The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) distinguishes itself by linking a small deliberative body to the larger electoral process. Since 2010, CIR citizen panels have been a legislatively authorized part of Oregon general elections to promote a more informed electorate. The CIR gathers a representative cross-section of two dozen voters for 5 days of deliberation on a single ballot measure. The process culminates in the citizen panelists writing a Citizens’ Statement that the secretary of state inserts into the official Voters’ Pamphlet sent to each registered voter. This study analyzes the effect of one such Citizens’ Statement from the 2010 general election. In Study 1, an online survey experiment found that reading this Statement influenced Oregon voters’ values trade-offs, issue knowledge, and vote intentions. In Study 2, regression analysis of a cross-sectional phone survey found a parallel association between the Statement’s use and voting choices but yielded some mixed findings.
BarrettG.WymanM.CoelhoV. S. P. (2012). Assessing the policy impacts of deliberative civic engagement in the health policy processes of Brazil and Canada. In NabatchiT.GastilJ.WeiksnerM.LeighningerM. (Eds.), Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement (pp. 181-203). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
BoudreauC. (2009). Closing the gap: When do cues eliminate differences between sophisticated and unsophisticated citizens?The Journal of Politics, 71, 964-976.
5.
BoudreauC.MacKenzieS. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 48-62.
6.
BowlerS. (2015). Information availability and information use in ballot proposition contests: Are voters over-burdened?Electoral Studies, 38, 183-191.
7.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting, and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
BroderD. S. (2000). Democracy derailed: Initiative campaigns and the power of money. New York, NY: Harcourt.
9.
BurnettC. M.KoganV. (2015). When does ballot language influence voter choices? evidence from a survey experiment. Political Communication, 32, 109-126.
10.
BurnettC. M.ParryJ. A. (2014). Gubernatorial endorsements and ballot measure approval. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14, 178-195.
11.
CanaryC. (2003). Know before you go: A case for publicity funded voters’ guides. Ohio State Law Journal, 64, 81-94.
12.
CappellaJ. N.PriceV.NirL. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19, 73-93.
13.
CarsonL.GastilJ.Hartz-KarpJ.LubenskyR. (Eds.). (2013). The Australian citizens’ parliament and the future of deliberative democracy. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
14.
ChambersS. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307-326.
15.
CohenJacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
16.
CohenJ. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In HamlinA. P.PettitP. H. (Eds.), The good polity: Normative analysis of the state (pp. 17-34). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
17.
CollingwoodL. (2012). Levels of education and support for direct democracy. American Politics Research, 40, 571-602.
18.
CrosbyN. (1995). Citizen Juries: One solution for difficult environmental questions. In RennO.WeblerT.WiedemannP. (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 157-174). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
19.
DahlR. A. (2000). On democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
DanceyL.SheagleyG. (2013). Heuristics behaving badly: Party cues and voter knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 312-325.
21.
DryzekJ. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
DyckJ. J.BaldassareM. (2012). The limits of citizen support for direct democracy: California journal of politics and policy. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 4, 1-20.
23.
EllisR. J. (2002). Democratic delusions: The initiative process in America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
24.
EstlundD. M. (2009). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
FarrarC.FishkinJ. S.GreenD. P.ListC.LuskinR. C.Levy PaluckE. (2010). Disaggregating deliberation’s effects: An experiment within a deliberative poll. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 333-347.
26.
FishkinJ. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
FishkinJ. S. (2013). Deliberation by the people themselves: Entry points for the public voice. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, & Policy, 12, 490-507.
28.
FlavinP. (2015). Direct democracy and political equality in the American states. Social Science Quarterly, 96, 119-132.
29.
GarrettR. K.NisbetE. C.LynchE. K. (2013). Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking? the role of contextual cues and naïve theory. Journal of Communication, 63, 617-637.
30.
GastilJ. (2000). By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
GastilJ. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
GastilJ.BlackL.MoscovitzK. (2008). Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication, 25, 23-46.
33.
GastilJ.BramanD.KahanD.SlovicP. (2011). The cultural orientation of mass political opinion. Political Science & Politics, 44, 711-714.
34.
GastilJ.ReedyJ.WellsC. (2007). When good voters make bad policies: Assessing and improving the deliberative quality of initiative elections. University of Colorado Law Review, 78, 1435-1488.
35.
GoodinR. E. (2003). Reflective democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
GoodinR. E.DryzekJ. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics and Society, 34, 219-244.
37.
GorenP. (2004). Political sophistication and policy reasoning: A reconsideration. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 462-478.
38.
GrönlundK.BachtigerA.SetäläM. (Eds.). (2014). Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
39.
GrönlundK.SetäläM.HerneK. (2010). Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. European Political Science Review, 2, 95-117.
40.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
42.
HajnalZ. L.GerberE. R.LouchH. (2002). Minorities and direct legislation: Evidence from California ballot proposition elections. Journal of Politics, 64, 154-177.
43.
HeB.WarrenM. E. (2012). Authoritarian deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 269-289.
44.
HendriksC. M. (2005). Consensus conferences and planning cells: Lay citizen deliberations. In GastilJ.LevineP. (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 80-110). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
InghamS. (2013). Disagreement and epistemic arguments for democracy. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 12, 136-155.
46.
InghamS.LevinI. (2017). Effects of deliberative minipublics on public opinion: Experimental evidence from a survey on Social Security reform. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor
47.
JacobsL. R.CookF. L.Delli CarpiniM. X. (2009). Talking together: Public deliberation and political participation in America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
48.
JeritJ.BarabasJ.BolsenT. (2006). Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 266-282.
49.
KahanD. M.BramanD.GastilJ.SlovicP. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 465-505.
50.
KnoblochK. R.GastilJ.ReedyJ.Cramer WalshK. (2013). Did they deliberate? Applying an evaluative model of democratic deliberation to the Oregon citizens’ initiative review. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 105-125.
51.
KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.SchwiederD. W.RichR. F. (1998). “Just the facts, ma’am”: Political facts and public opinion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 560, 143-154.
52.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53.
LavineH. G.JohnstonC. D.SteenbergenM. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
LeeperT. J.SlothuusR. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35, 129-156. doi:10.1111/pops.12164
55.
LeibE. J. (2005). Deliberative democracy in America: A proposal for a popular branch of government. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
56.
LeibE. J.HeB. (2006). The search for deliberative democracy in China. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
57.
LeighningerM. (2006). The next form of democracy: How expert rule is giving way to shared governance—And why politics will never be the same. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
58.
LewisD. C. (2011). Direct democracy and minority rights: Same-sex marriage bans in the U.S. states. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 364-383.
59.
LukensmeyerC. J.GoldmanJ.BrighamS. (2005). A town meeting for the twenty-first century. In GastilJ.LevineP. (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook (pp. 154-163). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
60.
LupiaA. (2015). Uninformed: Why people seem to know so little about politics and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
61.
LuskinR. C.FishkinJ. S.JowellR. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 455-487.
62.
MacKenzieM. K.WarrenM. E. (2012). Two trust-based uses of minipublics in democratic systems. In ParkinsonJ.MansbridgeJ. J. (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 95-124). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
63.
MansbridgeJ. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
64.
MatsusakaJ. G. (2008). For the many or the few: The initiative, public policy, and American democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
65.
MilicT. (2015). “For they knew what they did”—What Swiss voters did (not) know about the mass immigration initiative. Swiss Political Science Review, 21, 48-62.
66.
MooreR. T.RavishankarN. (2012). Who loses in direct democracy?Social Science Research, 41, 646-656.
67.
MummoloJ.PetersonE. (2016). How content preferences limit the reach of voting aids. American Politics Research, 45, 159-185.
68.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
69.
NabatchiT.GastilJ.WeiksnerM.LeighningerM. (Eds.). (2012). Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
70.
NaiA. (2015). The maze and the mirror: Voting correctly in direct democracy. Social Science Quarterly, 96, 465-486.
71.
NebloM. A.EsterlingA. E.KennedyK. M.LazerR. P.SokheyD. M. J. (2010). Who wants to deliberate—And why?American Political Science Review, 104, 566-583.
72.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330.
73.
ParkinsonJ.MansbridgeJ. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
74.
PearceW. B.LittlejohnS. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75.
PopkinS. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in Presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
76.
ReedyJ.GastilJ.MoyP. (2016). From the secret ballot to the public vote: Examining voters’ experience of political discussion in vote-by-mail elections. Political Communication, 33, 39-58.
77.
ReedyJ.WellsC.GastilJ. (2014). How voters become misinformed: An investigation of the emergence and consequences of false factual beliefs. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 1399-1418.
78.
RogersT.MiddletonJ. (2014). Are ballot initiative outcomes influenced by the campaigns of independent groups? A Precinct-randomized field experiment showing that they are. Political Behavior, 37, 567-593.
79.
RyfeD. M. (2005). Does deliberative democracy work?Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 49-71.
80.
SarisW. E.SnidermanP. M. (2004). Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81.
SmithD. A.TolbertC. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
82.
SmithG.WalesC. (2000). Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 48, 51-65.
83.
ValentinoN. A.HutchingsV. L.WilliamsD. (2004). The impact of political advertising on knowledge, Internet information seeking, and candidate preference. Journal of Communication, 54, 337-354.
84.
VidmarN.HansV. P. (2007). American juries: The verdict. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
85.
WarrenM. E.GastilJ. (2015). Can deliberative minipublics address the cognitive challenges of democratic citizenship?The Journal of Politics, 77, 562-574.
86.
WarrenM. E.PearseH. (Eds.). (2008). Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
87.
WellsC.ReedyJ.GastilJ.LeeC. (2009). Information distortion and voting choices: The origins and effects of factual beliefs in initiative elections. Political Psychology, 30, 953-969.
88.
YankelovichD. (1991). Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
89.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
