01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, October 6, 2005

The voter initiative campaign being promoted by Governor Carcieri and a coalition of enthusiasts to give citizens the power to put laws or constitutional amendments on the ballot is unlikely to get anywhere.

Nor should it.

It would shortcircuit the legislative process. The General Assembly is there to propose, study, debate and, yes, if warranted, kill pieces of legislation.

The initiative "reform," which would require a constitutional amendment that the Assembly is being asked to submit to voters, is sponsored by Sen. Marc Cote, a Democrat. But it's backed by Carcieri and other GOP leaders. It would open the way for referendum campaigns dominated by special interests and mean-spirited dialogue.

Sure, special interests play roles in the legislative arena. But it's still the place to thrash out legislative complexities and vent and absorb emotions.

Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Flanders, who chairs the coalition helping Carcieri and Cote, says, "We need voter initiative and referendum as a safeguard to allow the people to be heard when the normal processes of legislative and executive actions don't work."

I say: Make them work, by making your case better or by electing better officials.

Carcieri -- who sees himself as the good guy versus the bad guys -- is determined to turn this into a political issue and calls on all candidates to take a stand. He told a news conference-rally that separation of powers had been a big deal. "This is an even bigger deal. . . . I don't think there's any more important issue right now in our state."

Myself, I think it might be more important to have, say, a functioning hurricane evacuation plan, but maybe that's a personal quirk.

Lt. Gov. Charles Fogarty, who is expected to be Carcieri's 2006 Democratic opponent, once supported initiative but became disenchanted. "In many states, what started out as well-intended grassroots efforts from the citizens have been hijacked to a large extent by special interests, monied interests, large corporations, to put forward their own agenda."

And Sen. Elizabeth Roberts, likely Democratic lieutenant governor nominee, has "grave" concerns. "Issues are decided in somewhat of a policy vacuum," she says, with voters apt to make decisions without considering all the ramifications.

Carcieri & Co. like to compare initiative to the successful drive for separation of powers, or suggest that initiative is the logical next step. But Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, a former attorney general who helped start the Rhode Island separation of powers movement, says the two ideas are not related.

He subscribes to the concept of legislation being processed in legislatures: "That's what the Founding Fathers felt when they established democracy in the United States of America, so I would agree with them."

Carcieri relishes initiative as a way to get spending controls put on the books. But such limits can be simplistic. And more menacing is the prospect of voters wanting, say, a ban on gay marriage.

Cote's language would bar proposals abridging civil rights or liberties. But there currently is no right to gay marriage in Rhode Island. When I asked the senator if a gay marriage ban would qualify for the ballot or not, he wasn't sure. (The secretary of state would make the first determination, then the courts could get involved.)

With so many Democrats and interest groups, such as labor, down on initiative, does Cote feel lonely? He said he's not out to win a popularity contest. "I just believe in the issue."

He's been at this for a decade. I admire his tenacity. But that doesn't make him right.

M. Charles Bakst, The Journal's political columnist, can be reached by e-mail at mbakst [at] projo.com