Let's be honest . . .

Yesterday, Denver voters defeated Initiative 300.  The measure would have given Denver police broader authority to impound vehicles on the spot if the driver did not have a driver's license or certain other identification on them at the time they were stopped by the officer.  Aside from questions about the highest and best use of police time and resources, this measure and its predecessor embodied a principle that is very troubling to me. 

For those readers that do not live in Colorado or Denver, let me give a bit a background to bring you up to speed.  Both the State of Colorado and the City and County of Denver allow citizens to take the legislative process into their own hands.  In short, anyone can submit a piece of proposed legislation; yes, there is some red tape to cut and proponents must obtain signatures of a certain percentage of voters.  Overall, though, it is fairly easy for anyone who wants to put in the time and effort to get a proposed constitutional or statutory amendment on the state ballot or a proposed initiative to force city council action on a local ballot.  Then the respective voters get to decide issues directly rather than through their elected officials.

This process has been used cleverly in the past to achieve worthy aims ignored by or stymied in the state legislature.  Even members of the legislature have used this process in lieu of the General Assembly floor to make law.  I will ignore the obvious tangent that is building here and forge ahead. 

Needless to say, the direct democracy mechanisms have been used here in both good and bad ways.  Initiative 300 is, in my opinion, an example of an abuse of that process.  The initiative targeted illegal immigrants.  Some proponents will admit this; others will deny it.  But the probable consequences and most likely cases of enforcement would point to this initiative being an anti-immigrant measure, or, at best, a license to profile. 

My issue with Initiative 300 and others like it - notably, the attempts to define "personhood" in the Colorado Constitution - is this: they are underhanded, back-door attempts to make laws that the voting public would not approve if stated in plain language.  Rather than be honest with the voters about what they are asking, proponents of such measures instead seek to exploit voters who do not read the verbose initiative  language closely, take time to think through all the possible ramifications, or read others' reports and opinions about the measures.  In short, proponents of measures like Initiative 300 know that voters would overwhelmingly disapprove of their proposed laws if the purposes were stated clearly and succinctly.  Instead, they disguise true motives and try to fleece voters into approving their language.

My challenge to the authors of Initiative 300 and the others like them is to be honest with the public.  Be truthful about your motives and goals.  Stop abusing the democratic system you have at your disposal.  If your aims are truly worthwhile and beneficial to the state or the city, voters will recognize that.  If not, smoke and mirrors are not honorable ways to achieve those aims.