No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Are Initiatives an End-Run Around the Legislative Process? Divided Government and Voter Support for California Initiatives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 November 2023
Abstract
Interest groups and policy advocates often view the initiative process as a way to circumvent a gridlocked state legislative process. A major assumption behind this strategy is that this alternative path can be successful. We theorize that the same conflict and lack of consensus that killed the legislation in the legislative process may resurface in the electorate and jeopardize the measure’s chances of success at the ballot box. We test this proposition on all initiatives in California from 1912 to 2020 and on a smaller subset of the data that controls for campaign spending and the economy. We find clear and consistent evidence that voter support for initiatives, especially fiscal initiatives, declines under periods of divided government. In addition, interactive models show that increasing levels of party polarization exacerbate these effects. We conclude by discussing the implications of these results for the debate about whether the initiative process makes states more responsive to constituent opinion.
Keywords
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the State Politics and Policy Section of the American Political Science Association
References
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2002. “Direct Democracy and the Link Between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2(4): 372–87.Google Scholar
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, 109–31. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. (1999) “The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96.” American Political Science Review 93(3): 519–33.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005a. “Sources of Variation in the Frequency of Statewide Initiatives: The Role of Interest Group Populations.” Political Research Quarterly 58(4): 565–75.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005b. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation: How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., Osborn, Tracy L., and Schilling, Emily U.. 2015. “Pivotal Politics and Initiative Use in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 68(4): 665–77.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. and Witmer, R.. 2004. “Disentangling Diffusion: The Effects of Social Learning and Economic Competition on State Policy Innovation and Expansion.” Political Research Quarterly 57(1): 39–51.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion and Voting in Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Branton, Regina P. 2003. “Examining Individual-Level Voting Behavior on State Ballot Propositions.” Political Research Quarterly 56(3): 367–77.Google Scholar
Brunner, Eric, Ross, Stephen L., and Washington, Ebonya. 2011. “Economics and Policy Preferences: Causal Evidence of the Impact of Economic Conditions on Support for Redistribution and Other Ballot Proposals.” Review of Economics and Statistics 93(3): 888–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Craig M. and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2014. “Sex and the Ballot Box: Perception of Ballot Measures Regarding Same-Sex Marriage and Abortion in California.” Journal of Public Policy 34(1): 3–33.Google Scholar
Burnett, Craig M. and Parry, Janine A.. 2014. “Gubernatorial Endorsements and Ballot Measure Approval.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 14(2): 178–95.Google Scholar
Caughey, Devin, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2016. “The Dynamics of State Policy Liberalism, 1936-2014.” American Journal of Political Science 60(4): 899–913.Google Scholar
Caughey, Devin, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2018. “Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014.” American Political Science Review 112(2): 249–66.Google Scholar
Childers, Matt, and Binder, Mike. 2012. “Engaged by the Initiative? How the Use of Citizen Initiatives Increases Voter Turnout.” Political Research Quarterly 65(1): 93–103.Google Scholar
Clarke, Wes. 1998. “Divided Government and Budget Conflict in the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Jeff. 2012. “An Empirical Analysis of California Budget Gridlock.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 12(1): 23–42.Google Scholar
Cummins, Jeff. 2018. “The Determinants of Ballot-box Budgeting in California.” State and Local Government Review 50(2): 98–109.Google Scholar
Cummins, Jeffrey. 2023. “Replication Data for: Are Initiatives an End Run Around the Legislative Process? Divided Government and Voter Support for California Initiatives.” UNC Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:+J3/dZUoBKuym20wLYdPGw==[fileUNF]. https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/VK1LRD.Google Scholar
Damore, David F., Bowler, Shaun, and Nicholson, Stephen P.. 2012. “Agenda Setting by Direct Democracy: Comparing the Initiative and the Referendum.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 12(4): 367–93.Google Scholar
de Figueiredo, John M., Ji, Chang Ho, and Kousser, Thad. 2011. “Financing Direct Democracy: Revisiting the Research on Campaign Spending and Citizen Initiatives.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 27(3): 485–514.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd. 2014. “Referendums and Initiatives in North America,” In Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy, ed. Qvortrup, Matt. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Dyck, Joshua J. and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2019. “Ballot Initiatives and Status Quo Bias.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 19(2): 180–207.Google Scholar
Fahey, Kevin, Weissert, Carol S., and Uttermark, Matthew J.. 2018. “Extra, Extra, (Don’t) Roll-Off about It! Newspaper Endorsements for Ballot Measures.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 18(1): 93–113.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1996. Divided Government, 2nd edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Franko, William, Tolbert, Caroline J., and Witko, Christopher. 2013. “Inequality, Self-Interest, and Public Support for ‘Robin Hood’ Tax Policies.” Political Research Quarterly 66(4): 923–37.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 99–128.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, William D. 2013. “Initiatives within Representative Government: Political Competition and Initiative Use in the American States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13(4): 471–94.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Klarner, Carl. 2002. “The Many Faces of Elite Power in the ‘System of 1896.’” Journal of Politics 64(4): 1115–36.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 2004. “Partisan and Ideological Polarization in the California Electorate.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4(2): 113–39.Google Scholar
Kousser, Thad. 2010. “Does Partisan Polarization Lead to Policy Gridlock in California.” California Journal of Politics and Policy 2(2): 1–23.Google Scholar
Lascher, Edward L., 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.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 148–66.Google Scholar
Lewis, Daniel C. 2011. Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: Same-sex Marriage Bans in the U.S. States.” Social Science Quarterly 92(2): 364–83.Google Scholar
Lewkowicz, Michael A. 2006. “The Effectiveness of Elite Cues as Heuristics in Proposition Elections.” American Politics Research 34(1): 51–68.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 63–76.Google Scholar
Lydenberg, Steven. 1979. Bankrolling Ballots: The Role of Business in Financing State Ballot Question Campaigns. Washington DC: Council on Economic Priorities.Google Scholar
Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Mastro, Randy M., Costlow, Deborah C., and Sanchez, Heidi P.. 1980. “Taking the Initiative: Corporate Control of the Referendum Process Through Media Spending and What to Do About It.” Federal Communications Law Journal 32: 315–69.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2010. “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Quantitative Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5(2): 133–67.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2018. “Public Policy and the Initiative and Referendum: A Survey with Some New Evidence.” Public Choice 174: 107–43.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. and McCarty, Nolan M.. 2001. “Political Resource Allocation: Benefits and Costs of Voter Initiatives.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 17(2): 413–48.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 2005. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–2002, 2nd edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2008. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McGrath, Robert. J. 2011. “Electoral Competition and the Frequency of Initiative Use in the U.S. States.” American Politics Research 39(3): 611–38.Google Scholar
Monogan, James, Grary, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 2009. “Public Opinion, Organized Interests, and Policy Congruence in Initiative and Noninitiative U.S. States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 9(3): 304–24.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2005. Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elections, and Ballot Propositions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Persily, Nathan 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
Rugeley, Cynthia, Frendreis, John, and Tatalovich, Raymond. 2021. “Direct Democracy, Policy Diffusion, and Medicalized Marijuana.” Politics and the Life Sciences 40(1): 72–82.Google Scholar
Schildkraut, Deborah J. 2001. “Official-English and the States: Influences on Declaring English the Official Language in the United States.” Political Research Quarterly 54(2): 445–57.Google Scholar
Schmidt, David D. 1989. Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105(3): 530–51.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel A. and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2001. “The Initiative to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California.” Party Politics 7(6): 739–57.Google Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas. 2005. “The Effectiveness of Money in Ballot Measure Campaigns.” Southern California Law Journal 78(4): 1041–64.Google Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas. 2006. “Is Spending More Potent For or Against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures.” American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 788–801.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. Dotson. 2016. California’s Legislature. Sacramento: Assembly Clerk’s Office. leginfo.ca.gov/califleg.htmlGoogle Scholar
Cummins supplementary material
Online Appendix
File
55.2 KB