Editorial: Worrisome ruling on initiatives

Monday, Sept. 15, 2003 | 8:39 a.m.

Last week the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found unconstitutional an Idaho law that limits how an initiative petition can get on the ballot. The decision could impact Nevada if it's not overturned because our state's initiative petition requirements are similar to Idaho's. The federal appeals court ruled that the Idaho law violates the U.S. Constitution because it requires sponsors of an initiative or a recall to get not only 6 percent of the qualified voters statewide but to also gather at least 6 percent of the qualified voters in at least half of that state's counties. The judges determined that the latter requirement violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it allocates "equal power to counties of unequal population." Idaho has a situation similar to that in Nevada, where the population is concentrated in just a few countie s and the rest of the state is sparsely populated.

The judges are overreaching in claiming that the principle of "one man, one vote" is being harmed. The Idaho law takes reasonable steps to make sure that initiative petitions have support across the state before they go on the ballot. A requirement that signatures must be collected in many of a state's counties prevents the initiative process from being dominated by large metropolitan centers. If an initiative does get enough signatures, every registered voter has a chance to cast a ballot on the question, hardly a situation that impairs "one man, one vote."

If the ruling is upheld, and it is found to also apply to Nevada, it would have a deleterious impact on representative democracy here. It would make it much easier to get an initiative on the ballot, especially for those backed by well-funded interest groups. All of their energy in collecting signatures could be focused on a single county with a large metropolitan area, such as Las Vegas.

The federal government and the states were founded on the concept of representative democracy. It wasn't until the earlier part of the 20th century that direct democracy took hold in this country. The initiative process can be healthy for government -- in moderation. But we've all seen how direct democracy has run amok in California, which in recent years has ballots that resemble small town phone books because there are so many initiatives to be decided. The 9th Circuit's ruling will make a bad situation even worse unless it's overturned.