Contemporary politics occasionally provides pleasant surprises. A governor who has long opposed even modest boosts in the minimum wage has finally decided to support an increase. Yet his reversal on this issue shows just how important it is to oppose another of his pet causes, his proposal to ban petition circulators from polling places. The governor’s repeated vetoes of earlier minimum wage boosts left citizens no other recourse besides a citizen initiative. His decision to reverse course, even if not prompted solely by talk of an initiative, was surely made easier by its possibility. The lesson from this whole saga is clear. If state leaders wish to avoid the risks of democracy by plebiscite, they should reform state politics in ways that would make referenda less necessary.

Gov. King worries that unless the citizen initiative process is tightened, Maine will turn into another Oregon or California. Our ballots will be crammed with so many referenda that informed citizen participation would become impossible.

Those who have studied the politics of western states would surely agree that use of the citizen initiative process has exceeded those states’ political carrying capacity. Nonetheless, the origins of these excesses do not lie primarily within the referendum process itself. In California, legislators did little to meet widely perceived public needs, spawning multiple referenda. These in turn then reduced the role and accountability of elected representatives, prompting more referenda. But hanging over both legislative races and citizen initiatives is the increasing role money has played in shutting ordinary citizens out of politics.

Here in Maine, the governor’s steady resistance to minimum wage boosts enacted by previous legislatures was a major impetus for a citizen initiative. Not only have polls shown consistent public support for a higher minimum wage, the economic case for an increase has always been strong. The real value of the current minimum wage is 30 percent below its historic peak in the late ’60s. Though only about 5,000 Maine citizens work at minimum wage levels, many more would be affected by even modest increases.

The businesses paying these low wages are Maine’s real welfare cheats. Private charity and public policy today in effect subsidize exploitative business practice. Most of Maine’s “welfare poor” work, but few can survive on minimum wage jobs. It is no wonder that our food pantries are strained to the breaking point and our state must consider free breakfast and lunch for all public school children. Families seek economic independence and some children are too proud to accept subsidies targeted solely at them.

When jobs pay living wages, fewer citizens need public or private assistance. With steady gains in worker productivity over the last two decades, a minimum wage so far below its historic peak is hardly justified. Business lobbyists traditionally argue that the higher minimum wage prices inexperienced labor out of the market. Nonetheless, the great bulk of academic research has shown that previous increases in the minimum wage have had no such effect. Even when selective actions by individual states have modestly boosted minimum wage rates relative to neighboring states, jobs have not generally migrated.

With the economic and political case for a higher minimum wage so strong, such groups as Maine AFL-CIO and the Catholic Church were right to explore a citizen initiative on this matter. The citizen initiative process was designed explicitly for those situations where a governor or legislature has repeatedly frustrated the long-term interests and wishes of a majority of citizens.

Public ballot initiatives do not provide the most careful way to enact the public’s business and should only be a last resort. Nonetheless, if King and successors do succeed in closing the referendum safety valve, they will effectively disenfranchise many who already have diminished access to our politics, especially poor and working class citizens. Business lobbies will be pleased, but their pleasure may be short lived. Momentary political calm will be purchased at a price even to their long-term interests. Social injustices will mount along with cynicism about politics. Business may think it benefits from popular cynicism toward government, but the modern corporation depends heavily on a legal and economic climate that only respect for government can foster.

If our real concern is the health of our politics, reform should take a different direction. The legislature should improve our public campaign finance system and perhaps apply its principles even to the initiative process.

Future campaign finance reform should do more to put clean money candidates and causes on an even footing with those who still accept conventional financing. Reforms of our electoral and representative system might facilitate more fair access for minority interests.

If more citizens gain adequate representation in the daily politics of state government, fewer would resort to the blunt instrument of the referendum process.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net.