HAMILTON WOULD HAVE LOVED THESE REFERENDUMS

If Alexander Hamilton were to come back after all these years and visit Missouri, he might think he had died and gone to heaven. Of course, the founding father did die, although we have no information on his ultimate destination, but while he was helping forge the shape of the early colonies, he was a leading proponent of government-by-referendum. In case you think the idea was originated by Ross Perot, you would be quickly dissuaded of that error by reading a few tracts written by Hamilton during the post-revolution period in America.

In one tract, Hamilton wrote, "For a government to serve its people in the way envisioned, it becomes necessary as well as essential to consult them on every progression of law, and furthermore to institute such methods as deemed proper to consult with them on matters of governance as well." When he wrote this, Hamilton saw a group of colonies still struggling for survival, and he was anxious to foreclose the possibility of surviving royalists gaining the upper hand in public office. He was eventually overruled by others who, for a variety of reasons, favored representative government.

The first cousin of referendum government is Missouri's initiative petition process, which enables citizens to solicit public approval by submitting proposed laws outside the legislative process. Originating during the LaFollette era in Wisconsin, initiative petitions are relatively common today, and in states such as California the process is used frequently. As might be expected of California, initiative petitions are not only used but abused, and voters there can be confronted with as many as 60 to 75 issues on election day. It is an impossible task even for voters conscientious enough to study each issue and form opinions about its worth and value.

Missouri's use of the petition process is growing, although at this point it is still manageable. Voters here have not been engulfed with initiative referenda, but we have still encountered enough to create considerable confusion among uninformed voters. We think it is important to note that the most successful petition campaigns have centered on issues that have either been ignored by the General Assembly or poorly resolved by the members. Most petitioners in the state have had legitimate, if sometimes partisan, objections to decisions rendered by representative government.

An example of this was last year's successful petition effort to limit terms of office in the Missouri House of Representatives and Missouri Senate. Several efforts had been made in prior years to place some kind of term limitations in Jefferson City, but lawmakers had resisted. Some no doubt questioned whether it was wise, while others doubted the willingness of constituents to set a deadline on their political careers. Legislators obviously failed to measure the public's disregard for all public office holders, even those whose years had been devoted to improving state government.

Missouri now finds itself on the eve of several initiative referendum efforts, including Congressman Mel Hancock~'s campaign to reverse additional tax revenues for local schools. Hancock is a veteran of the petition process, having secured a narrow plurality for his constitutional limitations on legislatively approved tax increases more than a decade ago. His latest effort, designed to roll back the school tax increase approved by this year's session of the General Assembly, has been joined by the chairperson of the Ross Perot group in the state, despite its founder's contention that all vital issues be decided by a majority vote. No vote was taken prior to Sandy McClure's announcement the state Perot group supported the Hancock initiative. So much for the majority rule fantasy.

A second proposal that will unquestionably be submitted to Missouri voters, perhaps as early as next year, is one designed to limit campaign contributions for every public office in the state. The group, called Missourians For Fair Elections, bears a striking resemblance to last year's legislative term limitation organization, employing the same political consulting firm and utilizing many of the same leaders. There's nothing wrong with this, but there is a degree of secrecy about these groups that is disturbing. Maybe what's needed is an initiative requiring full disclosure of petition sponsors.

The most troubling aspect of this political process is that while it helps focus public attention on needed reforms and changes in government, its provisions are written by an elite group of unnamed and unknown sponsors. Sometimes these provisions are less than desirable, making real reform either elusive or totally impossible. Which in turn means the welfare of the people does not become, as our state slogan suggests, the supreme law of Missouri.