MISSOURI WATCH; LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK...WISELY

When political populists began proposing during the turn of this century a greater voice for unelected citizens in deciding critical state issues, most embraced the concept as a form of "true democracy."

What was proposed, and amazingly rapidly adopted in many states including Missouri, was a process that was called the initiative referendum, a rather academic phrase that was nothing more than proposed law or constitutional change that could be offered for voter approval not by members of a state legislature or an executive branch officeholder but by everyday, garden-variety citizens.

The climate for offering the initiative referendum process was perfect. In the early to mid-1900s, state governments were often controlled either by corporate interests or by political organizations that provided weekly food baskets and a bucketful of coal in exchange for loyalty at the polls.

Missouri was unfortunately the victim of both. The state political process in Jefferson City was often manipulated by giant utilities, insurance companies and railroads in attempts to secure favorable decisions from all three branches of government. Indeed, state attempts to regulate some of the illegal activities of these corporate special interests appeared laughable at times, ludicrous at other moments.

In addition, the Pendergast machine in Kansas City had become so powerful that it was a factor not only on the western side of the state but even in parts of eastern Missouri, including the Bootheel. The Pendergast operation had a slightly different agenda than the big utilities and insurance companies, however. Boss Tom and his Legion of Lackies did not require special favors, since these had already been illegally exercised by the Jackson County gang. Rather they sought a laissez faire climate in Jefferson City, where illegal activities would not be squelched by harmful legislation or zealous elected officials.

In the 1920s and 1930s, it seemed just about every sector of Missouri's population was represented in the political process save the voter. It is small wonder the idea of giving these often disenfranchised citizens the right and opportunity to correct the ills that beset them was warmly welcomed.

Although the public was generally slow to catch on to the full potential of the initiative petition/referendum opportunity, the idea has by now become well established and highly popular, although its machinery has been better utilized by small, special interest groups than the public at large. Perhaps this was to be expected, maybe even welcomed in one sense of the word, since it still provides an opportunity for small groups to present their ideas for acceptance or reaction to a forum as large as the entire state.

Having said this, however, there are certain shortcomings which have hardly been in tune with the original intent of the early reformers.

It is ludicrous, for example, for Missourians to fund an initiative referendum that is clearly unconstitutional and whose legal life will be short to nonexistent. A classic example was an attempt earlier in this decade by a small group of St. Louis political activists to rewrite Missouri's campaign contributions laws. The group was undoubtedly well-intentioned, but its efforts were not only not salutary, they were pejorative. The referendum being sought by this small but misled patriots was clearly unconstitutional, even to those barely versed in election laws. Even worse, it contradicted an earlier, superior law that had been written by reform-minded legislators.

This so called reform was, as everyone expected, soon struck down by the courts, and the only ones affected by the effort were the taxpayers, who paid for the entire effort, and conscientious citizens who feel strongly that changes must be made in the state's campaign and electoral process.

Even the General Assembly has gotten into the act of submitting needless legislation to voters through the initiative referendum. The General Assembly sought voter approval last year of a so-called "rainy day" fund, requiring the setting aside of a small percentage of state revenue for hard times in the future. Although the General Assembly has the right, with few restrictions, to allocate state revenue, Capitol sponsors of the rainy day amendment argued this would strengthen and make permanent its good intentions.

The sad result of that decision was that the public was so poorly informed that it rejected the most fiscally sound proposal to originate in Jefferson City in many years.

The public's acceptance of an amendment proposed by Mel Hancock to limit state taxes through a convoluted system of tax refunds has cost taxpayers far more than it has saved them. Lawsuit after lawsuit has been filed in an effort to learn what this poorly worded restriction actually means, and its method of refunding funds collected over an arbitrary ceiling is patently unfair if not actually unconstitutional.

The two term limits initiatives that are now law in Missouri reflect not the public's thoughtful remedy to abuses in the political process but rather an attempt by conservative Republicans to limit the long-standing Democratic control in Jefferson City and the party's edge in the state's congressional delegation. To accomplish this end, the referenda sponsors have been willing to end the public's benefit of highly qualified and well experienced legislators.

A revision of the initiative referendum process is clearly in order. It needs to conform to constitutional standards, needs better assessment and wider public information and understanding, and it needs to meet both the short and long term interests of a majority of Missourians. These were the goals set forth by the early sponsors. Missourians are waiting for them to still be realized in the final years of this century.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.