in Nevada attacking the bill. "What
would be the point [of the bill]? It seems to be to take the process
out of the hands of average folks."

Besides, would it have really capped the Californication of the
process? Some critics say the bill's passage with Giunchigliani
language would've brought Nevada more in line with California -- by
making ballot initiatives the sole province of monied special
interests that could afford the clipboard-wielding foot soldiers to
gather signatures. While California requires for a statute revision
only a 5 percent of total votes cast for governor in the previous
gubernatorial election and 8 percent for a constitutional amendment,
the state's populousness has pretty much guaranteed that engaging
voters in popular lawmaking is the preserve of special interests.

"Speaking as a Californian, the situation there is that you can get
stuff on the ballot only if you have piles of money," says Bruce
Mirken, spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, which has long
fought its battles in Nevada using the initiative process; voters will
face a question about legalizing and regulating marijuana on the 2006
ballot.

John Matsusaka, president of the University of Southern California's
Initiative and Referendum Institute, is also glad to see the bill's
death. Judging by the polls he's conducted, he isn't surprised the
legislation was gutted.

"In the last 10 years, we saw more measures [on the ballot] than in
any other decade in history, and for the last 30 years, every decade
has set a new record," he says. "That means there's been an explosion
in popular lawmaking. We're moving into a period where we're going to
see more and more important laws being made by people directly. I
think this is the future."