Coming out of the supermarket a couple of days ago, I was accosted by several signature- gatherers wanting me to sign their petition backing a ballot initiative. When I asked the subject, they told me Gov. Bill Ritter had issued an executive order forcing state workers to join unions. This petition would reverse that dastardly deed.
I responded that Ritter had done no such thing, that he had, instead, given state employees limited collective-bargaining rights. When I looked at the language of the petition, I realized the petition had nothing to do with Ritter. It was, instead, a “right to work” initiative, harmful to unions and their members. I told him I wouldn’t sign it and he stalked off, clearly annoyed.
Most people coming out of the supermarket just want to get home. They have no reason to think a signature-gatherer isn’t giving them a straight story about the initiative. Few people have time to read the language; they just need to load their groceries and get on their way. So, petitioners, often paid for each signature, have a big incentive to say whatever will fill the petition, knowing the signers don’t have time to dig deeply into the subject.
Signature gathering in Colorado is fraught with confusion. Even though there is a state title board charged with ensuring that ballot titles clearly reflect the content of the initiative, the legal wrangling over those titles often results in murky language. The titles can be long and baffling. Signature-gatherers often aren’t versed in the details of the initiative. They are there to collect signatures, not provide the legal intricacies of a measure.
This year, there have been complaints of fraud over signature gathering for the anti-affirmative action measure that Californian Ward Connerly is trying to get on Colorado’s ballot. According to The Denver Post, some signers were led to believe they were supporting affirmative action when, in fact, they were signing an initiative that would dismantle it in Colorado.
Since initiatives are heaped onto our ballots every two years, voters need better information in order to make informed decisions, both regarding petitions they are signing and the measures that actually get onto the ballot. Frequently, we have “dueling initiatives” put forward by both sides of an issue. That has happened in recent years on gay rights and this year on labor/management relations. That makes the entire process especially puzzling, even to those who follow politics closely.
The legislature is trying to deal with this barrage of initiatives. It set up a Title Board years ago to provide presumably objective information about ballot proposals to voters. What it doesn’t seem to have is a way to help the harried voter determine what an initiative really says in a short period of time. So, in addition to the legal requirements of the Title Board, legislators could set up a language review team to ensure clarity.
They could also require all signature-gatherers to hand a voter a simple explanation of the initiative, as well as insist that signature-gatherers get some training on the subject matter. They could provide information to the press as soon as a title has been set so that voters could read more about what proposed initiatives entail.
Initiatives tend to reflect special interest groups’ agendas. They rarely make good law. At the very least, voters deserve to understand their consequences.
