Direct democracy: What if there is a conflict between the will of the people and fundamental rights? A comparative analysis between Switzerland and California
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201502.009Keywords:
Direct democracy, limits of popular initiatives, fundamental rights, comparative constitutional lawAbstract
In many countries, citizens have the power to propose new laws oramendments to their constitutions by popular initiatives. Provided that they have a special legitimacy, they are often regulated by different procedures to the legislation enacted by the legislature and may be used by their proponents to avoid the restrictions that the “ordinary” legislation is subject to. Recently, this has led that several popular initiatives which have come into conflict with the rights of minorities, fundamental rights of other affected groups, and other constitutional guarantees have been submitted. From the perspective of a comparative analysis, this article explores whether the laws in Switzerland and California set the procedural and substantive restrictions to this mechanism of direct democracy and to what extent. In this context, the author questionswhether the scope and enjoyment of fundamental rights may be subject to popular initiatives. Finally, several recommendations are made to improve the legal limits of popular initiatives and their control mechanisms to ensure that the scope and enjoyment of fundamental rights are not subject to the contentof popular initiatives.Downloads
References
Asamblea Federal Suiza (2009). Volksabstimmung vom 29. November 2009. Recuperado de http://www.parlament.ch/d/wahlen-abstimmungen/volksabstimmungen/volksabstimmungen-2009/abstimmung-2009-11-29/seiten/default.aspx.
California Commission on Campaign Financing (1992). Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government. Los Ángeles. Recuperado de http://policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/215.pdf.
Constitución del Estado de California (1879).Constitución Federal de Suiza (1999).
Corte de Apelaciones para el Noveno Circuito de Estados Unidos (2012). Perry v. Brown. Federal Reporter. Third Series, 681, 1065.681 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2012)
Corte de Distrito de los Estados Unidos (Distrito Norte de California) (2010). Perry v. Schwarzenegger. C 09-2292 VRW. 4 de agosto de 2010. Federal Supplement. Second Series, 704, 921-1004. 704 F. Supp 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Corte Suprema de California (1927). Wallace v. Zinman. 4 de marzo de 1927. Pacific Reporter, 254, 946. 254 P. 946 (Cal. 1927).
Corte Suprema de California (1982). Brosnahan v. Eu. 11 de marzo de 1982. California Reports. Third Series, 31, 1. 31 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1982).
Corte Suprema de California (1983). Legislature v. Deukmejian. Pacific Reporter. Second Series, 669, 17. 669 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1983).
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1988). Meyer v. Grant. 6 de junio de 1988. United States Reports, 486, 414-428. 486 U.S. 414 (1988).
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (2013). Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al. 26 de junio de 2013. United States Reports, 570, expediente 12-144. 570 U.S. __ (2013).
Gordon III, James D. & David Magieby (1989). Pre-Election Judicial Review of Initiatives and Referendums. Notre Dame Law Review, 64 (3), 298-320.
Holman, Craig B. & Robert Stern (1998). Judicial Review of Ballot Initiatives: The Changing Role of State and Federal Courts. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 31 (4), 1239-1266. Recuperado de http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol31/iss4/6.
Mears, Bill (2013). Supreme Court dismisses California’s Proposition 8 appeal.CNN, 27 de junio. Recuperado de http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-prop-8/.
Oficina Federal de Estadísticas de Suiza (2009). Abstimmungen – Indikatoren. Eidgenössische Volksabstimmungen 2009 – Übersicht. Recuperado de http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/17/03/blank/key/2009/01.html.
Radcliffe, M. Sean (1994). Pre-Election Judicial Review of Initiative Petitions: An Unreasonable Limitation on Political Speech. Tulsa Law Review, 30 (2), 425-445.
Ritter, Adrian (2012). Kalifornien als Vorbild. UZH News, 23 de agosto. Recuperado de http://www.uzh.ch/news/articles/2012/kalifornien-als-vorbild.html.
Slater, Julia (2009). Defending popular rights — by limiting them?. Swissinfo, 1 de diciembre. Recuperado de http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/internal_affairs/Defending_popular_rights_by_limiting_them.html?cid=7813618.
Slater, Julia (2010). The Swiss vote more than any other country. Swissinfo, 29 de marzo. Recuperado de http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/swi,tzerland_for_the_record/world_records/The_Swiss_vote_more_than_any_other_country.html?cid=8483932.
Thomaston, Scottie & otros (2012). Supreme Court Will Hear Challenges to Prop 8, DOMA. The Huffington Post, 7 de diciembre. Recuperado de http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scottie-thomaston/supreme-court-will-hear-challenges-to-prop-8-doma_b_2260539.html.
Westen, Tracy (2008). Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s fourth branch of government (segunda edición). Los Ángeles: Center for Governmental Studies. Recuperado de http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/5800.pdf.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Derecho PUCP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
