In this article I study the factors that determine the number of initiatives that appear on statewide ballots, with an emphasis on the characteristics of state interest group populations. In particular, I test whether the size of state citizen or economic group populations influences the frequency of initiative use. The relationship between these two categories of groups and initiative use is important in light of recent claims that the initiative process no longer benefits citizen groups and is now dominated by economic interests. In addition, I consider the role of other factors, including initiative regulations, state political characteristics, state economic performance and state demographic characteristics. My results indicate that states with more citizen groups have more initiatives overall and in specific issue areas and that the number of economic groups has a negative or negligible effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banducci, Susan A.1998. “Direct Legislation: When is it Used and When Does it Pass?” In Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert, eds., Citizens As Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
2.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. 2001. “Issue Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics.”Journal of Politics63: 1191-1213.
3.
Berry, Jeffrey M.1999. The New Liberalism: The Rising Power of Citizen Groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
4.
Boehmke, Frederick J.2002. “The Effect of Direct Democracy on the Size and Diversity of State Interest Group Populations.”Journal of Politics64: 827-844.
5.
Boehmke, Frederick J.2003. “Using Auxiliary Data to Estimate Selection Bias Models, With an Application to Interest Groups’ Use of the Direct Initiative Process.”Political Analysis11: 234-254.
6.
Boehmke, Frederick J.2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Democracy: How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
7.
Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan. 1998. “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: An Extension.”American Journal of Political Science42: 1020-1024.
8.
Bowler, Shaun, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert, eds. 1998. Citizens As Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University.
9.
Braunstein, Richard. 2004. Initiative and Referendum Voting: Governing Through Direct Democracy in the United States. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
10.
Broder, David S.2000. Democracy Derailed. United States: Harcourt Brace.
11.
Burns, John. 1971. The Sometimes Governments: A Critical Study of the 50 American Legislatures. New York: Bantam.
12.
Cain, Bruce E., and Kenneth P. Miller. 2001. “The Populist Legacy: Initiatives and the Undermining of Representative Government.” In Larry J. Sabato, Howard R. Ernst, and Bruce A. Larson, eds., Dangerous Democracy: The Battle Over Ballot Initiative in America. United States of America: Rowman and Littlefield.
13.
Cameron, A. Colin, and Pravin K. Trivedi. 1998. Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Council of State Governments. Various years. Book of the States. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.
15.
Cronin, Thomas E.1989. Direct Democracy: the Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Donovan, Todd, Shaun Bowler, David McCuan, and Ken Fernandez. 1998. “Contending Players and Strategies: Opposition Advantages in Initiative Campaigns.” In Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert, eds.,Citizens As Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
17.
Erikson, Robert S., Gerald C. Wright, and John P. McIver. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Ernst, Howard R.2001. “The Historical Role of Narrow-Minded Interests.” In Larry J. Sabato, Howard R. Ernst, and Bruce A. Larson, eds., Dangerous Democracy: The Battle Over Ballot Initiative in America. United States of America: Rowman and Littlefield.
19.
Gamble, Barbara S.1997. “Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote.”American Journal of Political Science41: 245-269.
20.
Gerber, Elisabeth R.1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
Gerber, Elisabeth R.2001. “The Logic of Reform: Assessing Initiative Reform Strategies.” In Larry J. Sabato, Howard R. Ernst, and Bruce A. Larson, eds., Dangerous Democracy: The Battle Over Ballot Initiative in America. United States of America: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
22.
Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 1996. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
23.
Hajnal, Zolton, Elisabeth R. Gerber, and Hugh Louch. 2002. “Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections.”Journal of Politics64: 154-177.
24.
Hero, Rodney E., and Caroline J. Tolbert. 1996. “A Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation of Politics and Policy in the States of the U.S.”American Journal of Political Science40: 851-871.
25.
Honaker, James, Anne Joseph, Gary King, Kenneth Scheve, and Naunihal Singh. 2001. Amelia: A Program for Missing Data (Windows Version). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, http://gking.harvard.edu.
26.
King, James D.2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.”Legislative Studies Quarterly25: 327-343.
27.
King, Gary. 1988. “Statistical Models for Political Science Event Counts: Bias in Conventional Procedures and Evidence for the Exponential Poisson Regression Model.”American Journal of Political Science32: 838-863.
28.
King, Gary. 1989. “Variance Specification in Event Count Models: From Restrictive Assumptions to a Generalized Estimator.”American Journal of Political Science33: 762-784.
29.
King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.”American Journal of Political Science44: 341-355.
30.
King, Gary, James Honaker, Anne Joseph, Kenneth Scheve, and Naunihal Singh. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data.”American Political Science Review95: 49-69.
31.
Lieberson, Stanley. 1969. “Measuring Population Diversity.”American Sociological Review34: 850-862.
32.
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior In California Insurance Reform Elections.”American Political Science Review88: 63-76.
33.
Magleby, David B.1984. Direct Legislation: Voting On Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
Matsusaka, John G.1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative.”Journal of Political Economy103: 587-623.
35.
Matsusaka, John G.2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative Process, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
36.
Matsusaka, John G., and Nolan M. McCarty. 2001. “Political Resource Allocation: Benefits and Costs of Voter Initiatives.”Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization17: 413-448.
37.
Mayhew, David R.1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Law-making, and Investigations, 1946-1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
Price, Charles M.“The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon.”Western Political Quarterly27: 243-262.
39.
Sabato, Larry J., Howard R. Ernst, and Bruce A. Larson, eds. 2001Dangerous Democracy: The Battle Over Ballot Initiative in America. United States of America: Rowman and Littlefield.
40.
Schattschneider, E. E.1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holtz, Rinehart, and Winston.
41.
Schrag, Peter. 1998. Paradise Lost: California’s Experience, America’s Future. New York: New Press.
42.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1984. “What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure System.”Journal of Politics46: 1006-1032.
43.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and John T. Tierney. 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
44.
Shelley, Kevin. 2002. “A History of California Initiatives.” Report prepared by the California Secretary and State’s Office.
45.
Smith, Daniel A., and Caroline J. Tolbert. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
46.
Squire, Peverill.1992. “Legislative Professionalism and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures.”Legislative Studies Quarterly17: 69-79.
47.
Tolbert, Caroline J.1998“Changing Rules for State Legislatures: Direct Democracy and Governance Policy.” In Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert, eds., Citizens As Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
48.
Tolbert, Caroline, Daniel H. Lowenstein, and Todd Donovan. 1998. “Election Laws and Rules for Initiatives.” In Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Caroline Tolbert, eds., Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
49.
Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. 2001. CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.0 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, June 1.
50.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Various years. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
