Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9b74x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-05T19:19:14.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Delegating Direct Democracy: Interparty Legislative Competition and the Adoption of the Initiative in the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

DANIEL A. SMITH  and
DUSTIN FRIDKIN
DANIEL A. SMITH*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
DUSTIN FRIDKIN*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
*
Daniel A. Smith is Associate Professor, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-7325. E-mail: dasmith@polisci.ufl.edu
Dustin Fridkin is a doctoral candidate, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-7325. E-mail: dfridkin@polisci.ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Between 1898 and 1918, voters in 20 American states adopted constitutional amendments granting citizens the power of the initiative. The embrace of direct democracy by voters invites inquiry into why some state legislatures opted to delegate to citizens the power of the initiative, while others did not. Drawing on an original data set, this article uses Event History Analysis hazard models to explain the puzzle of why legislatures might devolve institutional power to citizens. Our longitudinal, macrolevel analysis of socioeconomic and political forces reveals that political considerations—interparty legislative competition, party organizational strength, and third parties—are the most powerful predictors of a legislature's decision to refer the initiative to the ballot. Although several of our findings comport with the conventional wisdom explaining the adoption of the initiative during the Progressive Era, others are surprising, offering us new theoretical insights into why and when legislative bodies might be willing to divest themselves of their institutional power.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 333 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allswang, John. 2000. The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898–1998. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Alt, James E., and Lowry, Robert C.. 1994. “Divided Government, Fiscal Institutions, and Budget Deficits: Evidence from the States.” American Political Science Review 88 (December): 811–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Melissa Cully. 2005. “Exploring the Conditions Under Which Legislatures Cede Authority: Legislative Consideration of Initiative Mechanisms, 1898–1916.” Paper presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 7–9.Google Scholar
Argersinger, Peter. 1980. “A Place on the Ballot: Fusion Politics and Antifusion Laws.” American Historical Review 85 (April): 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaszak, Lee Ann. 1996. Why Movements Succeed or Fail: Opportunity, Culture, and the Struggle for Woman Suffrage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrilleux, Charles, Holbrook, Thomas, and Langer, Laura. 2002. “Electoral Competition, Legislative Balance, and American State Welfare Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (April): 415–27.Google Scholar
Beard, Charles, and Shultz, Birl, eds. 1912. Documents on the State-Wide Initiative, Referendum and Recall. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 1998. “Modeling Space and Time: The Event History Approach.” In Scarbrough, Elinor and Tanenbaum, Eric. Research Strategies in the Social Sciences: A Guide to New Approaches. ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Frances Stokes, and Berry, William. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review 84 (June): 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bibby, John, and Holbrook, Thomas, “Parties and Elections.” In Politics in the American States. 8th ed. ed. Gray, Virginia and Hanson, Russell.Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2006. “Direct Democracy and Political Parties in America.” Party Politics 12: 649–69.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Karp, Jeffray. 2002. “When Might Institutions Change? Elite Support for Direct Democracy in Three Nations.” Political Research Quarterly 55: 731–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Lawrence, Eric. 2005. “>Choosing Direct Democracy: On the Creation of Initiative Institutions in the American States.” Paper presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 31–September 4.Choosing+Direct+Democracy:+On+the+Creation+of+Initiative+Institutions+in+the+American+States.”+Paper+presented+at+the+2005+annual+meeting+of+the+American+Political+Science+Association,+Washington,+DC,+August+31–September+4.>Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Jones, Bradford. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, Amy, and Kousser, Thad. 2005. “What Went on Out West? Explaining Geographic Patterns in the Adoption of Direct Democracy.” Paper presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the Social Science History Association, Portland, OR, November 3–6.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1992. “Partisan Division of American State Governments, 1834–1985” [Computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR 0016.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. ed. Sabato, Larry, Larson, Bruce, and Ernst, Howard, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel P. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputation, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clemens, Elisabeth. 1997. The People's Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics in the United States, 1890–1925. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cnudde, Charles, and McCrone, David. 1969. “Party Competition and Welfare Policies in the American States.” American Political Science Review 63 (September): 858–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coker, Frederick W. 1916. “Interworkings of State Administration and Direct Legislation.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 64 (March): 122–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connors, Arthur. 1917. “Direct Legislation in 1916.” American Political Science Review 11 (February): 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Thomas. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, Jocelyn Elise, and Skocpol, Theda. 2001. “The Rush to Organize: Explaining Associational Formation in the United States, 1860s–1920s.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (October): 813–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Paul, and Eisenberg, Ralph. 1961. Devaluation of the Urban and Suburban Vote: A Statistical Investigation of Long-Term Trends in State Legislative Representation. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
de Figueiredo, Rui J. P. 2003. “Budget Institutions and Political Insulation: Why States Adopt the Item Veto.” Journal of Public Economics 87: 2677–2701.Google Scholar
Dion, Douglas. 1997. Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew: Minority Rights and Procedural Change in Legislative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C. 1977. “Congress and the Quest for power.” in Congress Reconsidered. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer, eds. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C., and Jillson, Calvin, eds. 1994. The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Richard. 2002. Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Epstein, Leon. 1986. Political Parties in the American Mold. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Lawrence. 1918. “Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.” American Political Science Review 12 (February): 115–18.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Foxcroft, Frank. 1911. “Initiative-Referendum in the United States.” In Selected Articles on the Initiative and Referendum, ed. Phelps, E. M.. New York: H.W. White.Google Scholar
Galbreath, C. B. 1912. “Provisions for State-Wide Initiative and Referendum.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 43: 81–109.Google Scholar
Garner, J.W. 1907. “Primary vs. Representative Government.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association 4: 164–74.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics.” Political Analysis 2: 131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1991. “A Game Theoretic Model of Reform in Latin American Democracies.” American Political Science Review 85 (June): 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1999. Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 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
Gill, Jeff. 2006. Essential Mathematics for Political and Social Research. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goebel, Thomas. 2002. A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1973. “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study.” American Political Science Review 67 (December): 1174–85.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Howard. 1970. “Direct Legislation: Some Implications of the Open Housing Referenda.” American Political Science Review 64 (March): 124–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, George H. 1919. “How Massachusetts Adopted the Initiative and Referendum.” Political Science Quarterly 34 (September): 454–75.Google Scholar
Hays, Samuel P. 1964. “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55 (October): 157–69.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. The Age of Reform. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas, and Van Dunk, Emily. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” American Political Science Review 87: 955–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, David, and Lemeshow, Stanley. 1999. Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time to Event Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Huthmarcher, J. Joseph. 1962. “Urban Liberalism and the Age of Reform.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 49 (September): 231–41.Google Scholar
James, Scott C. 2000. Presidents, Parties, and the State: A Party System Perspective on Democratic Regulatory Choice, 1884–1936. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kallenbach, Joseph. 1977. American State Governors, 1776–1976. Dobb's Ferry, NY: Oceana Press.Google Scholar
Kerber, Stephen. 1994. “The Initiative and Referendum in Florida, 1911–1912.” Florida Historical Quarterly 72 (January): 302–15.Google Scholar
Kettleborough, Charles. 1914. “Initiative and Referendum.” American Political Science Review 8 (May): 251–57.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1956. American State Politics: An Introduction. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Keyssar, Alexander. 2002. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
King, Judson. 1913. “Adoption of the State-Wide Initiative and Ref.” Washington, DC: Bureau of Information, The National Popular Government.Google Scholar
Kolko, Gabriel. 1963. The Truimph of Conservativism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, J. Morgan. 1974. The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapp, John A. 1916. “The Initiative and Referendum in 1915.” American Political Science Review 10: 320–27.Google Scholar
Link, Arthur, and McCormick, Richard. 1983. Progressivism. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.Google Scholar
Lott, John R., and Kenny, Lawrence W.. 1999. “Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government.” Journal of Political Economy 107 (December): 1163–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2000. “Representation or Abdication? How Citizens Use Institutions to Help Delegation Succeed.” European Journal of Political Research 37 (May): 291–307.Google Scholar
Magleby, David. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, James, and Olsen, Johan. 1984. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life.” American Political Science Review 78 (September): 734–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2008. “Direct Democracy and the Executive.” In Direct Democracy's Impact on American Political Institutions. ed. Bowler, Shaun and Glazer, Amihai. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Mattson, Kevin. 1998. Creating a Democratic Public: The Struggle for Urban Participatory Democracy During the Progressive Era. University Park: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1986. Placing Parties in American Politics: Organization, Electoral Settings, and Government Activity in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonagh, Eileen L. 1992. “Representative Democracy and State Building in the Progressive Era.” American Political Science Review 86: 938–50.Google Scholar
McDonagh, Eileen L., and Price, H. Douglas. 1985. “Woman Suffrage in the Progressive Era: Patterns of Opposition and Support in Referenda Voting, 1910–1918.” American Political Science Review 79: 415–35.Google Scholar
Megill, Allan. 1989. “Recounting the Past: ‘Description.’ Explanation, and Narrative in Historiography.” The American Historical Review 94 (June): 627–53.Google Scholar
Milkis, Sidney M., and Tichenor, Daniel J.. 1994. “‘Direct Democracy’ and Social Justice: The Progressive Party Campaign of 1912.” Studies in American Political Development 8 (Fall): 282–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1990. “Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organizations 6: 213–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. “Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (March): 103–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morehouse, Sarah M., and Jewell, Malcolm E.. 2004. “States as Laboratories: A Reprise.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowry, George. 1940. “The South and the Progressive Lily White Party of 1912.” The Journal of Southern History 6 (May): 237–47.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2007. Initiative & Referendum Legislation database. www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/initiative.cfm. (November 2007).Google Scholar
Orren, Karen, and Skowronek, Stephen. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persily, Nathaniel A. 1997. “The Peculiar Geography of Direct Democracy: Why the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Developed in the American West.” Michigan Law and Public Policy Review 2: 11–41.Google Scholar
Piott, Steven L. 1992. “The Origins of the Initiative and Referendum in America.” Hayes Historical Journal 11 (Spring): 5–17.Google Scholar
Piott, Steven L. 2003. Giving Voters a Voice: The Origins of the Initiative and Referendum in America. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll-Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Charles. 1975. “The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon.” Western Political Quarterly 28: 243–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhode, David. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosenson, Beth. 2005. The Shadowlands of Conduct: Ethics and State Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Elizabeth. 1999. Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scarrow, Susan. 1997. “Party Competition and Institutional Change.” Party Politics 3: 451–72.Google Scholar
Schmidt, David. 1989. Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Sharkansky, Ira, and Hofferbert, Richard. 1969. “Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy.” American Political Science Review 63 (September): 867–79.Google Scholar
Shefter, Martin. 1994. Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sklar, Martin. 1998. The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890–1916: The Market, the Law, and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda et al. 1993. “Women's Associations and the Enactment of Mothers' Pensions in the United States.” American Political Science Review 87 (September): 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen. 1982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A. 1998. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Lubinski, Joseph. 2002. “Direct Democracy during the Progressive Era: A Crack in the Populist Veneer?” Journal of Policy History 14: 349–83.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoonholtz, Lloyd. 1973. “The Initiative and Referendum: Direct Democracy in Perspective, 1898–1920.” American Studies 14 (Spring): 43–64.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds. 1992. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, David P. 1969. “Social Tensions and the Origins of Progressivism.” Journal of American History 56 (September): 323–41.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2005. The Power of the People: Congressional Competition, Public Attention, and Voter Retribution. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline. 2003. “Cycles of Democracy: Direct Democracy and Institutional Realignment in the American States.” Political Science Quarterly 118 (Fall): 467–89.Google Scholar
Tontz, Robert L. 1964. “Memberships of General Farmers' Organizations, United States, 1874–1960.” Agricultural History 38 (July): 143–56.Google Scholar
Ware, Alan. 2002. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith, and Carpenter, Daniel P.. 2003. “Executive Power in American Institutional Development.” Perspectives in Politics 1 (September): 495–513.Google Scholar
Wiebe, Robert H. 1967. The Search for Order. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Delos F. 1912. Government by All the People, or, the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall as Instruments of Democracy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wyman, Roger E. 1974. “Middle Class Voters and Progressive Reform: The Conflict of Class and Culture.” American Political Science Review 68 (June): 488–504.Google Scholar
Zorn, Christopher. 2005. “A Solution to Separation in Binary Response Models.” Political Analysis 13: 157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.