Advertisement

Referendums and Initiatives in North America

  • Todd Donovan

Abstract

Americans vote directly on all manner of topics at the sub-national level, including constitutional matters, major fiscal issues, local land use questions, education policy, electoral rules and questions of rights and liberties. Citizen-initiated measures (popular initiatives) are a dominant feature of politics in several American states. However, compared with most of the nations profiled in this volume, Americans have never cast ballots on a federal constitutional matter. Canadians, in contrast, have some limited experience with national referendums. Non-binding national referendums have been conducted on rare occasions, most recently in 1992, when voters rejected a complex constitutional accord that would have granted Quebec the status of a distinct society. At the provincial level, legislatively referred referendums are used occasionally. British Columbia is the only Canadian province with provisions for citizen-initiated referendums (Ruff 1993), although some Canadian municipalities allow a limited form of the popular initiative (Boyer 1992: 27).

Keywords

State Legislature Direct Democracy Constitutional Amendment Campaign Spending Ballot Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banaszak, L., 1996, Why Movements Succeed or Fail: Opportunity, Culture and the Struggle for Woman Suffrage, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banducci, S., 1998, ‘Direct Legislation: When is it used and when does it pass?’ in Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Tolbert, C. (Eds), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, Ohio State University Press, Columbus.Google Scholar
  3. Beard, C. and Shultz, B., 1912, Documents on the Statewide Initiative, Referendum and Recall, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Benoit, K., 2004, ‘Models of electoral system change,’ Electoral Studies 23(3), 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boehmke, F., 2005, ‘Sources of variation in the frequency of statewide initiatives: The role of interest group populations,’ Political Research Quarterly 58(4), 556–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boix, B., 1999, ‘Setting the rules of the game: the choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies,’ American Political Science Review 93(3), 609–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowler, S. and Donovan, T., 1998, Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting and Direct Democracy, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  8. Bowler, S. and Donovan, T., 2004, ‘Measuring the effect of direct democracy on state policy: Not all initiatives are created equal,’ State Policy and Politics Quarterly 4(3), 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. —, 2006, ‘Direct democracy and political parties in America,’ Party Politics 12(5), 649–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Tolbert, C., 1998, Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, Ohio State University Press, Columbus.Google Scholar
  11. Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Karp, J., 2002, ‘When might institutions change: Elite support for direct democracy in three nations,’ Political Research Quarterly 55(4), 731–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. —, 2006, ‘Why politicians like electoral institutions: Self-interest, values or ideology?,’ Journal of Politics 68(2), 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyer, P., 1992, Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums, Dundrun, Toronto.Google Scholar
  14. Branton, R. and Donovan, T., 2012. ‘Electoral competition and public corruption among the elected and unelected,’ working paper, Western Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  15. Broder, D., 2000, Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money, Harcourt, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Burnham, W.D., 1970, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics, W.W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Cain, B. and Miller, K., 2001, ‘The populist legacy: Initiatives and the undermining of representative government,’ in Sabato, L., Ernst, H. and Larson, B.A. (Eds), Dangerous Democracy: The Battle over Ballot Initiatives in America, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, T., 2011, The Koch Brothers: What You Need to Know About the Financiers of the Radical Right, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. Cronin, T., 1989, Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donovan, T., 2007, ‘Direct democracy as a super precedent? Political constraints of citizen-initiated laws,’ Willamette Law Review 43,192–234.Google Scholar
  21. —, 2011, ‘Redistricting and direct democracy,’ in Moncrief, G. (Ed.) Reapportionment and Redistricting in the West, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.Google Scholar
  22. Donovan, T. and Neiman, M., 1992, ‘Citizen mobilization and the adoption of local growth controls,’ Western Political Quarterly 45(3), 651–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Donovan, T., Bowler, S., McCuan, D. and Fernandez, K., 1998, ‘Contending players and strategies: Opposition advantages in initiative campaigns,’ in Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Tolbert, C. (Eds), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  24. Donovan, T., Tolbert, C. and Smith, D., 2008, ‘Priming presidential votes by direct democracy,’ Journal of Politics 70(4), 1217–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dyck, J. and Lascher, E., 2009, ‘Direct democracy and political efficacy reconsidered,’ Political Behavior 31(3), 410–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elkins, D., 1985, ‘British Columbia as a state of mind,’ in Blake, D. (Ed.) Two Political Worlds: Parties and Voting in British Columbia, UBC Press, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  27. Ellis, R., 2002, Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
  28. Gerber, E., 1999, Populist Paradox: Interest Groups and the Promise of Direct Legislation, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  29. Gerber, E. and Phillips, J., 2005, ‘Evaluating the effects of direct democracy on public policy: California’s urban growth boundaries,’ American Politics Research 33(2), 310–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goebel, T., 1997, ‘A case of democratic contagion: Direct democracy in the American west, 1890–1920,’ Pacific Historical Review 66(2), 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldberg, C., 1997, ‘A decision on Seattle Seahawks home,’ New York Times 25 May.Google Scholar
  32. Goodwyn, L., 1976, Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Griffiths, D., 1992, Populism in the Western United States, Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Hicks, J., 1931, The Populist Revolt, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  35. Hofstadter, R., 1955, The Age of Reform, Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, C.O., 1944, ‘The adoption of the initiative and referendum in Washington,’ Pacific Northwest Quarterly (October), 291–303.Google Scholar
  37. Kolko, G., 1976, Main Currents in Modern American History, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Lawrence, E., Donovan, T. and Bowler, S., 2009, ‘Adopting direct democracy: Tests of competing explanations of institutional change,’ American Politics Research 37(6), 1024–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lax, J. and Phillips, J., 2009, ‘Gay rights in the states: Public opinion and policy responsiveness,’ American Political Science Review 103(3), 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. —, 2012, ‘The democratic deficit in the states,’ American Journal of Political Science 56(1), 148–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laycock, D., 1990, Populism and Democratic Thought in the Canadian Prairies, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  42. Lind, R., 2012, ‘Special interest ballot measure really is just anti-union,’ San Jose Mercury News, 2 March.Google Scholar
  43. Lustig, R.J., 1982, Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern American Political Theory, 1890–1920, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  44. Magleby, D., 1984, Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  45. —, 1994, ‘Direct legislation in the American States,’ in Butler, D. and Ranney, A. (Ed.), Referendums Around the World, AEI Press: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  46. Matsusaka, J., 1992, ‘The economics of direct legislation,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 107(2), 541–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. —, 2004, For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy and American Democracy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. —, 2010, ‘Popular control of public policy: A quantitative approach,’ Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5, 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McGrath, R., 2011, ‘Electoral competition and the frequency of initiative use in the U.S. States,’ American Politics Research 39(3), 611–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mendelsohn, M., 1996, ‘Introducing deliberative direct democracy in Canada: learning from the American experience,’ American Review of Canadian Studies 26(3), 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mowery, T. and Pelletier, A., 2001, ‘Referendums in Canada: A comparative overview,’ Electoral Insights January, Elections Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  52. Nicholson, S., 2005, Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elections and Ballot Propositions, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  53. O’Conner, C., 2012, ‘Jeff Bezos joins growing list of billionaires backing same-sex marriage,’ Forbes 27 July.Google Scholar
  54. Persily, N. and Anderson, M., 2005, ‘Regulating democracy through democracy: The use of direct legislation in election law reform,’ Southern California Law Review 997.Google Scholar
  55. Philips, J., 2008, ‘Does the citizen initiative weaken party government in the US States?’ State Politics and Policy Quarterly 8(2), 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Piott, S., 1992, ‘Origins of the initiative and referendum in America,’ Hayes Historical Journal 11, 8–10.Google Scholar
  57. —, 2004, Giving Voters a Voice: the Origin of the Initiative and Referendum in America, University of Missouri Press, Columbus.Google Scholar
  58. Pippen, J., Bowler, S. and Donovan, T., 2002, Election Reform and Direct Democracy: Campaign Finance Regulations in the American States, American Politics Research 30(6), 559–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pollack, N., 1962, The Populist Response to Industrial America, W.W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Qvortrup, M., 2014, Referendums and Ethnic Conflict, University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ruff, N., 1993, ‘Institutionalizing populism in British Columbia,’ Canadian Parliamentary Review 16(4), 24–32.Google Scholar
  62. Sabato, L., Ernst, H. and Larson, B.A. (Eds), 2001, Dangerous Democracy: The Battle over Ballot Initiatives in America, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.Google Scholar
  63. Sharp, P.F., 1947, ‘The American farmer and the last best west,’ Agricultural History 21, 65–75.Google Scholar
  64. —, 1950, ‘When our west moved north,’ American Historical Review 55, 286–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shepsle, K., 2001, ‘A comment on institutional change,’ Journal of Theoretical Politics 13(3), 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith, D. and Fridkin, D., 2008, ‘Delegating direct democracy: Interparty legislative competition and the adoption of the initiative in the American states,’ American Political Science Review 102(3), 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith, M., 2002, ‘Ballot initiatives and the democratic citizen,’ Journal of Politics 64(3), 892–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stratmann, T., 2006, ‘Is spending more potent for or against a proposition: Evidence from ballot measures,’ American Journal of Political Science 50(3), 788–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sullivan, J.W., 1893, Legislation by the Citizen Through Initiative and Referendum, True Nationalist, New York.Google Scholar
  70. Tolbert, C., 1998, ‘Governance policies,’ in Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Tolbert, C. (Eds), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, Ohio State University Press, Columbus.Google Scholar
  71. Tolbert, C. and Smith, D., 2004, Educated by the Initiative, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  72. Tolbert, C., Grummel, J. and Smith, D., 2001, ‘The effect of ballot initiative on voter turnout in the American states,’ American Politics Research 29(6), 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Todd Donovan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd Donovan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations