Introduction and Summary of A Plan for a Citizens' Ballot Initiatives Amendment to Improve Our Dysfunctional Government and Control its Excesses

1. Special interests' influence over Congress has become excessive. It causes government to promote special interests' well-being over the people's well-being. As a direct consequence, each year government squanders at least $350 billion of the people's wealth—over $4,000 per year from a family of four. Moreover, the related moral decay in our highest elected officials now permeates governance and the business elite, as evidenced by gross malfeasance, corruption, and government-sanctioned theft in many of our most trusted institutions. The situation is intolerable; we cannot permit it to stand.

Ideally, in our republic the people can elect representatives who will solve these problems. Unfortunately, special interests—for example, big business, K-street lobbyists, multi-national corporations, military-industrial complex, foreign governments—already influence most candidates long before the people vote. Today, our constitutional checks and balances cannot restrain the impact of media's enormous cost and its extremely persuasive technologies. The resulting huge campaign spending by special interests translates into almost permanent reelection of their chosen candidates. Inevitably, those elected have major obligations to their contributors.

Congress cannot and will not resolve these problems because solutions are contrary to the personal interests of a majority of its members. Voters may change political leadership, but, despite campaign promises, improvements are cosmetic and temporary because the underlying causes remain unchanged. Evidence shows that these systemic problems continue to grow. The Constitution's preamble defines fundamental concepts of our republic—government must promote the general welfare. Excessive promotion of special interests' welfare over the people is clearly dysfunctional governance.

We would be stupid to permit the managers of a NYSE company to set their own pay, perquisites, ethics, rules of operation—we know that such a company would perform disastrously. Nevertheless, we permit congresspersons to do exactly this. How can we retain the benefits of good representative government while providing oversight control to keep congresspersons responsive to our wellbeing after we elect them?

The solution must lie in improved checks and balances—it is manifestly futile to keep hoping that a preponderance of congresspersons will somehow overcome their human nature. The literature abounds with authors who criticize government but offer no solution or hope that Congress will somehow implement a solution. This Plan takes a different approach, relying on the States and the People to enforce a solution without congressional support. The plan follows the explicit remedy prescribed by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. constitution—it conforms strictly to the written word of the U.S. Constitution.

2. Only the people can control congressional excesses. History has repeatedly proved that Congress cannot and will not do it. Constitutional separation of powers bars such control by the President, Judiciary or States. Moreover, a commission of appointed or elected members cannot have this power both because it is constitutionally unqualified and because members are open to manipulation both by special interests and by Congress.

Politics is about power. Because congressional maneuvers and special interests largely nullify the people's votes, the people retain very little federal power. Nationwide Citizens' Ballot Initiatives are the only constitutional way for the people to gain significant power to set things right. However, the approach taken in the U.S. for State and City initiatives is inadequate—not least because they are wide open to special interests' abuses. Consequently, this Plan uses a nationwide ballot Initiative process that is a great improvement over that used in the States. In particular, it has ample safeguards ensuring that special interests can never gain control, that ballot initiatives will be important and clear, that Initiatives receive extensive public feedback before they get onto the ballot, and that the number of initiatives will not overload the voters.

Nationwide ballot Initiatives are necessary not because the people have a perverse desire to exercise the congressional control function directly, but because they have profound convictions that Congress has ceased to be responsive to the popular will and that Congress has no innate ability to reform itself. The goal is to overcome Congress' detrimental resistance to change in order to permit long-term improvement of representative government—not to undermine or to micromanage Congress.

An Initiatives solution is entirely consistent with the Founding Fathers' views. For example:

Most U.S. Citizens are familiar with initiatives—about 70 percent of the people can vote on initiatives at their state or local elections. Polls constantly show that voters overwhelmingly support nationwide Initiatives by about three to one. By their use of initiatives in 24 states and at local levels for over 100 years, the people have demonstrated that they are competent to exercise this power.

At a national level, Switzerland has used nationwide initiatives since 1891—i.e., about 115 years. Switzerland modeled its constitution on the U.S. constitution with a direct democracy overlay. Despite many early political doubters of the people's competence, the people have demonstrated exceptional judgment. Swiss initiatives have never caused a crisis and have several times helped defused crises ^{(Fossedal p. 91)}—a far better record than most representative lawmaking. Starting as a poor mountainous nation with few natural resources and no seaports, Switzerland has thrived to become a top-ranked economic, democratic, and stable nation.

The Founding Fathers in 1787 avoided mentioning any form of direct democracy in the Constitution because they believed that the entire electorate had to meet in one place ^{(Wilson, Madison)}. By 1920, state initiatives had proved that this constraint is unnecessary.

Initiatives are not a panacea for all that ails this nation. Expectations must be realistic. Nevertheless, they will solve many current problems and future problems as they arise. Cumulatively, Initiatives will have a major long-term impact on our nation's success and a huge cost-benefit to the people.

3. An independent Citizens' Assembly must manage the nationwide Ballot Initiatives qualification process. Special interests can always find a way to influence any organization with elected, appointed, or hereditary persons in its hierarchy. Instead, sortition (i.e., random selection) must draw the Citizens' Assembly from all the people. It is that "most exact transcript of the whole society" sought by the Founding Fathers (James Wilson 1787). A deliberative Citizens' Assembly is a far better method than signature petitions for nations and large states. The Assembly will be more tamper proof than a Federal Grand Jury and virtually immune from special interests' influence. It costs less than signature petitions. It permits citizens' feedback on proposed initiatives for many months before the Assembly makes the decision whether to qualify them or not. It operates completely independent of government. It ensures that ballot initiatives are important, well constructed, and thoroughly vetted. Because the Assembly is a single organization, it can rank the proposed Initiatives and select only enough that they do not overload the electorate. It offers independent majority and minority opinions on the Initiatives.

B.C. Citizens' Assembly in 2004 Photo by Stuart Davis #715955 by kind permission of The Vancouver Sun

This plan provides a constitutional Amendment process for creating and sustaining the independent Citizens' Assembly. The Assembly's costs will be less than $100 million per year—less than 50¢ per citizen, 1/10^th of the cost of nationwide signature petitions, 1/60^th of the cost of running Congress, and 1/3,000^th of the cost of government squander.

Deliberative Citizens' Assemblies have a confirmed provenance. The first continuous use started about 594 BCE in ancient Athens, where they called it the "Boule" or "Council of 500." This form of government lasted almost 200 years—encompassing the "Golden Age of Athens" that is the foundation of our western civilization and democracy. There is no doubt of an Assembly's capabilities to do the job. Nevertheless, shortly after the first state application is made to Congress and momentum for change builds, and long before the Constitutional Amendment process reaches an Article V Convention, it will be sensible that one or more initiative states or cities should replace their signature petitions with a citizens' initiatives assembly. This will update details from current experience, manage expectations, and provide an irrefutable demonstration for any doubters.

The Electorate (Ecclesia) gathered near the Agora on the Pnyx hill to vote on Initiatives (Probouleuma or Agenda) set by the Citizens' Assembly (Boule or Council of 500). Photo courtesy of Adam Carr via Wikipedia under GNU License

4. Anticipating federal excesses, the Founding Fathers built a remedy into the U.S. Constitution. Their wording of Article V explicitly grants the States the necessary constitutional power to curb federal excesses by use of the second method of amending the Constitution—i.e., an Article V Convention of the States. Reasonable care will avoid procedural problems. The wording of the second method follows:

While seeking state support for the new Constitution, the Founding Fathers explained this remedy as follows:

The Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers are united and clear. The people have the constitutional right and the States have the constitutional power and duty to alter a Government that harms the people. Since the problems will only worsen, procrastination increases the dangers—we must check congressional excesses and deficiencies otherwise we abandon our American Dream that is already slipping away in large part due to special interests' influence.

5. Both U.S. and state constitutions rely on each state to limit federal Government's excesses. These are powerful obligations, because all state legislators have sworn oaths to support both constitutions. State legislators can fulfill their duty most prudently by putting the issue to a state referendum. (State governments can also gain important additional benefits.)

As shown in the schematic, State legislation, referenda, and initiatives are valid methods to initiate an Article V Convention. Referenda are preferable because they most clearly unite the constitutional authority of the States with the inalienable right of the people to alter their government. Their unity brings momentous constitutional authority to bear on any constitutional disputes with Congress. Referenda are available in all 50 states.

If a majority of legislators in any of the 24 initiative states disregards their oaths, the people can use a state initiative to initiate the plan. If legislators in any of the other states disregard their oaths, the people must elect legislative majorities who will respect their duty to the people.

However, no matter how much authority the voters and state constitutions give to state referenda and initiatives, U.S. and state Supreme Court decisions generally argue that State Legislatures must make the actual Amendment applications to Congress. The States should comply with this literal interpretation of Article V until the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies these matters.

Congress lacks the constitutional power to deny the States' application, though it may cause delays. Reasonable care will avoid second-method procedural issues and speed the process.

6. When several states support this plan, they should annex it and improve it. When they annex it, the states will have complete control over the Amendment's content and wording—this web site will surrender all rights. After 34 states have submitted applications, Congress shall call the Convention. The Convention will propose the Amendment. Congress will choose the ratification method. Finally, 38 States will ratify it. If state legislators embrace the plan, the Amendment will cost just a few million dollars and could take effect in as little as five years. If they oppose it, costs could climb past 250 million dollars and it could take perhaps 15 years.

7. Passing the Amendment will be tough—but it is possible and real change will certainly ensue. (By comparison, our current practice of electing charismatic politicians, who promise solutions but cannot deliver, is seductively easy.) Federal government, conglomerate media and many special interests will almost unanimously oppose the Amendment. Though our success is certainly possible, no one can assure it. However, if we do not try, success is impossible; we condemn ourselves, and our decedents, to a substantially lesser life.

To avoid dependence on opponents' resources, the Amendment campaign must initially rely on the Internet, which the media does not yet control. Self-initiated support must come from citizens, public interest organizations, blogs, promoting web sites and concurring politicians at all levels of government.

The issue reached the 2008 presidential race. One candidate, Senator Mike Gravel, proposed a plan to limit congressional excesses—the National Initiative for Democracy (NI4D). The NI4D concept has much in common with this plan, though there are important differences where certain features of NI4D need improvement. Other presidential candidates realize that the people are serious about forcing Congress to change its ways but avoid confronting the issue of nationwide initiatives. Later, as congressional campaigns gather momentum, the issue will increase in importance but we can expect almost all congressional candidates to finesse it. Some state candidates, on the other hand, may decide that change is overdue and come out in favor.

Ultimately, the amendment campaign must focus on gaining support of state legislators. Realistically, the public debate will begin in earnest only after the first state legislature places a state referendum on their state ballot asking the people in their state if they support a U.S. Citizens' Initiatives Amendment. Their vote will probably reflect the polls—three votes in favor for each vote against.

As the peoples' frustration with Congress reaches a tipping point and the States decide to limit federal encroachments, this adjustment to our system of constitutional checks and balances is probably inevitable. A hundred years ago, our ancestors introduced state initiatives to limit big business excesses in state government. Today, we must use nationwide Ballot Initiatives to limit special interests' influence and federal government excesses.