On Nov. 3, Missourians will get the chance to protect the purest form of self-government: direct democracy.
Amendment 6 will ensure that the people will continue their right to petition the Missouri government when the government/legislature is not responsive to issues of importance to Missourians, and that an issue taken to the voters and passed cannot be arbitrarily set aside by the legislature. It will also ensure clear ballot language and eliminate the use of ballot candy written by a Secretary of State who may oppose the initiative.
In July of this year, Americans for Prosperity (AFP), no paragon of liberalism, posted an article asking, "What is self-government, and why does it still matter?" They wrote that “our rights don’t come from government,”
and that “people have the freedom and responsibility to govern themselves.” That can only be seen as an endorsement of the use of initiative petitions, done by and for the people.
AFP went on to say, “self-government is not passive,” and that a “free society cannot survive when power becomes concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people who write the laws, enforce them, and decide what is legal.”
Opposition to Amendment 6 is a contradiction to self-government.
There are three primary arguments being made against Amendment 6.
The first is that we are a representative government. The Missouri Constitution declares that our state is both a representative government AND a direct democracy. We elect representatives who are expected to be responsive to their constituents, but they must recognize that they are not representing just their own district, but all the citizens of Missouri. When our elected officials are not responsive to the people, we have the right, even the duty, to use the initiative process to carry out our will at the ballot box.
The second is that direct democracy is mob rule. The claim that a majority of citizens voting in favor of something that is opposed by the legislature is mob rule is laughable. Could the same be said about the legislature? By that reasoning, a legislative measure that passed by a simple majority would also be mob rule. More importantly, mob rule is dependent on chaos and lawlessness, neither of which are present in the initiative process, which is determined by laws and the use of the ballot.
The third argument is that outside money and influence controls Amendment 6. While it is true that some funding is from out of state, the fact is that the amendment originated with Missouri citizens who were tired of the legislature overturning or changing laws passed by the voters. They organized, got volunteers, and worked to put the amendment on the ballot. Thousands of Missourians gave money. AFP wrote that “signing … a petition calling for action on an issue you care about” was one way to keep self-government alive.
It is hypocritical of opponents to criticize supporters of Amendment 6 for taking out-of-state funding when proponents and opponents of other ballot issues also take out-of-state funding, as do our U.S. Senators and Representatives.
As you go to the polls to vote on Amendment 6, heed the words of Republican Gov. John Ashcroft, who wrote in 1992 that “it is through the initiative process that those who have no influence with elective representatives may take their cause directly to the people.”
Amendment 6 protects our right as outlined by former Gov. Ashcroft and our right to self-governance. Vote YES on 6.
Gene Davison lives in Springfield.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Amendment 6 protects Missourians' voice in democracy | Opinion
