Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:49:03.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agenda Setting by Direct Democracy: Comparing the Initiative and the Referendum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

David F. Damore ,
Shaun Bowler  and
Stephen P. Nicholson
David F. Damore*
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA
Shaun Bowler
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside, USA
Stephen P. Nicholson
Affiliation:
University of California, Merced, USA
*
David F. Damore, Department of Political Science, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455029, NV 89154, USA Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using research on the initiative as a point of comparison, we consider how frequently and for what ends state legislators use the referendum. Akin to initiative use, we find that legislators are constrained by procedural hurdles in their ability to place referendums on the ballot. However, in contrast to research on the initiative, which emphasizes the role of interest groups as the drivers of initiatives, our analysis suggests that referendum use is motivated by partisan legislative majorities seeking to achieve a mix of political and policy goals.

Keywords

direct democracylegislative referendumstate political institutionsstate legislatures
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 367 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012

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

Banducci, Susan A. 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: Ohio State University, 109–131.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, Theodore C., Rubinfeld, Daniel L., and Shapiro, Perry. 1982. “Explaining Voter Behavior toward Local School Expenditures: The Impact of Attitudes.” Economics of Education Review 9(1): 31–45.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Governmental Ideology in the American States, 1960-93.” American Journal of Political Science 41(1): 327–48.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Case, Anne. 2003. “Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature 41(1): 7–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005a. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation: How Institutions Shape Interest Groups Systems. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005b. “Sources of Variation in the Frequency of Statewide Initiatives: The Role of Interest Group Populations.” Political Research Quarterly 58(4): 565–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion and Voting in Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004. “Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not all Initiatives Are Created Equal.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4(3): 345–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brokow, Alan J., Gale, James R., and Merz, Thomas E.. 1990. “The Effect of Tax Price on Voter Choice in Local School Referenda: Some New Evidence from Michigan.” National Tax Journal 43(1): 53–60.Google Scholar
Camobreco, John F. 1998. “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process.” Journal of Politics 60(3): 819–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceaser, James W., and Saldin, Robert P.. 2005. “A New Measure of Party Strength.” Political Research Quarterly 58(2): 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colantuono, Michael G. 1987. “The Revision of American State Constitutions: Legislative Power, Popular Sovereignty, and Constitutional Change.” California Law Review 75(4): 1473–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damore, David F., and Bowler, Shaun. 2011. “Governance Reform via Direct Democracy: Comparing the Referendum and Initiative Processes.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. March 31-April 3.Google Scholar
Damore, David F., and Nicholson, Stephen P.. 2011. “The Etiology of Interest Mobilization in Direct Democracy Elections.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association, Las Vegas, NV. March 16-19.Google Scholar
Dyck, Joshua J. 2009. “Initiated Distrust: Direct Democracy and Trust in Government.” American Politics Research 37(4): 539–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figlio, David N., and O'Sullivan, Arthur. 2001. “The Local Response to Tax Limitation Measures: Do Local Governments Manipulate Voters to Increase Revenues?” Journal of Law & Economics 44(1): 233–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, William B. 2006. “Constitutional Referendum in the United States of America.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 54(Fall): 485–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fort, Rodney. 1988. “The Median Voters, Setters, and Non-Repeated Construction Bond Issue.” Public Choice 56(1): 213–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazey, Penelope J. 1971. “Direct Democracy—A Study of the American Referendum.” Parliamentary Affairs 24(Spring): 123–39.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 2001. “The Expression of Density Dependence in State Communities of Organized Interests.” American Politics Quarterly 29(4): 374–91.Google Scholar
Harden, Jeffrey J. 2011. “A Bootstrap Method for Conducting Statistical Inference with Clustered Data.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11(2): 223–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O., and Crouch, Winston W.. 1938. The Initiative and Referendum in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Roderick, Kiewiet D.. 1995. “Constitutional Limitations on Indebtedness: The Case of California.” In Constitutional Reform in California, eds. Cain, Bruce and Noll, Roger. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, 377–397.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick and Szakaty, Kristin 1996. “Constitutional Limitations on Borrowing: An Analysis of State Bonded Indebtedness.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 12(1): 62–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, James D. 2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(2): 327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousser, Thad. 2005. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Krislov, Marvin, and Katz, Daniel M.. 2008. “Taking State Constitutions Seriously.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 17:295–342.Google Scholar
Lascher, Edward L. Jr., Hagen, Michael G., and Rochlin, Steven A.. 1996. “Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies, and Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 58(3): 760–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103(3): 367–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDuc, Lawrence. 2003. The Politics of Direct Democracy: Referendums in Global Perspective. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Markham, Jerry W. 2001. A Financial History of the United States, Volume 3: From The Age of Derivatives into the New Millennium. (1970-2001). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge. 1981. “Selfishness versus Public ”Regardingness“ in Voting Behavior.” Journal of Public Economics 15(3): 349–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 1992. “Economics of Direct Legislation.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107(2): 541–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” Journal of Politics 63(4): 250–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the Many or the Few. Chicago: University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. and McCarty, Nolan M.. 2001. “Political Resource Allocation: Benefits and Costs of Voter Initiatives.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 17(2): 413–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moncrief, Gary F., Niemi, Richard G., and Powell, Lynda W.. 2004. “Time, Term Limits, and Turnover: Trends in Membership Stability in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29(3): 357–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2005. Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elections, and Ballot Propositions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Charles M. 1975. “The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon.” Western Political Quarterly 27(2): 243–62.Google Scholar
Priest, Thomas B., and Fox, Linette P.. 2005. “Minority Support for School Bonds in CharlotteMecklenburg, A Cautionary Note.” Education and Urban Society 27(2): 192–203.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1979. “Bureaucrats versus Voters: On the Political Economy of Resource Allocation by Direct Democracy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 93(4): 563–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, David. 1989. Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., and Citrin, Jack. 1985. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California (Enlarged Edition). Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Shabman and Stephenson, Kurt. 1994. “A Critique of the Self-Interested Model: The Case of a Local Single Issue Referendum.” Journal of Economic Issues 28(4): 1173–86.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Fridkin, Dustin. 2008. “Delegating Direct Democracy: Interparty Legislative Competition and the Adoption of the Initiative in the American States.” American Political Science Review 102(3): 333–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. “Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17(1): 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7(2): 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tedin, Kent L., Matland, Richard E., and Weiher, Gregory R.. 2001. “Age, Race, Self-Interest, and Financing Schools through Referenda.” Journal of Politics 63(1): 270–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J. 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 J.. Columbus: Ohio State University, 171–190.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J. 2003. “Direct Democracy and Institutional Realignment in the American States.” Political Science Quarterly 118(3): 467–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph. 2001. Referendum: The People Decide Public Policy. Westport. CT: Praeger.Google Scholar