Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America

by Richard J. Ellis

It is becoming common in many the opportunity to reclaim government from politicians by simply signing a petition to put an initiative on the ballot and then voting for it. Isn't this what America ought to be about? Proposition 13 in California's 1978 election paved the way; the past decade saw more than 450 such actions; now in many states direct legislation dominates the political agenda and defines political—and public-opinion.

While this may appear to be democracy in action, Richard Ellis warns us that the initiative process may be putting democracy at risk. In Democratic Delusions he offers a critical analysis of the statewide initiative process in the United States, challenging readers to look beyond populist rhetoric and face political reality.

Through engaging prose and illuminating (and often amusing) anecdotes, Ellis shows readers the "dark side" of direct democracy—specifically the undemocratic consequences that result from relying too heavily on the initiative process. He provides historic context to the development of initiatives-from their Populist and Progress roots to their accelerated use in recent decades-and shows the differences between initiative processes in the states that use them. Most important, while acknowledging the positive contribution of initiatives, Ellis shows that there are reasons to use them carefully and ill-considered initiatives can subvert normal legislative checks and balances, undermine the deliberative process, and even threaten the rights of minority groups through state-sanctioned measures.

Today's initiative process, Ellis warns, is dominated not by ordinary citizens but by politicians, perennial activists, wealthy interests, and well-oiled machines. Deliberately misleading language on the ballot confuses voters and influences election results. And because many initiatives are challenged in the courts, these ostensibly democratic procedures have now put legislation in the hands of the judiciary. Throughout his book he cites examples drawn from states in which initiatives are used intensively—Oregon, California, Colorado, Washington, and Arizona-as well as others in which their use has increased in recent years.

Undoing mistakes enacted by initiative can be more difficult than correcting errors of legislatures. As voters prepare to consider the host of initiatives that will be offered in the 2002 elections, this book can help put those efforts in a clearer light. Democratic Delusions urges moderation, attempting to teach citizens to be at least as skeptical of the initiative process as they are of the legislative process—and to appreciate the enduring value of the representative institutions they seek to circumvent.

272 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 2002

About the author

Richard J. Ellis is Mark O. Hatfield Professor of Politics, Policy, Law, and Ethics at Willamette University.

Reviews

[Brenton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Full disclosure: Doctor Ellis was my thesis advisor at Willamette University, and I think quite highly of his professorial abilities. I will start with by quoting a passage that basically sums up the theme of this book:

"For all their failings, legislatures have the singular virtue of being capable of identifying, correcting, and learning from past errors...and so neither citizens nor legislatures see anything wrong or unusual in changing and improving current laws. ...government policy enacted by the legislature is treated as the law of the land, not as the godlike voice of the people.

The real problem with initiatives is not that they are more likely to produce poor public policy than are legislatures - though they may - but rather that mistakes made by initiatives are generally more difficult to correct. A successful initiative, unlike a legislative action, is widely assumed to be the authentic expression of the "voice of the people." ...Even the modest attempt to have voters reconsider their decision brings howls of populist outrage."

Using detailed accountings of past elections across the country, Ellis breaks down the myth of the citizen initiative as a golden ideal whereby average citizens can challenge corrupt politicians and moneyed special interests. He recounts how editorials and thought leaders at the turn of the century made many of the same gripes about the infant initiative process (too many to vote on, misleading titles, the need for paid signature gatherers, wealthy individuals effectively buying consideration of their pet issues) that echo today. In effect, Ellis argues, all the same villains of the legislative process - especially the power of special interest groups and the very wealthy - are present in the initiative process. Unlike the legislative process, however, the initiative does not allow for compromise or take into account intensity of preferences. Lacking these benefits of deliberative democracy, initiatives create winners and losers, the latter of which increasingly turn to the courts to settle their grievances. The irony is that a vehicle intended - and still espoused by its proponents - to increase democracy has transferred greater legislative power to the least democratic branch of government. The "healthy" skepticism Americans display towards legislation and politicians, in other words, would be just as usefully applied to initiatives and their backers.

Underlying Ellis' analysis are two key assumptions that go mostly unexplored - that the Founders' intent for the structure of governance are of critical importance, and that deliberation produces the best, or most democratic, outcomes. While I grant that it was indeed the Founders who envisioned the checks and balances that underly our version of deliberative democracy, I generally find references to them to have a whiff of propaganda. To explicitly call out the Founders alludes that the associated act is a result of superhuman effort, that it cannot possibly be improved by us mere mortals, that well over two centuries of change and innovation is irrelevant to its status as Truth. The Founders may have been very intelligent men who were arguably ahead of their time, but that does not mean they were infallible, nor that equally intelligent people could not come up with equally brilliant but different modes of deliberative, equitable governance. The second assumption I generally agree with, but reasonable people could easily disagree, and I think that taking this assumption as given without defending it does the argument a disservice. Ellis does indirectly defend this assumption in comparing the philosophical underpinnings of deliberation versus the initiative, but not in bolstering deliberative democracy in and of itself. Granted, that is not what this book was about, but for something that so strongly undergirds the entire argument, it seems a lamentable omission to me.

The book is very accessible without feeling like its talking down or trying too hard to be "cool." In places I would have preferred more frequent section breaks within his chapters. What is particularly unfortunate is the book's age, given the changes we have seen since the Citizens United ruling. I would love to see a new treatment, even as a journal article or longer blog post, where Ellis considered his findings and conclusions in light of new data.

Please consider giving it a read!

[Tamra]

Oregon and California are heavy users of initiative process. He says that gathering signatures is a business, paid by the signature and asks question, if signatures are indication of public sentiment or merely a function of money? He points out that TV ads give less well-informed voters a rough idea and that elected officials and candidates hoping to increase their visibility, increase voter-turnout or help them raise money introduced more than one-third of the initiatives to California voters in the 1970s and 1980s.