From a few months before Election Day until a few feet before we enter the polling place, we're bombarded with TV ads, direct mailings and other paraphernalia from the candidates running for office. So when I stepped into the voting booth last week, I knew the names of everyone I was going to vote for.
I've got a system. I figure it's important to stop all the physicians from leaving Pennsylvania, so I supported those who will lower the skyrocketing malpractice insurance and curb the number of frivolous lawsuits fueling the medical liability crisis in this state. But I digress.
The point is that when I finally finished checking all the boxes on the left side of the ballot and turned my attention to the two statewide referendum questions, I was puzzled. You see, I didn't get a chance to look up the referendum questions in advance.
Question one read as follows: Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to "provide that a person accused of a crime has the right to be 'confronted with the witnesses against him,' instead of the right to 'meet the witnesses face to face?'"
The proposed phrase sounded a lot like the Sixth Amendment. But I always thought that the Sixth Amendment did mandate a face-to-face meeting. You can imagine my confusion.
"To confront" -- to face boldly with defiance, according to Webster's -- is a stronger verb than "to meet." But it turns out that legal definitions can be counterintuitive. Federal standards hold that "confronting" a witness can be done remotely -- it does not necessitate standing face to face. Under special circumstances, the Sixth Amendment language can be satisfied by a videotaped deposition or closed-circuit television.
But the Pennsylvania state constitution is stricter, requiring a face-to-face meeting. No exceptions. Interpreted literally by the state Supreme Court, the clause disallows videotaped depositions and closed-circuit television even in the case of a child testimony.
Question one was placed on the ballot to pave a legal path for question two: Should the General Assembly be allowed to enact laws "regarding the manner by which children may testify in criminal proceedings, including the use of videotaped depositions or testimony by closed-circuit television?"
The fact that the change in wording was merely setting the stage for the specific case was far from self evident. Also absent was the establishment of clear boundaries on the uses of remote confrontation. Will it be invoked only in cases of a child's testimony, as the second question suggests, or will the measure more broadly threaten the right of the accused over time? In any case, it's pretty safe to say that few voters understood exactly what they were voting for last week.
Nevertheless, the Pennsylvania state constitution was amended. Both measures passed. I'm inclined to favor the amendments, but I object that the ballot question did not elucidate what was being done. The first question was subsumed with legal jargon and was by all accounts sneaky.
In Pennsylvania, amendments to the state constitution must be approved in identical form by two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly and then presented to the public by referendum for approval. But referendums on subtle legal language, confusing to the average voter who doesn't have time to actively seek background information, undermine the democratic process. The campaign season is full of candidates fighting to sell their ideas to the electorate. Referendum initiatives, not tied directly to the electoral success of any of these candidates, are marginalized.
An educated electorate is essential for democratic elections to function effectively -- adequate background information and legal definitions are prerequisites to making an informed decision. Realistically, though, you can't count on voters to research the referendum questions. The referendum constitutes a weak link in the election process.
Voters in line at the polls frequently are handed a copy of the ballot. Perhaps a nonpartisan information sheet -- explaining in plain English the purpose as well as the pros and cons of the referendum question -- should be disseminated, last minute, when voters are most likely to pay attention.
Citizens can't make good decisions on the basis of one loaded sentence. The purpose of the voting booth is not to evaluate the literacy of the electorate but to implement the will of the people. It's time to turn the referendum from a pop quiz into an open-book exam.
Sarah Eskreis-Winkler is a sophomore Diplomatic History major from Wynnewood, Pa.
