Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:55:19.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Initiatives within Representative Government: Political Competition and Initiative Use in the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

William D. Hicks
William D. Hicks*
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
*
William D. Hicks, Department of Political Science, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117325, Anderson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

direct democracypolitical behaviorpolitical partiesparties and interest groupsparties in legislaturesrepresentationinterest groups
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 471 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2013

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

Arceneaux, Kevin. 2002. “Direct Democracy and the Link between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 2(4): 372–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banducci, Susan A. 1998. “Direct Legislation: When Is It Used and When Does It Pass?” In Citizens As Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus: Ohio State University, 109–31.Google Scholar
Barone, Michael, III, William Lilley, and Defranco, Laurence J.. 1998. State Legislative Elections: Voting Patterns and Demographics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Berkman, Michael B., and Schneiderman, Stuart. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review 94(4): 859–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Fording, Richard C., Ringquist, Evan J., Hanson, Russell L., and Klarner, Carl E.. 2010. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States: A Re-appraisal.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10(2): 117–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Golder, Matt, and Milton, Daniel. 2012. “Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction.” The Journal of Politics 74(3): 653–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States.” American Journal of Political Science 42(1): 327–48. http://rcfording.wordpress.com/state-ideology-data/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 1999. “The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–1996.” American Political Science Review 93(3): 519–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005. “Sources of Variation in the Frequency of Statewide Initiatives: The Role of Interest Group Populations.” Political Research Quarterly 58(4): 565–75.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 & Policy Quarterly 4(3): 345–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Tobin Grant, J.. 1999. “All in a Day's Work: The Financial Rewards of Legislative Effectiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24(4): 511–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Arceneaux, Kevin, Johnson, Martin, and Ulbig, Stacy G.. 2007. “Reply to ‘The Measurement and Stability of State Citizen Ideology.‘” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7(2): 133–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2008. State Personal Income (NAICS) 1990–2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. www.bea.gov/regional/sqpi/ (accessed August 19, 2013).Google Scholar
Cameron, A. Colin, and Trivedi, Pravin K.. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., Berry, William D., Niemi, Richard G., Powell, Lynda W., and Snyder, James M.. 2008. State Legislative Election Returns, 1967–2003 (ICPSR Study No. 21480). Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Ceaser, James W., and Saldin, Robert P.. 2005. “A New Measure of Party Strength.” Political Research Quarterly 58(2): 245–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of State Governments. 1990–2008. The Book of the States. Lexington: Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
Dwyer, Paul E. 2006. Salaries for Members of Congress: A List of Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789–2006 (GOV 87-1011 CRS Report for Congress). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Dwyer, Paul E., and Brudnick, Ida A.. 2007. Legislative Branch: FY 2007 Appropriations (RL 33379 CRS Report for Congress). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiative.” American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goebel, Thomas. 2002. A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890–1940. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Hausman, Jerry, Hall, Bronwyn H., and Griliches, Zvi. 1984. “Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship.” Econometrica 52(4): 909–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbe, Joseph M. 2007. Negative Binomial Regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honaker, James, and King, Gary. 2010. “What to Do about Missing Values in Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 561–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrebenar, Ronald, and Thomas, Clive. 1996. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Perspective, eds. Gray, Virginia and Jacobs, Herbert. 6th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 122–58.Google Scholar
Hrebenar, Ronald, and Thomas, Clive. 1999. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Perspective, eds. Gray, Virginia, Hanson, Russell L., and Jacob, Herbert. 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 113–43.Google Scholar
Hrebenar, Ronald, and Thomas, Clive. 2004. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Perspective, eds. Gray, Virginia and Jacobs, Herbert. 8th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 100–28.Google Scholar
King, James D. 2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(2): 327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klarner, Carl E. 2003. “Measurement of Partisan Balance in State Government.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 3:309–19. http://academic.udayton.edu/SPPQ-TPR/klarner_datapage.html (accessed August 19, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollman, Ken. 1998. Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Langer, Laura, and Brace, Paul. 2005. “The Preemptive Power of State Supreme Courts: Adoption of Abortion and Death Penalty Legislation.” The Policy Studies Journal 33(3): 317–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascher, Edward L., Hagen, Michael G., and Rochlin, Steven A.. 1996. “Gun behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies, and Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 58(3): 760–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103(3): 367–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 148–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilley, William III, Defranco, Laurence J., Bernstein, Mark F., and Ramsby, Kari L.. 2008. Almanac of State Legislative Elections: Voting Patterns and Demographics, 2000–2006. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2010. “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Quantitative Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5(2): 133–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G., and McCarty, Nolan. 2001. “Political Resource Allocation: Benefits and Costs of Voter Initiatives.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 17:413–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, Robert J. 2011. “Electoral Competition and the Frequency of Initiative Use in the U.S. States.” American Politics Research 39(3): 611–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monogan, James, Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 2009. “Public Opinion, Organized Interests, and Policy Congruence in Initiative and Noninitiative U.S. States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 9(3): 304–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2009. State Vote: Election Results. Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures. www.ncsl.org (accessed August 19, 2013).Google Scholar
Nownes, Anthony J., Thomas, Clive, and Hrebenar, Ronald. 2008. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Perspective, eds. Gray, Virginia and Jacobs, Herbert. 9th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 98–126.Google Scholar
Ornstein, Normal, Mann, Thomas E., and Malbin, Michael J.. 2008. Vital Statistics on Congress, 2008. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Pacheco, Julianna. 2011. “Using National Surveys to Measure Dynamic U.S. State Public Opinion: A Guideline for Scholars and an Application.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11(4): 415–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Justin H. 2008. “Does the Citizen Initiative Weaken Part Government in the U.S. States?” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 8(2): 127–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Charles. 1975. “The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon.” Western Political Quarterly 27:243–62.Google Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia, and Skrondal, Anders. 2008. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. 2nd ed. College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2005. “The Impact of Divided Government on Legislative Production.” Public Choice 123(1): 217–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saeki, Manabu. 2009. “Gridlock in the Government of the United States: Influence of Divided Government and Veto Players.” British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105(3): 530–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shufeldt, Gregory, and Flavin, Patrick. 2012. “Two Distinct Concepts: Party Competition in Government and Electoral Competition in the American States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12(3): 330–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2007. “The Instrumental and Educative Effects of Ballot Measures: Research on Direct Democracy in the American States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7(4): 416–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1998. “Membership Turnover and the Efficient Processing of Legislation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23(1): 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7(2): 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990–2008a. Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: GPO. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html (accessed August 19, 2013).Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990–2008b. State Government Finances. Washington, DC: GPO. http://www.census.gov/govs/state/ (accessed August 19, 2013).Google Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar