º£½Ç´óÉñ

An Oregon experiment in citizen government

A new law in Oregon that puts a citizen review panel in charge of breaking through political spin. It could be a first step in making better policy decisions.

Daily, it seems, we watch as our democracy slips into an increasingly divisive panic attack.Ìý

Republicans, we’re told, hate Democrats. Democrats, we’re told, hate Republicans. Accountability inÌýour political system seems as tenuous as the economic recovery: Tea Partier, Wall Street Occupier, orÌýnone of the above, we all know something's amiss.Ìý

Yet as it is, we have a tradition of successful self-governance more than 230 years in the making. FullÌýof beauty, opportunity, and deep scars, our democracy continues as a grand experiment. Rights haveÌýbeen expanded, greater access to the disenfranchised has been afforded, and our democraticÌýinstitutions endure.Ìý

But we seem to be heading towards a political culture where anything goes – claims go unchecked,Ìýquestions go unasked, and talking points are simply repeated again and again. The choice, however,Ìýbetween playing political games and governing well is ultimately ours: We are the "self" in "self-Ìýgovernance."Ìý

The Citizens' Initiative Review puts 24 randomly selected voters into a fair public hearing to listen toÌýcampaigners, learn the issues, and sort out fact from fiction on ballot measures.Ìý

What would it be like to have balanced panels of voters publicly weigh in on the most controversialÌýproblems of our time? What would it look like to have a fair public review of the really tough issues, like health care policy, immigration, and financial regulation? And what if lawmakers were even toÌýrequest this kind of input to help in their own decision-making, building greater citizen deliberationÌýinto how we 'do' democracy?Ìý

In Oregon, citizens have just taken a major step toward changing the game. In July 2011, Gov. John Kitzhaber signed into law a bill that institutionalizes a new form of citizen deliberation as part ofÌýour election process. The Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR) is an exercise in deliberative democracy. ItÌýputs 24 randomly selected voters into a fair public hearing to listen to campaigners, learn the issues,Ìýand separate fact from fiction on ballot measures.Ìý

The authenticity of this approach comes from the simple fact that these panels of voters have noÌývested interest in the outcome of a CIR. Like a jury, the idea is to perform a public service.Ìý

For each measure on the ballot, a different panel of 24 voters sorts through the political spin and thenÌýsummarizes its findings for the voting public to use as they choose on election day.Ìý

The authenticity of this approach comes from the simple fact that these panels of voters have noÌývested interest in the outcome of a CIR. Like a jury, the idea is to perform a public service. Unlike aÌýjury, there are no litigators structuring testimony and calling witnesses – the panel of everyday votersÌýdrives the process along.Ìý

It’s a relatively new idea (only 10 years in the making) that other states with some form of anÌýinitiative process already in place should consider as a way to get high-quality information to votersÌýfrom a source they can trust –themselves.Ìý

Traditionally, initiative or referendum votes offer a way for the public to weigh in on proposed lawsÌýcreated outside of or through the legislative process:Ìý

1. Citizens petition to put an initiative or referendum on the ballot.Ìý

2. Campaigners fight like hell to win your vote with whatever means are at theirÌýdisposal. Their job is to influence how you vote, not to inform your vote. Some campaigners do aÌýgood job of both, but most…well, you be the judge.Ìý

3. Citizens vote for or against that measure –Ìýeither making it law or not – but they do notÌýalways feel they know enough about the issue to make an informed decision in light of the nonstopÌýbarrage of political spin (accompanied by catchy sound bites like "Measure Six is the Fix" and Ìýcommercials with montages of wolves, corporate fat cats, or schoolchildren set to spooky music).Ìý

These are everyday citizens, from all walks of life, brought together to spend an entire week studying aÌýballot measure in order to make sure that every voter has easy access to the key facts, findings, andÌýarguments for and against the measure.Ìý

Most voters in Oregon support this traditional initiative process. Yet at the same time, large numbersÌýclearly don’t feel confident about their vote when it comes to ballot measures, in large part due to aÌýlack of usable, unbiased information. And that's a major problem when you have to make criticalÌýpolicy decisions every two years on issues like property rights, gay marriage, taxation, and criminalÌýjustice.Ìý

The big idea of a Citizens’ Initiative Review is to bring together randomly selected registered voters,Ìýdemographically balanced to reflect the state’s voting population, to sort through the rhetoric andÌýspin. These are not blue ribbon commission members, policy wonks, lobbyists, or political hacks—theÌýCIR is meant to reflect the state’s voters, not the political establishment.Ìý

These are everyday citizens, from all walks of life, brought together to spend an entire week studying aÌýballot measure in order to make sure that every voter has easy access to the key facts, findings, andÌýarguments for and against the measure (like why the measure is even on the ballot, etc.).Ìý

Think Twelve Angry Men, except more like Twenty-Four Empowered Voters, sweating it out overÌýwhat a major issue on the ballot will or won’t do. Over the course of five full days, a panel meetsÌýdirectly with people behind the campaigns for and against the measure under review, calls on policyÌýexperts, and then ultimately deliberates based upon the information gathered. It goes on until theÌýpanel is satisfied that it has its questions answered—not spun, not dodged, but actually answered.Ìý

Victims of heinous crimes testified, medical marijuana users shared their experiences, and numerousÌýattorneys fought for the campaigns for and against each measure. At the end of its weeklong study of the measure, the panel drafts a new page for the statewide voters'Ìýguide (mailed to all Oregon households with registered voters) listing the key facts about the measureÌýand the best reasons to support and oppose it. The panel doesn't tell you how to vote; it's there to giveÌýyou better information if you want it.Ìý

It’s simple. It’s civil. It’s democracy in a very pure form. And its potential for changing the game isÌýtremendous.Ìý

Keeping It Clean:Ìý

Maine’s Fight for Fair ElectionsÌý

For more than a decade, a groundbreaking Clean Elections law has helped protect Maine politicsÌýfrom the influence of big money. But what’s happening now that big spenders have free rein toÌýinfluence elections – and what does it mean for the rest of the country?Ìý

In August 2010, CIR's were held on the issues of mandatory minimum sentencing for convictedÌýcriminals and the legalization of medical marijuana dispensaries. Both are complex issues, withÌýpassionate advocates both for and against. Victims of heinous crimes testified, medical marijuanaÌýusers shared their experiences, and numerous attorneys fought for the campaigns on both sides ofÌýeach measure. At the end of each CIR, the panels distilled these complex policy questions into whatÌýwere unarguably the key issues that voters should consider. On election day, voters had access to the CIR statements for the first time, and large percentages of voters benefited from this new source ofÌýinformation.Ìý

This Oregon experiment had a wildly successful test run during the 2010 election, winning near-unanimous praise from panelists, campaigners, lawmakers, and newspaper editors statewide. AnÌýauthoritative independent academic evaluation of the process, funded by the National ScienceÌýFoundation, highly praised the process for both its fairness and the analytical rigor of the evaluation.Ìý

Based upon the success of the CIR's trial run, a bipartisan team of legislators moved the CIR billÌýthrough and onto the governor's desk. It's now law, and it's a national first—a model that can beÌýemulated in other states.Ìý

This law was the conclusion of five years of work in Oregon, and appears to be the start of somethingÌýnew in how we do democracy – putting everyday citizens, and authentic deliberation, at the heart ofÌýour democratic process.Ìý

As participants in a democracy, we deserve nothing less.Ìý

• Tyrone Reitman wrote for , a national, nonprofit media organization thatÌýfuses powerful ideas with practical actions for a just and sustainable world. Tyrone is executiveÌýdirector of the newly formed Healthy Democracy Fund. He and his colleagues at Healthy DemocracyÌýOregon worked from 2006-2011 to establish the CIR in Oregon, and he's looking forward to whatÌýcomes next.Ìý

• Sign-up to receive a weekly selection of practical and inspiring Change Agent articles by .