Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:21:57.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Instrumental and Educative Effects of Ballot Measures: Research on Direct Democracy in the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Daniel A. Smith  and
Caroline Tolbert
Daniel A. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Caroline Tolbert
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political scientists are increasingly turning to direct democracy, as practiced in the American states, to investigate a broad range of questions dealing with median voter preferences and policy responsiveness, minority interests, theories of representation, policy implementation, political knowledge and behavior, citizen engagement, mobilization and turnout, voter competence, activities of interest groups and political parties, campaign finance, media effects, and agenda-setting. In this review article, we examine recent research on the instrumental effects of ballot measures on policy outcomes as well as the educative (and spillover) effects of the process of direct democracy on candidate contests. Throughout the article we suggest avenues for possible future research.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , Winter 2007 , pp. 416 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association, 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan. 2004. “Terrorism, Gay Marriage, and Incumbency: Explaining the Republican Victory in the 2004 Presidential Election.” The Forum. 2(4): Article 3. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss4/art3 (July 5, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allswang, John. 2000. The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898–1998. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Butterfield, Tara. 2000. “The Resurgence of Nativism in California? The Case of Proposition 187 and Illegal Immigration.” Social Science Quarterly 81:167–79.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Garcia-Bedolla, Lisa. 2004. “The Revolution against Affirmative Action in California: Racism, Economics, and Proposition 209.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2002. “Direct Democracy and the Link between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2:372–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldassare, Mark. 2000. California in the New Millennium: The Changing Social and Political Landscape. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banducci, Susan. 1998. “Direct Legislation: When is it Used and When Does it Pass?” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Banducci, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Karp, Jeffrey. 2004. “Minority Representation, Empowerment, and Participation.” Journal of Politics 66(2):534–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, James. 1915. The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Bates, Frank. 1915. “Constitutional Amendments and Referred Acts, November Election 1914.” American Political Science Review 9:101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, Charles, and Shultz, Birl, eds. 1912. Documents on the State-Wide Initiative, Referendum and Recall. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Bell, Derrick. 1977. “The Referendum: Democracy's Barrier to Racial Equality.” Washington Law Review 54:1–29.Google Scholar
Benz, Matthias, and Stutzer, Alois. 2004. “Are Voters Better Informed when They Have a Larger Say in Politics?” Public Choice 119:21–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Fredrick. 2002. “The Effect of Direct Democracy on the Size and Diversity of State Interest Group Populations.” Journal of Politics. 64:827–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Fredrick. 2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation: How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Fredrick. 2005. “Sources of Variation in the Frequency of Statewide Initiatives: The Role of Interest Group Populations.” Political Research Quarterly 12:565–75.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1994. “EconomicVoting and Ballot Propositions.” American Politics Quarterly 22:27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1995. “Popular Responsiveness to Taxation.” Political Research Quarterly 48:79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion and Voting in Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2002a. “Do Voters Have a Cue? TV Ads as a Source of Information in Referendum Voting.” European Journal of Political Research 41:777–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2002b. “Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government.” British Journal of Political Science 32:371–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004a. “Evolution in State Governance Structures: Unintended Consequences of State Tax and Expenditure Limitations.” Political Research Quarterly 57:189–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004b. “The Initiative Process.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, Eighth Edition, eds. Gray, Virginia and Hanson, Russell. Oxford, UK: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004c. “Measuring the Effects of Direct Democracy on State Policy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4:345–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2006. “Direct Democracy and Political Parties in America.” Party Politics 12:649–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline, eds. 1998. Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Hanneman, Robert. 2006. “Just How Pluralist is Direct Democracy? The Structure of Interest Group Participation in Ballot Proposition Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 59:557–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Segura, Gary, and Nicholson, Stephen. 2006. “Earthquakes and Aftershocks: Race, Direct Democracy, and Partisan Change.” American Journal of Political Science 50:146–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, Patrick. 1992. Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums. Toronto, ON: Dundurn Press.Google Scholar
Boyle, James. 1912. The Initiative and Referendum: Its Folly, Fallacies, and Failure. 3rd ed. Columbus, OH: A.H. Smythe.Google Scholar
Branton, Regina. 2003. “Examining Individual-Level Voting Behavior on State Ballot Propositions.” Political Research Quarterly 56:367–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branton, Regina. 2004. “Voting in Initiative Elections: Does the Context of Racial and Ethnic Diversity Matter?” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4:294–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broder, David. 2000. Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Publishers.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1996. The New Challenge of Direct Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 2002. “Political Parties in Direct Democracy.” In Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns, eds. Mendelsohn, Matthew and Parkin, Andrew. New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry. 2004. “An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election.” The Forum. 2(4): Article 2. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss4/art2 (July 5, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry. 2005. “Institutions and Policy Representation in the States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:373–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, David, and Ranney, Austin, eds. 1994. Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Washington, DC: AEI Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, James W., Rienzo, Barbara A., and Wald, Kenneth D.. 1997. Private Lives, Public Conflicts: Battles over Gay Rights in American Communities. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce. 1992. “Voting Rights and Democratic Theory: Toward a Color-Blind Society?” In Controversies in Minority Voting, eds. Grofman, Bernard and Davidson, C.. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce, and Miller, Kenneth. 2001. “The Populist Legacy: Initiatives and the Undermining of Representative Government.” In Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America, eds. Sabato, Larry, Larson, Bruce, and Ernst, Howard. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Camobreco, John. 1998. “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process.” Journal of Politics 60:819–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Anne. 2001. “In the Eye of the Beholder: The Single Subject Rule for Ballot Initiatives.” In The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking, ed. Waters, M. Dane. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, David, and Quinn Monson, J.. 2005. “The Case of Bush's Re-election: Did Gay Marriage Do It?” presented at Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2001. “Constitutional Referendums and Democratic Deliberation.” In Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns, eds. Mendelsohn, Matthew and Parkin, Andrew. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Chavez, Lydia. 1998. The Color Bind: California's Battle to End Affirmative Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Christin, Thomas, and Hug, Simon. 2002. “Referendums and Citizen Support for European Integration.” Comparative Political Studies 35:586–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, Jack, Reingold, Beth, Walters, Evelyn, and Green, Donald. 1990. “The ‘Official English’ Movement and the Symbolic Politics of Language in the United States.” Western Political Quarterly 43:535–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Richard. 2001. “Part II: New Directions in Direct Democracy: How Democratic Are Initiatives?” University of Colorado Law Review 72:983–1003.Google Scholar
Craig, Steven, Kreppel, Amie, and Kane, James. 2001. “Public Opinion and Direct Democracy: A Case Study.” In Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns, eds. Mendelsohn, Matthew and Parkin, Andrew. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Cree, Nathan. 1892. Direct Legislation by the People. Chicago, IL: A.C. McClurg and Co.Google Scholar
Cronin, Thomas. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, Winston. 1950. The Initiative and Referendum in California. Los Angeles, CA: The Haynes Foundation.Google Scholar
Cushman, Robert. 1916. “Recent Experience with the Initiative and Referendum.” American Political Science Review 10:532–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dao, James. 2004. “Flush with Victory, Grass-Roots Crusader against Same-Sex Marriage Thinks Big.” In The New York Times, A28.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Bowler, Shaun. 1997. “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: Opinions on Anti-Gay and Lesbian Ballot Initiatives.” In Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives, eds. Witt, Stephanie L. and McCorkle, Suzanne. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Bowler, Shaun. 1998a. “Responsive or Responsive Government.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Bowler, Shaun. 1998b. “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: An Extension.” American Journal of Political Science. 43:1020–5.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Bowler, Shaun. 2004. Reforming the Republic: Democratic Institutions for the New America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Karp, Jeffrey. 2006. “Popular Support for Direct Democracy.” Party Politics 12(5):671–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, Todd, Bowler, Shaun, and McCuan, David. 2001. “Political Consultants and the Initiative Industrial Complex.” In Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America, eds. Sabato, Larry, Larson, Bruce, and Ernst, Howard. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, Bowler, Shaun, McCuan, David, and Fernandez, Kenneth. 1998. “Contending Players and Strategies: Opposition Advantages in Initiative Elections.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, Mooney, Christopher Z., and Smith, Daniel A.. 2008. State and Local Politics: Institutions and Reforms. Boston, MA: Thomson/Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Snipp, Joseph. 1994. “Support for Legislative Term Limitations in California: Group Representation, Partisanship, and Campaign Information.” Journal of Politics 56:492–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, Todd, Tolbert, Caroline, and Smith, Daniel. 2005. “Do State-Level Ballot Measures Affect Presidential Elections? Gay Marriage and the 2004 Election.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, Wenzel, James, and Bowler, Shaun. 2000. “Direct Democracy Initiatives after Romer.” In The Politics of Gay Rights, eds. Rimmerman, Craig, Wald, Ken, and Wilcox, Clyde. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dyke, Joshua, and Baldassare, Mark. 2006. “The Limits of Support for Direct Democracy: Process-Oriented Preferences and the 2005 California Special Election.” Presented at American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Ellis, Richard. 2002. Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Freedman, Paul. 2004. “The Gay Marriage Myth.” Slate. http://slate.msn.com/id/2109275/ (November5,2004).Google Scholar
Frey, Bruno, and Goette, L.. 1998. “Does the Popular Vote Destroy Civil Rights?” American Journal of Political Science 41:245–69.Google Scholar
Frey, Bruno, and Stutzer, Alois. 2000. “Happiness, Economy and Institutions.” The Economic Journal 110(466):918–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friel, Brian. 2004. “Both Sides Claim Ballot-Issue Victories.” National Journal 36:3415.Google Scholar
Gamble, Barbara. 1997. “Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote.” American Journal of Political Science 41:245–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Elizabeth. 1997. “Perspective on Direct Democracy: Who Directs Direct Democracy?” University of Chicago Law School Roundtable 4:17–36.Google Scholar
Garrett, Elizabeth. 1999. “Money, Agenda Setting, And Direct Democracy.” Texas Law Review 77:1845–90.Google Scholar
Garrett, Elizabeth. 2005. “Hybrid Democracy.” George Washington Law Review 73:1096–130.Google Scholar
Garrett, Elizabeth, and Gerber, Elisabeth. 2001. “Money in the Initiative and Referendum Process: Evidence of its Effects and Prospects for Reform.” In The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking, ed. Waters, M. Dane. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Elizabeth, and Smith, Daniel. 2005. “Veiled Political Actors and Campaign Disclosure Laws in Direct Democracy.” Election Law Journal 4:295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40:99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1998. “Pressuring Legislatures through the Use of Initiatives: Two Forms of Indirect Influence.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 2001. “The Logic of Reform: Assessing Initiative Reform Strategies.” In Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America, eds. Sabato, Larry, Larson, Bruce, and Ernst, Howard. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, and Hug, Simon. 2001. “Minority Rights and Direct Legislation: Theory, Method and Evidence.” In Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns, eds. Mendelsohn, Matthew and Parkin, Andrew. New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, and Lupia, Arthur. 1995. “Campaign Competition and Policy Responsiveness in Direct Political Behavior.” Political Behavior 17:287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, and Lupia, Arthur. 1999. “Voter Competence in Direct Legislation Elections.” In Democracy and Citizen Competence, eds. Elkin, Steven and Soltan, Karol. University Park, PA: The Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew. 2004. “When Does Government Limit the Impact of Voter Initiatives? The Politics of Implementation and Enforcement.” Journal of Politics, 66:43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew, and Kiewiet, Roderick. 2001. Stealing the Initiative. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, and Phillips, Justin. 2005. “Evaluating the Effects of Direct Democracy on Public Policy.” American Politics Review 33:310–30.Google Scholar
Goebel, Thomas. 2002. A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890–1940. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Hanson, Russell, eds. 2004. Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis. 8th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Guber, Deborah Lynn. 2001. “Environmental Voting in the American States: A Tale of Two Initiatives.” State and Local Government Review 33:120–32.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald. 1999. “AIDS and Gay Civil Rights: Politics and Policy at the Ballot Box.” American Review of Politics 20:349–75.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald. 2001. “Shopping for Favorable Venues in the States: Institutional Influences on Legislative Outcomes of Same-Sex Marriage Bills.” American Review of Politics 22:27–54.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald, and Joslyn, Mark. 2005. “Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38:233–39.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald, and Meier, Kenneth J.. 1996. “The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict.” Journal of Politics 58:332–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan, Gerber, Elisabeth, and Louch, H.. 2002. “Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections.” Journal of Politics 64:154–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasen, Richard. 2000. “Parties Take the Initiative (and vice versa).” Columbia Law Review 100:731–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hero, Rodney. 1998. Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hero, Rodney, and Tolbert, Caroline. 1996. “A Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation of Politics and Policy in the States of the U.S.” American Journal of Political Science 40:851–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hero, Rodney, and Tolbert, Caroline. 2004. “Minority Voices and Citizen Attitudes about Government Responsiveness in the American States: Do Social and Institutional Context Matter?” British Journal of Political Science 34:109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillygus, Sunshine, and Shields, Todd. 2005. “Moral Issues and Voter Decision Making in the 2004 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38:201–10.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. The Age of Reform. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Howe, Frederic C. 1915. “The Constitution and Public Opinion.” In Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, ed. Henry Mussey 5:7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Blais, Andre, Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Nevitte, Neil. 1996. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Joslyn, Mark, and Haider-Markel, Donald. 2000. “Guns in the Ballot Box: Information, Groups, and Opinion in Ballot Initiative Campaigns.” American Politics Research 28:355–78.Google Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey. 1995. “Explaining Public Support for Legislative Term Limits.” Public Opinion Quarterly 59:373–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey. 1998. “The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initiative Campaigns.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Key, V.O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York, NY: A.A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Kobach, Kris. 1993. The Referendum: Direct Democracy in Switzerland. Dartmouth, UK: Aldershot.Google Scholar
Kousser, Thad. 2005. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, Thad, and McCubbins, Mathew. 2005. “Social Choice, Crypto-Initiatives, and Policymaking by Direct Democracy.” Southern California Law Review 78:949–84.Google Scholar
Lacey, R. 2005. “The Electoral Allure of Direct Democracy: The Effect of Initiative Salience on Voting, 1990–1996.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5(2):168–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascher, Edward, Hagen, Michael, and Rochlin, Steven. 1996. “Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies and Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 58:760–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, David. 2005. “The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 49(1):103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDuc, Lawrence. 2003. The Politics of Direct Democracy. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewkowicz, Michael. 2006. “The Effectiveness of Elite Cues as Heuristics in Proposition Elections.” American Politics Research 34:51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linde, Hans. 1994. “On Reconstructing Republican Government.” Oklahoma City University Law Review 19:193–211.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, Daniel. 1982. “Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience, Public Choice Theory, and the First Amendment.” UCLA Law Review 505:505–641.Google Scholar
Lowy, Joan. 2004. “DNC: Dems, GOP push ballot measures to influence voters.” Naples News.http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/news/article/0,2071,NPDN_14940_3071424,00.html (July 2004).Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88:63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 2001. “Dumber than Chimps? An Assessment of Direct Democracy Voters.” In Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America, eds. Sabato, Larry J., Ernst, Howard R., and Larson, Bruce A.. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Matsusaka, John. 2004. “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science 7:463–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magleby, David, and Patterson, Kelly. 1998. “Consultants and Direct Democracy.” PS: Political Science & Politics 31:160–9.Google Scholar
Magleby, David. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Manweller, Mathew. 2005. “Coalition Building in Direct Democracy Campaigns.” American Politics Research. 33:246–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschall, Mellissa, and Ruhil, Anirudh. 2005. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative Reconsidered: Addressing Endogeneity.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:327–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” Journal of Political Economy 103:587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” Journal of Politics 63:1250–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2005a. “The Endogeneity of the Initiative: A Comment on Marschall and Ruhil.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:356–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2005b. “Direct Democracy Works.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19:185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John, McCarty, andNolan. 2001. “Political Resource Allocation: Benefits and Costs of Voter Initiatives.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 17:413–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, Kevin. 1998. Creating a Democratic Public: The Struggle for Urban Participatory Democracy during the Progressive Era. University Park, PA: The Penn State Press.Google Scholar
McCuan, David, Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Fernandez, Ken. 1998. “California's Political Warriors: Campaign Professionals and the Initiative Process.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, Matthew, and Cutler, Fred. 2000. “The Effect of Referenda on Democratic Citizens: Information, Politicization, Efficacy and Tolerance.” British Journal of Political Science 30:669–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelsohn, Matthew, and Parkin, Andrew, eds. 2001. Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns. New York, NY: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, William B., ed. 1912. The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. New York, NY: Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
New, Michael. 2001. “Limiting Government through Direct Democracy: The Case of State Tax and Expenditure Limitations.” Cato Policy Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1279 (July 5, 2007).Google Scholar
Nicholson, Steven. 2003. “The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness.” American Journal of Political Science 47:403–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Steven. 2005. Voting the Agenda: Candidates Elections and Ballot Propositions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Norquist, Grover. 1993. “Prelude to a Landslide: How Republicans will Sweep the Congress.” Policy Review (Heritage Foundation) 66:30–5.Google Scholar
Paul, David, and Brown, Clyde. 2006. “The Dynamics of Elite Endorsements in Professional Sports Facility Referendums.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 6:272–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piott, Steven. 2003. Giving Voters a Voice: The Origins of the Initiative and Referendum in America. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
Pippen, J., Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2002. “Election Reform and Direct Democracy: The Case of Campaign Finance Regulations in the American States.” American Politics Research 30:559–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Charles. 1975. “The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon.” Western Political Quarterly 28:243–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preuhs, Robert R. 2005. “Descriptive Representation, Legislative Leadership, and Direct Democracy: Latino Influence on English Only Laws in the States, 1984–2002,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qvortrup, Mads. 2002. A Comparative Study of Referendums: Government by the People. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, David. 1989. Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia. PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Schrag, Peter. 1996. “Take the Initiative, Please.” The American Prospect 1:1–3.Google Scholar
Schrag, Peter. 1998. Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. New York, NY: New Press.Google Scholar
Sears, David, and Citrin, Jack. 1982. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shockley, John. 1983. “Money In Politics: Judicial Roadblocks to Campaign Finance Reform.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 10:679–92.Google Scholar
Shockley, John. 1985. “Direct Democracy, Campaign Finance, And The Courts: Can Corruption, Undue Influence, And Declining Voter Confidence Be Found?” University of Miami Law Review 39:377–428.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 1998. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 2001a. “Campaign Financing of Ballot Initiatives in the American States.” In Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America, eds. Sabato, Larry, Larson, Bruce, and Ernst, Howard. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 2001b. “Special Interests and Direct Democracy: An Historical Glance.” In The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking, eds. Waters, M. Dane. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 2001c. “Homeward Bound? Micro-Level Legislative Responsiveness to Ballot Initiatives.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 2003. “Overturning Term Limits: The Legislature's Own Private Idaho?” PS: Political Science and Politics 36:215–20.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 2004. “Peeling Away the Populist Rhetoric: Toward a Taxonomy of Anti-Tax Ballot Initiatives.” Public Budgeting and Finance 24:88–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 2006a. “Initiatives and Referendums: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Candidate Elections.” In The Electoral Challenge: Theory Meets Practice, ed. Craig, Steven. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 2006b. “Money Talks: Ballot Initiative Spending in 2004.” Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. http://ballot.org/index.asp (July 5, 2007).Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel, DeSantis, Matthew, and Kassel, Jason. 2006. “Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures and the 2004 Presidential Election.” State and Local Government Review 38:78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel, and Herrington, Robert. 2000. “The Process of Direct Democracy: Colorado's 1996 Parental Rights Amendment.” Social Science Journal 37:179–94.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel, and Log, Sure. 2005. “Orange Crush: Mobilization of Bias, Ballot Initiatives, andthe Politics of Professional Sports Stadia.” In Initiative-Centered Politics, eds. McCuan, David and Stambough, Stephen. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel, and Lubinski, Joseph. 2002. “Direct Democracy during the Progressive Era: A Crack in the Populist Veneer?” Journal of Policy History 14:349–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel, and Tolbert, Caroline. 2001. “The Initiative to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California.” Party Politics 7:738–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel, and Tolbert, Caroline. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Mark. 2001. “The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 45:700–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Mark. 2002. “Ballot Initiatives and the Democratic Citizen.” Journal of Politics 64:892–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas. 2006. “Is Spending More Potent For or Against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures.” American Journal of Political Science 50:788–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, James. 1892. Direct Legislation by the Citizenship through the Initiative and Referendum. New York, NY: True Nationalist Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline. 1998. “Changing Rules for State Legislatures: Direct Democracy and Governance Policies.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline. 2001. “Public Policy and Direct Democracy.” In The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking, ed. Waters, M. Dane. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline. 2003. “Cycles of Democracy: Direct Democracy and Institutional Realignment in the American States.” Political Science Quarterly 118(3):467–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, and Grummel, John. 2003. “White Voter Support for California's Proposition 209: Revisiting the Racial Threat Hypothesis.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3:183–202.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, Grummel, John, and Smith, Daniel. 2001. “The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States.” American Politics Research 29:625–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, and Hero, Rodney. 1996. “Race/Ethnicity and Direct Democracy: An Analysis of California's Illegal Immigration Initiative.” Journal of Politics 58:806–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, and Hero, Rodney. 2001. “Facing Diversity: Racial/Ethnic Context and Social Policy Change.” Political Research Quarterly 54:571–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, Lowenstein, Daniel, and Donovan, Todd. 1998. “Election Law and Rules for Using Initiatives.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, McNeal, Ramona, and Smith, Daniel. 2003. “Enhancing Civic Engagement: The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Participation and Knowledge.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3:23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, and Smith, Daniel. 2005. “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Research 33:283–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, and Steuernagel, Gertrude. 2003. “Race/Ethnicity and Referenda on Redistributive Health Care.” In Race, Welfare, and the Politics of Reform, eds. Fording, Richard, Soss, Joe, and Schram, Sanford. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Voss, D. Stephen, and Miller, Penny. 2001. “Following a False Trail: The Hunt for White Backlash in Kentucky's 1996 Desegregation Vote.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, M. Dane, ed. 2001. The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wenzel, James, Donovan, Todd, and Bowler, Shaun. 1998. “Direct Democracy and Minorities: Changing Attitudes about Minorities Targeted by Initiatives.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Delos. 1912. Government by all the People (or The Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall as Instruments of Democracy. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Witt, Stephanie L., and McCorkel, Suzanne. 1997. Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Greestein, Fred I.. 1968. “The Repeal of Fair Housing in California: An Analysis of Referendum Voting.” The American Political Science Review 62:753–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph. 1999. The Initiative: Citizen Law-Making. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Zisk, Betty. 1987. Money, Media, and the Grass Roots: State Ballot Issues and the Electoral Process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar