01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, March 15, 2006

THIS IS IN RESPONSE to Rhode Island state Rep. John Patrick Shanley's March 10 column here, "Voter initiative threatens Ocean State," which warned about giving voters the chance to decide the question of enacting voter initiative in Rhode Island at this November's general election, despite the fact that over the years, state legislatures in 24 other states have given their citizens the right to do so. These states generally have lower taxes, higher voter turnout, more vibrant economies, and are not facing a $300 million budget deficit, as we are in Rhode Island.

Voter initiative was approved by the voters in a non-binding 1996 referendum placed on the ballot by Governor Almond. The General Assembly has since ignored the will of the people -- ironically, the primary reason and need for voter initiative. We have refined this legislation to meet the concerns of the General Assembly as expressed in 1995-96 committee hearings. We have studied voter initiative in other states, learned from their experience, and have crafted what experts regard as model legislation.

Each year over the past 10, Rep. Roger Picard and I have introduced voter-initiative legislation in the House and Senate. This year, Governor Carcieri, Rep. Nicholas Gorham, and 24 reform-minded co-sponsors have joined us in this bipartisan effort. Despite our persistence, the legislation has never been voted out of committee in either chamber for a floor vote by the people's elected representatives.

Before petition papers are issued, all initiatives must be submitted to the secretary of state for a legal review, to ensure that the civil rights and liberties of individuals and groups will be protected. Not only are these safeguards in place, but should any person or group believe that a proposed initiative will violate their civil rights, after review and determination by the secretary of state's office, our legislation provides for appeal and an expedited Superior Court review and disposition.

Contrary to Representative Shanley's erroneous representation, all initiatives would go before the General Assembly for consideration, deliberation and possible compromise before they are put on the ballot -- a significant difference from procedures in other states. Once qualified for the ballot, initiatives are subject to debate and deliberation in the public arena for many months before the election -- not the "quick fix" that Representative Shanley refers to.

Representative Shanley cites the use of initiative to oppose same-sex marriage. The civil-rights protections in our legislation would prevent such an initiative. Selectively targeting a group of citizens to prevent them from acquiring new rights would not be allowed under our proposal and case law. The citizens of Rhode Island are at infinitely greater risk of having their civil rights violated by the General Assembly, since there are no comparable restrictions on the General Assembly that in fact exist in our legislation. You cannot equate voter initiative in other states with the Rhode Island bill, because each state's legislation is different. Our opponents' use of the civil-rights issue has always been a red herring in this debate -- but they persist.

Representative Shanley says he worries about the monied interests' dominating the initiative process. There is no question that significant money is being spent on ballot questions, but we must also recognize that even larger sums of money are regularly spent in support of political candidates across America. Is this more acceptable? Let the people decide.

Prof. Liz Gerber, of the University of California at San Diego, a highly respected academic who has studied the initiative process, found that citizens' groups are much more successful at the ballot box even when economic-interest groups greatly outspend them. Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT), in Massachusetts -- the group that proposed Proposition 2 1/2, which limits local property-tax increases -- was outspent in four ballot initiatives, and yet CLT was still ultimately victorious.

Has Representative Shanley ever considered that in his two examples of initiatives supported by large contributions from millionaires, the people of those states actually favored those proposals? Ron Utz, on another occasion, spent $675,000 of his own money on an initiative for campaign-finance reform that the people of California rejected. In 1999, two years after the Seattle Qwest Field initiative cited by Representative Shanley, Rasmussen Research conducted a poll of Washington State voters, with the result that by a 10-to-1 margin, the voters believed that the initiative process should be continued in their state.

There are many examples of large amounts of money spent on legislation in states that do not have voter initiative -- money that is spent on lobbyists who are paid to influence legislators' votes. Consider the recent Connecticut bottle-bill legislation, which was killed after special interests spent over $700,000 in campaign contributions to legislators and the governor of that state. Again, is this more acceptable to those who oppose voter initiative?

Our voter-initiative legislation complies with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that lets proponents hire signature gatherers, but the Rhode Island legislation does not allow compensation on a per-signature basis. When gathering petition signatures, each "circulator" must have a detailed campaign-finance report on hand for registered voters to review before they sign a petition. Full disclosure of who the petition sponsors are, and where the money is coming from, is one of the keys to an informed vote by the electorate.

This is a much more transparent process when compared with political-contribution reporting requirements for candidates to the General Assembly.

Representative Shanley states in his article that "initiatives are virtually impossible to change once passed." That is true only in California. In our legislation, if a mistake has been made with an initiative (even legislators make mistakes with some of the bills they pass), the General Assembly can override or amend any initiative approved by the voters with a three-fourths vote during the first four years following the vote. After four years, a simple majority of legislators can override or amend an initiative.

In response to his friend who thought he was living in Oregon when approached with our petition, I can report that one of our staunchest supporters lives in North Providence but previously lived in two initiative states: Oregon and California. He is currently collecting signatures for the Voter Initiative Alliance petition and is a firm believer in voter initiative. I also point out that of the 24 states that have voter initiative, not one has voted to eliminate it.

Supporters of initiative believe the citizens of Rhode Island are perfectly competent to vote on ballot questions. After all, they have been voting on referendum questions that the General Assembly has placed on the ballot since the founding of our government.

Voter initiative threatens only those legislators who wield disproportionate power in shaping public policy, and the lobbyists and special interests that effectively advance their agendas at the expense of the taxpayers. Shifting any amount of political power from the powerful to the people is commonly resisted.

Healthy public debate is good for our democratic society. Let's discuss the issues and let the voters decide. I would challenge Representative Shanley and the opposition in the General Assembly to put a binding question for voter initiative on the November ballot. Both sides can present their case in the public arena in the months to come, and let the people decide what is in their best interest.

Marc A. Cote is a Democratic state senator representing Woonsocket and North Smithfield.