My home state of California is well known nationally for its referendum or initiative process. Briefly, this means that if a group has some issue that they wish to put directly to the electorate, they have only to obtain a certain number of signatures on a petition, and the measure appears on the ballot.

One famous example is Proposition 13, which limited the way that the State could extract property taxes. This law led to property tax reform across the country.

Proposition 140, overwhelmingly approved some years ago, imposed term limits on all office holders. Not surprisingly, the career politicians subjected the new law to an immediate court challenge. In 1991, after careful deliberation, the California Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, and indeed stated that the average voter would have known that this proposition imposed lifetime term limits.

Undaunted, the pols went to everybody's favorite ultra-liberal Federal Judge--Stephen Reinhardt. (Isn't it funny that a system that supposedly works by lottery always seems to come up with Reinhardt's name in these kind of cases??)

Party Secretary (sorry) Judge Reinhardt overturned the California Supreme Court decision, and displayed a level of arrogance incredible even among left-wing Federal judges: Reinhardt actually declared that California voters simply could not have understood what they were voting for.

Never mind for a moment the disdain in which Reinhardt holds the electorate. What about the finding of our state's highest court??

No problem in Reinhardt land. He described the Court's finding as "hesitant" and therefore not really binding. Wow!! Here is a new mission for the Federal Courts. Determine the constitutionality of a law is based on some formulation of confidence level or enthusiasm, as registered by the state courts.

Yet more Reinhardt insanity: He stated that the initiative process lacks the "deliberative filters" of the legislative process. Isn't this remark just a wee bit disingenuous considering that this initiative would put more filters on the legislature??

He also decries that the voters "lack legal or legislative expertise," and "lack the ability to collect and study information" sufficient to allow them to make an informed decision. He intones that the Federal courts must ensure that the "deficiencies of democracy" are not allowed to go unchecked. Seig heil!!

Aren't you happy that Reinhardt is on the watch to protect us poor slobs from ourselves??

Fear not, as Reinhardt's outrageous decision will be reconsidered by an 11-judge panel of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fear this, though: An entire generation of citizens is growing up with the quite reasonable contention that their vote really doesn't count.