Citation

Ferraiolo K. Publius 2017; 47(3): 378-402.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Temple University, Center for the Study of Federalism, Publisher Oxford University Press)

DOI

10.1093/publius/pjx032

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Partisan gridlock and ideological polarization at the federal level have elicited diverse responses from state and federal officials and have led citizens and groups in some states to respond to federal action or inaction by resorting to direct democratic institutions. A review of prominent ballot initiatives from 2010 to 2016 shows the varied reasons why citizens and groups turn to the initiative process in response to federal developments. Frustrated with the disconnect between public opinion and federal law, citizens in some states have approved initiatives that enact mostly liberal new gun control regulations. Meanwhile, supporters of marijuana legalization and minimum wage increases have relied on initiatives to compensate for lags in legislatures' responses to evolving public support for these positions. Ballot measures regarding same-sex marriage and abortion policy have also been triggered in part by federal developments. Through case studies of these areas, I also document the broader implications of initiative politics for voter turnout and mobilization, candidate evaluations, and policy agendas.

Language: en