Proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting an initiative measure approved by the voters to be amended or repealed by the General Assembly except by referendum
Should HJR13 be enacted, it would significantly impact the way state laws can be modified following public approval through voter initiatives. Currently, the General Assembly has the power to amend or repeal such measures. By requiring a referendum for these actions, the amendment proposes to reinforce the principle of direct democracy, empowering voters to maintain more control over legislative changes that affect their decisions. This shift could lead to a reduction in the legislative body’s influence over voter-passed measures, thereby altering the balance of power in state governance.
HJR13 proposes a constitutional amendment aimed at altering the legislative handling of voter initiatives. Specifically, it seeks to prevent any initiative measure that has been approved by voters from being amended or repealed by the General Assembly without a subsequent referendum. This legislative intent focuses on safeguarding the democratic process by ensuring that any changes to voter-approved initiatives would need to be put back before the electorate, fostering a stronger connection between voters and their legislative choices.
The sentiment surrounding HJR13 appears to be mixed, with proponents arguing that it enhances voter power and accountability in governance. Advocates believe that this amendment will preserve the intentions of the electorate and prevent legislative overreach. Conversely, opponents may express concerns about potential over-empowerment of voters, arguing that it could complicate the legislative process or hinder the Assembly's ability to adapt laws to changing circumstances. This division highlights the ongoing debate regarding the balance between direct democracy and representative governance in the state.
Notable points of contention arise in discussions about the practicality and implications of requiring a referendum for amendments to voter initiatives. Critics may argue that such a requirement could lead to voter fatigue and excessive ballot measures, potentially burdening the electoral process. Additionally, concerns may emerge regarding whether this amendment could be interpreted as a barrier to needed legislative adjustments in response to evolving community needs or unforeseen consequences of past initiatives.