Op-Ed: On the forefront of democracy in Massachusetts

Democracy isn’t confined to white marble halls, or to bucolic lawns, or to the carpeted floors of the U.S. Congress. It does not emerge solely from the mouths and minds of besuited white men with perfectly coiffed hair. Democracy, as it happens, can emerge in the most unlikely of places, from the work of any citizen. This was the message on display at the Atrium School in Watertown, MA, which – over the course of four days in late August – hosted the state’s first Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR).

The CIR system is a product of the laboratory of democratic engagement and direct citizen involvement in politics. It envisions a citizen panel, representative of the overall voting population, convened to examine ballot initiatives and make recommendations to their fellow citizens. First piloted in Oregon in 2010, the CIR has proven to be an effective way of disseminating information to voters, as well as demonstrating the power of direct democratic processes.

Ballot initiatives have always been vital to the politics of the United States. They create a platform through which a petition, signed by a certain number of registered voters, can engender a public vote on a proposed statute or constitutional amendment. They are the closest thing that the American political system has to direct democracy. And yet, ballot initiatives are often corrupted. They are pushed by citizen groups, distorted by politicians, slandered by special interests and swung by a small fraction of often uninformed voters. At a time when gridlock and partisanship has crippled national politics, citizens must take advantage of the ballot to push legislation, to push politicians.

This is where the CIR system comes in. This year marks the pilot of the CIR in Massachusetts, a program that was made possible by the support of Representative Jonathan Hecht, Healthy Democracy – the organization that pioneered the CIR in Oregon – and Tufts’ very own Tisch College of Civic Life. As the ballot questions emerged, a citizen panel of 20 voters was created from a poll of 10,000 randomly selected voters, with diversity of race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status taken into account to reflect the voting population.

This year’s CIR delved into Ballot Question 4, which will present voters with the option to legalize marijuana for recreational use in the state of Massachusetts. Over the course of four days, the citizen panel was presented with evidence from experts of numerous fields, including medical professionals, law enforcement officials and economists. They heard testimony from advocates on both sides of the issue, selected by the pro and con teams attached to the ballot question itself.

Using this information, the citizen panel was tasked with creating a pamphlet that will be disseminated to all Massachusetts residents. While summaries and pro/con statements have always been included on the Election Day ballot, this pamphlet will offer voters something unique: the facts, figures and statements that their fellow citizens – trained and educated specifically for this task – feel they should know before they cast a vote on Question 4.

The entire process was open for public viewing at the Atrium School, and it did not disappoint. Though heavily regimented every step of the way, the CIR allowed the citizen panel to shine. Faced with the claim by a state senator that Question 4 would allow residents to grow massive amounts of marijuana in their own homes without being taxed, one panelist asked, “Traditionally, haven’t taxes been for revenue? Therefore, if a citizen doesn’t generate revenue from the sale of marijuana, why should they be taxed? Further, does the state place an excise tax on the marijuana seeds in addition to taxing the soil and pot?”

This type of reasoned, thorough questioning was common at the CIR. Later in the day, a panelist asked for the grammar in the claims to be adjusted. When the panelist – a 90-year-old former English teacher – was told that the claim could no longer be edited, she replied, “I’m not mad about it. I am enjoying the heck out of this! But as an English teacher, I cannot support that statement the way it is currently constructed.”

The debate on both sides of Question 4 was impressive. Proponents of the measure claimed legalization would allow for greater regulation of a currently underground industry, would create $100 million in revenue for the state and help combat the state’s opioid crisis. Opponents claimed that the proposed 12 percent was far below the taxes on marijuana implemented in states like Colorado (roughly 30 percent effective tax rate) and Washington (roughly 40 percent), that it placed no restriction on edible marijuana products or THC levels, and that we know too little about the health risks associated with smoking, especially at an early age.

But ultimately, the ramifications of what happened in that school gym extended far beyond the marijuana debate. The citizen panelists, no matter their background, demonstrated that American citizens are ready to handle more responsibility, more lawmaking ability, more direct influence over the laws that govern their society. This experiment has ramifications in all other realms of politics, including budgeting, a process that Oregon has also begun to turn over to its citizens. The CIR serves as a much-needed reminder to all of us – politicians and citizens alike – that, when tasked with understanding and producing complex policy proposals, Americans will rise to the challenge.

 

Editor’s note: If you would like to send your response or make an op-ed contribution to the Opinion section, please email us at tuftsdailyoped@gmail.com. The Opinion section looks forward to hearing from you.