The Swiss are known for their precision — with their clocks, army knives, trains and even with their bobsled team. So it’s somewhat surprising that a past referendum in the small, central European country has been reversed because of an imprecise explanation from the government.
Switzerland’s supreme court on April 10 invalidated results of a 2016 countrywide popular initiative related to taxes and marriage because of “incomplete” information provided by the government on the proposal.
Leading up to the referendum, which would have equalized taxes for married couples and unmarried couples living together, the Swiss government reportedly said roughly 80,000 married couples were paying more taxes than unmarried couples. But, as reported by the BBC, the government later acknowledged the actual number was closer to 500,000. The referendum failed by less than 1 percent.
“Keeping in mind the close result and the severe nature of the irregularities, it is possible that the outcome of the ballot could have been different,” the court said.
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s historic decision to order a re-vote — a first in the country of about 9 million people — can actually inform the ongoing debate here in Maine regarding referendum reform.
While there undoubtedly are differences between Maine’s referendum process and that of Switzerland — not to mention the U.S. and Swiss legal systems — the recent developments in Switzerland highlight the general importance of providing complete and accurate information for voters before they weigh in on referendum questions.
The Swiss failed in this particular case, and they’re having to do it all over again as a result. Maine can and should better insulate itself from similar drama by expanding on the existing referendum information provided to voters.
Ensuring the public is well-informed about citizen’s initiatives is a guiding principle behind several bills before Maine’s Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee Wednesday, including a bill from Rep. Joshua Morris, R-Turner, that would require a fiscal estimate for each proposal to be included on the ballot. We believe the costs associated with printing longer ballots is worth the resulting information and context provided to voters.
Of course, the recent Switzerland example also demonstrates the need for that information to be complete and accurate. We have faith that turning to the nonpartisan experts at the Office of Fiscal and Program Review, as Morris’ bill does, would yield those results.
In addition, making sure that the Maine Legislature holds a hearing on any referendum before it goes on the ballot would offer another avenue to increase voter awareness while also providing a forum for added discussion and debate. It’s true that such a forum presents an opportunity for misinformation as well as informative dialogue, but that back and forth is preferable to no legislative debate at all.
Maine’s referendum process isn’t broken, but it also isn’t designed as precisely as it could be. We don’t not want to emulate Switzerland’s recent referendum experience, but we should be looking for ways to make our own referendum process run as smoothly as a Swiss watch. That means admitting we can do better to inform voters throughout the process, and taking care to tinker a little with the system without breaking it entirely.