Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:54:09.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Threat and Partisan Outcomes: Legislative Candidates' Attitudes toward Direct Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Shaun Bowler ,
Todd Donovan ,
Max Neiman  and
Johnny Peel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses a three-state survey to examine how state legislators and legislative candidates view the ballot initiative process. We hypothesize that state legislators see the initiative as a rival to the legislature, and that the initiative is evaluated in terms of expectations about policy outcomes. We test whether opinions about the initiative are related to legislative incumbency, partisan interests, or both. We find that incumbents, regardless of party, are more interested in constraining the initiative than non-incumbents. We also find an independent effect of partisanship, with Republicans having a more positive view of the initiative than Democrats.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , Winter 2001 , pp. 364 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 The American Political Science Association

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

Abramson, Paul, and Aldrich, John. 1982. “The Decline of Participation in America.” American Political Science Review 76:502–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Herbert B. 1973. “The Learning of Legislative Norms.” American Political Science Review 67:499–513.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, S., Donovan, T., and Tolbert, C.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Broder, David S. 2000. Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce, and Gerber, Elisabeth, eds. 2001. Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary. Berkeley, CA: IGS/University of California Press.Google Scholar
California Commission on Campaign Financing. 1992. Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California's Fourth Branch of Government. Los Angeles: Center for Responsive Politics.Google Scholar
Assembly, California State. 1972. Public Hearings on the Initiative Process. Sacramento, CA: Elections and Reapportionment Committee.Google Scholar
Chavez, Lydia. 1998. The Color Bind: California's Battle to End Affirmative Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cramines, E., and Zeller, R.. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-001. Beverly Hills, CA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, Thomas. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Dubois, Philip, and Feeney, Floyd. 1998. Lawmaking by Initiative: Issues, Options, and Comparisons. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1962. “The House Appropriations Committee as a Political System: The Problem of Integration.” American Political Science Review 56:310–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, Barbara. 1997. “Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote.” American Journal of Political Science 91: 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1995. “Reforming the California Initiative Process: A Proposal to Increase Flexibility and Legislative Accountability.” In Constitutional Reform in California: Making State Government More Effective and Responsive, eds. Cain, Bruce and Noll, R.. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiative.” 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, S., Donovan, T., and Tolbert, C.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Hagen, Michael, and Lascher, Edward Jr. 1998. “Public Opinion about Ballot Initiatives.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Hanushek, Eric, and Jackson, John. 1977. Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hedge, D., Button, J., and Spear, M.. 1996. “Accounting for the Quality of Black Legislative Life.” American Journal of Political Science 40:82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Claudius. 1944. “The Adoption of the Initiative and Referendum in Washington.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 35:291–304.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.. 1984. “Choices, Values and Frames.” American Psychologist 39:341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, J. 1992. Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Donald. 1960. U.S. Senators and Their World. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Magleby, David. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Magleby, David. 1994. “Direct Legislation in the American States.” Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy, eds. Butler, D. and Ranney, A.. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Magleby, David, and Patterson, Kelly. 1998. “Consultants and Direct Democracy.” PS: Political Science and Politics 31:160–169.Google Scholar
Moncrief, Gary, Thompson, Joel A., and Kurtz, Karl T.. 1996. “The Old Statehouse, It Ain't What It Used to Be.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 21:57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, William. 1912. The Initiative, Referendum and Recall. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Newton, Lina. 2000. “Why Some Latinos Supported Proposition 187: Testing Economic Threat and Cultural Identity Hypotheses.” Social Science Quarterly 81:180–193.Google Scholar
Renner, T. 1992. “Municipal Election Processes: The Impact on Minority Representation.” In The 1988 Municipal Yearbook. Washington, DC: International City Managers Association.Google Scholar
Riker, W. 1980. “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 74:423–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 1998. The Decline of Representative Democracy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Schrag, Peter. 1998. Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K., and Weingast, Barry. 1981. “Structure-Induced Equilibrium and Legislative Choice.” Public Choice 37:503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. 1976. “The Functional Properties of the Referendum.” European Journal of Political Research 4:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 1998. Tax Crusaders: and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York: Routlege.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 1999. “The Initiative to Party: The Role of Political Parties in State Ballot Initiatives.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel A. 2001. “Homeward Bound? Micro-Level Legislative Responsiveness to Ballot Initiatives.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:50–61.CrossRefGoogle 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, S., Donovan, T., and Tolbert, C.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, and Hero, Rodney. 1998. “Race/Ethnicity and Direct Democracy: The Contextual Basis of Support for Anti-Immigrant and Official English Measures.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, S., Donovan, T., and Tolbert, C.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google 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, S., Donovan, T. and Tolbert, C.. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1990. Nested Games. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Waters, M. Dane. 2000. “Tax and Spending Initiatives.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association. San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
Williams, G., and Chin, G.. 2000. “The Failure of Citizens' Initiated Referenda ProposalsGoogle Scholar