Initiatives within Representative Government

Abstract

Why are statewide ballot initiatives used more frequently in some states relative to others? Using Gerber as a theoretical baseline, I argue that groups use initiatives in response to conditions surrounding representative government. Specifically, I argue that groups are best able to mobilize the resources necessary (i.e., citizens) to draft, qualify for the ballot, and pass an initiative when conditions surrounding representative government render it incapable of addressing citizens' policy preferences efficiently and effectively. Groups, that is, are best able to mobilize the resources necessary to pass initiatives as legislatures become insulated from citizens, or ineffective at digesting policy items. I extend the literature in this vein by finding strong evidence that initiatives are used in response to partisan conditions, which undermine legislatures' capacity to process legislation effectively. However, I find only limited empirical support for the argument that initiatives are used in response to legislative insulation.

Legislating education policy and equity at the ballot box: A descriptive analysis of the prevalence and content of education ballot initiatives over time

“…As noted above, 24 states have adopted some sort of citizen-initiated direct legislation: 18 states currently allow constitutional initiatives and 22 allow statutory initiatives (Bowler & Donovan, 2000;Bowler, Donovan, & Tolbert, 1998;Broder, 2000;Ellis, 2002;Matsusaka, 2004;Nicholson, 2005;Sabato, Ernst & Larson, 2001;Smith & Tolbert, 2004). Initiative use is widely variable across the states, with some states recording well over 100 initiatives (e.g., Oregon, California, and Colorado) and others only seeing only a handful since their inception (Hicks, 2013;Initiative and Referendum Institute, 2006). Despite this geographic variation, there has been a resurgence in the popularity and use of the initiative process in the United States since the 1970s (Ellis, 2002;Initiative and Referendum Institute, 2006;Kapsch & Steinberger, 1998).…”