This article examines the influence of constituent demographics on the frequency and success of local initiative contests. We find that local initiatives are more common and more successful in cities with higher levels of white racial prevalence, but that racial diversity replaces these effects as racially homogenous cities will qualify and pass more initiatives. We also find that racial diversity interacts with population size as the most qualified initiatives occur in larger racially homogenous cities. These findings contribute to our understanding of how modern racial relations in American cities may impact the growing prevalence of direct democracy in municipal politics.
AikenMichaelAlfordRobert R.. 1970. Community structure and innovation: The case of urban renewal. American Sociological Review35:650–65.
2.
BlalockHubert M.1967. Towards a theory of minority group relations. New York: John Wiley.
3.
BroderDavid S.2000Democracy derailed: Initiative campaigns and the power of money. New York: Harcourt.
4.
CampbellAandrea L.WongCaraJack CitrinJ.. 2006. “Racial Threat”, partisan climate, and direct democracy: Contextual effects in three California initiatives. Political Behavior28:129–50.
5.
CitrinJackGreenDonald P.. 1990. The self-interest motive in American public opinion. Research in Micropolitics3:1–28.
6.
ColeLeonard R.1974. Electing blacks to municipal office. Urban Affairs Quarterly10:17–39.
7.
CroninThomas E.1989. Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum, and recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
DavidsonChandlerKorbelGreg. 1981. At-large elections and minority-group representation: A re-examination of historical and contemporary evidence. The Journal of Politics43:982–1005.
9.
EngstromRicahrd L.McDonaldMichael D.. 1981. The election of blacks to city councils: Clarifying the impact of electoral arrangements on the seats/population relationship. The American Political Science Review75:344–54.
10.
EngstromRicahrd L.McDonaldMichael D.. 2009. Famous initiative quotes. Los Angeles: Inititiative and Referendum Institute, University of Southern California. Accessed April 30, 2010, http://www.iandrinstitute.org.
11.
FeldScott L.GrossmanJoel I.. 1984. Elections and decisions: Negotiation by school budget referendum. Social Forces63:363–76.
12.
GambleBarbara. 1997. Putting civil rights to a popular vote. American Journal of Political Science41:245–69.
13.
GardnerWilliamMulveyEdward P.ShawEsther C.. 1995. Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin118:392–404.
14.
GlickfeldMadelynLevineNed. 1992. Regional growth, local reaction: A review of empirical evidence on the effectiveness and efficiency of local government land use regulation. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
15.
GordonTracy. 2004. The local initiative in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
16.
GordonTracy. 2009. Bargaining in the shadow of the ballot box: Causes and consequences of local voter initiatives. Public Choice141:31–48.
17.
HahnHarlanKamienieckiS.. 1987. Referendum voting: Social status and policy preferences. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
18.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.QuerzeAlanaLindmanKara. 2007. Lose, win, or draw? A reexamination of direct democracy and minority rights. Political Research Quarterly60:304–14.
19.
HajnalZoltanGerberElisabethLouchHugh. 2002. Minorities and direct legislation: Evidence from California ballot proposition elections. Journal of Politics64:154–77.
20.
HeroRodney. 1998. Faces of inequality: Social diversity in American politics. New York: Oxford Press.
21.
HeroRodneyTolbertCaroline. 1996. A racial/ethnic diversity interpretation of politics and policy in the states of the U.S. American Journal of Political Science40:851–71.
22.
HoodM. V. IIIMorrisIrwin L.. 2000. Brother, can you spare a dime? Racial/ethnic context and the Anglo vote on proposition 187. Social Science Quarterly81:194–206.
23.
International City/County Management Association. 2006. Municipal form of government: Trends in structure, responsibility and composition survey. Washington, DC: ICMA.
24.
KeyV. O.(1949) 1984. Southern politics in state and nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
25.
LewisDaniel C.2011. Bypassing the representational filter?: Minority rights policies under direct democracy institutions in the U.S. states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly11:198–222.
26.
LineberryRobert L.FowlerEdmund P.. 1967. Reformism and public policies in American cities. The American Political Science Review61:701–16.
27.
LouryGlenModoodriqTariqTelesSteven. 2005. Ethnicity, social mobility and public policy public policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28.
MatsusakaJohn. 2004. For the many and the few. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
MatsusakaJohn. 2005a. Direct democracy works. Journal of Economic Perspectives19:185–206.
30.
MatsusakaJohn. 2005b. Legal landscape database. Los Angeles: Inititiative and Referendum Institute, University of Southern California. Accessed September 2, 2007,http://www.iandrinstitute.org.
31.
NortonJames A.1963. Referendum voting in a metropolitian area. The Western Political Quarterly16:195–212.
32.
O’HaraRobert B.Johan KotzeD.. 2010. Do not log-transform count data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution1:118–22.
33.
OliverEric J.2001. Democracy in suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
PreuhsRobert R.2005. Descriptive representation, legislative leadership, and direct democracy: Latino influence on English only laws in the states, 1984–2002. State Politics & Policy Quarterly5:203–24.
35.
SigelmanLeeWelchSusan. 1993. The contact hypothesis revisited: Interracial contact and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces71:781–95.
36.
TolbertCarolineGrummelJohn A.. 2003. Revisiting the racial threat hypothesis: White voter support for California’s proposition 209. State Politics & Policy Quarterly3:183–202.
37.
WelchSusan. 1990. The impact of at-large elections on the representation of Blacks and Hispanics. The Journal of Politics52:1050–76.
