Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States

7. The Educative Possibilities and Limitations of Citizen Lawmaking

7 The Educative Possibilities and Limitations of Citizen Lawmaking Summarizing the “historical legacy” of direct legislation, historian Thomas Goebel grouses that citizen lawmaking “has not lived up to the expectations of its advocates one century ago.” On instrumental grounds alone, he contends that the initiative has not bridled corporate interests, which continue to dominate many state legislatures. In his impressive account of the adoption of direct democracy in America , Goebel maintains that in terms of substantive outcomes, citizen lawmaking “has only been yet another tool for business interests to achieve their goals.” Though he musters no empirical evidence to bolster his claims, Goebel goes on to indict direct democracy on educative grounds. He contends that the initiative has not produced any positive secondary effects because it has not “contribute[d] in any meaningful way to a revival of democracy in America.” According to Goebel, the initiative “has not empowered ordinary citizens, it has not increased political awareness or participation . . . and it has not reduced the power of special interests.” He concludes his book on a pessimistic note, writing that “the historical analysis of direct democracy since its inception a century ago makes abundantly clear that the initiative and referendum have never served, and probably never will serve, as the means to strengthen democracy in America, to truly build a government by the people.”1 Our research brings into stark relief the accuracy of some of these claims. Our book makes no effort to assess the instrumental merits of direct legislation in a normative or empirical sense. We do not attempt to evaluate the substantive public policies that result from direct legislation or to appraise how well citizen lawmaking approxi136 mates public opinion or keeps state legislatures in check. Shunning the standard instrumental perspective, which dominates most present-day studies, we have instead focused on the pedagogical impact of citizen lawmaking. What are the secondary, educative effects of direct democracy? Does the process of citizen lawmaking— irrespective of any substantive policy outcomes or preconceived notions regarding its populist foundations—have no measurable positive impact on democratic citizens and political organizations, as Goebel insists, or does direct democracy engender broader expressions of civic participation and democratic life? In the preceding chapters, we have empirically evaluated citizen lawmaking’s educative effects. We have critically examined how the process shapes individuals’ attitudes and behaviors as well as how interest groups and political parties have adapted to its institutionalization . Situating our inquiry into direct democracy within the larger historical debate, we assess whether the process of citizen lawmaking operates in accordance with Progressive Era reformers’ pedagogical intentions. Above all, the Progressive reformers were educators. One of those reformers, Frederic C. Howe, a social reformer and commissioner of immigration at the Port of New York, touted the “educative in›uence of referendum elections on measures initiated by the people themselves.” Ballot initiatives, Howe told the learned audience at the annual meeting of the Academy of Political Science soon after the 1912 elections, “lead to constant discussion, to a deeper interest in government, and to a psychological conviction that a government is in effect the people themselves. And this is the greatest gain of all. It has been said that the jury is the training school of democracy.”2 Have the optimistic assumptions about direct legislation by Progressives such as Howe been borne out? Are the contemporary educative effects of citizen lawmaking in keeping with Progressive reformers’ expectations, or has direct democracy not lived up to its potential, as Goebel would have it? We ‹nd that with respect to voter turnout, civic engagement, and political ef‹cacy, direct democracy does indeed have positive effects on citizens, consistent with democratic norms advanced in the Progressive Era. Based on national survey data, our research indicates Possibilities and Limitations of Citizen Lawmaking 137 that citizens living in states with frequent ballot initiatives are more motivated to vote, are more interested in and better informed about politics, and express more con‹dence in government responsiveness than do citizens living in noninitiative states. Indeed, we even ‹nd that citizen lawmaking has a positive effect on political discussion. While we hesitate to equate this heightened political awareness with some Rousseauian notion of discursive deliberation, we ‹nd, like some other scholars, that the initiative process has a signi‹cant effect on citizens’ attitudes and behaviors. The ‹ndings based on the survey data are bolstered by those based on 50-state aggregate data...