Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preserving the Initiative: State Legislative Response to Direct Democracy

  • Article
  • Published:
Polity

Abstract

Over the last quarter-century, direct democracy has come to play an increasingly important role in state politics and policy. Political scientists have examined various aspects of the ballot initiative process, including state legislators' responses to the threat or passage of initiatives. The most prominent piece of scholarship on this topic finds that California legislators attempt to “steal” the initiative by displacing initiative content and subverting the implementation of voter-ratified ballot measures at will. Drawing on elite interview data, I show that in the moderate-use initiative state of Maine, legislators display cautious and deferential attitudes about the initiative process. Case study evidence from four recent initiatives demonstrates that legislators are reluctant to meddle with successful ballot measures and, when they do so, their goal is to mend flawed bills while preserving voters' intent. By drawing on new data sources and analyzing legislators' behavior and attitudes in a moderate-use state, the findings offer an important correction to the literature on legislative response to initiatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Elisabeth R. Gerber, The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999).

  2. David B. Magleby, Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984); Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan, Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998); Arthur Lupia, “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections,” American Political Science Review 88 (March 1994): 63–76; Regina P. Branton, “Examining Individual-Level Voting Behavior on State Ballot Propositions,” Political Research Quarterly 56 (September 2003): 367–77; Andrew Skalaban, “The Mostly-Sovereign People: Sophisticated Voting and Public Opinion About Term Limits in California,” Political Behavior 20 (March 1998): 35–51; Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan, “Information and Opinion Change on Ballot Propositions,” Political Behavior 16 (December 1994): 411–35; Robert J. Lacey, “The Electoral Allure of Direct Democracy: The Effect of Issue Salience on Voting, 1990–1996,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5 (Winter 2005): 168–81; see also Daniel A. Smith and Caroline J. Tolbert, Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004).

  3. Barbara S. Gamble, “Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote,” American Journal of Political Science 41 (January 1997): 245–69; Todd Donovan and Shaun Bowler, “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: An Extension,” American Journal of Political Science 42 (July 1998): 1020–24; Zoltan Hajnal, Elisabeth R. Gerber, and Hugh Louch, “Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections,” The Journal of Politics 64 (February 2002): 154–77.

  4. Elisabeth Gerber, “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (February 1996): 99–128.

  5. John G. Matsusaka, For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

  6. Edward J. Lascher, Jr., Michael G. Hagen, and Steven A. Rochlin, “Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies and Public Opinion,” The Journal of Politics 58 (August 1996): 760–75; John F. Camobreco, “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process,” The Journal of Politics 60 (August 1998): 819–29.

  7. Gerber, “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.”

  8. Elisabeth R. Gerber, “Legislatures, Initiatives, and Representation: The Effects of State Legislative Institutions on Policy,” Political Research Quarterly 49 (June 1996): 263–86.

  9. Daniel A. Smith, “Homeward Bound? Micro-Level Legislative Responsiveness to Ballot Initiatives,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1 (Spring 2001): 50–61.

  10. Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Jeffrey A. Karp, “When Might Institutions Change? Elite Support for Direct Democracy in Three Nations,” Political Research Quarterly 55 (December 2002): 731–54.

  11. Elisabeth R. Gerber, Arthur Lupia, Matthew D. McCubbins, and D. Roderick Kiewiet, Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to Direct Democracy (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000).

  12. Gerber et al., Stealing the Initiative, Preface.

  13. Gerber et al., Stealing the Initiative, 14.

  14. Gerber et al., Stealing the Initiative, 86.

  15. The 2006 Statistical Abstract: The National Data Book, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/06s0027.xls (accessed June 16, 2006).

  16. Robert S. Erikson, Gerald C. Wright, and John P. McIver. “Public Opinion in the States: A Quarter Century of Change and Stability” in Public Opinion in the States, ed. Jeffrey Cohen (Stanford University Press, forthcoming), http://php.indiana.edu/~wright1/ewm_cohen.doc (accessed June 16, 2006).

  17. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Backgrounder: Full- and Part-Time Legislatures,” October 2005, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2004/backgrounder_fullandpart.htm (accessed June 16, 2006).

  18. Votes on Initiated Bills, 1910–. Compiled by the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library, http://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/inivot.htm (accessed October 10, 2006).

  19. A.J. Higgins, “GOP Leaders Risk Credibility on Racino Bill; House Duo Want New Deadline,” Bangor Daily News, December 16, 2003.

  20. Editorial, “Changes in Racino Law Will Help Tighten Gaps,” Portland Press-Herald, December 14, 2003.

  21. “State Officials Outline Plan to Amend New Racino Vote,” Associated Press State & Local Wire, December 12, 2003.

  22. Paul Carrier, “Baldacci holds firm on racino deadline,” Portland Press Herald, December 11, 2003.

  23. “LD 1820,” http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/rollcalls.asp?ID=280012144 (accessed October 16, 2006). A roll call vote is required in the Maine House only if requested by one-fifth of the members present.

  24. “Documents for LD 1820,” http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280012144&LD=1820&Type=1&SessionID=5 (accessed October 16, 2006).

  25. Grace Murphy, “Bill tightening control of slot machines OK'd,” Portland Press Herald, April 28, 2004.

  26. Grace Murphy, “State must now build racino infrastructure,” Portland Press Herald, April 29, 2004.

  27. Grace Murphy, “Don’t revise racino law, voters say,” Portland Press Herald, January 28, 2004. It is possible that question wording may have affected the results; perhaps Mainers are reluctant to allow the legislature to amend measures at will, but if asked about specific changes to the racino bill (such as adding more stringent regulations or altering the distribution of revenues), they would be more supportive.

  28. Editorial, “Don't Gamble on Oversight,” Bangor Daily News, December 15, 2003.

  29. Joshua L. Weinstein, “Support for racino dips a bit, poll finds,” Portland Press Herald, February 18, 2004.

  30. Tom Bell, “Question 1 begets questions,” Portland Press-Herald, June 10, 2004.

  31. Paul Carrier, “MMA plan would hurt key services, foes say,” Portland Press Herald, October 7, 2003.

  32. A.J. Higgins, “Question 1 Rural voters nudge 1A to likely win,” Bangor Daily News, November 5, 2003.

  33. Maine Today.com, Rep. Pat Cowell, “Legislature can deal with school funding challenges in due time,” http://news.mainetoday.com/indepth/taxreform/040711colwell.shtml (accessed December 9, 2005).

  34. Bell, “Question 1 begets questions.”

  35. Francis X. Quinn, “Vote could be a milestone, but won’t close debate,” Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 2, 2003.

  36. Paul Carrier, “Voter-passed laws, once untouchable, now fair game,” Portland Press Herald, October 2, 2004.

  37. Glenn Adams, “Baldacci Signs ‘Historic’ Tax Relief Measure,” Associated Press State & Local Wire, January 21, 2005.

  38. “State of Maine Legislature, Roll-calls for LD 1,” http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/rollcalls.asp?ID=280014321 (accessed October 16, 2006).

  39. “Documents for LD 1,” http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280014321&LD=1&Type=1&SessionID=6 (accessed October 18, 2006).

  40. A.J. Higgins, “Legislature looks to craft 1A solution,” Bangor Daily News, November 7, 2003; A. J. Higgins, “Poll: Strong support for 1B; 40% favor Baldacci tax plan,” Bangor Daily News, September 30, 2003. Another measure, 1C, rejected both plans and received 27 percent of the vote.

  41. Richard J. Powell (University of Maine) and Rich Jones (National Conference of State Legislatures), “First in the Nation: Term Limits and the Maine Legislature,” http://www.ncsl.org/jptl/casestudies/Maine-FinalReportv2.pdf#search=%22maine%201993%201994%20term%20limits%22 (accessed October 11, 2006); National Conference of State Legislatures., “Legislative Term Limits: An Overview,” http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/ABOUT/termlimit.htm (accessed October 11, 2006).

  42. Powell and Jones, “First in the Nation.” The report notes that while the reasons for the “graying” of the Maine legislature under term limits are unclear, “we can speculate that term limits reduce the attractiveness of legislative service for young, ambitious politicians looking to use service in the legislature as a stepping-stone for other elected positions,” 6.

  43. Powell and Jones, “First in the Nation,” 14, 21.

  44. Some legislators also cited benefits to the 1993 initiative, such as a more open and transparent policymaking process; the inclusion of new people who can bring fresh ideas, visions, and priorities into the legislature; and opportunities for more members to serve as leaders and committee chairs.

  45. “Rasmussen Research, Maine Statewide Survey, 500 High Propensity Voters, Conducted February 18, 1999,” Legislative History of Term Limitation Bills, Staff of the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library (Augusta, ME): February 2006.

  46. Matthew C. Moen, “Testimony on L.D. 901, ‘An Act to Amend the Laws Governing Term Limits,” Legislative History of Term Limitation Bills.

  47. Legislative Record: House, May 27, 1999, H-1441, Legislative History of Term Limitation Bills.

  48. Legislative Record: Senate, May 27, 1999, S-916, Legislative History of Term Limitation Bills.

  49. Legislative Record: House, June 2, 2003, H-882, Legislative History of Term Limitation Bills.

  50. Legislative Record: House, May 27, 1999, H-1563, Legislative History of Term Limitation Bills.

  51. Legislative Record: Senate, May 27, 1999, S-915, Legislative History of Term Limitation Bills.

  52. “Bills to Amend or Repeal Term limits, 1999–2003,” National Conference of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/about/BillsAmndRplTL.htm (accessed October 11, 2006).

  53. Paul Carrier, “Bill Hostile to Election Act Gets Withdrawn,” Portland Press Herald, February 22, 1997.

  54. Paul Carrier. “Is clean elections law too expensive?” Portland Press Herald, February 26, 2005; Paul Carrier, “Run with public funds, still have a PAC? Fine,” Portland Press Herald, May 21, 2005; Editorial, “Tweak state funding law, but don’t eliminate it,” Portland Press Herald, February 23, 2003.

  55. “Legal and Veterans’ Affairs,” http://mainegov-images.informe.org/legis/opla/LVAENA05.pdf (accessed October 23, 2006).

  56. Paul Carrier, “Ethics agency beefs up scrutiny,” Portland Press Herald, June 29, 2006; A.J. Higgins, “Clean Election changes sought,” Portland Press Herald, October 20, 2005.

  57. “Joint Standing Committee on Legal and Veterans’ Affairs,” http://mainegov-images.informe.org/legis/opla/LVAEnact06.pdf (accessed October 23, 2006).

  58. Editorial, “Boost Clean Elections fund, don’t drain it,” Portland Press Herald, January 31, 2005.

  59. Carrier, “Ethics agency beefs up scrutiny.”

  60. Gerber et al., Stealing the Initiative, 109.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. James Madison University,

    Kathleen Ferraiolo

Authors
  1. Kathleen Ferraiolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I am especially grateful to Richard Ellis for valuable criticisms and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. In addition, I thank the 18 Maine legislators who agreed to be interviewed and the staff of the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library for their assistance, as well as participants in the Spring 2006 JMU Political Science Department Research Colloquium; Polity's editor, Andrew J. Polsky; and the journal's three anonymous reviewers for helpful advice.

Richard J. Ellis, Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002); David S. Broder, Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money (New York: Harcourt, 2000).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferraiolo, K. Preserving the Initiative: State Legislative Response to Direct Democracy. Polity 39, 425–448 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300087

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300087

Keywords

Search

Navigation