Previous research on the initiative process tends to underestimate the involvement of political parties in ballot measure contests as well as the impact of partisanship on initiative voting. Focusing on recent ballot contests in California, we find that the two major party organizations in California are actively using ballot initiatives to bolster voter turnout for their candidates, divide the opposition with `wedge' issues and promote their own party's platform and ideology. This party involvement in initiative contests seems to be paying off, as partisanship is the strongest predictor of votes on ballot measures in California at both the aggregate and individual levels. More generally, our research - which runs counter to the expectations of Populist and Progressive reformers - shines new light on how political parties are shaping not only the process, but also the politics of direct democracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barnett, James (1915) The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon. New York: Macmillan.
2.
Bones, Hugh and Robert Benedict (1975) `Perspectives on Direct Legislation', Western Political Quarterly28: 330-351.
3.
Bowler, Shaun and Todd Donovan (1994) `Opinion Change on Ballot Propositions', Political Behavior16: 411-435.
4.
Bowler, Shaun and Todd Donovan (1998) Demanding Choices. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
5.
Bowler, Shaun , Todd Donovan and Caroline Tolbert (eds) (1998) Citizens as Legislators. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
6.
Budge, Ian (2001) `Political Parties in Direct Democracy', in Matthew Mendelsohn and Andrew Parkin (eds) Referendum Democracy. London: Macmillan.
7.
California Commission on Campaign Financing (1992) Democracy by Initiative. Los Angeles: Center for Responsive Government.
8.
California Democratic Party (1998) Telephone interview with party official, Sacramento (8 December).
9.
California Republican Party (California GOP) (1998) Telephone interview with party official, Burbank (1 December).
10.
California Secretary of State (1996) `Yes on Prop. 209'. Available: www.ss.ca.gov/prd/bmc96/prop209.htm.
11.
California Secretary of State (1998a) `Late Contributions and Independent Expenditures', 1998 General Election. Available: vote98.ss.ca.gov/lcrV98.
12.
California Secretary of State (1998b) `Late Contributions and Independent Expenditures', 1998 Primary Election. Available: www.ss.ca.gov/prd/bmprimary98.
13.
Citrin, Jack et al. (1996) `The “Official” English Movement and the Symbolic Politics of Language in the United States', Western Political Quarterly43: 535-559.
14.
Chavez, Lydia (1998) The Color Bind: California's Battle to End Affirmative Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
15.
Congress Daily (1998) `Turnout Could Hinge on Initiatives', 6 October.
16.
Donovan, Todd and Shaun Bowler (1997) `Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: Opinions on Anti-Gay and Lesbian Ballot Initiatives', in Stephanie Witt and Suzanne McCorkle (eds) Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives. Westport, CT: Praeger.
17.
Donovan, Todd and Shaun Bowler (1998) `An Overview of Direct Democracy in the American States', in Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Caroline Tolbert (eds) Citizens as Legislators. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
18.
Donovan, Todd and Joe Snipp (1994) `Support for Legislative Term Limitations in California: Group Representation, Partisanship and Campaign Information', Journal of Politics56: 492-501.
19.
Donovan, Todd , D. McCuan and Ken Fernandez (1998) `Contending Players and Strategies: Opposition Advantages in Initiative Campaigns', in Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Caroline Tolbert (eds) Citizens as Legislators. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
20.
Everson, David (1981) `The Effects of Initiatives on Voter Turnout: A Comparative State Analysis', Western Political Quarterly34: 415-425.
21.
Gerber, Elisabeth and Arthur Lupia (1995) `Campaign Competition and Policy Responsiveness in Direct Political Behavior', Political Behavior17: 287-306.
22.
Gerber, Elisabeth R. , Soltan L. Hajnal and Hugh Louch (2000) `Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections'. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 27-30 April.
23.
Grummel, John (2000a) `Preference Stability and the Local Economy: An Examination of Voter Support for Gay Rights and Ending Affirmative Action in Washington State'. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Jose, CA, 24-6 March.
24.
Grummel, John (2000b) `Economic Voting and Initiative Elections'. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 27-30 April.
25.
Hall, Arnold (1921) Popular Government. New York: Macmillan.
26.
Hero, Rodney (1998) Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
Hero, Rodney and Caroline Tolbert (1996) `A Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation of Politics and Policy in the States of the US', American Journal of Political Science40: 851-871.
28.
Karp, Jeffrey (1998) `The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initiative Campaigns', in Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Caroline Tolbert (eds) Citizens as Legislators. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
29.
Key, V. O. (1949) Southern Politics - In State and Nation. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
30.
Levin, Carl (1997) `Incomplete Hearings from the Senate Campaign Finance Investigation', Congressional Record, 105th Congress, 1st Session (10 November). Available: www.senate.gov/∼levin/floor/111097a.htm.
31.
Lupia, Arthur (1992) `Busy Voters, Agenda Control, and the Power of Information', American Political Science Review86: 390-403.
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 (1984) Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
McCuan, David , Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Ken Fernandez (1998) `California's Political Warriors: Campaign Professionals and the Initiative Process', in Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Caroline Tolbert (eds) Citizens as Legislators. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
35.
Munro, William (ed.) (1912) The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. New York: Appleton & Co.
36.
Oberholtzer, Ellis (1900) The Referendum in America. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
37.
Schmidt, David (1989) Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
38.
Schrag, Peter (1998) Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. New York: New Press.
39.
Smith, Daniel (1998a) Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York: Routledge.
40.
Smith, Daniel (1998b) `Unmasking the Tax Crusaders', State Government News41: 18-21.
41.
Smith, Daniel (2001) `Special Interests and Direct Democracy: An Historical Glance', in M. Dane Waters (ed) The Regulation over Citizen Lawmaking. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
42.
Smith, Mark (2001) `The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout', American Jounal of Political Science45: 700-706.
43.
Tolbert, Caroline and Rodney Hero (1996) `Race/Ethnicity and Direct Democracy: An Analysis of California's Illegal Immigration Initiative', Journal of Politics58: 806-818.
44.
Tolbert, Caroline , et al. (2001) `The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States, American Politics Research29: 625-648.
45.
Tolbert, Caroline , Daniel Smith and John Grummell (2000) `The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout'. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC. August.
46.
Wilcox, Delos (1912) Government by All the People. New York: Macmillan.
