Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Direkte Demokratie in Kalifornien

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Die Legitimität direkter Demokratie

Zusammenfassung

Kalifornien ist einer der 50 Bundesstaaten, die die Föderation der Vereinigten Staaten konstituieren. Damit genießt es zwar nicht den Status eines souveränen Staates, nutzt jedoch als ein großer und bevölkungreicher Staat innerhalb der USA häufig direktdemokratische Verfahren (Setälä und Schiller 2012). In Bezug auf Volksabstimmungen gilt Kalifornien im US-amerikanischen und im internationalen Vergleich als Vorreiter.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Abromeit, Heidrun. 2003. Nutzen und Risiken direktdemokratischer Instrumente. In Demokratisierung der Demokratie. Diagnosen und Reformvorschläge, hrsg. Claus Offe, 95-110. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, Robert M. 2002. Rolling the Dice with State Initiatives: Interest Group Involvement in Ballot Campaigns. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, David. 2011. Direct Democracy Worldwide. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldassare, Mark, Dean Bonner, Sonja Petek und Jui Shrestha. 2013. California’s Likely Voters. Online unter www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=255, Zugriff am 13.12.2013.

  • Banducci, Susan. 1998. Direct Legislation: When Is It Used and When Does It Pass? In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, hrsg. Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan und Caroline J Tolbert, 109-131. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Shaun und Amihai Glazer. Hrsg. 2008. Direct Democracy’s Impact on American Political Institutions. Basingstoke/New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Bruce E. und Thad Kousser. 2004. Adapting to Term Limits: Recent Experiences and New Directions. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Proposition 98, Mandatory Education Spending. 1988. Ballotpedia.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Secretary of State. 2015a. History of California Initiatives. Online unter www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/resources-and-historical-information/history-california-initiatives/, Zugriff am 14.03.2016.

  • California Secretary of State. 2015b. Recall History in California (1913 to Present). Online unter www.sos.ca.gov/elections/recalls/recall-history-california-1913-present/, Zugriff am 14.03.2016.

  • California Secretary of State. 2015c. Summary of Referendum Data. Online unter www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/referendum/, Zugriff am 14.03.2016.

  • Campbell, Ballard C. 1998. Tax Revolts and Political Change. Journal of Policy History 10 (1): 153-178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Governmental Studies. 2008. Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Governmental Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, Jack. 2009. Proposition 13 and the Transformation of California Government. California Journal of Politics and Policy 1 (1): 1-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, Philip L. und Floyd Feeney. 1998. Lawmaking by Initiative: Issues, Options and Comparisons. New York: Agathon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyck, Joshua J. und Nicholas R. Seabrook. 2010. Mobilized by Direct Democracy: Short-Term Versus Long-Term Effects and the Geography of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections. Social Science Quarterly 91 (1): 188-208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, James S. 2011. When The People Speak. Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, Jewelle Taylor und Teiahsha Bankhead. 2001. Preserving Privilege: California Politics, Propositions, and People of Color. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Stephen M. 2008. California Constitutionalism: Trust in Government and Direct Democracy. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajnal, Zoltan L., Elisabeth R. Gerber und Hugh Louch. 2002. Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections. The Journal of Politics 64 (1): 154-177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajnal, Zoltan L., Paul G. Lewis und Hugh Louch. 2002. Municipal Elections in California: Turnout, Timing, and Competition. Online unter www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=148, Zugriff am 13.12.2013.

  • Hasen, Richard L. 2005. Rethinking the Unconstitutionality of Contribution and Expenditure Limits in Ballot Measure Campaigns. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornig, Eike-Christian. 2011. Die Parteiendominanz direkter Demokratie in Westeuropa. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamps, Klaus. 2014. Volksinitiativen und Referenden in Kalifornien. In Abstimmungskampagnen. Politikvermittlung in der Referendumsdemokratie, hrsg. Heike Scholten und Klaus Kamps, 453-472. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, Daniel H. 1982. Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience, Public Choice Theory and the First Amendment. UCLA Law Review 29: 505-641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, Arthur und John G. Matsusaka. 2004. DIRECT DEMOCRACY: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science 7 (1): 463-482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maduz, Linda. 2010. Direct Democracy. Living Reviews in Democracy 2.0. Online unter democracy.livingreviews.org, Zugriff am 11.10.2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Isaac William. 2008. The Permanent Tax Revolt: How the Property Tax Transformed American Politics. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, Joe. 2006. The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, Joe und Mark Paul. 2010. California Crackup How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsusaka, John G. 1993. Election closeness and voter turnout: Evidence from California ballot propositions. Public Choice 76: 313-334.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Polyakov, Mike, Peter Counts und Kevin Yin. 2012. California’s Initiative System: The Voice of the People Co-opted. Online unter http://uscommonsense.org/pdf/22.pdf, Zugriff am 14.03.2016.

  • Pomper, Gerald M. 1980. Party Renewal in America: Theory and Practice. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramakrishnan, Subramanian Karthick und Mark Baldassare. 2004. The Ties That Bind: Changing Demographics and Civic Engagement in California. Online unter www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_404KRR.pdf, Zugriffen am 13.12.2013.

  • Schrag, Peter. 2004. Paradise Lost: California’s Experience, Americas Future. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrag, Peter. 2008. California: America’s High-stakes Experiment. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Setälä, Maija und Theo Schiller. Hrsg. 2012. Citizens‘ Initiatives in Europe. Procedures and Consequences of Agenda-Setting by Citizens. Basingstoke/New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Daniel A. und Caroline J. Tolbert. 2001. The Initiative to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California. Party Politics 7 (6): 739-757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattenberg, Martin P. 1998. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Berlin, Deutschland

    Aleksandra Kulezsa

Authors
  1. Aleksandra Kulezsa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksandra Kulezsa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Demokratie, WZB für Sozialforschung Abteilung für Demokratie, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Wolfgang Merkel

  2. Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität Münster Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Münster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Claudia Ritzi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kulezsa, A. (2017). Direkte Demokratie in Kalifornien. In: Merkel, W., Ritzi, C. (eds) Die Legitimität direkter Demokratie. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16233-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16233-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-16232-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-16233-7

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation