Brief Report
Version 1
Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed
The Ballot Measure Wars
Version 1
: Received: 4 October 2023 / Approved: 12 October 2023 / Online: 12 October 2023 (05:46:54 CEST)
How to cite: Orange, K.; Olson-Manning, C.; Olson Skarkey, E. The Ballot Measure Wars. Preprints 2023, 2023100778. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202310.0778.v1 Orange, K.; Olson-Manning, C.; Olson Skarkey, E. The Ballot Measure Wars. Preprints 2023, 2023100778. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202310.0778.v1
Abstract
In the United States, the ballot measure power was born during the 1990s Progressive Era, ushered in by populists, socialists, and labor activists. Early on, activists used the measure to curb political corruption through campaign finance and other election reforms. Those early efforts also sought to improve labor conditions, minimize the influence of wealthy special interests, and require powerful corporate interests to pay more taxes. While the measure has been used by conservatives and progressives alike, the legacy of the process as a vehicle for progressive change is undeniable. However, the ballot measure landscape of the last two decades is marked by politicians growing increasingly hostile to its use. From requiring supermajorities to pass measures to refusing to implement measures approved by voters, lawmakers have made every attempt to restrict voters’ access to the measure power. In particular, Republican state legislators have become increasingly hostile to the ballot measure process, crafting creative ways to prevent measures from making it to the ballot or to stop voters from approving progressive measures. To fully understand how the measure process has been manipulated in recent years, we examined how legislators have attempted to change the process. Here, we examined a series of hypotheses to determine whether the political party affiliation of the sponsor of proposed ballot measure legislation is a predictor of whether the legislation restricts the ballot measure process. We tested these hypotheses by analyzing data from 2010 to 2022 and conducting empirical tests to determine the relationship between political party affiliation and the restrictiveness of proposed ballot measure legislation. We also analyzed how the patterns of ballot measure legislation affected states where the state government is under unified and split control. In reviewing this legislation, we found that Democrats initially attempted to restrict the ballot measure process. However, as progressives successfully passed more progressive ballot measures, Republicans – and particularly when Republicans held a trifecta in state government – attempted to restrict the ballot measure process far more extensively than any attempts by Democrats. We can draw three significant conclusions from our analysis. First, Democrats are willing to restrict the ballot measure process in some circumstances. This is evident based on conservative attempts to restrict gay marriage and other conservative policy through the ballot measure in the 2000s and Democratic efforts to stop those attacks. Second, Republican attempts to restrict the ballot measure process far outpace any initial attempts by Democrats during the period we studied, especially when Republicans have a trifecta in the state government. This speaks to the long-term Republican strategy of power-grabbing seen not only here, but throughout the political process in recent years. Lastly, our research indicates that as progressives continue to see success with ballot measures, Republican efforts to restrict the ballot measure process are expected to continue.
Keywords
ballot measure legislation; ballot initiatives
Subject
Social Sciences, Political Science
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Comments (0)
We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.
Leave a public commentSend a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
