Act, Section 3-J

The legislative body of the relevant government jurisdiction, e.g., Congress, the State Legislature, County Commission or City Council, will be required to conduct a public advisory vote on the initiative within ninety days after its receipt of the initiative from the Electoral Trust. The method by which the legislative body chooses to conduct this vote is not under the purview of the Electoral Trust; however the Act requires that each legislator's vote be made public. This advisory vote serves the citizenry because:

• knowledge of the views of the individual legislators that comprise the legislative body may be useful as cues to many citizens as they reach their own conclusions about the initiative; and
• knowledge of how their individual representatives voted on the initiative may be useful to many citizens as cues as they cast their votes for or against those legislators when they come up for re-election.

Failure of the legislative body to conduct this advisory vote during the prescribed 90-day period will not delay the election of an initiative.

Jacob, 2002, p. 5 wrote:
The requirement that legislative bodies in the jurisdiction considering an initiative must conduct an advisory vote on the proposal will likely be ruled unconstitutional. Furthermore, while it might indeed be what their constituents would want and even be the moral duty of our elected officials, our representative bodies will not "mature" by being forced to address issues of public importance. Let them instead make their own decisions and improve their public esteem through positive action, not by being forced to do so against their will.

The advisory vote was made optional (see Section 3-K).

Stern & Holman, 2002, p. 4 wrote:
The process might work better if the legislative body were given the opportunity to pass the measure on its own (if a statute) after a measure qualifies for the ballot rather than go to the trouble of having the voters approve it. This process would reduce the number of measures on the ballot and would increase the confidence of the voters that the legislature is being responsive.

 

An assumption is being made here that the legislative body can guess how the voters will vote. If they guess right then all is well, but suppose the legislative body preemptively passes a measure which is subsequently rejected by the voters. An advisory vote is always safer.

Stern & Holman, 2002, p. 4 wrote:

It would also be better if the legislature were required to consider each measure and be given the opportunity to pass it with amendments. If enacted, the measure would not go on the ballot. The proponents would be given veto power over the amendments, so if the legislature passes something that the proponents are against, the measure would still be placed on the ballot.

The benefits of such an accommodation are not clear. Why would amendments be needed after a Public Hearing and inspection from a Deliberative Committee?

Listen to an explanation of why the Electoral Trust is separate from Congress (2m 10s).