Direct Democracy in the United States

Shauna Reilly, Ryan M. Yonk

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136259500
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political Campaigns & Elections
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The increased use of direct democracy measures across the United States has brought attention to the individual petitioner however their motivations and goals continue to be an enigma.

Drawing on behavioral, historical and legal analysis to provide a more concrete depiction of these individuals, expert contributors examine the true personalities, motivations and expectations, successes and failures of petitioners in the direct democracy process and how they culminate in policy formation across the United States. Six typologies; the zealot, the victim, the amateur, the lawyer, the professional, and the politician are identified and later applied to four key policy areas, taxation, health, the environment and education.

A lucid contribution to the existing literature on direct democracy and an excellent resource for studying how petitioners are able to influence their communities beyond the ballot box.

1 The State of Petitioners

Shauna Reilly and Ryan M. Yonk

The premise of this book is simple: Who are petitioners and do they matter? Our goal in designing this edited volume was to create a more developed literature on petitioners, who are woefully understudied in political science. These individuals have tremendous power to change public policy in a variety of areas; yet they remain somewhat of an enigma. Certainly, some research looks at the impact of interest groups in connection with public policy measures; however, it seems there is a chasm these interest groups are addressing when they sponsor these measures. While many can be part of larger groups, there must be some reason that individuals choose to become involved and pursue public policy in this way. This book takes a unique approach to looking at direct democracy elections, specifically, the petitioner role. The first half of this book looks at petitioners' characteristics, motivations, and activities. The second half looks further into the role of petitioners in specific policy areas. Combined, these two parts provide a new perspective on petitioners and their role in the direct democracy process.

This book seeks to assess the connection between characteristics of petitioners and their association with the larger community and policy areas. The book's purpose is to establish the role of petitioners in the process, similarities in characteristics among petitioners, their connection to the community, and, last, policy influences. Petitioners continue to be an enigma in the direct democracy process. There is a large body of literature that evaluates the connection/non-connection between interest groups and petitioners. In actuality, the research provides a picture depicting these petitioners and how influential they are in their communities—beyond the ballot box and in specific areas of policy.

To study the role that petitioners have in direct democracy elections, this book utilizes a variety of methodological approaches and perspectives as well as behavioral, historical, and legal analysis to provide a more concrete depiction of these individuals. Together, the contributors of this book provide insight into the true personalities, motivations, and expectations—as well as success and failure—of petitioners in the process that culminates in policy formation across the United States.

Existing books have looked at petitioners in a very specific context or as a result of their circumstances. Some have looked at them in a judicial framework, as interest groups or minority representation, while others have focused on case studies in particular states. We provide a nationwide depiction, investigating not only the characteristics of petitioners but also how petitioners contribute to the process in a variety of policy areas.

The literature varies on petitioners in two important ways: looking at individual petitioners or looking at them as part of larger interest groups. Much of this research includes analyses of petitioners, in the aggregate, by looking at the activities of these petitioners but generally without direct contact with individual petitioners. These works are generalizations about elites, in-depth studies that investigate campaign spending and connections to larger groups, or attempts to disprove that these are part of a larger enterprise. These petitioners have provided a conundrum for political scientists because of this research.

There is frequent classification of petitioners and interest groups and their influence on the process; however, this research is based on evaluations of success, money, and news coverage more than direct contact with petitioners. Schmidt (1989) builds a theory that petitioners, while advocating for government reform, are primarily self-interested when proposing ballot measures. Schmidt offers counterarguments to issues surrounding ballot propositions and petitioners. He suggests that ballot measures enhance representative government, increase accountability, and give voice to voter concerns rather than to special interests. This indicates that petitioners are not just pawns of interest groups; rather, they are a voice to citizens. The discussion about special interest groups as “petitioners” has been substantially investigated. This discussion about business interests permeates the system of ballot propositions articulated throughout (Parsons 1900; Boyle 1912; Schattsneider 1960; Gerber 1999; Broder 2000; Ellis 2002; Matsusaka 2002), yet few scholars cite direct contact with those involved as a way of informing their research. Furthermore, there is an argument in the literature about the impact of interest groups involved in the process.

Some scholars equivocally argue there is a large amount of influence from interest groups in the process—although to different ends (Parsons 1900; Boyle 1912; Schattsneider 1960; Gerber 1999; Broder 2000; Smith 2001; Kaufman 2001); other scholars argue that interest groups' influence is not substantial (Gerber 1999; Matsusaka 2002; Schmidt 1989). This dichotomy in how petitioners are involved and utilized by interest groups perhaps may be explained by looking at petitioner typologies developed by Manweller (2005).

Bowler, Donovan, and Tolbert (1998) offer an overview of the direct democracy process, detailing election laws and professionalization of the process. In doing so, they look in depth at the California process and the effect of direct democracy on racial groups and issues. Their study provides a foundation of the direct democracy process and how it can vary across states, yet the role of the citizen in this process is paramount. This volume furthers Bowler and colleagues' research by providing an analysis of citizen petitioners rather than an overview of the petitioners themselves.

The second type of petitioner research is a recent development in the field. There are scholars who focus on petitioner-driven research that includes interviews and surveys. This type of research is less common; nevertheless, it has contributed to the development of classifications of petitioners, socioeconomic illustrations of these petitioners, and a connection between petitioner beliefs and their activities. This type is a much more preliminary study of these citizens and one that we aim to develop further in this volume.

Schmidt (1989) provides an opening perspective into ballot proposition activities of petitioners, with an overview of the petitioning process given, along with a demonstration of the variety of each state's processes and its historical perspective of the direct democracy process. Schmidt offers significant insight by mentioning the connection between interest groups and petitioners; nonetheless, he is generally vague when it comes to specific motivations and characteristics.

Outside the debate of interest group and citizen involvement in the petitioning process, there have been few extensive research studies done on petitioners. This research is a much smaller but developing area in the literature. Reilly (2010) has investigated petitioners in Oregon in a study of petitioner motivations, activities, socioeconomic status, and views of citizens. While the study involved nearly double the participants (96) of Schmidt's, it is still limited in that it investigates only petitioners in Oregon. Her study evaluates who petitioners are: ideology, engagement, motivations, and outcomes. She also examines the shared characteristics of petitioners and finds that they are the epitome of the research on voters: They are well-educated, older, active voters. She looks at how petitioners view citizen sophistication on policy issues and finds a dichotomy in how petitioners regard citizens.

Reilly does not separate the differences in petitioners that Manweller (2005) examines. The typologies are separated out to give us a more concrete insight into the petitioning process and further explain why repetitions exhibit differences in characteristics. By combining aspects of these two surveys, this current work furthers our understanding of petitioners and allows us to hypothesize differences in petitioners' level of engagement in their community based on their typology. Typologies might also explain differences in petitioner behavior and viewpoints.

Ballot measures have had a significant impact on communities. A question that remains is how communities influence the motivations of petitioners/typology, what they choose to propose, and how successful those ballot measures are on Election Day. The focus of research on ballot measures is an imperative to understanding the process, motivations, and impacts.

THE INITIATIVE PROCESS

Measures and initiatives are not particularly new in the history of the United States. The United States has no initiative process at the national level; such processes are in use at the state level in twenty-four states and the District of Columbia, and are also in common use at the local government level (“A Brief History of the Initiate and Referendum Process” n.d.). The U. S. Constitution does not enumerate details when it lists the rights of the legislative branch in Article One. In some form or another, this process has been in use since the 1600s when citizens of New England could place ordinances and other issues on the ballot for discussion (“A Brief History” n.d., 1). The first state to truly initiate this process was Massachusetts in 1778. This was only to allow approval of a state constitution and any constitutional change. The first state to adopt the statewide initiative and popular referendum process was South Dakota in 1898 (“A Brief History” n.d., 2). This process is highly concentrated in the Western United States with spotty instances in the East.

The modern-day movement to utilize the initiative process in tax policy can be said to have had its rebirth in 1978 with the passage of California's Proposition 13. Even so, the initiative and referendum (I&R) process was supported in concept by the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Today, the initiative and referendum process serves as part of the checks and balances of our incremental policymaking process and is afforded to citizens as a mechanism of democratic participation for altering or influencing public policy more directly at the local and state levels (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2003).

Reforms that have been enacted through the voter-led initiative and referendum process have been generated and supported by various political ideologies, including the conservative, liberal, libertarian, and populist agendas. “This [ideological diversity] typifies the initiative process—individuals of all different political persuasions use it” (“A Brief History” n.d.). John Kingdon uses the mechanism of elections to tie American ideology to the limited reach of public policy through politicians by expressing the importance of a mass, attentive, and zealous public as well as the need for politicians to appeal to the public for support (2009, 45). In other words, politicians need voters' support, but voter-led initiatives do not necessarily need politicians' support. In addition, it appears that voter-led initiatives lessen voter apathy as well. “In election after election, no matter what election cycle is analyzed, voter turnouts in states with an initiative on the ballot have been usually 3 percent to 8 percent higher than in states without an initiative on the ballot” (“A Brief History” n.d.)

One of the purposes of the initiative process is to increase the legislature's performance and accountability by providing citizens with a way to bypass the legislature. This process should result in improved responsiveness. It is hoped, and some evidence exists, that the initiative process increases and improves citizen participation in state and local issues, along with encouraging direct citizen participation in the political process (Reilly 2010).

Americans who have a strong distrust of government have the safety net of the initiative process to reassure them that there is still an avenue for direct participation. That initiative process, however, lacks flexibility once an initiative is written and goes out for signatures. Bypassing the legislative process to make policy reduces discussion and analysis that puts the policy into concert with other questions of public policy. In addition, the initiative process is often criticized as one by which special interests highjack elections instead of being the populist mechanism for policymaking as intended. Recently, this occurred when the Internet-based company Amazon began an initiative to preempt a law that would have forced Califor-nians to pay sale tax on any online purchases with companies that had any holdings in the state. Amazon put $5 million toward collecting signatures, and once the state noticed its initiative gaining traction, the state cut a deal with the company (York and Lifsher 2011).

GOING DIRECTLY TO THE BALLOT BOX

While going directly to the public through the process of direct democracy certainly sounds attractive and has a particular democratic appeal, moving to the ballot box is a process that involves far more than simply deciding that an issue is important and that the public should have a role in its decision. Qualifying initiatives for the ballot is a complex, often daunting, process that can take significant resources over what actions need to be taken—long before the campaign has even begun. The trend in the recent past has been to increase the requirements in an attempt to limit the number of measures that voters face when they arrive on Election Day.

In response to these and other concerns, the process of qualifying a measure for the ballot in most states requires the collection of tens of thousands of signatures from registered voters who indicate that they want the ability to decide the policy question directly rather than via their elected representatives. Thus, the petitioner must not only be interested in policy but must be able to coordinate a large and often time-limited process consisting of: convincing registered voters to sign a petition, sorting those signatures, ensuring their validity, and, in many states, ensuring a wide geographic representation. Given these realities, it is not surprising that numerous firms specializing in these processes have developed a business model that provides (for a hefty fee) an organization that can collect and process the necessary signatures for a measure to arrive on the ballot.

The practical implications of this reality are twofold: First, it is surprising that a large number of initiatives actually make it to the ballot. Second, measures successf...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Routledge Research in American Politics and Governance
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgments
• 1 The State of Petitioners
• 2 Success from Amateur to Zealot: A Typology of Initiative Activists
• 3 Governors at the Bully Ballot Box
• 4 Petitioners and Policy Makers: State Legislator Perceptions of Petitioners and Direct Democracy
• 5 Petitioners as a Reflection of their Community
• 6 Petitioners and Quality of Life in their Community
• 7 Education and Amateurs: Changes to Education Finance by Petitioners
• 8 Petitioners in Health Care Policy: Complex Policy and Simple Decision Mechanisms
• 9 The Realm of the Zealot—Tax Policy
• 10 Green Energy Democracy—A Venue for Zealots and Professionals
• 11 Conclusion and Policy Potential
• Contributors
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Appendix C
• Index