[EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots

[Paul Gronke]

Eugene

It's an interesting set of comparisons, but after reflecting on it,
you have me wondering more about why citizen votes on an initiative
should be secret!  I suppose it has something to do with the
initiative and referendum process emerging after the secret ballot.
I'm not sure anyone ever considered that an initiative vote, if
analogous to a legislative vote, should be public.  There is also a
mechanical problem when you have candidate votes on the ballot.  But
that's just brainstorming.

I am less convinced by the comparison of initiative signing and
lawmaking.  Signing an initiative does not imply support or opposition
to a proposal--it simply indicates a willingness to have the issue on
the ballot.  As such, isn't it simply speech, indicating "Yes, I think
that this issue is sufficiently important to be subject to a citizen
vote." ?  The analogy is not to a legislator voting to pass a piece of
legislation, but a legislator expressing some willingness to allow
debate on a measure.  (Admittedly, no legislature has a rule where a
certain number of members must positively assert "Yes, I endorse a
motion to consider this piece of legislation" but that's the only
analogy I can make to a petition signature.)

I almost never sign petitions, for example, regardless of the issue,
because I don't like the initiative and referendum process in Oregon
which has polluted our Constitution with statutes.  My refusal to sign
says nothing about my issue stance.

---
Paul Gronke
Professor, Reed College

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>                 I thought I’d pose two questions to the list ; the questions
> are related, but I hope people might consider them.
>
>
>
>                 1.  Say that we’re deciding whether to adopt the secret
> ballot, and there are two options on the table: (a) the secret ballot, and
> (b) a regime in which people’s votes are recorded, but employers and other
> institutions are barred from discriminating based on a person’s vote.  Which
> do we think might be superior, considering both
>
> (i) the possibility that the antidiscrimination regime won’t be easily
> enforceable and thus might not give much assurance to voters that they need
> not fear discrimination, and
>
> (ii) the interest of some employers, contracting parties, and others in, for
> instance, not employing someone who is known to them and to their customers
> as a supporter of some hypothetical KKK Party, or of a militantly
> anti-American party (whether Communist or otherwise), or a ballot measure
> whose content undermines confidence in the employee’s commitment to his job?
>
>
>
> 2.  Assuming that your answer to the first question is (a), because the
> secret ballot gives voters more confidence that their vote won’t be held
> against them, while at the same time diminishing the burden on employers,
> why exactly should the answer be different as a policy matter for signing an
> initiative petition as opposed to voting on the petition?  Both involve
> voters exercising their lawmaking power, and not just speaking.  Both
> involve each voter having only a very minor effect on the election (unlike
> legislators, whose impact on a result is likely to be much greater).  Both
> involve voters being potentially deterred from expressing their true views
> by fear of retaliation.  To the extent one thinks that some retaliation,
> such as remonstrances or even boycotts, is valuable, both involve that
> equally as well.  Why should we treat one form of voter participation in the
> lawmaking process differently from the other?
>
>
>
>                 Eugene
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
---
Paul Gronke    Ph: 503-771-3142
paul.gronke at gmail.com
Professor of Political Science and
Director, Early Voting Information Center
Reed College

http://earlyvoting.net