The Democracy Act strikes a balance between the desire to make it easy and minimally expensive for ordinary citizens to place an initiative on the ballot, and the desire to screen out initiatives that an overwhelming majority of voters would not support. After receiving approval of the Electoral Trust for the initiative's Title and Summary, the Sponsor may qualify the initiative for election in any of three ways:

Donovan, 2002, pp. 5-6 wrote:
Qualification is far too easy. These provisions allow for qualification in ways that are more permissive than what exists in any state today, and may be more permissive than what exists in any nation currently using direct democracy. Most worrisome is the public opinion poll method. Survey research on public support for ballot proposals finds a rather consistent effect where respondents are prone to offer positive opinions about measures prior to campaigns and media discussion of the measures. These same surveys show that most voters have not even heard about proposals prior to being surveyed. Having little or no information about a measure, or a "non-attitude," they may nevertheless offer a yes or no response in a survey. When voters do become more informed about a measure over time (during the campaign phase), they form (or discover) preferences, and support for nearly all ballot measures erodes. It seems there is a bias toward positive replies when proposals have not yet been vetted in any campaign.

Moreover, research on those who sign initiative petitions finds that a substantial number of people (perhaps one-third) sign because they are persuaded that "the fair thing" to do is let the measure on the ballot - regardless of its content. The difficult logistic context of petitioning requires that proponents round up vast numbers of signatures if they are to take advantage of this response effect. Even then, those signing may discuss the measure with petitioners, and read the text of the proposal. In random sample opinion surveys, these logistical difficulties are eliminated. Combine this with the response bias in early polls that tends to over-state actual support for measures, and this qualification method is a recipe for an avalanche of qualified initiatives.

The qualification process should not be so difficult that only initiatives with substantial financial backing can qualify. It must be possible for a good idea to get on the ballot regardless of the monitary wealth of the proponents.

What if there are too many initiatives? (1m 58s)

Jacob, 2002, p. 4 wrote:
Another ingredient to deliberation is time. That's why I believe it would be a monumental mistake to suggest that voters would consider an initiative every week. There should be initiatives as often as voters want them. But an initiative vote every week is more attention to lawmaking than I believe voters desire, or will even stand for. This puts enactment of the Democracy Act at risk.

Constitutional Framer James Wilson put the case for direct citizen involvement this way: "All power is originally in the People and should be exercised by them in person, if that could be done with convenience, or even with little difficulty." Convenience is a very apt term. Voters will not find weekly elections very convenient.

In order to minimize the burden on voters, the Electoral Trust is empowered to provide balanced information about initiatives (Act, section 4-F-4) and to utilize contemporary technology in developing procedures for voting (Act, section 4-F-6).