THE 'SAFEST DEPOSITARY'

What's So Bad About 'Government by the People'?

Until this year, there had never been more than four questions placed
on a single statewide Nevada ballot through popular petitioning. But
this year -- depending on the outcome of several court cases and
signature re-checks -- Nevadans could vote on as many as 10 questions
placed on their statewide Nov. 2 ballot through citizen petition
drives. (An eleventh was placed there by lawmakers.)

The powers-that-be have noticed and begun raising objections that this
means "outside special interests" have discovered it's relatively
inexpensive to come to Nevada and "test-market" their proposed reforms.

"The special interests have really seized on this as a vehicle to
promote their agendas," warns Eric Herzik, a political scientist who
serves as interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the
University of Nevada, Reno. "We have this romantic image of
grass-roots volunteers collecting signatures, when in fact they are
paid employees of firms."

But should Nevada voters fear these "special interests"?

The recurrent attempts to de-criminalize small amounts of marijuana
are probably the clearest example of an "outside" national
organization choosing this state as a low cost "test market." But
Nevadans still get to vote on the matter -- and reject it out of hand,
if they like.

Yes, leaders of the status quo at the Legislature are wringing their
hands over this growth in direct citizen governance. But it's fully
predictable that those who have grown accustomed to a monopoly on
power would be jealous of any end-run around their
prerogatives.

In fact, Secretary of State Dean Heller is closer to grasping what's
really going on when he says, "I sense there is a real frustration by
the public because of their inability to get the Legislature to act on
their behalf. Most believe the Legislature runs circles around them.
They see lobbyists running the Legislature."

Unfortunately, this is no exaggeration. Lobbyists and government
employees (paid for time and travel) have plenty of leisure to whine
to the lawmakers about their "needs" -- while net-taxpaying citizens
are mighty thin on the ground in Carson City.

A few safeguards are necessary, of course. Questions are and must be
reviewed for constitutionality -- a temporary majority in the grips of
some passion must never be allowed to infringe the civil and
constitutional liberties of any minority.

And second most important is the constitutional requirement that
referenda be clear, simple, and deal with only a single subject. This
year's question purportedly seeking to roll back auto and homeowners
insurance rates by 20 percent, for example, should never have been
allowed to pass muster. Such a rollback not only violates economic
common sense, it was already ruled unconstitutional by the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, back in 1990.

That portion of the question will therefore be squashed like a bug by
the first court to see it (as the sponsoring lawyers surely know) --
leaving behind only a "Trojan Horse" rollback of the state's modest
efforts at capping medical malpractice "pain and suffering" awards,
tucked away in the fine print.

The sponsors should have been required to break that sneaky stratagem
into separate questions.

Otherwise, it appears a new wave of "government by initiative" will be
with us for some time. Like any other exercise in democracy, it may be
messy and sometimes self-contradictory.

Well, tough.

As the man said, "I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of
the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
their discretion by education."