About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


93 Calif. L. Rev. 1191 (2005)
Reforming Direct Democracy: Lessons from Oregon

handle is hein.journals/calr93 and id is 1203 raw text is: Reforming Direct Democracy: Lessons From Oregon Cody Hoeslyt Direct democracy was originally a progressive instrument designed to break the power of corrupt state governments and corporations. Today, it has become a tool of corporations and well-funded interest groups that claim to speak for the people but instead seek only to further their own agendas. Oregon has seen both the heights to which a state can rise under direct democracy and the depths to which it can sink. Ballot measures that mandate tax cuts and funding for programs have taken budgets out of the hands of state legislators. Initiative activists have utilized the system to discriminate against minorities. Fraudulent signature gathering has shaken the public's confidence in the system's integrity. In response, pro- gressives have sought to rein in direct democracy, or at least minimize the harms with which it has become synonymous. Toward that end, Oregon state officials have increased the difficulty of placing initiatives on the ballot. The Oregon Supreme Court recently interpreted the state constitution to bar initiatives that make more than one constitutional amendment at a time. These efforts set a positive example for other states to follow. But Oregon and other direct democracy states must do more. They should, for instance, improve their tracking and publication of ballot measure campaign finances and prohibit initiatives that discrimi- nate against minorities or commandeer state funding. These and other steps would cure most of direct democracy's defects while retaining its ad- vantages and preserving its progressive heritage. Copyright C 2005 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. t J.D., School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall). I would like to thank Stuart Kaplan and Martin Shapiro for commenting on earlier drafts, as well as the team at the California Law Review, especially David Alban and Sarah Houghland, for helpful edits and hard work. Above all, however, I would like to thank my brother, Dusty, for repeated reads, valuable insights, exceptional patience, and a keen eye for both the forest and the trees. 1191