Thomas Donnelly's opinion piece, "Giving voters veto power to overrule the courts an old idea," (Voices, Jan. 2) concludes that, "The American people should play a more direct, ongoing, deliberative role in constitutional decision-making."

Does Donnelly really believe that voters decide their position on an issue based on a well-reasoned contemplation of constitutionality of the pro and con? More likely, voters decide what is in my and my family's best interest and/or which position aligns with my belief system.

They may then construct a "constitutionality" argument based on the outcome of that analysis. I'd rather trust our court system (as part of the constitution's checks and balances) than the whims of a "people's veto" to protect our constitutional rights.

Donna Parkes, Kennewick