INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

Looking back . . .
Initiative & referendum fever subsides in Minnesota

There was a sizable state budget deficit and a DFL-controlled
Legislature feuding with an Independent-Republican governor who
promised to veto the tax bill and other key legislation.

The public -- feeling angry, confused, and alienated from the
process -- in large part shifted its interest to the North Stars
and the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Yup, 1980 was a unique year in Minnesota history.

The tumultuous session 11 years ago also marked the last time
there was a serious push to bring initiative and referendum to
Minnesota.

A proposed constitutional amendment, strongly backed by then-Gov.
Al Quie and generally opposed by the DFL leadership in both
chambers, went on statewide ballots that year. The measure
ultimately failed by about 68,000 votes out of 2 million cast,
despite taking a majority of votes actually cast on the ballot .

Initiative and referendum is essentially a shortcut for the
public to enact state law, allowing voters to vote on legislation
directly. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia
currently have some form of I & R.

Had the 1980 ballot issue in Minnesota succeeded, citizens now
could draft a bill, gather about 100,000 petition signatures, and
put it to a vote at the next even-numbered election.

The voters themselves would then be the ones wrestling with the
sometimes-complex issues of government. Should the "chickadee"
checkoff, foodshelf checkoff, or both be listed on state income
tax forms? Or how about wetlands protection? Voters would be
asked what specific types of wetlands should be protected? Ditto
with state spending caps? As evidenced by ballot topics in other
states, the range of issues is endless.

And if an initiative were to win approval, that's all that would
need to happen. No further action by the Legislature would be
needed. No gubernatorial signature. Just a simple yes or no vote
to become the law of the land.

And maybe that was exactly what excited and frightened almost
equal numbers of people in 1980.

I & R supporters touted it as the clearest method for the public
to get involved in their government. Detractors feared it would
lead to "mob tyranny," where the most strident and best-financed
groups would take control.

During the 1980 legislative session and the subsequent election
campaign, both sides in the debate accused the other of using I &
R as an issue to deflect attention away from other pressing
problems.

Although the bill that eventually passed both chambers was
authored by a DFLer, the I & R issue generally broke along party
lines -- with Independent-Republicans lining up for it; DFLers,
against.

While the bill was still in conference committee, DFLers tried to
scuttle I & R by amending it to another measure that called for
raising public campaign financing limits, a proposal Quie had
previously vetoed.

The governor quickly accused DFLers of "arrogance" and "political
trickery," and vowed to let the bill die instead of signing
"tainted" legislation. Quie and lawmakers finally did reach an
accord in the waning days of the session, and both the I & R and
the campaign financing amendments went on the November ballot.

The pre-election debate was just as intense. Quie barnstormed the
state in support of the measure, seemingly making it a mid-term
referendum on his tenure in office.

The anti-I & R groups, he told one gathering shortly before the
election, were little more than "a bunch of self-interest groups
striving to keep the public outside in the Minnesota winter while
the influence brokers haggle in the cozy lobbies of the state
Capitol."

The anti's, of course, saw the issue differently.

Apponents said I & R would only serve extremists on either side
of the political spectrum, allowing carefully-worded but
potentially dangerous laws to slip by an often-apathetic
electorate.

Those concerns led to formation of some seldom-seen coalitions:
the AFL-CIO and several other unions teamed up with the
Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Association of
Commerce and Industry to lobby against the proposal.

Other organizations such as the NAACP and the League of Women
Voters also lined up to oppose I & R. Then-president of the
Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP, Hobert Mitchell, predicted
anti-civil right activists would try to tear apart laws aiding
minorities through initiatives or referendums.

"The Minnesota Human Rights Department could be wiped out by a
single stroke of the pen on a ballot," Mitchell told the
Minneapolis Star in October 1980. "The ERA (equal rights
amendment) that was passed by the Legislature could be put up for
referendum and rescinded."

Actually, there is little evidence in states with I & R that
so-called "special interest" legislation has been approved by
that process. Nor is there a great trend that legislators try to
duck troublesome issues by instead passing the buck onto the
public through a referendum on those controversial measures.

But conversely, the "renewal of trust" in government and feelings
of empowerment proponents say are fostered by I & R also seem to
be missing.

Studies and public opinion polls indicate most of the supposed
mistrust of elected officials fluctuates with economic
conditions. Unless someone could end unemployment, slash taxes,
and put a chicken in every pot with a "single stroke of a pen,"
it seems unlikely that I & R would work much to eliminate voter
apathy.

One thing is certain, however. Voters in Minnesota likely won't
see an I & R proposal on Election Day next year. After several
years as a perennial topic in the Legislature, not one I and
R-related proposal has been introduced in the past three years. 

"It's just not something anyone is really interested in carrying
right now," says Rep. Terry Dempsey (IR-New Ulm), who, seven
years ago, co-sponsored one of the last I & R bills to receive
more than cursory attention by lawmakers.

"But one of these days," he says, "I suspect, somebody's is going
to come along here and want to get it going again."

--Dave Price



Originally printed in 1991 in Session Weekly, a weekly
newsmagazine published by the Minnesota House Public Information
Office.

***Last Update 8/5/94 (jtt) Last Review 8/5/94 (jtt) ***