Alabama Needs A Teddy Roosevelt Policy

December 17, 2004

     Recently another proponent for obtaining the constitutional right to an Initiative and Referendum [I&R] process for Alabamians, and I, were discussing the issue.

     Twenty-four states already have some form of I&R, which is not a “one size fits all” process. I&R comes in all shapes and sizes, depending on the preferences of the states that have implemented it. Only the states colored blue on this map have no form of I&R at all.

     We were mulling over what provisions we thought would best benefit Alabamians. We agreed that we didn’t want I&R such as California has, because it has been justifiably criticized for being over-used and sometimes causing ballots there to be too cluttered and cumbersome [although Californians I have asked about that say they would prefer to have I&R the way it is, than to not have it at all].

     Then my friend used an easily understood bit of simple terminology to describe, in general, what we both thought would be best for the voters of Alabama, when he said we should have a form of I&R that would be like the foreign policy espoused by Teddy Roosevelt when he said America should “walk softly, but carry a big stick”.

     In other words, it should not be a process that would be so easily used as to be open to being abused as it sometimes is in California. Instead it should be one that can be held like a big stick over the heads of our legislators, making them aware that if they do not work the will of their constituents [as opposed to working the will of lobbyists and leaders of a few special interest groups as is now done] that their constituents have the ability to use that stick themselves, to make certain that the changes needed to bring real reform and accountability to our government are placed on the ballot in spite of the legislature’s reluctance to do so.

     We both feel that with such a threat looming over the heads of our legislators, they would finally start doing what is right for the majority of Alabamians. But, if that is not sufficient pressure, and it becomes necessary for the voters to act in their own interest, at least we would have the ability to do it.

     I have heard the argument about how I&R would be abused to the point of changing our government from a representative form to one controlled by a crazy power-happy mob of voters, but the form of I&R we envision would be a well regulated and controlled process which would not allow for such abuse. Furthermore, I have never heard of the voters of any state abolishing I&R once they had obtained it.

     Ohio can be used as an example of a state whose citizens have used I&R judiciously and sparingly, just as Alabamians could. Ohioans obtained I&R in 1912, but the first initiative to gain voter approval came only in 1918. Others followed in 1933, 1936 [an initiative to ban taxes on food], and in 1949. Only one initiative [in 1977] was approved during the following 39 years. A term limits initiative was approved in 1992, and the last one approved by the voters was in 1994 – ten years ago.

     I doubt that the voters of Ohio are so much wiser than those of Alabama that we could not emulate that record.

     I also doubt that the legislators of Alabama would continue “business as usual” on Goat Hill when faced by constituents who have been empowered to set things right, if necessary.

Home          Formulary          Contact Dr. I.Q.