Going to the People

More and more, the voters are deciding complex social issues

Middleburg Heights, Ohio, will get a $213,725 aerial ladder for its fire department. Independence, Mo., will not get a board to review the actions of its police department, and the citizens of Miami have gone on record as approving the sale of beer in the Orange Bowl. Small beer, perhaps, to everyone except imbibers in Miami, but some more momentous decisions were also made last week. The citizens of Pittsburgh voted 2 to 1 to relax pollution-control laws, hoping to open up new jobs in the beleaguered steel industry. And more than 3 million voters--a record number--came out in Ohio to repeal, 2 to 1, the state law allowing people to register to vote as late as Election Day itself. The main fear: last-minute registration would encourage fraud. Across the nation, Americans who went to the polls to choose local and state officials also voted on a wide variety of issues that until recently they had left up to their elected representatives to decide.

Early in the 20th century, the now defunct Progressive Party began posing questions to the voters in referendums as a means of going directly to the people over the heads of elected politicians. Behind the current resurgence of balloting on issues is a post-Watergate distrust of elected officials and a growing impatience with state legislatures, which the constituents often feel are lead-footed and overly cautious. Says Robert Hughes, a G.O.P. chairman in the Cleveland area: "People are saying, 'By God, the power is vested in the people, and if the elected officials won't respond to what the people want, then we'll do something about it.' " Many politicians are delighted about the trend, though for a less-than-lofty reason. If an issue is unpopular, putting it on the ballot for the people to decide is an easy way out for the officeholder. Among the multitude of issues decided last week:

> In Ohio, after a long and bitter fight, voters decided, 63% to 37%, to kill a proposal that would have banned steel-jawed leg-hold animal traps. The legislature had bottled up the measure, but antitrappers gathered enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot. The proposal was defeated by voters in the state's rural areas. In the end, voters were swayed by the argument that the ban would cripple Ohio's $10 million-a-year fur industry (mostly muskrat).

> In Boston, the voters tossed out of office a trio of the city's antibusing leaders, including Louise Day Hicks, the soft-spoken but tough-talking former councilwoman who had become the symbol of resistance to integration. Simultaneously, however, the voters turned down a reform of the city charter designed to make it harder--by changing representational patterns--for one small, determined group, like the antibusers, to have more power than they deserve. Charter reform succumbed to a cautious electorate that preferred to switch candidates instead of the system.

> In Iowa City, voters rejected, 56% to 44%, a referendum issue that would have imposed stringent standards on landlords. The owners would have to keep their property in good shape and guarantee more rights to tenants, such as allowing them to put their rent in escrow until necessary repairs were made. The measure, which drew a record number of voters for an off-year election, had twice been rejected by the city council. The prime movers behind the unsuccessful drive were students at the University of Iowa, who live off campus and feel victimized by the owners of their dwellings.

> In Toledo, the voters approved, 55% to 45%, a property tax increase that allowed the bankrupt school system to reopen after a shutdown of two weeks. To carry the day, the city's leadership mounted a massive community effort, which included door-to-door canvassing by hundreds of students.

> In Akron, the electorate decided by a margin of 700 votes out of nearly 60,000 cast to buy five ambulances and train paramedics in the fire department. The department had earlier refused an order by the city council to pay for the training of the paramedics, so the council put the isssue on the ballot.

> California has long led the nation in going to the people, and San Francisco voters last week sampled referendums as varied and exotic as a Chinese menu. Many of the 22 items on the ballot could have been handled by a gutsy city council on a Wednesday evening. The electorate even had to pass judgment on whether each city supervisor could hire one aide who would be exempt from civil service requirements. The people said yes.

Trivial as some of these matters may seem, Ruth Clusen, president of the League of Women Voters (which often rallies its troops in local battles over ballot issues), declares that the referendum "is the ultimate tool in the hands of the people." Says Fred Button, an expert on voter attitudes: "It's healthy when the public thinks it has a piece of the action. It's a safety valve. The people don't do any better and they don't do any worse than the legislators." Washington-based officials of the U.S. Conference of Mayors tend to agree, although they point out that too much reliance on referendums could hamper effective government. If they had a direct say in every decision, voters conceivably could turn down even the most vital tax increases. Charles F. Hermann, a political science professor at Ohio State University, generally favors going to the people, but warns: "We may need ground rules. It seems there is often a lot of effort to confuse voters."

One ground rule should be clarity in the way issues are presented. Even the most patient and literate voter must puzzle over some of the arcanely drafted proposals. And while the ballots are frequently abstruse, the media campaigns for or against measures are often all too simple. Many voters make up their minds at the last minute on the basis of scanty information and are susceptible to slanted arguments cleverly presented on television by well-heeled pressure groups.

Liberals find it ironic that referendums, propositions and local initiatives are being used effectively by conservatives who want to get their pet causes onto the ballot without a party label. The conservatives have an additional advantage, argues M.I.T. Political Science Professor Walter Dean Burnham: "Voters today are not interested in changing anything because they've been traumatized by too much change." In this view, what started more than 60 years ago as a movement for change has evolved into a force for stability, and thus for conservatism. "The Progressives," says Burnham wryly, "must be turning over in their graves."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.