Greater control by the people over County government is not what is really going on here. This effort is largely driven by ex-politicians and ex-Freeholders and their immediate supporters to enable the breakup of the county into small districts.
Our current Charter permits redistricting only by way of proposition submitted to the voters by a Charter Review Commission (CRC). Why does the Charter deny us the right to redistrict by public initiative? The answer is clear from comparison of the first step in each procedure:
CRC: Freely elected representatives from throughout the County meet in open public session, invite comment and criticism, and after debate considering the effectiveness of County government, proposes either a single county voting district (as the recent CRC did) or carefully designs separate voting districts after considering the needs and natures of interest groups and communities, and in any event legal review by the County Prosecutor.
Public Initiative: A “public” initiative is privately framed by an individual or small group with its own agenda. Although in this case nominally submitted by the previous council, the current proposition is a good example of initiation by this process. A private group using a computer whose metadata revealed its private owner, submitted two sets of proposals to the council. One submission specified five proposed districts without any opportunity to the many voters who would be impacted.
Is this “greater control by the people over County government.” Well, yes it is, if you mean control by some people. Those unelected few who draft an initiative petition would control the choice presented to the voters simply by elimination public discussion of alternatives.
Don’t be misled into thinking that CRCs are too few and too far in the future. Contrary to the misleading Pro Statement in the Voter’s Pamphlet that CRCs can only be held every ten years, the next one is only seven years away, and thereafter can be called as often as every other year (Charter, §9.20). There has been no public correction.
To preserve your freedom against private invasion and retain your right to vote county-wide, reject Proposition 1.
Bill Appel, Waldron
I am not at all sure that a public initiative is any more or less democratic than a charter commission. It seems odd that we can use initiative (which is not an easy process to get to ballot) for some topics and not for others.
Voting rights are fundamental rights of democracy. We can initiate other things in secret, but not voting rights. The policy of the Charter requires that the process of making any changes to these rights be open from beginning to end.
There is nothing more or less secretive about an initiative than a charter commission. Whatever happens “in secret” (?) comes to the foreground when the initiative is registered with the Prosecuting Attorney and people have the chance to sign the petition to put it on the ballot for a vote, in full public view.
What is secret is the initial drafting and direction selected only by the initiators. The Prosecuting Attorney vets the form for sense and form, not content. It is then presented to the public as a “take it or leave it” proposition, without opportunity by the public to suggest adjustments. This is in direct contrast with the CRC process.
Well, that’s not my impression. To this observer, many of the CRC conclusions seem to have sprung from somewhere wholly-formed early on.
In each case, however, the public gets to see the proposal and vote on it. That’s all that we need. I think that the initiative is a fine tool.