Legislative Referendum: To enable the members (Representatives and Senators) of the NH General Court/Legislature (NH House and NH Senate) to propose a new law, repeal of part or all of an old law, recall from office of any elected or appointed NH State official, or a new NH Constitutional Amendment for a direct vote by NH voters in a general or special election; such direct vote then enacts the proposal without possibility of veto by the General Court/Legislature or the Governor.

NOTE: We have Legislative Referendums here in New Hampshire, but only for scheduled general elections and not for special elections.

Proposal: A New Hampshire State Constitutional Amendment enacting and implementing citizen petition initiatives (proposals from voters by means of petitions signed by 5% of the number of voters participating in the last general election) and legislative referendums (proposals from the members of the General Court/Legislature) to be voted upon by voters directly in  special as well as scheduled general elections, without veto by the Legislature or the Governor, for new laws, repeals of parts or all of old laws, recalls from office of elected or appointed state officials, and new constitutional amendments.

Fact: Here in New Hampshire we have the third largest democratically elected government in the world, behind India and the US Congress: 425 elected officials, including 400 State Representatives, 24 State Senators, and 1 Governor.

Fact: We do not have control of our elected officials between scheduled elections. We only have control of them during our scheduled elections.

Problem: Our 425 elected officials have not resolved the education funding crisis.

Solution: If we had a means of controlling these 425 elected NH officials, through either Citizen Petition Initiatives (CPIs) or Legislative Referendums (LRs) for special elections as well as for scheduled general elections, particularly through CPIs, when legislators will not give us LRs, then we could resolve controversial NH political issues and make progress.

Definitions:

Direct Democracy/Pure Democracy (DD) = All voters vote on all issues.

Representative/Republican Democracy (RD) = All voters elect representatives who vote on all issues.

Discussion: When the number of voters under DDs become too many, they cannot be marshaled for voting on all issues; therefore RDs become practical necessities for democracies with large numbers of voters.

RDs can be modified to include DD votes on controversial political issues.

Modifications of the RD form of government would include the Citizen Petition Initiative (CPI) and the Legislative Referendum (LR).

The Citizen Petition Initiative (CPI) is a constitutional process wherein (A) voters could propose new laws, repeal or change all or parts of old laws, recall from office appointed or elected public officials, and new constitutional amendments, for either scheduled general elections or for specified special elections, (B) voters could gather signatures representing a percentage of the total number of voters who voted in the last scheduled general election, currently averaging 5%-8% among American States which have the CPI, to require the proposal be brought to vote by voters in the next specified general or special election, and (C) the direct vote of voters shall be law not subject to veto by Legislators or Congresspeople or Governors or Presidents, but subject to judicial review.

Chief complaints against the CPI: (A) The potential for Mob rule, (B) The people, as a whole voting block, are not smart enough to vote on political issues and should vote only for representatives who are smart enough to to vote on political issues/public laws and policies, and (C) Special interest groups with influence and money can persuade voters to vote for proposals that are not good for all voters or otherwise injure individuals in political minorities.

Rebuttals: RE A: Raise the percentage of signatures required to a high enough percentage of signatures require, to 10%-20%, to ensure that a small number of the Mob do not overly represent the total number of voters; and the Mob will rule ultimately by controlling elected representatives by elections and impeachments; RE B: No one can determine in advance of their election if or not representatives are smart enough to effectively represent their constituents; and limiting who decides political issues to the elite is the political elitism that often leads to injury to innocent individuals, particularly in minorities, as evidenced by the Dark Ages and The Inquisition when religionists positioned themselves as political elitists; RE C: Special interest groups today can influence and persuade voters to vote for proposals that are not good for all voters or otherwise injure individuals in political minorities, therefore, under CPIs, special interest groups will not necessarily have more influence; moreover, when voters can vote directly on the issues through CPIs there is a strong possibility that many of them will take the time and make the effort to become better informed re: the pros and cons of the issues and the potential solutions/proposals.

Benefits to Voters: (A) Resolution of difficult/controversial political issues; elimination of at least some controversies; (B) Political progress instead of political stagnation; (C) Being able to vote for politicians with differing political views.

Benefits to Legislators/Congresspeople: When voters vote directly on difficult/controversial political issues then (A) Legislators and Congresspeople do not have to take stands or otherwise (B) can be forgiven by voters  for stands which counter the results of the voter vote, therefore they will have less pressure to lie in the name of political correctness, i.e., they can be idealistic, and, therefore, they can be themselves, and voters can vote for them despite differences of political views knowing that controversial issues can be brought to a direct democratic vote through CPIs (and LRs).

A similar modification would be the Legislative Referendum (LR) which (A) would enable Legislators/Congresspeople to present controversial proposals for new laws, repeals or changes of part or all of old laws, recalls from office of appointed or elected public officials, and new constitutional amendments to voters in scheduled general elections or in special elections, and (B) would enable voters to vote directly on the proposals without veto of the Legislators or Congresspeople or Governors or Presidents but with judicial review.

Complaints re: LRs: (A) Elitism: The people are not smart enough, as a whole, to vote directly on political issues/only elected representatives are smart enough to vote on political issues; (B) Legislators/Congresspeople are not doing their jobs, the jobs for which the voters elected them, when they create LRs; (C) Legislators and Congresspeople give up political power; (D) Lobbyists can have undue influence over Legislators/Congresspeople.

Rebuttals: RE A: Elitism: We cannot determine prior to their elections if or not representatives are truly smarter than voters for voting on political issues; elitism can injure innocent individuals in minorities; RE B: The people ought to be able to control Legislators/Congresspeople between elections or/and help Legislators/Congresspeople do their jobs when necessary; RE C: Legislators and Congresspeople do not give up as much political power as they gain when voters realize that they can vote for Legislators/Congresspeople who think differently because the vital/controversial issues can be voted upon and therefore resolved by the people directly; RE D: Lobbyists already have potentially undue influence over Legislators/Congresspeople, so nothing changes herein;  moreover, when voters can vote directly on the issues through LRs there is a strong possibility that many of them will take the time and make the effort to become better informed re: the pros and cons of the issues and the potential solutions/proposals.

Benefits to Voters: (A) Resolution of difficult/controversial political issues; elimination of at least some controversies; (B) Political progress instead of political stagnation; (C) Being able to vote for politicians with differing political views. [The same benefits as from CPIs.]

Benefits of LRs to Legislators/Congresspeople: When voters vote directly on difficult/controversial political issues then (A) Legislators and Congresspeople do not have to take stands or otherwise (B) can be forgiven by voters  for stands which counter the results of the voter vote, therefore they will have less pressure to lie in the name of political correctness, i.e., they can be idealistic, and, therefore, they can be themselves, and voters can vote for them despite differences of political views knowing that controversial issues can be brought to a direct democratic vote through CPIs and LRs. [The same benefits as from CPIs.]

Thomas Jefferson said thus:

The essence of all law is that no man should injure another; all the rest is commentary.

NOTE: This statement is a paraphrase of a similar statement made by a Jewish Rabbi concerning Jewish law, but I cannot account for the source. If anyone knows of the source please inform me.

If (A) we define ‘injury’ to be a loss or a threat of a loss of life, limb, liberty, or property, and (B) we define ‘innocent’ to be an individual who does not intend to injure another individual who does not intend to injure him or any other innocent individuals, then we can rephrase Jefferson’s The Essence of All Law thus:

The essence of all law is that no man [should be allowed to] injure another [innocent man]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary.

Where we give up some of our rights when we agree to live together as a political group, as a society, a Town, a County, a State, or a Nation, we agree to give up only limited rights, such as giving up property known as money by means of taxes for paying for government, not all rights, and, thus a government must provide at least an organization for government, law and order, and defense of individuals and the political group.

Jefferson’s The Essence of All Law can be converted into Standards of Public Laws and Policies:

The Standards for Public Laws and Policies

1. A public law or policy must benefit all citizens.
2. A public law or policy must not injure an innocent individual.

We can only hope that individuals in political groups organized under RDs who modify their RDs via CPIs and LRs to temporarily convert to DDs to resolve controversial political issues in special as well as scheduled general elections will follow The Standards of Public Laws and Policies, or at least the proposed rephrase of Jefferson’s The Essence of All Law.

Summary: Here in New Hampshire we have 425 elected officials who have not resolved the education funding crisis: 400 State Representatives, 24 State Senators, and 1 Governor.

We do not have control of our elected officials between scheduled elections.

If we had a means of controlling these elected officials, through either Citizen Petition Initiatives (CPIs) or Legislative Referendums (LRs) for special elections as well as for scheduled general elections, particularly through CPIs, when legislators will not give us LRs, then we, the voters of New Hampshire, could vote directly upon political proposals and thereby resolve controversial political issues and make progress.