Blockbuster Democracy

I'm sympathetic to concerns that state constitutions often run too long and contain provisions that would be better located in statute. But a proposal by an Ohio state lawmaker seeks to limit constitutional change in the worst way possible: by establishing a new supermajority.

Supermajorities are anti-democratic. In practice, as the Founding Fathers knew (see Madison, Federalist 58) and Californians have learned in watching their dysfunctional legislature try to govern under rules requiring a 2/3 majority vote on budget and tax issues, such requirements amount to minority rule. And they make it hard to hold the majority accountable when things go wrong. But state Rep. John Domenick, a Democrat, has proposed a constitutional amendment to require that future amendments receive a 67 percent majority approval from voters before taking effect. Of course, his own amendment will require only a simple majority of voters to take effect. More details of the proposal are here.

If he wants that passed, he should at least insist that his amendment to establish a supermajority shouldn't take effect without a two-thirds vote. As his legislation stands, his amendment would make it nearly impossible to pass an initiative in Ohio. Initiative reform is necessary, but reform should seek to open up the process, make it cheaper (so that the rich don't dominate), ensure the access rights of petition circulators, and -- most of all -- integrate direct democracy with representative democracy. For an example of a more thoughtful attempt at reform, consider the legislation offered by Domenick's fellow Ohio Rep. Jennifer Garrison, a candidate for Secretary of State.

To learn more, Ohioans can listen to a discussion of the legislation Wednesday on "The Sound of Ideas" on WCPN radio, 90.3 FM. More details on that program are here.