On citizen initiatives, why are we letting government put its thumb on the scale?

Imagine receiving your ballot, casting your vote, and noticing that someone placed inaccurate, terrible accusations next to a candidate's name.

Outrageous? Yes.

Yet when citizens attempt to exercise their own political power via an initiative, that is essentially what is happening.

It's called a ballot impact statement.

Under the guise of providing voters with "helpful information," government officials are attaching their own propoganda and predictions about the consequences of a citizen initiative.

They don't have to pay for it. Increasingly, they don't even have to be 100% accurate.

How in the world have we come to accept this process as legitimate?

Washington state offers a particularly revealing example. Complaints about the three initiatives before Washington voters this fall are coming in from all across the state.

On the initiative to repeal Washington's new income tax, politicians added language that says the measure would "decrease funding for education, higher education and health care."

Instead of just listing the initiative, it connects the proposal to some of the most emotionally charged government services imaginable - and it does so without any evidence.

A projected reduction in government revenue isn't the same thing as an actual reduction in spending on those programs. Lawmakers still decide how to allocate available resources.

And there's another important detail: The income tax hasn't even taken effect yet. The state isn't scheduled to begin collecting the money until 2029. Yet the official ballot language tells voters that repealing the tax would decrease funding for services.

The distinction is important enough that it reached the Washington State Supreme Court, where half of the justices voted to block the statement from appearing on the ballot.

Unfortunately, the court deadlocked and it went through anyway.

Now, we're seeing the consequences. And they are not unintended.

In September, independent polling firm DHM Research surveyed 800 Washington residents about Initiative 645. Half saw the initiative's official ballot language, including the government-written impact statement. The other half saw the same language without that additional statement.

Among those who saw the impact statement, 57% said they would vote to keep the income tax, while just 35% supported repeal.

But among those who didn't see the statement, 44% supported keeping the tax, while 40% favored repeal.

The margin between the two positions went from 22 percentage points to just four, depending on whether respondents saw the government's additional language.

Supporters of these statements argue that voters deserve to know the consequences of their decisions. Of course, but whose responsibility is that? And who gets to decide what the consequences are?

Politicians now have a special opportunity to explain these "consequences" even though the initiative process is specifically designed to give citizens a way to challenge politicians.

Are impact statements on candidates next?

If a candidate for governor promises to cut taxes, should government officials be allowed to place a warning next to that candidate's name declaring that their election could result in reduced funding for schools, healthcare, or public safety?

If another candidate proposes billions in additional spending, should the ballot warn that electing that candidate could result in higher taxes, greater debt, or slower economic growth?

Every election requires citizens to do their homework. Voters are expected to research candidates, examine competing arguments, evaluate campaign promises, and understand the policies being proposed.

But when citizens attempt to do their own lawmaking, the message seems to be that citizens can't be trusted to figure it out for themselves. That's a remarkably condescending approach to the very people from whom government derives its authority.

The initiative process is a critical part of many state constitutions. It exists, in part, because citizens sometimes disagree with their elected representatives. It allows voters to bypass the legislature and make decisions directly.

It's supposed to be a check on government power.

But when politicians can place propaganda on the ballots to sway voter opinion, that check begins to dissolve.

Citizens have a right to elect governors, legislators, presidents, and judges without government-issued warnings about what might happen if those candidates win. Surely we can trust those same citizens to evaluate a tax initiative.

The initiative process belongs to the people, not the politicians.

And if politicians don't trust citizens to understand what they're voting on, perhaps the problem isn't with the voters.