Problems in American Democracy

by Thames Williamson

472. OBJECTIVES URGED AGAINST DIRECT LEGISLATION.—Critics of the Initiative and the Referendum maintain that Direct Legislation has many serious defects. It is declared that by breaking down and weakening the state legislature, this type of legislation threatens the integrity of the framework of government established by the state constitution. It is pointed out that Direct Legislation shifts lawmaking from a definite group (the state legislature), to a large and indefinite group of persons (the voters as a class), upon whom responsibility cannot be fixed. By robbing the legislature of power and responsibility, the Initiative and Referendum are said to degrade rather than to improve that body: the best class of men is not attracted to a legislature which has been shorn of dignity and influence, and if the people rely upon the Initiative and Referendum, the voters deem it less necessary to choose honest, capable legislators.

It is also maintained that the Initiative and Referendum do not promote independence of political thought, since only a mechanical "Yes" or "No" is demanded of the voters. In all states where Direct Legislation is applied, it is said, so few persons actually vote that legislation is really determined by a small minority of the voters. Again, the ease with which the Initiative and Referendum may be set in motion allows so many measures to be brought before the people that they cannot vote upon them intelligently. It is also said that Direct Legislation is primarily the instrument of the propagandist, because in many cases cranks and professional agitators monopolize the privilege of circulating petitions.

A serious defect of Direct Legislation is that the drafting of many laws requires detailed and technical information which the average voter is in no position to secure. In several states, notably in Maine, the recognition of this difficulty has led to the adoption of a modified Initiative. According to this plan, the state legislature may examine any measure proposed by the voters, enact an alternative measure of its own, and submit both to popular approval. The voters decide between the two. The difficulty with this plan is that it is not only expensive, but that by doubling the number of measures to be weighed and studied it imposes an added burden upon the voter at the polls.

473. THE RECALL.—The Recall is a device whereby certain elective officials who have not given satisfaction in office may be required to stand for reŰelection before the end of their terms. The Recall is set in motion when a petition has been duly signed by a specified percentage of the voters, usually at least twenty-five per cent. The Recall cannot be employed until the official in question has been in office a specified period, so that he shall have had an opportunity to give satisfaction before being subject to recall. Accused officials may forestall the Recall by resigning when a petition is launched against them, otherwise they must stand for reŰlection. The ballot which goes to the people contains, in brief, the objections to the official, and, in some states, also the reply of the accused officeholder. If defeated at the polls the accused official must retire from office; if vindicated, he continues in office during the remainder of his term.

The principle of the Recall was recognized in American state government before the end of the eighteenth century, but in its present application it is much younger. In its modern form the Recall was first used in 1903, when the city of Los Angeles applied it to elective municipal officials. Five years later Oregon adopted it for all state officers, and since 1908 it has spread to a number of other states, most of them in the western part of the country. The Recall has been used chiefly against city officials, though in several states it may be applied to a majority of both local and state officials. In Oregon, California, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada, the Recall may also be used against judges.

474. ARGUMENTS FOR THE RECALL.—Those favoring the Recall maintain that it is the natural and legitimate expression of the right to remove unsatisfactory officials. It is pointed out that the Recall permits longer terms for elective officials, for if the voters know that they can use the Recall to remove officials who prove unsatisfactory, they will feel safe in electing those officials for relatively long terms. By reducing the number of elections, the device lightens the burdens of the voter. The Recall is said to be a wholesome reminder of preŰlection promises. It is also maintained that since the Recall is a threat, it encourages officeholders to be honest and efficient.

475. OBJECTIONS URGED AGAINST THE RECALL.—In answer to the above arguments, the opponents of the Recall claim that the device encourages officials to curry popular favor, regardless of public duty. It may also place officials at the mercy of popular passion and caprice. When it is applied to judges, the Recall threatens the integrity and independence of a branch of government which ought to be removed from popular clamor and prejudice. This last is a serious objection, for it may happen that judges subject to the Recall will hesitate to hand down decisions that may prove unpopular, however just those decisions may be. For this reason the extension of the Recall to judges is being strongly resisted. Even the most ardent advocates of the device are beginning to admit that the Recall is more applicable to administrative officials than to judges.

476. STATUS OF THE RECALL.—A satisfactory decision upon the merits of the Recall is difficult because it is so recent a development and still so little used that few data are available. The state-wide Recall has been in existence for a number of years, yet few state officials have been removed by it. Los Angeles used the Recall to unseat the mayor in 1904 and in 1909, and in 1911 the device was used against the mayor of Seattle. But the Recall is primarily a threat, and is rarely used. In view of this fact, the arguments for and against the device rest upon theory rather than upon actual experience. The Recall has great possibilities for good if wisely administered, but it may become an evil influence if carelessly or revengefully used.

477. SIGNIFICANCE OF POPULAR CONTROL.—The development of the Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall indicates a growing impatience with the abuses of party power, the evils of the long ballot, and the corruption and inefficiency of many legislative bodies. It is significant that direct popular control has accompanied the widespread movement to reform municipal government, and that it is playing an increasingly important part in the movement to reform state administration.

Up to the present time, the Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall have been confined chiefly to the West, where political problems are less acute than in the East, and where, too, the tendency toward direct participation in government has always been marked. Nevertheless, there is some indication that the future will see an extension of direct popular control, not only in the West, but also in other parts of the country. Whether or not this extension is desirable we cannot now say. But certainly it is an interesting and important development, and one demanding careful study and mature deliberation on the part of those who seek to make American government highly effective.