Constraining State Ballot Initiatives

To whom it may concern,

Across the nation the State Ballot Initiative has been a growing force in local, regional, and state politics. Traditionally, these ballot initiatives have been used to advance issues that are not always popular with politicians. Political “third rail” issues like medical marijuana or gay marriage end up on state ballot initiatives through a relatively easy process. Through a ballot initiative, minority voices with powerful allies and large purses can bring an issue before the public. In some instances, this is the most direct form of democracy where the populace is essentially self-legislating. However, as is the case in California, these ballot initiatives have become ubiquitous. Of particular concern are ballot initiatives that mandate certain spending levels or have a permanent effect on the tax structure, budget, and policy. A democracy is supposed to change with the times and with its people. It is meant to be flexible. To have a ballot initiative passed 30 years ago tie the hands of the legislature today is counterproductive. State Ballot Initiatives do have their place. They should be used locally and regionally to generate funds for specific projects like mass transportation or cultural institutions. For States, they should be used to direct the legislature to address an issue instead of usurping the legislature. How can the federal government work to limit ballot initiatives that have disastrous effects on the long-term solvency of States?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP