MPW On The Politics of the Referendum, Part Two

Marc at Maryland Politics Watch has posted Part Two of his discussion of the referendum to re-legalize discrimination against transgender people. This time he focuses on the politics of it. You know I'm not an especially political creature, but I find it interesting to see how the wheels of bureaucracy churn away at something like this that affects real people's lives in a personal way.

It is sometimes hard to imagine why it is better to elect representatives than to simply have people vote on the issues. The effect should be the same, right? Majority rules in either case. Our current controversy demonstrates exactly why it is better to elect representatives.

First Marc discusses the important topic of using referendum initiatives instead of legislative action to make law, using California as an example. In that state, he says, "As of 2003, 85% of California’s over $100 billion budget was controlled by state initiative and not the legislature and governor."

I'm skipping down into his post, you should follow the link and read it all.

The biggest problem with the growth of ballot initiatives is that complex issues of public policy are being boiled down to single paragraphs on ballots, thirty second commercials, and knee jerk reactions by voters. The latest example is a Colorado ballot initiative which would declare a fertilized egg a person for the purpose of constitutional rights. That’s an important issue, but probably one that should be informed by oversight hearings, scientific panels, and careful deliberation, not attack ads.

Unfortunately, Maryland seems to be joining the ballot initiative trend with not only the transgender referendum, but also the slots referendum which I consider an abdication of responsibility by Annapolis. Our country and its states are famous for democracy, but that word does not appear in the US Constitution. Republic does, because we elect representatives to go to Washington, DC and state and local capitals to do the hard work of research and deliberation on matters of public policy. They do not always do it well, but it is their job and instead of taking it off their hands through ballot initiatives, we need to hold them accountable at elections.

The post ends up in a good readable analysis of the situation from a high-level perspective, and a word of conclusion. Hope the bloggers at MPW don't mind me cutting-and-pasting from their site -- follow the link and check them every day, they keep good up-to-date discussion flowing there on issues that affect us here in Maryland.

Rewarding the Far Right
Now all my reasoned policy and political process discussion gets cast aside in favor of cold, partisan politics. I do not believe that most opponents of the transgender bill are discriminatory, but I do think they are discomforted. As with many white Americans when it comes to African American equality and many heterosexual Americans when it comes to gay rights, they do not hate, they just do not know. The problem is greatly enhanced with transgendered issues because there are fewer and people are less likely to meet and know them. With time, as with these other communities, understanding will grow. Just as with discrimination against African Americans, homosexuals, and other groups, there will always be stragglers, but change will come.

However, those who will be rewarded should the referendum succeed are not just the discomforted. Some are discriminatory, and many more are just politically motivated. They will revel in the success of the referendum regardless of the policy because it comes in liberal Montgomery County. They will crow on talk radio and use it as a tool to raise more resources and recruit new members. The same organized right wing groups have already been rebuffed by the Maryland courts over the sex education curriculum. They need to be defeated here too or they will be empowered to challenge progressive Democrats throughout the County in 2010. Would they win much? Probably not, but it is a fight that could be entirely avoided by defeating the referendum.

Conclusion
For policy and political reasons, I oppose the transgender referendum. But, as my contracts professor always said, “reasonable minds can differ.” I hope as the debate continues we remember that it is reasonable that we need to be, not prejudiced or dogmatic.

This is an important point. As in other controversies we have talked about here, it is possible to discuss various aspects of the nondiscrimination bill intelligently. There may be legitimate reasons not to extend protection to transgender people, and there may even be legitimate reasons not to protect any groups at all, there may be details that should have been excluded and ones that should have been included. We can discuss those things, it's good for the community to find a balance that everybody can live with.

It is not true that passage of the bill will cause young girls to be raped all over the county, as one loudmouth suggested, or that predators and pedophiles will start hanging around ladies locker-rooms. If we need to have a discussion on the topic, then let's go ahead and have it, but you're going to have to figure out a way to keep the radicals from dominating the conversation, no matter what. Their goal is not to find a reasonable solution to a problem, but to shut down discussion altogether. You want to include the entire community in the debate, but that presupposes good faith, it is impossible to include people who just shout out the first thought that comes into their mind.

We should have a ruling soon. Maybe there won't be a referendum.