Let the voters decide.

All the Western states, and a smattering of others, allow their citizens to propose legislation without help from elected lawmakers. As many as 300 such measures were in circulation this year.

As the election season gears up, initiatives on everything from cutting back property taxes to fighting illegal immigration to reducing legislators' pay and their time in session are in some stage of the qualification process. Each election gives voters more and more decision-making power as the number of ballot questions grows. Citizens and special interest groups are pushing more than 300 initiatives in 22 of the 24 states that permit them. (This does not include referenda that legislators may refer to the voters dealing with proposed statutes or changes to state constitutions.)

The election of 1996 is sure to be similar to the previous two general elections: Citizens in those 22 states will have a lot of decisions to make. Since the mid-1980s when some 40 measures made the ballot each year, more and more are being circulated and larger numbers are qualifying. In 1994, citizens in 24 states voted on 80 initiatives. In some states -- California, Oregon, Colorado, Florida, Washington and Montana -- votes can be confronted by as many as 18 questions. Bob stern, co-director of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, says his pro-initiatives group expects this to be a record-breaking year for citizen measures on the ballot. He says initiatives remain popular with the public because citizens believe legislatures aren't adequately dealing with certain issues such term limits, campaign finance, taxes, crime and health care. "Often the issues on the ballot are those that directly affect legislators themselves -- campaign finance reform and term limits -- and they won't deal with them themselves," he says.

Ballot questions mirror the mood of the citizenry and give lawmakers an indication of what's on the minds of voters. But they make for bad public policy, says Alan Rosenthal, a political scientist at Rutgers University. He says that the initiative process often looks at issues in isolation, while a legislature's job is to continually assess issues from a statewide perspective. "In the legislative process nothing stands alone," he says. Rosenthal cites a California initiative passed by voters that allocates a percentage of the state budget for education. Now it's in the constitution, and it doesn't allow for the needs and priorities of the state to be assessed over time, he says. "So the Legislature is hindered from doing its job. Something like this shouldn't be in the constitution."

This election, as in 1994, citizens have drafted laws aimed at regaining control over their lives (curbing benefits to illegal immigrants, sending career criminals to prison and keeping handguns) and taking back government (limiting taxes, reforming campaign finance and kicking out incumbents.) Others echo debates in Congress and state legislatures (thwarting illegal aliens, increasing the minimum wage).

Citizens could decide criminal justice issues in six states where up to 19 questions have been in circulation. In Arizona two measures give voters a say in sentencing -- no early release for drug dealers and treating juveniles, 15 and older, as adults. Two others deal with instructions to juries. In California, petitions have been circulating that may give voters their say in carrying concealed guns, stronger criminal penalties, mandatory sentencing for gun violence and judicial reforms. Coloradans will decide if they want the right to carry concealed weapons. Florida citizens will vote on court reform, funding criminal justice and limiting the early release of prisoners. Missouri voters will have their say on the death penalty. Oregon's ballot could have two measures, one dealing with punishment for crimes and another strengthening victims' rights.

Every election there are more initiatives reflecting an antigovernment and anti-incumbent mood in the electorate. Term limits come from that attitude, and this year they are mostly aimed at Congress. Petitions are circulating in 15 states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine. Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming. North Dakota has two treasures: one deals with limits on state legislators and the second one would direct the legislature to call for a constitutional convention to impose term limits on Congress. Fourteen proposals require that candidates for state legislative and congressional races sign a pledge that they will do everything in their power (once elected.) to adopt a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. If elected officials fail to adhere to the pledge, the words "disregarded voter's instructions on term limits" would appear next to their names on the ballot when they run for reelection Candidates who choose not to sign the oath will have that noted on the ballot. The initiatives are a response to the Supreme Court ruling (.U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton ) that states cannot impose term limits on Congress.

These "instruct and inform laws" on the 14 state ballots are just a start according to US Term Limits, whose supporters intend to spread the movement to at least 34 states by 1999.

As always, several measures deal with campaign finance reform. Initiatives have qualified in Colorado, Maine and California (where two campaign finance questions will be on the November ballot). In each case, the measures propose strict limits on campaign contributions. In Washington state, a campaign finance petition is being circulated for submission to the Legislature in 1997. A petition also was circulating in Alaska, but the Legislature passed a campaign finance reform package this session that made it moot.

In Massachusetts, Citizens for Limited Taxation are circulating a measure that would cut legislators' pay from $46,000 to $23,000. The group says the pay cut is aimed at limiting the length of the legislative session in order to return the Massachusetts General Court to a part-time citizen body. The measure not only limits base salaries but also eliminates additional pay for chairmen and leaders. It would require that legislative pay be disbursed in six installments from January to June and would link future pay increases to changes in the median household income in Massachusetts. Legislative bookkeeping records would no longer be exempt from review by the state auditor and the state inspector general.

Among the other antigovernment measures in circulation are eliminating the secretary of state's office and requiring voter approval of state pay raises in Michigan, restricting benefits to elected officials in Florida and prohibiting unfunded mandates on local governments in Oregon and Maine.

MINIMUM WAGE AND ILLEGAL ALIENS

Congress and many state legislatures have grappled with the minimum wage issue this year. In November, voters in California, Florida, Idaho, Missouri, Montana and Oregon will decide if their states should raise the minimum wage.

Voters in several coastal or border states -- Arizona, California, Florida and Oregon -- are likely to have ballot questions before them that would limit the rights of illegal aliens or otherwise affect immigration laws. The severity of the measures vary from prohibiting illegal aliens from owning or controlling real property to excluding illegal alien from public benefits, social services and public schools to requiring proof of citizenship in order to get a driver's license.

DEALING WITH TAXES

Aside from term limits, the most popular initiatives of the 1990s have been measures to limit government taxing power and spending authority. 1996 will no different, except three states -- Arkansas, California and Oregon -- have measures that promote tax increases. In Arkansas, a constitutional amendment to levy a statewide sales tax increase of one-eighth of a cent was referred to the voters by the General Assembly. Money generated by the tax would support the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Department of Parks and Tourism, the Arkansas Department of Heritage and Keep Arkansas Beautiful.

In California, two tax initiatives have qualified for the November election, but only one would result in a tax increase. It would boost state income tax revenues by reinstating the 10 percent and 11 percent personal income tax brackets. They sunset last january under the terms of previous budget balancing compromises that made higher brackets temporary.

Oregon residents are likely to vote on a cigarette tax increase. The measure would increase the state's current 38 cents per pack cigarette tax by another 30 cents for a total tax of 68 cents per pack. About half the revenue raised by the tax -- $76 million annually -- would go to maintain and expand the Oregon health plan. In addition to cigarettes, the increase would raise the tax on other tobacco products from 35 percent to 65 percent of the wholesale price.

Oregon is likely to have two other fiscal measures on the Nov. 5 general election ballot. One measure would make it extremely difficult to approve tax increases at elections. This constitutional amendment would require a majority of registered voters, not just a majority of voters, to pass any tax-related measure at the polls. In other words, those registered voters not voting would be counted as "no" votes. In practical terms, it would be nearly impossible to pass tax increases at the ballot box.

The final fiscal measure likely to be on the Oregon ballot is a property tax limitation initiative that would save taxpayers -- and cost schools and local governments -- more than $1 billion over the next two years, according to a state analysis. The measure, known as "Cut and Cap," would limit property taxes to 10 percent below 1995-96 taxes or to 1994-95 taxes, whichever is less. For most property, the 10 percent cut will be lower. Thereafter, the tax could not rise more than 3 percent per year. Taxes for bonded debt would be exempt.

Besides the Oregon measure, initiatives to limit property taxes are circulating in Florida, Nebraska and Washington. One in Arizona failed to collect enough signatures. In Idaho, a property tax limit measure has qualified for the ballot. Residents will decide whether or not to limit property taxes, which now average about 1.5 percent to 1 percent of assessed value. Schools would be funded entirely from the state's general fund. A Nebraska measure would place caps on the amount of property taxes that could be levied, similar to a law passed by the Legislature this year, only lower. The initiative would also guarantee that equivalent resources be available to all public schools the first year the levy caps are in effect. Another petition in circulation by two Nebraska ranchers would eliminate property taxes and place strict taxing and spending controls on all levels of government.

California's second measure already qualified for the ballot would limit the authority of local governments to impose taxes and other property-related charges. Proponents claim that an existing tax limitation has been weakened over time. This measure reiterates that a two-thirds majority is required for special taxes, and voter approval is required for an increase in general taxes. The initiative also requires that charter cities get voter approval to raise taxes. About 90 charter cities in the state contend that they are exempt from the 1986 initiative requiring voter approval of local taxes.

TAXING CHURCHES

Through well-organized grassroots groups and the citizen initiative process, Colorado is establishing a reputation as a trendsetter in new laws. Colorado was the first state to take the gay rights battle to the voters; it was one of the first three states to adopt legislative term limits; and it currently operates under the most restrictive state tax constraints in the country. This year, the state's voters have the opportunity to adopt another unprecedented law. Ballot Item No. 6 is a constitutional amendment to tax any real property used exclusively for any religious, charitable or other nonprofit purposes. Personal property would still be exempt; so would property (real and personal) that is owned and used solely and exclusively for schools, colleges and universities, orphanages, housing for low income elderly, disabled, homeless or abused people. Another measure giving taxpayers a $60 tax credit could be on the Colorado ballot if supporters have gathered enough signatures. (At the time of this writing, signatures were still being counted.)

The focus of anti-tax crusaders continues to shift. In the 1970s and 1980s, efforts concentrated on tax and expenditure limitations. Now that limits are thought by many taxpayer groups to be ineffective, tactics have shifted to measures that make it more difficult for legislatures to raise taxes. There are basically two ways to do this: Require a supermajority vote of the legislature to increase or impose new taxes or require voter approval for new taxes.

Voters in two states already faced these issues and gave the OK for significant fiscal changes in the spring primary elections. In April, Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 4, requiring a statewide vote on all tax or fee increases that produce new annual adjusted revenues of more than $50 million or 1 percent of state revenues. In May, voters in Oregon adopted a measure initiated by the legislature, requiring a three-fifths supermajority of both houses to approve new taxes.

Voters must approve tax increases or new taxes in two other states. Colorado law requires voters to approve any new tax, and Washington residents must approve tax increases that would produce revenues over the state spending limit. Tax increases in Washington producing revenue that does not exceed the spending limit must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.

Requiring a supermajority vote of the legislature to increase or impose new taxes has been a popular initiative item in the 1990s. Of the 12 states that currently have supermajority requirements on the books, the laws in five states have been adopted since 1992. Voters in Nevada and Ohio will decide in November if they want to impose supermajority requirements.

GAMBLING MEASURES

Groups in a number of states are working on proposals to allow or expand gambling. In Arizona, Native Americans have enough valid signatures to put to the voters the question of requiring the state to agree to gambling compacts with tribes. (The governor has announced that he would not negotiate any new such compacts.) In Arkansas, several initiatives have been submitted to legalize casinos, a state lottery and charitable bingo. The secretary of state has until Sept. 5 to certify the measures. The city council in Kansas City, Kans., has proposed, under its home rule powers, three questions for voters' decision, one having to do with casino gambling at a race track. The Kansas attorney general contends that the questions are "advisory only" and has promised to sue if Wyandotte County attempts to interpret them in any other way.

A Detroit group led by Mayor Dennis Archer gathered nearly twice as many signatures as necessary to ask voters to legalize three casinos in the city. The Nebraska secretary of state at press time is verifying signatures on two initiatives to allow casino gambling. In Ohio, riverboat proponents are gathering signatures for an initiative to legalize 10 casinos in the face of gubernatorial opposition.

In West Virginia, a single county will vote on legalizing video slot machines at the Charles Town race track. Washington tribes are trying again to get a limited number of slot machines legalized; a similar measure last year was defeated.

Against this tide, Louisiana voters, at the behest of the Legislature, will decide on Nov. 5, parish by parish, whether to throw out any local slot machines or riverboat or land-based casinos.