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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsonPaulAldrichJohn. 1982. “The Decline of Participation in America.” American Political Science Review76:502–21.
2.
AsherHerbert B.1973. “The Learning of Legislative Norms.” American Political Science Review67:499–513.
3.
BanducciSusan. 1998. Direct Legislation: When Is It Used and When Does It Pass? In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. BowlerS.DonovanT.Tolbertand C.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
4.
BroderDavid S.2000. Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money. New York: Harcourt.
5.
CainBruceGerberElisabeth, eds. 2001. Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary. Berkeley, CA: IGS/University of California Press.
6.
California Commission on Campaign Financing.1992. Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California's Fourth Branch of Government. Los Angeles: Center for Responsive Politics.
7.
California State Assembly.1972. Public Hearings on the Initiative Process. Sacramento, CA: Elections and Reapportionment Committee.
8.
ChavezLydia. 1998. The Color Bind: California's Battle to End Affirmative Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
CraminesE.Zellerand R.. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07–001. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
10.
CroninThomas. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
DillmanD.1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
12.
DuboisPhilipFeeneyFloyd. 1998. Lawmaking by Initiative: Issues, Options, and Comparisons. New York: Agathon Press.
13.
FennoRichard. 1962. “The House Appropriations Committee as a Political System: The Problem of Integration.” American Political Science Review56:310–24.
14.
GambleBarbara. 1997. “Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote.” American Journal of Political Science91: 245–69.
15.
GerberElisabeth. 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. NollBruce Cain and R.. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
16.
GerberElisabeth. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiative.” American Journal of Political Science40:99–128.
17.
GerberElisabeth. 1998. Pressuring Legislatures through the Use of Initiatives: Two Forms of Indirect Influence. In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. BowlerS.DonovanT.Tolbertand C.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
18.
HagenMichaelLascherEdwardJr.1998. Public Opinion about Ballot Initiatives. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
19.
HanushekEricJacksonJohn. 1977. Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. New York: Academic Press.
20.
HedgeD.ButtonJ.Spearand M.. 1996. “Accounting for the Quality of Black Legislative Life.” American Journal of Political Science40:82–98.
21.
InglehartRonald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
JohnsonClaudius. 1944. “The Adoption of the Initiative and Referendum in Washington.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly35:291–304.
23.
KahnemanD.Tverskyand A.. 1984. “Choices, Values and Frames.” American Psychologist39:341–50.
24.
KnightJ.1992. Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
MatthewsDonald. 1960. U.S. Senators and Their World. New York: Random House.
26.
MaglebyDavid. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
MaglebyDavid. 1994. Direct Legislation in the American States.Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy, eds. ButlerD.RanneyA.. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
28.
MaglebyDavidPattersonKelly. 1998. “Consultants and Direct Democracy.” PS: Political Science and Politics31:160–9.
29.
MoncriefGaryThompsonJoel A.KurtzKarl T.. 1996. “The Old Statehouse, It Ain't What It Used to Be.” Legislative Studies Quarterly21:57–72.
30.
MunroWilliam. 1912. The Initiative, Referendum and Recall. New York: Appleton.
31.
NewtonLina. 2000. “Why Some Latinos Supported Proposition 187: Testing Economic Threat and Cultural Identity Hypotheses.” Social Science Quarterly81:180–93.
32.
RennerT.1992. Municipal Election Processes: The Impact on Minority Representation. In The 1988 Municipal Yearbook. Washington, DC: International City Managers Association.
33.
RikerW.1980. “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review74:423–77.
34.
RosenthalAlan. 1998. The Decline of Representative Democracy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
35.
SchragPeter. 1998. Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. New York: The New Press.
36.
ShepsleK.WeingastBarry. 1981. “Structure-Induced Equilibrium and Legislative Choice.” Public Choice37:503–19.
37.
SmithG.1976. “The Functional Properties of the Referendum.” European Journal of Political Research4:1–23.
38.
SmithDaniel. 1998. Tax Crusaders: and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York: Routlege.
39.
SmithDaniel. 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.
40.
SmithDaniel A.2001. “Homeward Bound? Micro-Level Legislative Responsiveness to Ballot Initiatives.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly1:50–61.
41.
TolbertCaroline. 1998. Changing Rules for State Legislatures: Direct Democracy and Governance Policies. In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. BowlerS.DonovanT.Tolbertand C.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
42.
TolbertCarolineHeroRodney. 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. BowlerS.DonovanT.Tolbertand C.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
43.
TolbertCarolineLowensteinDanielDonovanTodd. 1998. Election Law and Rules for Using Initiatives. In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. BowlerS.DonovanT.TolbertC.. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
44.
TsebelisGeorge. 1990. Nested Games. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
45.
WatersM. Dane. 2000. Tax and Spending Initiatives. Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association. San Jose, CA.
46.
WilliamsG.Chinand G.. 2000. “The Failure of Citizens' Initiated Referenda Proposals
