Why was direct democracy adopted in some U.S. states and not others? In this article, we sort through the various arguments advanced in the predominantly historical literature by using event history analysis. Among other factors we identify the importance of popular support for Populists and Socialists as well as the constraints imposed by state constitutions. We also find that the demographic composition of states was strongly associated with success or failure to adopt the initiative. Furthermore, we identify a number of key cases—highlighted by this approach—that present intriguing anomalies to the general patterns identified in the historical and political science literatures to date.
Allswang, J.M. ( 2000). The initiative and referendum in California, 1898-1998 . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
2.
Banaszak, L.A. ( 1996). Why movements succeed or fail: Opportunity, culture and the struggle for woman suffrage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Beard, C., & Shultz, B. ( 1912). Documents on the statewide initiative, referendum and recall. New York: Macmillan.
4.
Benedict, R.C. ( 1975). Some aspects of the direct legislation process in Washington State: Theory and practice, 1914-1973. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
5.
Berry, F.S., & Berry, W.D. ( 1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84, 395-415.
6.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. ( 2004). All initiatives are not created equal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4, 345-363.
7.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. ( 2005). The effect of direct democracy on political parties. Paper presented at the conference on the Impact of Direct Democracy , University of California, Irvine .
8.
Box-Steffensmeier, J., & Jones, B.S. ( 2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Bridges, A., & Kousser, T. ( 2005, November). When do politicians give power to the people?Paper presented at the Social Science History Association Meeting, Portland, OR.
10.
Buckley, J., & Westerland, C. (2004). Duration dependence, functional form, and correct standard errors: Improving EHA models of state policy diffusion . State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4, 94-113.
11.
Burnham, W. Dean, Jerome M. Clubb, and William Flanigan .STATE-LEVEL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DATA FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1824-1972 [Computer file]. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1991. doi:10.3886/ICPSR00075.
12.
Cain, B., & Miller, K. ( 2001). The populist legacy: Initiatives and the undermining of representative government. In L. Sabato , H. Ernst, & B. Larson (Eds.), Dangerous democracy (pp. 33-61). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
13.
Cronin, T. ( 1989). Direct democracy: The politics of initiative referendum and recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Dodd, W.F. ( 1910). The revision and amendment of state constitutions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
Ellis, R. ( 2002). Democratic delusions: The initiative process in America . Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
16.
Epstein, L. ( 1985). Political parties in the American mold. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
17.
Galbreath, C.B. ( 1912). Provisions for state-wide initiative and referendum. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 43, 81-109.
18.
Goebel, T. ( 1997). A case of democratic contagion: Direct democracy in the American west, 1890-1920. Pacific Historical Review, 66, 213-221.
19.
Goebel, T. ( 2002). A government by the people: Direct democracy in America, 1890-1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
20.
Goodwyn, L. ( 1976). Democratic promise: The populist movement in America . New York: Oxford University Press .
21.
Griffin, D. ( 1992). Populism in the western United States. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
22.
Haines, Michael R., and the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.HISTORICAL, DEMOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL DATA: THE UNITED STATES, 1790-2000 [Computer file]. ICPSR02896-v2 . Hamilton, NY: Colgate University / Ann Arbor: MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers], 2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2005-04-29. doi:10.3886/ICPSR02896.
23.
Henry, S.M. ( 1995). Progressivism and democracy: Electoral reform in the United States, 1888-1919. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, NY.
24.
Hero, R. ( 1998). Faces of inequality: Social diversity in American politics . New York: Oxford University Press .
25.
Hero, R., & Tolbert, C.J. ( 1996). A racial/ethnic diversity interpretation of politics and policy in the states of the U.S. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 851-871.
26.
Hicks, J.D. ( 1931). The populist revolt. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
27.
Higham, J. ( 1955). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American nativism, 1860-1935. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28.
Hofstadter, R. ( 1955). The age of reform. New York: Vintage Books.
29.
Jackson, K. ( 1967). The Ku Klux Klan in the city, 1915-1930. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
Johnson, C. ( 1944). The adoption of the initiative and referendum in Washington . Pacific Northwest Quarterly, 35, 291-303.
31.
Katz, R.S., & Mair, P. ( 1995). Changing models of party organization and party democracy . Party Politics, 1, 5-28.
32.
Key, V.O. ( 1949). Southern politics in state and nation. New York: Knopf.
33.
Kolko, G. ( 1976). Main currents in American history. New York: Harper & Row.
34.
Kousser, M. ( 1974). The shaping of southern politics: Suffrage restrictions and the establishment of the one-party south, 1880-1910. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
Ludington, A. ( 1909). Present status of ballot laws in the United States. American Political Science Review, 3, 252-261.
36.
Lustig, R.J. ( 1982). Corporate liberalism: The origins of modern American political theory, 1890-1920. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
Magleby, D.B. ( 1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
38.
Persily, N.A. ( 1997). The peculiar geography of direct democracy: Why the initiative, referendum and recall developed in theAmerican west. Michigan Law and Policy Review, 2, 11-41.
39.
Peterson, D.A.M., Grossback, L.J., Stimson, J.A., & Gangl, A. ( 2003). Congressional response to mandate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 411-426.
40.
Piott, S. ( 1992). Origins of the initiative and referendum in America. Hayes Historical Journal, 11, 8-10.
41.
Piott, S. ( 2003). Giving voters a voice: The origin of the initiative and referendum in America. Columbus: University of Missouri Press.
42.
Pollack, N. ( 1962). The populist response to industrial America: Midwestern populist thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
Royston, P., & Altman, D. ( 1994). Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: Parsimonious parametric modelling (with discussion). Applied Statistics, 43, 429-467.
44.
Schuman, D. ( 1994). The origin of state constitutional direct democracy: William Simon U’Ren and the "Oregon system." Temple University Law Review, 67, 947-963.
45.
Shefter, M. ( 1994). Political parties and the state: The American historical experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
Shepsle, K. ( 2001). A comment on institutional change. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13, 321-325.
47.
Shipan, C.R., & Volden, C. ( 2006). Bottom-up federalism: The diffusion of antismoking laws from U.S. cities to states. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 825-843.
48.
Shover, J.L. ( 1970). The progressives and the working class vote in California . In M. Rogin & J. Shover (Eds.), Political change in California (pp. 62-89). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
49.
Smith, D.A., & Lubinski, J. ( 2002). Direct democracy during the progressive era: A crack in the populist veneer? Journal of Policy History, 14, 349-383.
50.
Smith, D.A., & Tolbert, C. ( 2004). Educated by initiative. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
51.
Sponholtz, L. ( 1973). The initiative and referendum: Direct democracy in perspective, 1898-1920. American Studies, 14, 43-64.
52.
Stewart, F.M. ( 1950). A half century of municipal reform: The history of the National Municipal League. Berkeley: University of California Press.
53.
Sullivan, J.W. ( 1893). Direct legislation by the citizen through initiative and referendum. New York: True Nationalist .
54.
Thernstrom, S. ( 1973). The other Bostonians: Poverty and progress in the American metropolis, 1880-1970. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55.
Tsebelis, G. ( 2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56.
Ware, A. ( 2002). The American direct primary: Party institutionalization and transformation in the north. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
