Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:38:16.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Election Laws and Agenda Setting: How Election Law Restrictiveness Shapes the Complexity of State Ballot Measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Kerri Milita
Kerri Milita*
Affiliation:
Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA
*
Kerri Milita, Department of Politics & Government, Illinois State University, 401 Schroeder Hall, Campus Box 4600, Normal, IL 61761, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, many U.S. states that allow citizen initiatives have passed laws designed to make it more difficult for an initiative to qualify for the ballot (e.g., by increasing the number of signatures required to get on the ballot), thereby making it harder for citizens to bypass the legislature and make direct changes to public policy. Such laws have reduced both the number of measures that make the ballot and the number that pass on Election Day. I show that laws governing access of initiatives to the ballot also shape the policy agenda; provisions making it harder for proposals to get on the ballot decrease the complexity of the initiatives on the ballot. As less complex initiatives are more likely to be understood by voters and voters are reluctant to vote for measures they do not understand, more restrictive laws actually increase the likelihood that an initiative will pass.

Keywords

direct democracypolitical behaviorelection rulesinterest groups and electionspolitical participationvoting behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 119 - 146
Copyright
The Author(s) 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John. 2002. Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information, and American Public Opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banducci, Susan. 1998. “Direct Legislation: When Is It Used and When Does It Pass?” In Citizens as Legislators, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline J.. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 109–31.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Even J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 327–48..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggers, Daniel R. 2011. “When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout.” Political Behavior 33 (1): 3–25..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggers, Daniel R. 2012. “Can a Social Issue Proposition Increase Political Knowledge? Campaign Learning and the Educative Effects of Direct Democracy.” American Politics Research 40 (6): 998–1025..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005. “Sources of Variation in Statewide Use of the Initiative Process: The Role of Interest Group Populations.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (4): 575–85..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004. “Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives Are Created Equal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4 (3): 345–63..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Happ, Trudi. 1992. “Ballot Propositions and Information Costs: Direct Democracy and the Fatigued Voter.” Western Political Quarterly 45 (2): 559–68..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C., Canon, David T., Mayer, Kenneth R., and Moynihan, Donald P.. 2014. “Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (1): 95–109..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C., and Neiheisel, Jacob R.. 2013. “Election Administration and the Pure Effect of Voter Registration on Turnout.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (1): 77–90..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camobreco, John F. 1998. “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process.” Journal of Politics 60 (4): 819–29..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74 (1): 78–91..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, David. 2000. “Train Vote May Stick State with $10 Billion Bill.” Orlando Sentinel, December 16. Accessed on April 1, 2014 from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2000-12-16/news/0012160421_1_bullet-train-dockery-constitutional-amendment.Google Scholar
Cronin, Thomas E. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubin, Michael J. 2007. Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 1796–2006. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 1996. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation, Lobbying Communities in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Wayman, Frank W.. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review 84:797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J. 2009. Discount Voting: Voter Registration Reforms and Their Effects. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnacki, Marie, and Kimball, David C.. 1998. “Organized Interests and the Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress.” American Political Science Review 92:775–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D., Shipan, Charles R., and Pfahler, Madelaine. 2001. “Legislatures and Statutory Control of Bureaucracy.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (2): 330–45..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1995. “The Structure of Ideological Thinking in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (2): 314–35..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, Kathleen. 1989. “Party Realignments and the Growth of Federal Economic Regulation.” Journal of Financial Services Research 2 (3): 213–25..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1990. “Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America.” Political Behavior 12 (1): 59–92..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., Anderson, David J., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2008. “An Exploration of Correct Voting in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (2): 395–411..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, Jan E., and Nagler, Jonathan. 1992. “Socioeconomic Class Bias in Turnout, 1964–1988: The Voters Remain the Same.” American Political Science Review 86 (3): 725–36..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, Jan E., and Nagler, Jonathan. 2013. Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magelby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
McCaffery, Jerry, and Bowman, John H.. 1978. “Participatory Democracy and Budgeting: The Effects of Proposition 13.” Public Administration Review 38 (6): 530–38..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2002. Drafting the Initiative Proposal. Accessed September 27, 2009 from http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=16590Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2009. Petition Circulation Periods. Accessed January 3, 2013 from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/petition-circulation-periods.aspxGoogle Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2010. Paid vs. Volunteer Petitioners. Accessed June 26, 2013 from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/paid-vs-volunteer-petitioners.aspxGoogle Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2013. Initiative and Referendum Legislation. Accessed January 10, 2013 from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/initiative-and-referendum-legislation-database.aspxGoogle Scholar
Nownes, Anthony J., Thomas, Clive S., and Hrebenar, Ronald J.. 2008. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States, eds. Gray, Virginia and Hanson, Russell L.. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 98–126.Google Scholar
Osborne, Helen. 2000. “In Other Words: Assessing Readability and Rules for the Playing the Numbers Game.” On Call, December. Accessed February 19, 2015 from http://www.healthliteracy.com/article.asp?PageID=3806Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 2006. “Election Laws and Representative Government: Beyond Votes and Seats.” British Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 291–315..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, Shauna. 2010. Design, Meaning, and Choice in Direct Democracy. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Reilly, Shauna, and Richey, Sean. 2011. “Ballot Question Readability and Roll-off: The Impact of Language Complexity.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (1): 59–67..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Wolfinger, Raymond E.. 1978. “The Effect of Registration Laws on Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 72 (1): 22–45..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schildkraut, Deborah J. 2001. “Official-English and the States: Influences on Declaring English the Official Language in the United States.” Political Research Quarterly 54:445–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selb, Peter. 2009. “Supersized Votes: Ballot Length, Uncertainty, and Choice in Direct Legislation Elections.” Public Choice 135 (3–4): 319–36.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 211–27..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Clive S., and Hrebenar, Ronald J.. 1990. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States. 9th ed., eds. Gray, Virginia and Hanson, Russell L.. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 98–126.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J., Lowenstein, Daniel, and Donovan, Todd. 1998. “Election Law and Rules for Using Initiatives.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline J.. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Wellhofer, E. Spencer. 1972. “Dimensions of Party Development: A Study in Organizational Dynamics.” Journal of Politics 34 (1): 153–82..CrossRefGoogle Scholar