There is a disturbing trend in America to use litigation instead of legislation to set public policy. In a familiar pattern, some disgruntled person who doesn’t like a policy decision made by elected representatives runs to the courts arguing that the state or federal constitution trumps that decision. Of course, one of the reasons we have courts is to protect us when representative bodies act illegally. The natural reaction of thoughtful legislators who recognize the virtues of limited government is to do something about unlawful governmental action. And well they should.

The New Hampshire Legislature is currently considering HB 1510, which would overturn a state Supreme Court decision and give taxpayers the right to sue the government whether or not they have been personally injured by governmental action. On the surface, this idea has appeal. Why shouldn’t a taxpayer be able to sue the government when it has abused its power? But a deeper examination points out some major flaws in this approach.

First, the courts were never intended to be policy-making bodies. The courts are to resolve real disputes between people whose personal rights or interests are directly affected by disputes. A court is not the place for people with a mere philosophical interest in an issue. The whole point of legal standing is to limit the courts to deciding “cases and controversies” as required by the Constitution.

Then there is the issue of defining governmental abuse. What I believe is government abuse is far different than what a group of taxpaying atheists in Arizona was thinking when it tried to stop the state from issuing tax credits for contributions to private religious schools. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the atheists have no standing just because they are taxpayers. New Hampshire legislators, who recently approved similar tax credits for private schools in response to the public cry for alternatives to our broken union-run school systems, should take heed. Surely, there is one atheist taxpayer in the state who would be willing to sue the government to stop these tax credits, most likely with the funding of outside interest groups. This is just one example; imagine the suits brought by environmental, labor, and other outside agitators with national agendas through straw man local taxpayers. Live by the courts; die by the courts.

Perhaps most importantly, the thinking behind HB 1510 ignores the reality that the taxpayers have the ultimate remedy for governmental abuse: the power of the ballot box. Fighting government through the courts is so expensive it’s unaffordable for the ordinary New Hampshire taxpayer (which is why “taxpayer standing” really means “standing for interest groups with deep pockets”). On the other hand, any taxpayer can put forward persuasive arguments and support candidates they favor. If your local town selectman is misbehaving, send him home. If you don’t like that the state Legislature is spending and regulating out of control then elect new people as taxpayers across New Hampshire did in the last election. The government’s power comes from the people.

The intrusiveness of state and municipal governments didn’t happen overnight. Over the past few decades, big government liberals have been winning the battle for the minds and hearts of the people of New Hampshire, winning elections and creating predictable results — high taxes, overregulation, government abuse, and an underperforming economy. Proponents of limited government should urge their elected representatives to reject the false promise of HB 1510 to offer an easy solution and instead continue to speak out and educate the public about the benefits of smaller, more efficient government. Persuasive arguments, not the courts, will continue the trend of the 2010 elections and bring lasting political change.

Paul Young is a small-businessman from Exeter.