In this case, it was done by judicial fiat, not by the elected officials of the State. This process was an attempt by the people, through the referendum process, to redress that grievance. That was thwarted today by the elected officials (who were forced by the courts to do their constitutional duty and vote which they tried to avoid doing) who failed to put the question on the ballot despite several hundred thousand signatures from citizens.
So in the final analysis, the right to petition can be set aside and makes it count for naught when it comes right down to it -- actually putting a question on the ballot? Doesn't seem right. Doesn't seem logical. Doesn't seem legal or constitutional.
This is perverse!
Why should the legislature have the power over the people in this instance when the people are exercising their power? A lot of good those pretty words are, right? So the right to petition is really not a right of the people to get anything on the ballot, regardless of the numbers. I can see a minimum requirement, otherwise you'd have thousands of questions, most frivolous, on the ballot.
So how else can the people express their right to petition to have a question put on the ballot if not by referendum? The referendum should be sufficient. Who needs the legislator to put their stamp of approval on it? In this case, they put their stamp of approval on the wishes of the non-petitioners, recognizing the wants of the non-petitioner instead. Yeah, that makes sense. ;<
What a farce. I wonder if all states allow the legislatures to let a minority of non-petitioners to over-ride the right of a large number of petitioners to get their question on the ballot?