It is my ernest belief that IN OUR LIFETIMES this process will be so abused in an effort to bypass the protections of a super-majority, or preclude the counterbalance of competing, partisan interests that the initiative process will come under close scrutiny.
An early attempt to limit the scope of this mechanism failed. It set the signature requirement so high that qualification was almost impossible. I agree with the rejection of that harsh bridle.
As I have mentioned before, there are other changes that could be implemented, without upsetting the intent or due process of the original concept.
I remember those suggestions--Excellent! I also would like to see a 'truth in advertising' requirement where ballot arguments must not misrepresent facts. There have been some pretty egregious examples.