Twenty-four US states have the ballot initiative.
Unfortunately, the process is heavily skewed in favor of rich interests
and unsuitable for making informed decisions. A much better method of
citizen lawmaking is needed.

Problems with the ballot initiative

- Advertisement -

In a ballot initiative, citizens can put a measure (proposed law) on
the ballot for a binding vote in an upcoming election by gathering a
large number of petition signatures within a set time. Most successful
signature drives are expensive professionally run affairs with paid
signature collectors, something only the well-funded can afford.
Although grassroots groups can theoretically run a volunteer signature
drive, the vast majority of these fail
because few can field a sufficiently large, determined and reliable
army of volunteer signature collectors. The signature requirement is for
these reasons more a matter of rule by dollars than rule by the people.

If a measure gets on the ballot, running an effective initiative vote campaign can be very costly. For example, in California,
over $50 million has sometimes been spent supporting or opposing a
ballot measure, on top of the $1 million to $3 million that may have
been spent meeting the signature requirement.
Billionaires and large corporations can afford to spend what is needed;
modestly funded public interest groups cannot. Rich interests that face
opponents of moderate means can use their wealth to ensure their side
of the story is heard far more than the other. In the initiative,
democracy is, to a large extent, displaced by the power of money.

Initiative voters tend to be poorly informed
about the measures they vote on. This is largely because they only
learn about them voluntarily in their spare time, and their attention is
diffused across the various items on the ballot. The problem can be
especially bad for measures that attract little public interest, involve
things that are not easily and readily understood and when one side
greatly outspends the other.

- Advertisement -

Legislative juries and informed rule by the people

Classical Athens, often called the birthplace of democracy, sheds
light on how citizen lawmaking can be done in an informed, fair and
highly democratic way. In Athens, much of the decision-making was done
by various juries chosen from the citizens by lottery. This kept a wide
range of decisions in the hands of the citizens, prevented elite rule
and provided a more informed version of citizen rule than popular vote.
Jurors were paid so that all citizens could afford to serve. In the 4th
century BCE, laws were passed by the majority vote of legislative juries
made up of hundreds of legislative jurors (nomothetai).

More or less following Athens' example, juries chosen from the public
by random selection can meet to make informed decisions by majority
vote. Jurors can be paid to work full-time for as many days or weeks as
needed. As representative cross-sections of the public who are engaged
to take the time to make an informed decision, randomly sampled juries
provide the democratic ideal of informed rule by the people.

Instead of using the initiative's signature requirement to "qualify" a
measure for the ballot, the vote of a jury at a preliminary hearing can
be used. Perhaps once every two years, new juries can hold preliminary
hearings for all the measures citizens bring forward. After the
preliminary hearing for each measure, the jury would decide whether
to qualify it.

When a measure is qualified, instead of going on the ballot for an
initiative vote, it can go to a legislative jury for a full and thorough
hearing. After taking as much time as needed, the legislative jury
would decide whether the measure becomes a law.

A level playing field

- Advertisement -

Supporters and opponents of each measure would be given equal time to
present their case to the jurors, at both the preliminary hearing and
legislative jury stages. The juries might number 500 to 1,000 citizens.

Juries put public interest groups of modest means on a level playing
field with big money interests, or at least far more so than the ballot
initiative does. Public interest groups appear before the jurors face to
face, with no need to pay for a signature drive, nor for costly
advertising to the entire electorate. Instead of being shut out by the
high cost of using the initiative, any public interest group that can
afford a few staff can have them make the case for a measure at a
preliminary hearing and before a legislative jury. Unlike in an
initiative vote, moneyed interests cannot use their wealth to drown out
the other side, as both sides get equal time before the jurors.