Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Tables and Figures
- Preface
- Introduction: A Clash of Rising Powers
- PART I THE QUEST FOR MAJORITY RULE
- PART II COUNTERING THE MAJORITY
- 3 The Counter-Majoritarian Power
- 4 The Courts at Work
- 5 Conflicts Over Rights
- 6 Conflicts Over Powers
- PART III THE MAJORITY STRIKES BACK
- Conclusion: A New Constitutional Equilibrium
- Appendix: Post-Election Initiative Invalidations
- References
- Index
- References
3 - The Counter-Majoritarian Power
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Tables and Figures
- Preface
- Introduction: A Clash of Rising Powers
- PART I THE QUEST FOR MAJORITY RULE
- PART II COUNTERING THE MAJORITY
- 3 The Counter-Majoritarian Power
- 4 The Courts at Work
- 5 Conflicts Over Rights
- 6 Conflicts Over Powers
- PART III THE MAJORITY STRIKES BACK
- Conclusion: A New Constitutional Equilibrium
- Appendix: Post-Election Initiative Invalidations
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
Direct democracy was grafted into a larger constitutional system defined by checks and balances. Because that system matches power with counter-power, one could expect direct democracy to meet opposition from other branches of government. But, in many states, the reformers specifically designed the initiative process to bypass external checks. The question thus became: Could the Madisonian system effectively limit citizen lawmaking? This chapter examines the capacity of various institutions to counter the initiative power and discusses why courts are best positioned to exercise this check.
POTENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL COUNTER-POWERS
The Legislature
Legislatures see direct democracy as a rival power. This natural animosity makes it all the more surprising that reformers convinced any legislature to devolve lawmaking authority to the people. Following the Progressive Era, legislatures strengthened their resistance to the people's rule. After 1918, only a handful of legislatures offered voters a chance to adopt the initiative process and, in those rare instances, imposed severe restrictions on its use. More often, legislatures sought to limit the initiative power where it already existed. Over time, legislatures have attempted to constrain the initiative power in three primary ways: by enacting laws that impede the people's ability to use the process; by repealing or amending voter-approved initiatives; or, short of repeal, by failing to implement initiatives as their proponents intended.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Direct Democracy and the Courts , pp. 75 - 100Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
and , “Delegating Direct Democracy: Interparty Legislative Competition and the Adoption of Direct Democracy in the American States,” American Political Science Review 102, no. 3 (Aug. 2008): 333–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Silence Isn't Golden: The Legislative Assault on Citizen Initiatives,” in , ed. The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking: An In-Depth Review of the Growing Trend to Regulate the People's Tool of Self Government: The Initiative and Referendum Process (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001), 97–107Google Scholar
, “State Efforts to Regulate the Initiative Process,” in , ed., The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking, 229–35
, ed., Initiative and Referendum Almanac, (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2003), 27
and , The Initiative and the Referendum in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1939), 486Google Scholar
, Reapportionment: The Law of Politics and Equal Representation (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1965), 444Google Scholar
, “Homeward Bound? Micro-level Legislative Responsiveness to Ballot Initiatives,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1, no. 1 (2001): 50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Overturning Term Limits: The Legislature's Own Private Idaho?” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, no. 2 (2003): 215, 215–16Google Scholar
, “Direct Democracy as ‘Super-Precedent’? Political Constraints of Citizen-Initiated Laws,” 43 Willamette L. Rev.191, 227–30 (2007)Google Scholar
, , , and , Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to Direct Democracy. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001), viiGoogle Scholar
, “Epilogue: Seeking Consensus among Conflicting Electorates,” in and , eds., Governing California: Politics, Government, and Public Policy in the Golden State (Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 1997), 331–43Google Scholar
, Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), 93–4Google Scholar
, Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future (New York: The New Press, 1998), 153Google Scholar
, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962), 15Google Scholar
, The Doctrine of Judicial Review: Its Historical and Legal Basis and Other Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1914), 10Google Scholar
, “The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Courts, 1801–1835,” 49 U. Chi. L. Rev.646 (Summer 1982), 655–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ed., The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 162–73, 182–87
, Papers of Madison, Vol. 12, , ed. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979), 206–7Google Scholar
, “Parchment Barriers and the Politics of Rights,” in and , eds., A Culture of Rights: The Bill of Rights in Philosophy, Politics, and Law – 1791 and 1991 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 140–42Google Scholar
, ed., Debates on the Federal Constitution in the Convention Held at Philadelphia in 1787, Vol. V (New York: Burt Franklin, 1888), 344Google Scholar
, “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law,” 7 Harv. L. Rev.129, 140–1 (1893)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Keeping the People's Liberties: Legislators, Citizens, and Judges as Guardians of Rights (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998), 31Google Scholar
, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 73–104Google Scholar
, World War I and the Origin of Civil Liberties in the United States (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1979), 71–132Google Scholar
, “Populism and the Politics of Rights: The Dual Attack on Representative Democracy,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 31, no. 4 (Dec. 1998): 683–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , eds., Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Vol. 64, (Arlington, VA: University Publications of America, 1975), 668
, “The Referendum: Democracy's Barrier to Racial Equality,” 54 Wash. L. Rev.1, 14–15, 20–1 (1978)Google Scholar
, “Fear of Voting: Differential Standards of Judicial Review of Direct Legislation.” 1 N.Y.U. J. Legis & Pub. Pol'y1, 4–5 (1997)Google Scholar
, “Judicial Review, Equal Protection, and the Problem with Plebiscites,” 79 Cornell L. Rev.527, 550–5 (1994)Google Scholar
, “When Initiative Lawmaking Is Not ‘Republican Government’: The Campaign against Homosexuality,” 72 Ore. L. Rev.19 (1993)Google Scholar
, “When is Initiative Lawmaking Not ‘Republican Government’?” 17 Hastings Const. L. Q.159 (1989)Google Scholar
and , “Initiating ‘Laws’ in the Form of ‘Constitutional Amendments’: An Amicus Brief” 34 Willamette L. Rev.749 (1998)Google Scholar
, “Observations on the Guarantee Clause – As Thoughtfully Addressed by Justice Linde and Professor Eule,” 65 U. Colo. L. Rev.741 (1994)Google Scholar
, “Direct Democracy in Washington: A Discourse on the Peoples' Powers of Initiative and Referendum,” 32 Gonz. L. Rev.247, 256 (1996–97)Google Scholar
, “Representative Government: The People's Choice,” 67 Chi.-Kent L. Rev.777, 780–82 (1991)Google Scholar
, In Pursuit of Justice: Reflections of a State Supreme Court Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 102, 107Google Scholar
and , “Pre-Election Judicial Review of Initiatives and Referendums,” 64 Notre Dame L. Rev.298 (1989)Google Scholar
, “Judicial Review of Initiative Constitutional Amendments, 14 U.C. Davis L. Rev.461, 468–74 (1980)Google Scholar
and , Lawmaking by Initiative: Issues, Options, and Comparisons (New York: Agathon Press, 1998), 43–5Google Scholar