State Legislative Response to Direct Democracy and the Politics of Partial Compliance

Authors

  • Kathleen Ferraiolo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2010.31.0.41-64

Abstract

Over the last quarter-century, direct democracy has played an increasingly important role in state politics and policy. While limited attitudinal data show high levels of legislative approval for direct democracy, the most prominent piece of behavioral scholarship concludes that California legislators often attempt to steal the initiative by displacing ballot measure content and preventing full implementation. Results from an original web survey indicate that Oregon lawmakers are cautiously supportive of the initiative process and identify the conditions under which they support changes to voter-ratified bills. Case study evidence shows how legislators use their power to amend successful initiatives to clarify and improve flawed measures. I argue that institutional rules governing the initiative amendment process in Oregon allow legislators to engage in partial compliance while preserving voters core ideas. By drawing on new data sources and analyzing both behavior and attitudes, the findings shed new light on when, how, and under what conditions state government actors interfere in the initiative process and offer an important correction to the literature on legislative response to direct democracy.

References

Summary of Major Legislation. Oregon Legislature. Policy, Research, and Committee Services. http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/commsrvs/ssml99.pdf (July 17, 2008).

Abbe, Owen J., and Paul S. Herrnson. 2004. Campaign Professionalism in State Legislative Elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3:223-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000300300301

Barnard, Jeff. 2004. Measure 37 Would Change Land Use Regulation in Oregon. Associated Press State & Local Wire, November 2.

Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan. 2004. Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives are Created Equal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 43:345-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400305

Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan. 1999. Elite Attitudes about Direct Democracy. Paper presented at the Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting.

Bowler, Shaun, Todd Donovan, and Jeffrey Karp. 2003. Popular Attitudes toward Direct Democracy. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting.

Bowler, Shaun, Todd Donovan, and Jeffrey A. Karp. 2002. When Might Institutions Change? Elite Support for Direct Democracy in Three Nations. Political Research Quarterly 55:731-754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290205500401 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088077

Bowler, Shaun, Todd Donovan, Max Neiman, and Johnny Peel. 2001. Institutional Threat and Partisan Outcomes: Legislative Candidates. Attitudes toward Direct Democracy. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:364-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000100100402

Bjornstad, Randi. 2007. Measure 37: Small Claims, Big Break. The Register Guard, February 6.

Burden, Barry. 2005. Institutions and Policy Representation in the States. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:373-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000500500404

Cain, Brad. 2005. Medical Marijuana Changes Among New Jan. 1 Laws. Associated Press State & Local Wire, December 26.

Colburn, Don. 2001. State Adds Rule for Medical Marijuana. The Oregonian, August 11, p. E1.

Donovan, Todd. Classification of States in Terms of Formal Rules for Initiative Use. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~donovan/inituse.pdf (June 6, 2008).

Don.t Make a Bad Marijuana Law Worse. 2008. Editorial. The Oregonian, February 2.

Francia, Peter L., and Paul S. Herrnson. 2004. The Synergistic Effect of Campaign Effort and Election Reform on Voter Turnout in State Legislative Elections. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4:74-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400104

Gerber, Elisabeth. 1996a. Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives. American Journal of Political Science 40:99-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111696

Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996b. Legislatures, Initiatives, and Representation: The Effects of State Legislative Institutions on Policy. Political Research Quarterly 49:263-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299604900202 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448874

Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gerber, Elisabeth R., Arthur Lupia, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2004. When Does Government Limit the Impact of Voter Initiatives? The Politics of Implementation and Enforcement. The Journal of Politics 66:43-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00141.x

Gerber, Elisabeth R., Arthur Lupia, Matthew D. McCubbins, and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 2000. Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to Direct Democracy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Herrnson, Paul S. 2000. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Hillier, Thomas S. 2007. Commentary: Oregon Voters Revisit Measure 37. Daily Journal of Commerce, July 26.

Initiative and Referendum Institute. Initiative Use. http://www.iandrinstitute.org/IRI%20 Initiative%20Use.pdf (June 5, 2008).

Kulongoski Compromises on Measure 37. 2005. Associated Press State & Local Wire, July 30.

Kulongoski Prods Oregon Legislature to Act on Measure 37. 2007. Associated Press State & Local Wire, January 20.

Maestas, Cherie. 2003. The Incentive to Listen: Progressive Ambition, Resources, and Opinion Monitoring Among State Legislators. Journal of Politics 65:439-456.

Mortenson, Eric. 2007. Measure 49 Rouses Emotions of Voters. The Oregonian, October 24.

Official Voter Participation Statistics: November 3, 1998 General Election. Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division. http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov398/other.info/totreg.htm (April 1, 2010).

Oppenheimer, Laura. 2007. Land-Use Measure Crafted with Care. The Oregonian, June 26.

Oppenheimer, Laura. 2005. Measure 37 has Lawmakers in a Bind. The Sunday Oregonian, February 13.

Salsgiver, Mike. 2008. Commentary: Medical Marijuana Saga Rolls on in Oregon. Daily Journal of Commerce, March 6.

Schuck, Eric. 2007. In My Opinion, Measure 49, Yes: Putting an End to Land Use by Lottery. The Oregonian, October 17.

Senate Signs off on Clarifications to Medical Marijuana Program. 2005. Associated Press

State & Local Wire, July 22.

Sheketoff, Charles. 2009. Let's Suspend Measure 57; Facing Severe Budget Cuts, Oregon Should Delay Funding the Crime Measure. The Sunday Oregonian, May 24.

Smith, Daniel A. 2008. The Legislative Regulation of the Initiative. Paper presented at the 7th Annual State Politics and Policy Conference, May 30-31.

Smith, Daniel A. 2001. Homeward Bound?: Micro-Level Legislative Responsiveness to Ballot Initiatives. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:50-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000100100104

Smith, Daniel A., and Caroline Tolbert. 2007. The Instrumental and Educative Effects of Ballot Measures: Research on Direct Democracy in the American States. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7:416-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000700700404

Statistical Summary, 2007. November Special Election. Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division. http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov62007/nov07stats.pdf (April 8, 2010).

Statistical Summary, 2004. General Election. Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division. http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/g04stats.pdf (April 8, 2010).

Tucker, Libby. 2008. Pot Bill in Oregon Gets Smoked in Special Session. Daily Journal of Commerce, February 21.

Downloads

Published

2010-04-01

Issue

Vol. 31: Spring 2010

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.