Not sure who your State Legislator is, click here

Does your group want a speaker?  Click here

"There are those occasions under our form of government when the interests of the represented and the interests of the representatives are at odds.  I & R are the means by which the represented assure that their interests ultimately prevail."
John Talley of Longview, Texas

Arguments against I&R  - compiled by Mike Ford

Most arguments against the Initiative are quite creative.
Here are the ones heard most frequently:
 ×  It would be the end of republican form of government
 ×  It would replace the Legislature
 ×  The Special Interests would gain advantage
 ×  It would be the end of agricultural Texas
 ×  It would be used to hurt minorities

 ×  Citizens would propose unconstitutional measures 
 ×  Texas would be flooded with elections
 ×  The ballot would be flooded with propositions
 ×  Frivolous issues would be put on the ballot
 ×  Consultants would make a lot of money

 ×  Prop 13 ruined California, and it will ruin Texas
 ×  We have open hearings -- so there is no need
 ×  The group with the most money always wins

ALLEGED Argument #1 -- "When Texans get the right of Initiative, it will be the end of our republican form of government in Texas."
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "republican" as "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." 

· 130 million Americans live in 24 states with Initiative.  None of these states has ever repealed the Initiative.  In these states, their elected representatives conduct 99%+ of all government business. Are we supposed to believe these 130 million Americans do not have a republican form of government?
· 11 million Texans living in the 265 cities have Initiative for local issues. Are we to believe that they do not have a republican form of government?

· Our unalienable individual rights are ours from the creator as part of our nature.  They are enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the U. S. Constitution, but they do not come from government.  And they certainly are not protected because elected representatives vote (theoretically for us) in a republican form of government.

In a sense, Initiative is the implementation of our constitutionally enumerated right of petition and redress.  In Texas and 25 other states, Legislatures have failed to implement this right for citizens.

ALLEGED Argument #2 -- "When Texans get the right of Initiative, it will replace the Legislature.  Why would we do that?"
· The initiative process does not replace the Legislature.
· In the 24 states with initiative rights, citizens passed 45 new laws out of the 100 they proposed to themselves.
· Meanwhile, Legislatures in those 24 states that same year were passing 14,753 new laws out of the 71,979 they proposed to themselves.

Thus, in states with initiatives, the Legislatures in those states passed 327 new laws for every one citizens passed.

ALLEGED Argument #3 -- "the Special Interests would gain advantage"
· Actually, the Special Interests would lose a major advantage 
    --- their monopoly on influencing legislative activity.
· They prefer the present system wherein: their millions of dollars flows from their "Good Government PACs" to legislative leaders, then to legislators.
· Private meetings behind closed doors give them 1,600 special interests laws (at taxpayer expense) each session.  Citizens can't play in this game.
· Special Interests do have advantages over the rest of us: money, organization, contacts, staff.  They will still have these advantages; but they would lose their valuable monopoly on influencing legislation.
· If the Special Interests would actually gain an advantage with I & R, 
why are they so uniformly opposed it?

Why are the Special Interests against I & R for Texans?
· In 2003, $200 million was spent lobbying 181 people 
--- our Texas legislators.
· That's over $1,000,000 per legislative voter.
· If the $200 million had to be spent lobbying
15 million Texas voters, that would be just $13 per voter.
Clearly you have more clout when you spend
$1,000,000 per voter than when you spend $13.

ALLEGED Argument #4 -- "it would be the end of agricultural Texas"
· I & R has been around since 1898 -- a century.
· Most of the 24 states that have the initiative are rural and agricultural.
· Over 80 years in the 24 states, the idea of repealing the Initiative 
has never even been proposed.

Power continues to concentrate in the state capital.  This trend can only work to the disadvantage of those in rural areas.  I & R is the only tool citizens have to defend themselves from concentration of power.

ALLEGED Argument #5 -- "it would be used to hurt minorities and unpopular groups"
· The U. S. Constitution prohibits making such laws.
· State Legislators can not make laws that abridge our rights enumerated in  the U. S. Constitution.  Neither can citizens using the Initiative.

ALLEGED Argument #6 -- "Citizens would put unconstitutional measures on the ballot"
· State Legislatures, with professional staff, occasionally pass an unconstitutional law.  When they do, the law is challenged in court.  The same thing happens when citizens -- on occasion -- propose or pass an unconstitutional initiative proposal.
· Nevertheless, the proposed Texas amendment provides for every initiative proposal to be first reviewed by the Texas Attorney General as to constitutionality.

ALLEGED Argument #7 -- "Texas would be flooded with elections"
· Not true.  Initiatives that that get sufficient signatures will be on the next statewide November even-year election ballot.
· This means no extra elections.
· It also insures that all issues will be on the ballot when the largest number of Texans are voting.

ALLEGED Argument #8 -- "Texas would be flooded with propositions"
· Because initiatives are so hard to do, this is not likely.  It is also a non-problem because citizens vote "NO" not only on what they don't like  -- but also on what they don't understand.
· When you see a state ballot with 20+ propositions on it, most of these will have been put there by elected officials --- not citizens.
· Recently the Texas Legislature put 19 constitutional amendment issues on the ballot for Texans to vote on.  Why would they do this if 19 issues are too many for Texans?
· Are we to believe that Texans are smart enough to elect people who can consider 5,000 proposals in a 140 day session --- but that Texans are too stupid to vote on 10 or 20 issues every two years?

Attempts to limit the number of propositions on a ballot need to be resisted because such limits give additional major advantages to to the Special Interests.

ALLEGED Argument #9 -- "Texas would be flooded with frivolous issues"
· Statewide initiatives are so hard to do (in time, energy, money for collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures from all around the state) that no one can waste such resources on trivia.  
· Any comparison of what citizens put on the ballot by initiative with what Legislatures pass in a single session, conclusively demonstrates where the trivia is.
· Legislators can afford to consider trivia, because they don't have to collect any signatures.
· In recent elections, when the Texas Legislature put 17 or more issues on the ballot, most of these  were special interest items so trivial that less than 10% of Texans voted.

ALLEGED Argument #10 -- "Consultants will make big money"
· So what!  This is America.  It is okay to make money.
· Consultants are making big money now --- working on things that are largely invisible to the public.  Wouldn't it be a wholesome change if they shifted some of their work to issues the public actually cares about?
· As for the charge that a new industry has been spawned: -- the largest signature-collecting firms make less money than most 12-person legal practices.

ALLEGED Argument #11 -- "Alleged Abuses in other states --- such as California is in economic ruin because of Prop 13."
· Prop 13 passed in 1978 (27 years ago) by a 2 to 1 margin;
and California prospered after its passage.
· The California public still favors Prop 13 by the same 2 to 1 margin.

· California's recent economic difficulties are primarily the result of over-taxation and over-regulation by the State Legislature.

ALLEGED Argument #12 -- "We have open hearings; so there is no need for I & R."  
For people who have never attended an open hearing, this may sound reasonable.  However, anyone who has attended an open hearing knows:
· Most hearings are in Austin; most Texans live hundreds of miles away.
· Hearings are usually scheduled on short notice --- and often move their locations --- and frequently do not start on time.
· Your issue may be the 9th item on the agenda, maybe coming up in 90 minutes -- or maybe in 5 hours.
· While you testify, members read, walk in and out, and confer with associates.
· When you finally get your 5 minutes --- only one person may be listening.

ALLEGED Argument #13 -- "The group with the most money always wins"
· For candidate races, this is usually true --- because most of the money goes to incumbents.  However, for initiative issues, it is usually not true.
· Good ideas usually prevail --- even over millions of dollars.
· In California, big tobacco spent $28 million, and lost.  In Florida, the big gambling spent $16 million, and got only 38% of the vote.
· Prop 13 - the property tax limitation in California - was massively outspent, yet won by 2 to 1.
· Prop 140 - term limits - was outspent by a margin of 5 to 1, but won anyway.
· In 1988, the insurance industry spent $62 million - and lost.

REAL Argument #1 -- "we are afraid of unions, or environmentalists, or reformers, or etc."
· This is an argument made by the members of the business community who have legitimate concerns about the possibilities of unreasonable costs and regulations being imposed upon their operations.  
· Nevertheless, the business community would far better protected if it took the money it spends on lobbying and spent it educating the public.
· Remember when "plastics" was a derogatory word.  Not any longer ---  today the plastics industry tells us about heart valves, water purification, and other modern miracles made possible by plastics.

REAL Argument #2 -- "it dilutes our power"
This is the real reason lobbyists and some legislators oppose I & R.  However, this is never admitted.  They say: "You have us to take care of things for you, what do you need I & R for?"  Or sometimes "The Democrats never shared power.  Now that we are in control, why should we share power?"  
· The public is much more closely connected to common sense than any legislator.  This should not come as a surprise.  Members of the public are spending their own money, they are not running for re-election or higher office, and they are not under any delusion they are running Texas.

REMEMBER
1. If all lobbyists are opposed to an idea, it is probably because they see it as a serious threat to the huge advantages they have over ordinary citizens.
2. Money does matter --- but ideas are more important.
3. I & R is not about politics --- I & R is about freedom.

David Hartman of Austin, Texas, Founder, Hartland Bank, said, "I was skeptical of Initiative and Referendum, but the proposed constitutional amendment from Texans for I&R has been carefully crafted to provide sufficient percentage and distribution of voters, appropriate timing of elections and all other necessary safeguards.  I am now convinced that Texas needs this reform; and I am a spokesman for this decentralization of government power."

From the web site of Initiative for Texas, Austin, TX 78741, (512) 447-2086, email: mikeford@quik.com