The Day has recently questioned my use of the law to potentially stop the sale of Riverside Park before knowing the referendum's final results. The newspaper particularly criticized my willingness to thwart the "will of the people." Under certain circumstances, I am indeed willing to thwart the will of the people, and I believe the people of New London deserve to know why.

The United States of America is a Republic, not a pure Democracy. In a Republic, citizens elect representatives to act on their behalf, with checks and balances further diffusing power; whereas in a pure democracy questions are put to a popular vote of the entire citizenry. We do not, and should not, have a system of pure popular democracy. In such a system, the majority can override the rights of minorities and the poor.

The Constitution doesn't establish a process for voter referendum. James Madison's writings in Federalist Paper No. 51 make clear that the framers of our Republic feared popular democracy as a direct threat to minority rights. Madison wrote that our Republic was established "to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

In referendums, minority rights are indeed insecure, and popular will at the ballot box has led to many discriminatory actions.

In California, for example, in 2008, voters passed Proposition 8, overturning a court ruling that granted California's same-sex couples the right to marry. A federal lawsuit now winding its way through the courts seeks to overturn Proposition 8. I support this suit and hope for its success. In so doing, I oppose the will of the people. I believe such opposition is the duty of anyone who values equal protection of the law for all.

In the referendum concerning Riverside Park, the disparate impact on minorities and the poor is clear. In the north of the city (District 1), where the park is located, in a poorer neighborhood composed largely of ethnic and racial minorities, the proposed sale was soundly defeated.

In the city center (District 2), where the Fort Trumbull neighborhood is located and where citizens are still sorely upset by the debacle there, the proposed sale also failed. Yet in the south end of New London (District 3, my own neighborhood), with great public spaces at Toby May Field and Ocean Beach Park, the vote to sell Riverside passed overwhelmingly.

The results show that voters best-situated economically and with the least to lose could have overridden the interests of those least advantaged in our city. This is the wrong way to decide public policy in New London.

But let me be clear. Connecticut allows referendums. I have proposed one for a school bond because we need to bond to make our high school handicapped accessible, and a referendum is legally required. Where we must use this tool of government, we shall. We must also abide by the law regarding referendum outcomes. Had the Riverside Park referendum passed clearly before the contract expired, or had the contract been extended and the recount showed a yes vote, then the sale would have occurred. However, once the contract expired any sale would have been illegal. I make no apologies for using legal means to prevent a sale which should never have gone to referendum.

When referendums harm minorities and the poor; when they seek to deny rights to a class of people, or seek to sell off the last best asset of a poor neighborhood, people should fight these initiatives. They should fight first at the ballot box; then, if necessary, they should fight in court.

No one should shrink from the criticism of opposing "the will of the people" when protecting the rights of minorities and the disadvantaged. I think Mr. Madison would agree.

Daryl Justin Finizio is the mayor-elect of New London.