Sure, lawmakers are trying to guard their own turf here. But a bigger philosophical issue is at stake, too.

Lee Hamilton, the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said it well two years ago in an op-ed piece he wrote for the Indianapolis Star. The Founding Fathers did not believe in direct democracy, he said, because "it threatened a vital process: cooling the passions of the moment, encouraging deliberation and reasoned debate, and protecting the right of the minority to be heard and understood."

Utah lawmakers have tried to make initiatives more representative. In recent years they passed a law that requires the signatures of 10 percent of the number who voted statewide in the last gubernatorial election, broken down to 10 percent of voters in 26 of the state's 29 senate districts, before a petition can qualify for the ballot. They also required a series of public meetings to discuss the merits of the initiative — something that is supposed to roughly replicate the public hearings lawmakers hold on most bills they consider.

No law, however, can require a signature-gatherer to tell nothing but the truth and the whole truth. That makes the tax-burden-in-bold-print idea intriguing.

The counter argument is that Utahns have a history of voting down initiatives that raise taxes. Last year's Initiative 1, the one on open-space, is a prime example. But if people are going to reject these things once they get a good look at them, it would sure save a lot of time and energy to make sure they get a good look before they decide whether to sign on the dotted line.

---

Jay Evensen is editor of the Deseret Morning News editorial page. E-mail: even@desnews.com