Washington -- Referenda and ballot initiatives in U.S. politics go back to the earliest years of the Republic and especially to the first two decades of this century, the heyday of the Progressive Movement. Both opponents and proponents of these direct democracy measures, however, agree that the rules for holding them should be transparent and precise, and that all such measures be subject to judicial review.

In an interview October 16, Daniel Lowenstein, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles and an expert on ballot initiatives and referenda, explains that the United States "has never held a national referendum and referenda are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. But during this century, and especially since World War II, they have become increasingly popular at the state level, especially in the West and Midwest."

American political scientists make a distinction between a ballot initiative, which allows voters to propose a legislative measure or a state constitutional amendment, and a referendum, whereby legislatures refer a proposed or existing law to the voters for their approval or rejection, says Thomas Cronin, author of Direct Democracy. In the United States, initiatives are not introduced by the executive branch, Lowenstein explains.

"About 35 to 40 percent of the more than 1,500 citizen-initiated ballot measures considered since 1904 have won voter approval. About half of these have been on ballots since World War II," Cronin notes. In addition, approximately 2,000 legislatively initiated referenda have been placed on the ballot, and "at least 60 percent of these have won voter approval."

Twenty-four states currently allow ballot initiatives, according to Jack Plano and Milton Greenberg, authors of The American Political Dictionary. Generally, the initiatives are placed on the ballot after a minimum, specified number of signatures has been gathered, varying between five to 15 percent of the voters. The rules for gathering the signatures are very precise and initiatives are not allowed on the ballot until the validity of the signature collection process has been authenticated, they add.

Supporters of referenda and ballot initiatives regard them "as a useful check on ill-considered or dangerous actions by the legislature or executive and as an expression of direct democracy," say Plano and Greenberg. "Those who oppose them regard them as an unnecessary check on representative government that weakens legislative responsibility."

Available evidence indicates that the public, which some feel has the most to gain from direct democracy, is somewhat skeptical. Even in California, known more than any other state for ballot initiatives, people are not sure that even informed voters have sufficient information on which to base a decision. One poll there found that a majority of people felt that policy decisions are better made by elected representatives. Other polls have shown the electorate split roughly down the middle.

Lowenstein, who recently published a book on U.S. election law, says opinions about referenda and ballot initiatives also differ among constitutional scholars. "American democracy stresses the separation of powers between executive, legislature, and judiciary, and checks and balances among them," he remarks. "A pure majoritarian form of legislating, such as the referendum, goes against the grain." Lowenstein also stresses that ballot initiatives and referenda "are not a substitute for action by lawmakers, but a supplement. In a supplemental role, they can be constructive."

If ballot initiatives and referenda are held, experts stress they can only enhance democracy if the public is adequately informed. Those for and against a particular measure must have free access to the media and must be able to campaign for their point of view and make their case to the people, they say.

In the United States, significant referenda and ballot initiatives usually produce media free-for-alls. Opponents and proponents organize, raise money, and purchase media time in an attempt to convince the public to vote their way. "That's very important," says Lowenstein. "People must have access to the media, although the evidence indicates that the side obtaining more media coverage is not always the winner."

According to the Free Congress Foundation, there are 93 citizen-initiated ballot initiatives on the ballots this year in 20 states. Issues are as varied as -- in descending order of frequency -- officeholder term limits, environmental and wildlife issues, taxes, gambling, and raising the minimum wage. In addition, 39 state legislatures have placed measures on the ballot.

The most contentious ballot initiative, according to most observers, is in California. People there are split along gender and racial lines in their view of Proposition 209, which seeks to end affirmative action in the state.

President Clinton and Senator Bob Dole were asked about their view of Proposition 209, or the California Civil Rights Initiative, in their final debate October 16. Dole said he is in favor of the initiative to end state affirmative action. Clinton is opposed.

In the weeks leading up to the November election, Californians have been barraged by television commercials from both sides urging them to vote yea or nay. In addition, the regular news media, both inside and outside of the state, have given considerable news coverage to the proposition because of the importance of affirmative action nationally as well as at the state level. "At this point, it's not clear which side will win because the polls have often been wrong on proposition issues," Lowenstein says.

In addition to contributions from individuals pro and con, organizations and political parties are involved in raising money to fight or defend the proposition. The California Republican Party has spent about $500,000, one-third of the total raised to end affirmative action, whereas the Feminist Majority, a Los Angeles-based women's political group, has spent $125,000, about one-fourth of the total raised, trying to save it, according to media reports.

Although ballot initiatives such as Proposition 209, are an example of direct democracy, they do not supersede the U.S. Constitution. Many ballot initiatives that have passed with the support of a majority of the electorate have later been overturned by the courts, sometimes the Supreme Court.

This happened earlier this year when the Supreme Court overturned a ballot initiative in Colorado -- Amendment II -- that, the High Court said, abrogated the constitutional rights of gay people. Should Proposition 209 outlawing state affirmative action in California also pass, as the polls indicate, it too is almost certain to face a court test.

Lowenstein says that judicial review is "an important component," of the referendum process. "But any law, whether it is a result of action by elected officials or as a result of an initiative passed by the citizenry, must pass constitutional muster," he remarks. An independent judiciary is a vital safeguard against the enactment of referenda and ballot initiatives that could threaten fundamental liberties, experts say.

This is even more the case with national referenda, says David Magleby, author of "Direct Legislation." While direct legislation is often considered democratic, "several examples of profoundly anti-democratic, national referenda exist. Governments in totalitarian countries can appear democratic by holding a plebiscite; but, by limiting the voting options, they reduce the election to a meaningless facade," he says.

The most notorious example of misuse of the referendum idea in modern times was in 1933, Magleby notes. In that year, Adolf Hitler announced German withdrawal from the League of Nations, and, at the same time, said he would submit his decision to a national referendum, a contest the outcome of which was in little doubt.

Many European democracies have held legitimate national referenda, Magleby explains, but such examples of direct democracy at the national level are not frequent. They are "a rare event," with the exception of Switzerland, he says.