SHOULD THE BROWNSVILLE CITY CHARTER INCLUDE A PROVISION FOR REFERENDUMS?
Kurgan came up with the idea of changing the City Charter to allow for public referendums. He did not have to do any of the research. He had the idea, and I went out and found what I believe to be neutral material which explains the purpose of a referendum and the impact a referendum can have on the community. Everything which follows may be a bit drab. It is from an academic article which appeared in the UK. I pulled out specific information which I believe will help the reader to form an independent opinion.
I do need a topic for Monday. As you can see, all Kurgan had to do was state a general idea. I did all of the work. So do not feel like your idea does not matter because you cannot write. Just give me a general idea and I may write it for you based on your ideas.
People I know a lot of people read Thursday’s post. The IRS is not going to come steal your home if you vote in the polls. There is no Big Brother watching how you vote.
"In the Western literature, words such as "referendum", "plebiscite" and "initiative" carry similar meaning, referring to actions which people vote for or against motions which concern the public."
"Research findings reveal that in democratic societies, there are generally two ways for people to take part in policy decision-making and to give their governments legitimacy. The first way is direct democracy such as referendums; the second one is indirect representative democracy such as regular parliamentary meetings and presidential elections. The Team asserts that both direct and representative democracies are useful systems in materializing equal political rights of people and they are not mutually exclusive in nature. Besides, both direct and representative democracies can become a standing and reciprocally complementary political setting in the present political systems. And the outcome of either referendum or popularly elected government is to objectively reflect people's wills".
"Experiences show that during the course of democratization, both reformist power and conservative power value the use of referendums. On one hand, reformists hope to make use of referendum to win public support for introducing reforms. On the other hand, conservatives believe referendum can reflect majority view on seeking stability, which is advantageous to maintain the status quo or neutralize the demand from reformists"
"Pros and Cons of Referendums
Pros: (1) Referendums can embody the common notion of "People rule", and people's wills become the final arbitration of any serious and publicly concerned debates. (2) Referendums allow every voter to express their views directly and clearly. They can contemplate the concerning motion and take part in policy making actively and responsibly. (3) When compared with usual public opinion polls, referendums put more emphasis on the importance of rigorous thinking and reflection. (4) Referendums complement but they do not replace representative democracy. As a standing mechanism but no frequently activated, they can help to remind governments and parliaments of the centrality of their people. (5) In a political environment lacking in legitimacy, political leaders and even the civic society may use referendums to gain legitimacy for their political system or policy objectives. (6) Referendums are in fact part of a healthy political process; both political leaders and people can use referendums to resolve misunderstandings and conflicts.
Cons: (1) In order to reach certain goals, political leaders and civic organizations can use different means to distort and manipulate public opinions. If the content, time arrangement and even the results' interpretation of referendums are not properly handled, the outcome of referendums will only reflect the will of the initiator but not the people's true will. (2) It is difficult for the government, interest groups or media to remain neutral at the interface of affirmative and negative sides of the motions. They may mislead the direction of debates and in turn deteriorate the democratic nature of referendums. (3) The degrees of public interests and participations in different social issues are different. Therefore, in the course of the referendums, people's ability to participate in discussions and handle relevant information is often being questioned. (4) The majority choice and preference are not always the best decision. In addition, referendums turn complicated political issues to a zero-sum game which is not good for cooperative allocation of interests. (5) The results of referendums are unpredictable and uncontrollable. A genuinely fair and open referendum brings risks to both the affirmative and negative sides of the concerned motion. (6) Referendums can weaken the representative government and directly elected political bodies, and in turn lower the quality of policies. Even worse, referendums may boost populism and bring the risk of "popular tyranny" "
http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/columns/columns72.html
I am adding a variable to item 6 of the cons. In our form of government the courts are free to hold unconstitutional any referendum which violates constitutional guarantees. In fact as of late the courts have been accused of being too aggressive in holding referendums unconstitutional. Although, some will say the courts have allowed to stand referendums which certain groups believe violate their constitutional rights. So this check on the process is only as good as our judiciary.
7 comments:
Do not let them have a loophole to twist things the way they want to stick to the chareter as it is
Elliot Ness
I think the concept of a plebiscite is healthy for any democratic society. One danger to referenda is that public officials may use them to avoid making tough decisions ("I didn't do it, the people decided to do it").
In Mexico, politicians have been reluctant to acknowledge that referenda are constitutionally founded (by Art. 39 of the Mexican Constitution, the nation's sovereignty resides in the people). I am ignorant on US law but is there such a constitutional foundation for referenda in the USA?
Finally, I don't think the Supreme Court is against the idea of a plebiscite but will guard against referendum results which are clearly unconstitutional. A nation's constitution is the maximum law of the land and nothing can contradict it.
The US Costitution authorizes the various state government to establish their own form of government within the limited constraints of the US Constitution.
Referendum is by a state to state basis.
At the federal level - you raised an interesting question which I have not researched in some 15 years - would a Congressional creation of referendum be an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority?
This would be a great competition question with no right or wrong answer - just being judged on the quality of the analysis.
Bobby WC
If the Constitution gives states this right, there should be no obstacle for the State of Texas to have a plebiscite option for certain well-defined situations. However, are referenda at the city level constitutional at the state level?
One of the most lucid Mexican political scientists, Arnaldo Córdova, put it this way:
"When presented with an initiative a legislator must first figure out whether it is constitutionally founded. Any law which has no constitutional foundation is unconstitutional. Any law which goes against the constituion is anti-constitutional."
Is there a legal foundation, in the state constitution, for referenda to be part of the Brownsville City Charter?
(P.S.: It is odd to me that in the USA most people do not make the distinction between un- and anti-constitutional.)
The US Constitution is 100% silent on the issue of referedum. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the Texas Constitution which allows for referendums.
In the context of Texas this is odd, because moreso than in other states we elect just about every Executive position in Texas government. The original authors were very Jacksonian and wanted a very defused form of government.
Anyway a constitutional amendment would be required.
Bobby WC
clarification - a constitutional amendement would be required at the state level - I believe there have been many failed efforts in Texas to get cities to allow for referendums - some cities have them and most do not.
Bobby WC
I was born in Switzerland, where referendums (da?) have been used successfully against arbitrary decisions by the federal and/or state governments. They are the clearest expression of democracy I can think of, with the exception of direct democracy which is too impractical.
Californians have the right to attach propositions to any voting period; of course, a minimum number of signatures is required, but if the topic is really important to many people (such as gay marriage), they get them. Why not do it here in Texas, or does it require a constitutional amendment?
Post a Comment