1/06/06: Let Monona Voters Decide

Let Monona Voters Decide

Wisconsin traditionally errs on the side of democracy. That means that, when there is a dispute over the petitions required to place the name of a candidate or a referendum proposal on the ballot, Wisconsinites make every effort to respect the intentions of the citizens who signed the petitions.

The standard is simple and clear: If a sufficient number of Wisconsinites want a candidate or an issue to be considered, the bureaucracy will not use petty excuses to deny democracy.

We recount this well-established standard as a reminder to Monona officials that they have broken faith with Wisconsin traditions and legal precedents by demanding that Monona members of the Bring the Troops Home Coalition must recirculate petitions seeking to place an anti-war referendum on the spring local election ballot.

The coalition gathered 570 signatures, more than enough to meet requirements to place on the ballot the question: "Should the United States bring all military personnel home from Iraq now?"

Under Wisconsin law, however, referendum proposals cannot be phrased as questions. But state law also clearly makes provisions for amending the language of proposals of this kind.

In recent weeks, in other communities where anti-war activists had submitted similar referendum proposals in the form of questions, they were informed of the wording requirements and allowed to adjust the language. So long as the meaning of the proposal is not altered, it has been widely accepted that there is no need to force citizens to recirculate petitions.

With that in mind, the Monona activists have amended their proposal to read: "Resolved: The United States should bring all military personnel home from Iraq now."

This should have settled things.

Unfortunately, Monona City Clerk Karen Eley says that William Cole, the city attorney, has determined that the group must recirculate the petitions. And Monona Mayor Robb Kahl has suggested that the city must follow the city attorney's directive.

The problem here is that Cole is wrong. The city attorney says those who circulated the petitions cannot reword the proposal because the intentions of the signers might be violated. That's simply absurd. The shift that is proposed in the language of the proposal merely turns a question into a statement -- using the same words and expressing the same sentiment. No one could possibly be confused by the change; and no intentions could possibly be violated.

Cole's approach respects neither the law nor its intent -- and it runs the risk of disenfranchising hundreds of Monona citizens who expressed a desire to have the referendum on the ballot as well as thousands who could be denied an opportunity to weigh in on the issue in April. It also opens Monona to possibly long and potentially costly litigation that it would, ultimately, lose.

The Monona City Council needs to intervene. In order to avoid needless legal wrangling, the council should accept the amended proposal and take the steps needed to ensure that it ends up on the April ballot.

That's precisely what Ald. Doug Wood wants to do. "The way I look at it, they got enough signatures," says Wood, who plans to ask the council to use its own authority to place the anti-war referendum on the April ballot. "The people who signed this wanted it on the ballot and it's being rejected more or less on a technicality."

The rest of the council should embrace Wood's common-sense response -- not merely to avoid legal fights but to respect the best intentions of the political process.

As Joy First, one of the organizers of the Monona petition drive, says, "It's an important issue. I think it should come before the voters in a democracy."

The question now is whether a majority of the Monona council feels, as Wood does, that their city is a place where democracy is practiced Wisconsin-style. If they do, they will clear the unnecessary roadblock that has been erected by ill-informed officials and allow the voters to have their say.