(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Under our law, once an individual is granted a right, any restrictions imposed by the government on the exercise of that right must be fair and reasonable. In this case, I believe it is an unfair and unreasonable restriction on the individual right to petition for a bond referendum to require the petition to be submitted within ten days notice when the government further requires the petition to contain the signatures of, in this case, 17,417 eligible voters in the county. The ten-day restriction makes the exercise of the right illusory, and constitutes a denial of an individual’s constitutionally protected right of due process.
Our legislature granted county residents and property owners in Iowa the right to seek a referendum on the issuance of bonds for certain purposes. Consequently, Frank Bowers, as well as any other county resident or property owner in Iowa, has an interest protected by the due process clause of our constitution. The majority correctly identifies this interest, as well as the test to determine if the government restriction on the protected interest offends the notion of due process, but unfortunately misapplies the relevant factors and unfairly minimizes the competing interest of the individual, while misdirecting the interests of the government.
In deciding the nature of the process that is due under the circumstances, we apply a three-part balancing test. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976). First, we consider the private interest affected by the government action. Id. Second, we balance the risk of erroneous deprivation of this interest under the existing procedure imposed by the government with the probable value of a different or substitute procedure. Id. Third, we consider the interest of government, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the different or substitute procedures would entail. Id.
*696I. Private Interest.
The majority concludes the individual interest at stake in this case is minimal and entitled to little protection from government interference. It reaches this conclusion by relying upon the general concept that a referendum is contrary to our representative form of government, and therefore only marginally exists in Iowa by legislative grace. This conclusion, however, ignores the history of this state in this area and the bedrock fundamental precept that has developed in our law that the issuance of bonds by local governments for extraordinary purposes requires a vote of the people.
Limits on government spending by the people of Iowa can be traced to 1852. Under our original constitution, the people of Iowa limited the amount that a county or other political or municipal corporation could become indebted. See Iowa Const, art. XI, § 3 (indebtedness shall not exceed five percent of the taxable property value within the county or corporation). Moreover, the concept that a local government in Iowa could not spend money for special community projects and buildings without a vote of the people followed by statutory pronouncements. In 1860, our legislature first enacted a statute requiring the public to vote on the expenditure of funds for courthouses and other public buildings. See Iowa Code § 312(23) (1860). The concept of a public vote on special projects quickly spread into other areas as we developed as a state. Thus, a host of similar laws followed which required local government to hold an election to decide whether to construct a variety of special projects, ranging from recreational areas to airports. See id. § 461 (1873) (public libraries); id. §§ 6239, 6241 (1927) (various special public projects); id. § 5903.05 (1939) (airports); id. § 345.1 (1971) (submission of question of construction of county buildings to voters); id. § 313A.35 (1971) (toll bridges); id. § 111A.6 (1971) (public museums, playgrounds, parks). At the same time, our legislature has continued to respect our representative form of government by giving elected public officials the ability to function independent of a public vote on matters pertaining to the normal, essential expenditure of public funds.
Today, these longstanding concepts have been merged into a single statutory scheme within our county home rule provisions. See id. §§ 331.441-.449 (1983). As before, our law continues to distinguish between essential and general county purposes, and requires “a county special election to vote” on the issuance of bonds before instituting “proceedings for the issuance of bonds for a general county purpose ....” Id. § 331.442(2) (2001). On the other hand, bonds to incur indebtedness for essential county purposes do not require a predicate public vote. See id. § 331.443(1), (2). The board must only allow residents to submit objections, but it is free to proceed. Id. § 331.443(2). This is the type of legislative scheme that reflects only a minimal private interest. However, this is not the interest at stake in this case.
What we have in our state, and what we have always had, is a system by which our elected public officials generally determine the financial arrangements for the matters relating to the essential government operations, while the right to determine special expenditures is generally reserved to the people. This concept has been carried forward in time from the inception of this state and is clearly distilled today in Iowa Code section 331.442(2), which provides:
2. Before the board may institute proceedings for the issuance of bonds for a general county purpose, it shall call a county special election to vote upon the question of issuing the bonds....
*697The only wrinkle in this basic longstanding concept is that our legislature has made an exception. It permits the county to issue general county bonds by a majority vote of the board and bypass a public election if a petition is not filed requesting an election. Id. § 333.442(5)(c). Thus, this bypass procedure exists only as an exception to the existing right of the people to determine whether to issue bonds for a special project. Clearly, if our legislature wished to minimize the right of the people and change the course of our historical backdrop, it would not have spelled out the general right of the people in section 331.442(2) before enacting a bypass procedure for the county board.
The meaning of this background and history is obvious. The right of the people to petition a county to force a public vote on the issuance of bonds has strong roots in our law and is far from minimal. It is an important right that continues to be recognized today as in our past. Furthermore, the private interest that gave rise to the legislative decision to establish the right is not somehow minimized because it was penned in a statute instead of the constitution. The source of a right may affect the type of process that must be afforded, but it does not diminish the private interest responsible for the right, just as it does not mean the procedural standards attached to a legislative-based right can be unreasonable. Due process attaches to the right, regardless of the source of the right.
The private interests affected by the ten-day period at issue in this case are an important cheek on our local government’s power to incur indebtedness. Unlike the minimal private interest in bonds relating to true essential county purposes, the private interest in the bonds in dispute here is substantial. Consequently, I believe there is an important public interest at stake in this case, and there is no basis for the majority to minimize it for the purpose of applying our due process clause.
II. Risk of Erroneous Deprivation and Value of Additional Safeguards.
The majority concludes the ten-day period poses little risk in depriving an individual of the right to petition because the evidence in this case showed Bowers came very close to obtaining enough signatures within ten days, and additional time to file a petition would not have helped Bowers because he erroneously believed he had enough signatures and prematurely stopped his efforts to obtain additional signatures. They also point to evidence that residents of Scott County successfully petitioned for a bond referendum by timely submitting a petition with 11,200 signatures. This reasoning, however, misses the important inquiry of this factor.1
*698Evidence that Bowers fell just short of satisfying the requirements of the ten-day period, or that the residents of Scott County succeeded, does not support a finding that the ten-day period poses little risk in-depriving an individual the right to petition. This evidence may be a consideration, but the question under this due process analysis is not whether it is possible to meet the standard imposed by government, but whether the standard imposed possesses a serious risk that the right cannot be reasonably exercised. Bowers’ efforts were gargantuan, and there is a huge difference between accumulating 11,-200 votes and 17,417 votes at the local level. It may be easy to criticize Bowers’ efforts in hindsight, but the evidence reveals he acted as a model, concerned citizen, and earnestly pursued his right to petition in a conscientious and devoted manner. If the efforts he put forth in this case were insufficient, it is difficult to imagine how any citizen could meet the standard. If a government standard regulating a right is set too high for people to reach, the right involved is no longer a right of the people. Moreover, the test under the due process clause is not whether it is possible to meet the governmental restriction, but whether the right can reasonably be exercised.
The real importance of the evidence showing Bowers fell just short of the time requirements relates to the remaining half of the balancing test. That is, the risk of losing the right to petition must be balanced against the value of an additional or different standard. The evidence in this case shows that an additional five or ten days would have been of great value in permitting the residents of Polk County to exercise their right to petition.
Clearly, the ten-day standard imposed by the statute in this case poses a serious risk to county residents that a petition could only be timely filed under the most extraordinary circumstances. The facts of this case clearly establish this proposition. Moreover, the facts further establish that a few additional days would have likely allowed Bowers to exercise the right. Thus, the interplay between these factors reveals the inadequacy of the standard imposed by the legislature when judged under the due process clause and the facts of this case.
III. Governmental Interest.
The majority disposes of the governmental interest inquiry by quoting the district court. However, the district court only identified the interests of the government in wanting to make the decision to issue the bonds without an election. Naturally, it would be fiscally and administratively less burdensome for the government not to hold an election. Yet, that could be true for most individual rights recognized in this country. Nevertheless, the burden on the government associated with the exercise of a right does not become a standard for the deprivation of rights. The point of this inquiry is not to criticize the right at issue, but to determine if additional procedural requirements relating to the exercise of the right would place onerous fiscal and administrative burdens on the *699government. Clearly, in this case, five or ten additional days to allow residents to exercise their right to petition would not impose any substantial burden on the government or delay the project in any significant manner.
In adopting the district court reasoning, the majority seems to acknowledge that the ten-day period is needed so the county will not be burdened with elections each time it wants to issue bonds for a project which entitles the public to exercise its right to petition for an election. Yet, that is a burden the government must accept, and the inquiry is to consider the government’s need for restrictions. The need for the government to place a time limit on the filing of a petition is undeniable, but the need would be met by a twenty-day restriction just as it is met by a ten-day restriction. A longer time requirement would not adversely impact the governmental need for the time restriction, but it would go a long way to helping citizens to meaningfully exercise their right to petition.
The government interest in eliminating the need for a public election before issuing general obligation bonds is met by the legislative requirement that the petition contain a sufficient number of signatures to show interest and support of the people to justify the time and expense of an election. The ten percent requirement is reasonable and reflects the concept that enough interest exists in the issue to justify the burdens and expenses of an election. However, the ten-day requirement for filing the petition has no additional relationship to this purpose, and only serves to essentially eliminate the right to petition. The due process clause exists to safeguard against the deprivation of rights by all types of government action. See Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275-76, 59 S.Ct. 872, 876, 83 L.Ed. 1281, 1287-88 (1939) (a twelve-day time period imposed by state statute to allow disenfranchised blacks to register to vote violates the Fifteenth Amendment, which is applied to protect citizens against “sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination”).
IV. Conclusion.
The ten-day requirement fails to give the residents and property owners of Polk County a meaningful opportunity to exercise their right to petition. The requirement transforms the petitioning process into a Sisyphean task and violates the due process clause of our constitution. The Events Center may be a very worthwhile project, but it does not justify the deprivation of the due process rights of our citizens.
. The majority also minimizes the need for procedural protection by declaring there is no right to an election for most essential county purpose bonds. The district court also placed weight on the fact that the particular project in this case fell within the definition of an "essential county purpose."
It is true that the election requirements generally apply only to projects for general county purposes, and do not apply to projects for an “essential county purpose.” It is also true that urban renewal projects, as the project in this case has been designated, fall within the definition of "essential county purpose.” Iowa Code § 331.441(2)(b)(14). However, when our legislature amended the definition of "essential county purpose” to include urban renewal projects, it specifically provided that "bonds issued for this purpose [wejre subject to the right of petition for an election....” Id. (emphasis added). Yet, there is no indication urban renewal projects were designated as an essential county purpose to minimize the right to petition. Instead, it is clear that the urban renewal law primarily addresses slum and blighted areas *698of a municipality which present a serious and growing menace to the city. See id. § 403.2(1). The urban renewal law looks to rebuild blighted areas and provide better housing and economic opportunities for people. See id. § 403.2(3). Yet, it can also be used, as in this case, as a means of general economic development for a community. See id. Thus, while the central concept of urban renewal focuses on essential county purposes, it is broad enough to extend into the area of general county purposes. See id. § 331.441(2)(c)(ll). It is likely that the broad nature of urban renewal caused the legislature to treat it as a general county obligation for the purposes of the election requirements.