Abraham, Henry J. and Perry, Barbara A.. Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States, Eighth Edition. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003.Google Scholar

Allswang, John M.The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898–1998. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Amar, Akhil Reed and Amar, Vikram David. “How to Achieve Direct National Election of the President without Amending the Constitution.” Findlaw, December 28, 2001.

Arakaki, Robert, legislative assistant, Hawaii legislature. Interview, May 17, 2005.

,Arkansas Secretary of State, “Amendment 73. Arkansas Term Limitation Amendment.” http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/ar-constitution/arcamend73/arcamend73.htm.

,Arkansas Secretary of State. “Elections.” http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections_election_results.html.

Axelrad, Jacob. Patrick Henry: The Voice of Freedom. New York: Random House, 1947.Google Scholar

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.Google Scholar

Baker, Gordon E.The Reapportionment Revolution: Representation, Political Power, and the Supreme Court. New York: Random House, 1966.Google Scholar

Baker, Leonard. Back to Back: The Duel Between FDR and the Supreme Court. New York: Macmillan, 1968.Google Scholar

Baker, Lynn. “Direct Democracy and Discrimination: A Public Choice Perspective.” 67 Chi-Kent L. Rev.707 (1991).Google Scholar

Bangs, Elizabeth T. “Who Should Decide What is Best for California's LEP Students? Proposition 227, Structural Equal Protection, and Local Decision-Making Power.” 11 La Raza L. J.113 (2000).Google Scholar

Barker, Ernest, ed. Social Contract: Locke, Hume and Rousseau. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Barnett, James D.The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon. New York: Macmillan, 1915.Google Scholar

Barrett, Edward L. “Anderson and the Judicial Function.” 45 S. Cal. L. Rev.739 (1972).Google Scholar

Beard, Charles A.The Supreme Court and the Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1912.Google Scholar

Beard, Charles A.An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1913.Google Scholar

Beard, Charles A. and Shultz, Birl E.. Documents on the Statewide Initiative, Referendum and Recall. New York: Macmillan, 1912.Google Scholar

Beckner, Gary, Fong, Thomas, and Murray, Jeanne. “Argument in Favor of Proposition 22.” California Voter Information Guide, Primary Election, March 7, 2000, 52. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/2000p.pdf.Google Scholar

Bell, Derrick A. “The Referendum: Democracy's Barrier to Racial Equality.” 54 Wash. L. Rev.1 (1978).Google Scholar

Benjamin, Gerald and Malbin, Michael J., eds. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992.

Bennett, Robert W. “Popular Election of the President without Constitutional Amendment.” 4 Green Bag 2d.241 (2001).Google Scholar

Bessette, Joseph. The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Bice, Scott H. “Anderson and the Adequate State Ground.” 45 S. Cal. L. Rev.750 (1972).Google Scholar

Bickel, Alexander M.The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.Google Scholar

Bickel, Alexander M. and Schmidt, Jr. Benno C.The Judiciary and Responsible Government, 1910–1921. New York: Macmillan, 1984.Google Scholar

Bird, Frederick L. and Ryan, Frances M.. The Recall of Public Officers: A Study of the Operation of Recall in California. New York: Macmillan, 1930.Google Scholar

Boehmke, Frederick J.The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation: How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Boehmke, Frederick J. and Alvarez, R. Michael, “The Influence of Initiative Signature Gathering Campaigns on Political Participation.” Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project Working Paper #27 (March 2005).

Bolt, Ernest C.Ballots Before Bullets: The War Referendum Approach to Peace in America, 1914–1941. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977.Google Scholar

Bork, Robert H.Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. New York: ReganBooks, 1996.Google Scholar

Botelho, Bruce M. and Gregoire, Christine O.. “Brief of the States of Washington and Alaska as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, California Democratic Party v. Jones, No. 99–401.” 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis240 (March 30, 2000).Google Scholar

Bowler, Shaun and Donovan, Todd. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowler, Shaun and Donovan, Todd. “Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government.” British Journal of Political Science 32 (2002): 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowler, Shaun and Donovan, Todd. “Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives are Created Equal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4, (Fall 2004): 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline J., eds. Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1998.

Bowler, Shaun and Glazer, Amihai. “Hybrid Democracy and Its Consequences.” Bowler, Shaun and Glazer, Amihai, eds. Direct Democracy's Impact on American Political Institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, William H. “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights.” 90 Harv. L. Rev.489 (Jan. 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Briffault, Richard. “Distrust of Democracy.” 63 U. Tex. L. Rev.1347 (1985).Google Scholar

Briggs, John V. “Arguments in Favor of Proposition 13.” California Secretary of State, California Voters Pamphlet, Primary Election, June 6, 1978, 58. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1978p.pdf.

Brinkley, Alan. “The Challenge to Deliberative Democracy.” Brinkley, Alan, Polsby, Nelson W., and Sullivan, Kathleen M., eds. New Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1997.Google Scholar

Brinkley, Alan, Polsby, Nelson W., and Sullivan, Kathleen. The New Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1997.Google Scholar

Broder, David S.Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2000.Google Scholar

Brown, Edmund G.(“Pat”) Brown, Erwin Loretz, and Bill Cosby. “Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 17.” California Secretary of State, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, Propositions and Proposed Laws Together with Arguments: General Election, Tuesday, November 7, 1972, 43–44. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1972g.pdf.Google Scholar

Bryan, William Jennings. “The People's Law.” Repr. S. Doc.523, 63rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1914.Google Scholar

Bryce, James. The American Commonwealth, Vol. I (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1995) (first published 1914).Google Scholar

Burton, David H., ed. The Collected Works of William Howard Taft, Vol. IV: Presidential Messages to Congress. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2002.

Burton, David H., ed. The Collected Works of William Howard Taft, Vol. V: Popular Government and The Anti-trust Act and the Supreme Court. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2003.

Burns, John and The Citizens' Conference on State Legislatures. The Sometime Governments: A Critical Study of the 50 American Legislatures by the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures. New York: Bantam, 1971.Google Scholar

Butler, David and Ranney, Austin, eds. Referendums: A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978.

Butler, David and Ranney, Austin. Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Jay S. “Substantive Due Process and the Free Exercise of Religion: Meyer, Pierce, and the Origins of Wisconsin v. Yoder.” 25 Cap. U. L. Rev.887 (1996).Google Scholar

Bybee, Keith J. “Introduction: The Two Faces of Judicial Power.” Bybee, Keith J., ed. Bench Press: The Collision of Courts, Politics, and the Media. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Bybee, Keith J., ed. Bench Press: The Collision of Courts, Politics, and the Media. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007.

Cain, Bruce E. “Epilogue: Seeking Consensus Among Conflicting Electorates.” Lubenow, Gerald C. and Cain, Bruce E., eds. Governing California: Politics, Government, and Public Policy in the Golden State. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce E. and Gerber, Elisabeth R., eds. Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Cain, Bruce E., Sara Ferejohn, Margarita Najar, and Mary Walther. “Constitutional Change: Is It Too Easy to Amend our State Constitution?” Bruce E. Cain and Roger G. Noll, eds. Constitutional Reform in California: Making State Government More Effective and Responsive. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce E. and Kousser, Thad. Adapting to Term Limits: Recent Experiences and New Directions. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2004.Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce E. and Miller, Kenneth P.. “The Populist Legacy: Initiatives and the Undermining of Representative Government.” Sabato, Larry J., Ernst, Howard R., and Larson, Bruce A., eds. Dangerous Democracy?: The Battle Over Initiatives in America. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield, 2001.Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce E. and Noll, Roger G.. “Principles of State Constitutional Design.” Cain, Bruce E. and Noll, Roger G., eds. Constitutional Reform in California Making State Government More Effective and Responsive. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 1995.Google Scholar

,California Commission on Campaign Financing. Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California's Fourth Branch of Government. Los Angeles: Center for Responsive Government, 1992.Google Scholar

,California Secretary of State. Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, Propositions and Proposed Laws Together with Arguments to be Submitted to the Electors of the State of California at the General Election, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 1964, http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1964g.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, Propositions and Proposed Laws Together with Arguments to be Submitted to the Electors of the State of California at the General Election, Tuesday, Nov. 8, 1966, http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1966g.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. California Statement of Vote and Supplement, November 8, 1966 General Election.

,California Secretary of State. Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, Propositions and Proposed Laws Together with Arguments: General Election, Tuesday, November 7, 1972, http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1972g.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. Statement of Vote, November 7, 1972 General Election.

,California Secretary of State. California Voters Pamphlet, Primary Election, June 6, 1978, 55–60. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1978p.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. Statement of Vote, November 4, 1986 General Election.

,California Secretary of State. California Ballot Pamphlet, Primary Election, June 5, 1990, http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1990p.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. California Ballot Pamphlet, General Election, November 8, 1994, 50–55. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1994g.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. Statement of Vote, November 8, 1994 General Election.

,California Secretary of State. California Voter Information Guide, Primary Election, June 2, 1998, http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1998p.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. California Voter Information Guide, Primary Election, March 7, 2000, http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/2000p.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. Statement of Vote, March 7, 2000 Primary Election. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/measures.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. California General Election, Tuesday, November 4, 2008 Official Voter Information Guide, http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/2008g.pdf.

,California Secretary of State. Statement of Vote, November 4, 2008 General Election.

Campbell, Anne G. “In the Eye of the Beholder: The Single Subject Rule for Ballot Initiatives.” Waters, M. Dane, ed. The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Cannon, Lou. Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2003.Google Scholar

Casstevens, Thomas W.Politics, Housing, and Race Relations: California's Rumford Act and Proposition 14. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, 1967.Google Scholar

Castello, James E. “Comment: The Limits of Popular Sovereignty: Using the Initiative Power to Control Legislative Procedure.” 74 Cal. L. Rev.491 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chang, Stanley. “Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation.” 44 Harv. J. on Legis.205 (2007).Google Scholar

Charlow, Robin. “Judicial Review, Equal Protection, and the Problem with Plebiscites.” 79 Cornell L. Rev.527 (1994).Google Scholar

Chávez, Lydia. The Color Bind: California's Battle to End Affirmative Action. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Chiang, Harriet. “Film Captures Trials of Judge Henderson.” The San Francisco Chronicle (October 7, 2005), F-1.Google Scholar

Choper, Jesse H.Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Choper, Jesse H.. “Observations on the Guarantee Clause – As Thoughtfully Addressed by Justice Linde and Professor Eule.” 65 U. Colo. L. Rev.741 (1994).Google Scholar

Citrin, Jack. “Who's The Boss? Direct Democracy and Popular Control of Government.” Craig, Stephen C., ed. Broken Contract? Changing Relationships Between Americans and Their Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Citrin, Jack. “Introduction: The Legacy of Proposition 13.” Schwadron, Terry, ed., California and the American Tax Revolt: Proposition 13 Five Years Later. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.Google Scholar

Citrin, Jack, Reingold, Beth, Walters, Evelyn, and Green, Donald P.. “The ‘Official English’ Movement and the Symbolic Politics of Language in the States.” Western Political Quarterly 43, no. 3 (Sept. 1990): 535–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Sherman J. “A Populist Critique of Direct Democracy.” 112 Harv. L. Rev.434 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, Richard B. and Oesterle, Dale. “Governing By Initiative: Structuring the Ballot Initiative: Procedures that Do and Don't Work.” 66 U. Colo. L. Rev.47 (1995).Google Scholar

Copeland, Gary W. “Term Limitations and Political Careers in Oklahoma: In, Out, Up, or Down.” Benjamin, Gerald and Malbin, Michael J., eds. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Corwin, Edward S.The Doctrine of Judicial Review: Its Legal and Historical Basis and Other Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1914.Google Scholar

Cottrell, Edwin A. “Twenty-five Years of Direct Legislation in California.” Public Opinion Quarterly 3 (Jan. 1939): 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,The Council of State Governments. The Book of the States Vol. 38. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments, 2006.Google Scholar

,The Council of State Governments. The Book of the States Vol. 39. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments, 2007.Google Scholar

Craig, Stephen C., ed. Broken Contract: Changing Relationships Between Americans and Their Government. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996: 282.

Croly, Herbert. Progressive Democracy. New York: Macmillan, 1914.Google Scholar

Cronin, Thomas E.Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culver, John H. “The Transformation of the California Supreme Court: 1987–1997.” 61 Alb. L. Rev.1461 (1998).Google Scholar

Culver, John H. and Wold, John T.. “Rose Bird and the Politics of Judicial Accountability in California,” 70 Judicature 86 (1986): 81–9.Google Scholar

Currie, David P. “The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Courts, 1801–1835.” 49 U. Chi. L. Rev.646 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dahl, Robert A.A Preface to Democratic Theory, expanded edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Michael, Dann, B. and Hansen, Randall M.. “National Summit on Improving Judicial Selection: Judicial Retention Elections.” 34 Loy. L.A. L. Rev.1429 (2001).Google Scholar

“Death Penalty and the Court.” The San Francisco Examiner (February 20, 1972).

Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Translated by George Lawrence. Edited by Mayer, J. P.. New York: HarperCollins 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deukmejian, George, Masterson, S. C., and Holmdahl, John W.. “Argument in Favor of Proposition 17.” California Secretary of State, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, Propositions and Proposed Laws Together with Arguments: General Election, Tuesday, November 7, 1972, 42. http://library.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1972g.pdf.

Dolan, Maura and Abdollah, Tami. “Gay Rights Backers File 3 Suits Challenging Prop. 8.” The Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2008.Google Scholar

DiCamillo, Mark and Field, Mervin. “55% of Voters Oppose Proposition 8, the Initiative to Ban Same-Sex Marriages in California.” The Field Poll, Release #2287, September 18, 2008.

DiMassa, Cara Mia and Garrison, Jessica. “Why Gays, Blacks are Divided on Proposition 8: For Many African Americans, it's not a Civil Rights Issue.” The Los Angeles Times (November 8, 2008), A-1.Google Scholar

Dinan, John J.Keeping the People's Liberties: Legislators, Citizens, and Judges as Guardians of Rights. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998.Google Scholar

Dinan, John J.. “Court-constraining Amendments and the State Constitutional Tradition.” 38 Rutgers L. J.983 (2007).Google Scholar

Dodd, Walter F. “The Recall and Political Responsibility of Judges.” 10 Mich. L. Rev.79 (1911).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Domanick, Joe. Cruel Justice: Three Strikes and the Politics of Crime in America's Golden State. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Donovan, Todd. “Direct Democracy as ‘Super-Precedent’? Political Constraints of Citizen-Initiated Laws.” 43 Willamette L. Rev.191 (2007).Google Scholar

Donovan, Todd and Bowler, Shaun. “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: An Extension.” American Journal of Political Science 42, no. 3 (1998): 1020–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drage, Jennie. “State Efforts to Regulate the Initiative Process.” Waters, M. Dane, 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.Google Scholar

Dubois, Philip L. and Feeney, Floyd. “Improving the California Initiative Process: Options for Change.” 3 CPS Brief (California Policy Seminar, Nov. 1991): 1–5.Google Scholar

DuBois, Philip L. and Feeney, Floyd. Lawmaking by Initiative: Issues, Options, and Comparisons. New York: Agathon Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Duncan, Christopher M. The Anti-Federalists and Early American Political Thought. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

DuVivier, K. K. “State Ballot Initiatives in the Federal Preemption Equation: A Medical Marijuana Case Study.” 40 Wake Forest L. Rev.221 (2005).Google Scholar

Egan, Patrick J. and Sherrill, Kenneth. “California's Proposition 8: What Happened, and What Does the Future Hold?” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, January 2009, http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf.

Ehlers, Scott. “Drug Policy Reform Initiatives and Referenda.” Waters, M. Dane, ed. Initiative and Referendum Almanac. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates on the Federal Constitution in the Convention Held at Philadelphia in 1787, Vol. V. New York: Burt Franklin, 1888.

Elliot, Jonathan. The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution, Vols. 1–4. New York: Burt Franklin, 1888.Google Scholar

Ellis, Richard J.Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002.Google Scholar

Ellis, Richard J.. “Signature Gathering in the Initiative Process: How Democratic is It?” 64 Mont. L. Rev.35 (2003).Google Scholar

Ely, John Hart. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Emmert, Craig F. “Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: Opportunity and Activism.” Paper Presented at the 1988 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago IL (1988).

Epstein, David F.The Political Theory of The Federalist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.Google Scholar

Eule, Julian N. “Judicial Review of Direct Democracy.” 99 Yale L. J.1503 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eule, Julian N.. “Representative Government: The People's Choice.” 67 Chi.-Kent L. Rev.777 (1991).Google Scholar

Eule, Julian N.. “Crocodiles in the Bathtub: State Courts, Voter Initiatives, and the Threat of Electoral Reprisal.” 65 U. Colo. L. Rev.733 (1994).Google Scholar

Even, Jeffrey T. “Direct Democracy in Washington: A Discourse on the Peoples' Powers of Initiative and Referendum.” 32 Gonz. L. Rev.247 (1996–7).Google Scholar

“Federal Judge Issues Final Ruling on Immigrant Initiative.” Associated Press State and Local Wire (September 13, 1999).

,The Field Institute. “A Digest Describing the Public's Confidence in Institutions.” California Opinion Index, vol. 6 (October 1981).Google Scholar

Eule, Julian N.. The Field Poll, (August 1994).

Eule, Julian N.. The Field Poll #1909 (October 31, 1998).

Flournoy, Houston I., Bradley, Tom, and Sirbu, Gary. “Argument Against Proposition 13.” California Secretary of State, California Voters Pamphlet, Primary Election, June 6, 1978, 59. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1978p.pdf.Google Scholar

Frankfurter, Felix. The Public and Its Government. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930.Google Scholar

Frankfurter, Felix. “The Supreme Court in the Mirror of Justices.” 105 U. Penn. L. Rev.781 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frey, Bruno S. and Goette, Lorenz. “Does the Popular Vote Destroy Civil Rights?” American Journal of Political Science 42, no. 4 (1998): 1343–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frickey, Philip P. “Interpretation on the Borderline: Constitution, Canons, Direct Democracy.” 1 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y105 (1997).Google Scholar

Friedelbaum, Stanley H., ed. Human Rights in the States: New Directions in Constitutional Policymaking. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988.

Frohnmeyer, David B. and Linde, Hans A.. “Initiating ‘Laws’ in the form of ‘Constitutional Amendments’: An Amicus Brief.” 34 Willamette L. Rev.749 (1998).Google Scholar

Fund, John H. “Term Limitation: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” Benjamin, Gerald and Malbin, Michael J., eds. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Fund, John. “Taking the Initiative: How Judges Threaten Direct Democracy.” The Wall Street Journal (October 16, 2006).Google Scholar

Gamble, Barbara S. “Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote.” American Journal of Political Science 41, no. 1 (1997): 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garrett, Elizabeth. “Hybrid Democracy.” 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.1096 (2005).Google Scholar

Garrett, Elizabeth, Graddy, Elizabeth, and Jackson, Howell, eds. Fiscal Challenges: An Inter-Disciplinary Approach to Budget Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.CrossRef

Gerber, Elisabeth R. “Reforming the California Initiative Process: A Proposal to Increase Flexibility and Legislative Accountability.” Cain, Bruce E. and Noll, Roger G., eds. Constitutional Reform in California: Making State Government More Effective and Responsive. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Gerber, Elisabeth R.. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40, no. 1 (1996): 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerber, Elisabeth R.. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Gerber, Elisabeth R.. “Prospects for Reforming the Initiative Process.” Sabato, Larry J., Howard R. Ernst, and Bruce A. Larson, eds. Dangerous Democracy?: The Battle Over Initiatives in America. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield, 2001.Google Scholar

Gerber, Elisabeth R., Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to Direct Democracy. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2001.Google Scholar

Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: The Free Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Goebel, Thomas.A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Arthur J. and Dershowitz, Alan M.. “Declaring the Death Penalty Unconstitutional.” 83 Harv. L. Rev.1773 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gordon, James D. III and Magleby, David B.. “Pre-election Judicial Review of Initiatives and Referendums.” 64 Notre Dame L. Rev.298 (1989).Google Scholar

Green, Ashbel S. and Lednicer, Lisa Grace. “State High Court Strikes Term Limits.” The Oregonian (January 17, 2002), A-1.Google Scholar

Grodin, Joseph R. “Developing a Consensus of Constraint: A Judge's Perspective on Judicial Retention Elections.” 61 S. Cal. L. Rev.1969 (1988).Google Scholar

Grodin, Joseph R.. In Pursuit of Justice: Reflections of a State Supreme Court Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Guarino, David R. “Poll Finds Mass.-ive Backing for Gay Unions; Narrow Marriage Support.” The Boston Herald (November 23, 2003), 7.Google Scholar

Gunn, P. F. “Initiatives and Referenda: Direct Democracy and Minority Interests.” Urban Law Annual 22 (1981): 135–59.Google Scholar

Gunther, Gerald. Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge. New York: Knopf, 1994.Google Scholar

Hajnal, Zoltan L., Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Louch, Hugh. “Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections.” Journal of Politics 64, no. 1 (2002): 154–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Charles W. “Down, Dirty Judicial Races: Elections Reshape Supreme Court.” The Clarion-Ledger (November 16, 2008).Google Scholar

Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John. The Federalist Papers. Rossiter, Clinton, ed. New York: Signet Classic, 2003.Google Scholar

Hamilton, Howard D. “Direct Legislation: Some Implications of Open Housing Referenda.” American Political Science Review 64, no. 1 (Mar. 1970): 124–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hartnett, Edward. “Why is the Supreme Court of the United States Protecting State Judges from Popular Democracy?” 75 Tex. L. Rev.907 (1997).Google Scholar

Hasen, Richard L. “Judging the Judges of Initiatives: A Comment on Holman and Stern.” 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev.1267 (1998).Google Scholar

Hasen, Richard L.. “Ending Court Protection of Voters from the Initiative Process.” 116 Yale L. J. Pocket Part117 (2006).Google Scholar

Haskell, John. Direct Democracy or Representative Government? Dispelling the Populist Myth. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Haynes, George H. “‘People's Rule’ in Oregon, 1910.” Political Science Quarterly 26, no. 1 (March 1911): 32–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hendrick, Burton J. “The Initiative and Referendum and How Oregon Got Them.” McClure's Magazine (July 1911), 235.Google Scholar

Hero, Rodney E., Tolbert, Caroline J., and Lopez, Robert. “Race/Ethnicity and Direct Democracy: Reexamining Official English and Its Implications.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 26–September 1, 1996, San Francisco, CA.

Hicks, John D.The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers' Alliance and the People's Party. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1931.Google Scholar

Higham, John.Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955.Google Scholar

Hill, Elizabeth G.Ballot Box Budgeting. Menlo Park, CA: EdSource Publications, 1990.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Vintage Books, 1955.Google Scholar

Holman, Craig B. and Stern, Robert. “Judicial Review of Ballot Initiatives: The Changing Role of the State and Federal Courts.” 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev.1239 (1998).

Holsinger, M. Paul. “The Oregon School Bill Controversy, 1922–1925.” The Pacific Historical Review 37, no. 3 (Aug. 1968): 327–41.Google Scholar

Hook, Janet. “House Votes Down Term Limits, Deals Setback to GOP Congress.” The Los Angeles Times (March 30, 1995), A-1.Google Scholar

Howard, Thomas W., ed. The North Dakota Political Tradition. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1981.

Hunt, Gaillard and Scott, James B., eds. Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1920.

Hyink, Bernard L. “California Revises Its Constitution.” Western Political Quarterly, 22, no. 3 (Sept. 1969): 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,Initiative and Referendum Institute. Historical Database. http://www.iandrinstitute.org/.

Jacob, Paul. “Term Limits and the I & R Process.” Waters, M. Dane, ed., Initiative and Referendum Almanac. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Jacob, Paul. “Silence Isn't Golden: The Legislative Assault on Citizen Initiatives.” Waters, M. Dane, 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.Google Scholar

Jarvis, Howard with Robert Pack. I'm Mad as Hell. New York: Times Books, 1979.Google Scholar

Johnson, Claudius. “The Adoption of the Initiative and Referendum in Washington.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 35 (1944): 291–304.Google Scholar

Johnson, Donald Bruce and Porter, Kirk H., eds. National Party Platforms, 1840–1972. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1973.

Johnson, Kirk. “Coloradans to Consider Splitting Electoral College Votes.” The New York Times (September 19, 2004), A-22.Google Scholar

Jones, Bill, Secretary of State. “A History of the California Initiative Process.” Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1996.

Jordan, Frank C., Secretary of State. “Summary of Amendments to the Constitution of California (1883–1920).” Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1921.

Kagan, Robert A., Cartwright, Bliss, Friedman, Lawrence M. and Wheeler, Stanton, “The Business of State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970.” 30 Stan. L. Rev.121 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kesler, Charles R. “Bad Housekeeping: The Case Against Congressional Term Limits.” Benjamin, Gerald and Malbin, Michael J., eds. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Kesler, Charles R.. “The Founders' Views of Direct Democracy and Representation.” Abrams, Elliott, ed., Democracy: How Direct?Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.Google Scholar

Kesler, Charles R.. “Introduction.” Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, Rossiter, Clinton, ed. New York: Signet Classic, 2003.Google Scholar

Key, V. O. and Crouch, Winston W.. The Initiative and the Referendum in California. Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1939.Google Scholar

Klarman, Michael J. “Majoritarian Judicial Review: The Entrenchment Problem.” 85 Geo. L. J.491 (1997).Google Scholar

Knopff, Rainer. “Populism and the Politics of Rights: The Dual Attack on Representative Democracy.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 31, no. 4 (Dec. 1998): 683–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koppelman, Andrew. “Romer v. Evans and Invidious Intent.” 6 Wm & Mary Bill of Rts J.89 (1997).Google Scholar

Kousser, Thad. Term Limits and the Dismantling of Legislative Professionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Kousser, Thad, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Rozga, Kaj. “When Does the Ballot Box Limit the Budget? Politics and Spending Limits in California, Colorado, Utah, and Washington.” Garrett, Elizabeth, Graddy, Elizabeth, and Jackson, Howell, eds. Fiscal Challenges: An Inter-Disciplinary Approach to Budget Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Koza, John R., Fadem, Barry, Grueskin, Mark, Mandell, Michael, Richie, Robert, and Zimmerman, Joseph. Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote. Los Altos, CA: National Popular Vote Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Kurland, Philip B. and Casper, Gerhard, eds. Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States. Arlington, VA: University Publications, 1975.

Lacey, Michael J. and Haakonssen, Knud. “History, Historicism, and the Culture of Rights.” Lacey, Michael J. and Haakonssen, Knud, eds. A Culture of Rights: The Bill of Rights in Philosophy, Politics, and Law – 1791 and 1991. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Langer, Laura. Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002.Google Scholar

LaPalombara, Joseph G.The Initiative and Referendum in Oregon: 1938–1948. Corvallis: Oregon State College Press, 1950.Google Scholar

LaPalombara, Joseph G. and Hagan, Charles. “Direct Legislation: An Appraisal and a Suggestion.” American Political Science Review, 45, no. 2 (June 1951): 400–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Latzer, Barry. “California's Constitutional Counterrevolution.” Tarr, G. Alan, ed. Constitutional Politics in the States: Contemporary Controversies and Historical Patterns. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996.Google Scholar

“The Lawyers to the Defense.” The New York Times (March 5, 1912), 10.

LaVally, Rebecca and Snyder, Russell. “Proposition 13 Paved the Way for Tax Revolts Across U.S.” The Los Angeles Times (February 14, 1988), A-3.Google Scholar

Lawrence, Jill. “Favorable Conditions Make Amendments Moot: Public Approves of GOP Goals, but ‘Intensity is Gone.’” USA Today (February 25, 1997).Google Scholar

“The Lawyers to the Defense.” The New York Times (March 5, 1912), 10.

Lee, Eugene C. “The Revision of California's Constitution.” 3 CPS Brief (California Policy Seminar, April 1991): 1–8.Google Scholar

Leip, Dave. “1892 Presidential General Election Results.” Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1892.

Lerche, Charles O. “The Guarantee Clause in Constitutional Law.” The Western Political Quarterly 2, no. 3, (Sept. 1949): 358–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

Linde, Hans A. “First Things First: Rediscovering the States' Bill of Rights.” 9 U. BALT. L. REV. 379 (1980).Google Scholar

Linde, Hans A.. “When is Initiative Lawmaking Not ‘Republican Government’?” 17 Hastings Const. L. Q.159 (1989).Google Scholar

Linde, Hans A.. “When Initiative Lawmaking Is Not ‘Republican Government’”: The Campaign Against Homosexuality.” 72 Ore. L. Rev.19 (1993).Google Scholar

Linde, Hans A.. “Who is Responsible for Republican Government?” 65 U. Colo. L. Rev.709 (1994).Google Scholar

Lipscomb, Andrew A. and Bergh, Albert E., eds. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 15. Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904.Google Scholar

Lobingier, Charles Sumner. The People's Law or Popular Participation in Law-making. New York: Macmillan, 1909.Google Scholar

Lodge, Henry Cabot. The Democracy of the Constitution and Other Addresses and Essays. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915.Google Scholar

Lowenstein, Daniel Hays. “California Initiatives and the Single-Subject Rule.” 30 U.C.L.A. L. Rev.936 (1983).Google Scholar

Lowenstein, Daniel Hays. “Initiatives and the New Single Subject Rule.” 1 Election Law Journal 35 (2002).Google Scholar

Lowenstein, Daniel Hays and Hasen, Richard L., eds. Election Law: Cases and Materials, Third Edition. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2004.

Lubenow, Gerald C., ed. California Votes: The 1994 Governor's Race: An Inside Look at the Candidates and Their Campaigns by the People Who Managed Them. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 1995.

Lutz, Donald S. “The Electoral College in Historical and Philosophical Perspective.” Schumaker, Paul D. and Loomis, Burdett A, eds. Choosing a President: The Electoral College and Beyond. New York: Chatham House Publishers/Seven Bridges Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Lutz, Donald. “Patterns in Amending of American State Constitutions.” Tarr, G. Alan, ed. Constitutional Politics in the States: Contemporary Controversies and Historical Patterns. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Maass, Dave. “The Mark of a Clean Election.” Tucson Weekly (May 30, 2002).Google Scholar

Madison, James. Papers of Madison, Vol. 12. Rutland, Robert Allen, ed. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979.Google Scholar

Magleby, David B.Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.Google Scholar

Manweller, Mathew. The People vs. The Courts: Judicial Review and Direct Democracy in the American Legal System. Bethesda, MD: Academica Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Mathews, Joe. The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy. New York: Public Affairs, 2006.Google Scholar

Matsusaka, John G.For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matsusaka, John G. “Direct Democracy and Fiscal Gridlock: Have Voter Initiatives Paralyzed the California Budget?State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5, no. 3 (2005): 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCuan, David, Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Fernandez, Ken. “California's Political Warriors: Campaign Professionals and the Initiative Process.” Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd and Tolbert, Caroline J., eds. Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

McKay, Robert B.Reapportionment: The Law of Politics and Equal Representation. New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1965.Google Scholar

McWilliams, Carey. “Government by Whitaker and Baxter.” The Nation (April 14, April 21, May 5, 1951).Google Scholar

Meagher, Ed. “Reagan Says Court Puts Itself ‘Above the Will of the People,’” The Los Angeles Times (February 18, 1972), A-3.Google Scholar

Meagher, Ed. “Court Setting Itself Above the People, Governor Charges.” The Los Angeles Times (February 19, 1972), A-1.Google Scholar

Michael, Douglas C. “Judicial Review of Initiative Constitutional Amendments.” 14 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 461 (1980).Google Scholar

Miller, John Chester. Crisis in Freedom: The Alien and Sedition Acts. Boston: Little Brown, 1951.Google Scholar

Miller, Kenneth P. “Constraining Populism: The Real Agenda of Initiative Reform.” 41 Santa Clara L. Rev.1037 (2001).Google Scholar

Miller, Kenneth P.. “The Davis Recall and the Courts.” American Politics Research 33 (March 2005): 135–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mosk, Stanley. “State Constitutionalism: Both Liberal and Conservative.” 63 Tex. L. Rev.1081 (1985).Google Scholar

Mountjoy, Dick, Prince, Ronald, and Kiley, Barbara. “Argument in Favor of Proposition 187.” California Secretary of State, California Ballot Pamphlet, General Election, November 8, 1994, 54. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1994g.pdf.

Mowry, George E.The California Progressives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951.Google Scholar

Mowry, George E.. Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1946.Google Scholar

Muir, William K.Legislature: California's School for Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.Google Scholar

Munro, William B., ed. The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. New York: Appleton, 1912.

Murphy, Paul L.World War I and the Origin of Civil Liberties in the United States. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1979.Google Scholar

Musselman, Lloyd K.. “Governor John F. Shafroth and the Colorado Progressives: Their Fight for Direct Legislation, 1909–1910.” MA thesis, University of Denver, 1961.

Myers, Hardy. “The Guarantee Clause and Direct Democracy.” 34 Willamette L. Rev.659 (1998).Google Scholar

“National and California Exit Poll Results.” The Los Angeles Times (November 6, 2008), A1.

,National Conference of State Legislatures. “Legislative Term Limits: An Overview.” http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/ABOUT/termlimit.htm.

New, Michael J. “Limiting Government Through Direct Democracy.” Policy Analysis, No. 420. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, Dec. 13, 2001.Google Scholar

“No Longer a Republican.” The New York Times (February 22, 1912), 8.

Northcutt, Jesse G. “The Recall in Colorado.” The Green Bag (September 1913).Google Scholar

Note, . “Putting the ‘Single’ Back in the Single Subject-Rule: A Proposal for Initiative Reform in California.” 24 U.C. Davis L. Rev.879 (1991).Google Scholar

Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. The Referendum in America, Together with Some Chapters on the History of the Initiative and Other Phases of Popular Government in the United States. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900.Google Scholar

O'Connell, Sue. “The Money Behind the 2004 Marriage Amendments.” Helena, MT: Institute on Money in State Politics, 2006. Available from http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200601271.pdf.

“Odds Stacked Against Passage of Amendments.” Seattle Post Intelligencer (February 25, 1997). http://www.seattlepi.com/national/161933_amend25.html.

Odegard, Peter H.Pressure Politics: A Story of the Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press, 1928.Google Scholar

Olson, David J. “Term Limits Fail in Washington: The 1991 Battleground.” Benjamin, Gerald and Malbin, Michael J., eds. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992.Google Scholar

,Oregon Blue Book. “Initiative, Referendum, and Recall: 1922–1928.” http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/elections/elections14.htm.

,Oregon State Library. “Walter Marcus Pierce.” http://www.osl.state.or.us/home/lib/governors/wmp.htm.

,State of Oregon, Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Measures (with Arguments) to be Submitted to the Voters of Oregon at the General Election, Tuesday, November 7, 1922.

Pacelle, Wayne. “The Animal Protection Movement: A Modern-Day Model Use of the Initiative Process.” Waters, M. Dane, 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.Google Scholar

Persily, Nathaniel A. “The Peculiar Geography of Direct Democracy: Why the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Developed in the American West.” 2 Mich. L. & Pol'y Rev.11 (1997).Google Scholar

Petracca, Mark P. “Rotation in Office: The History of an Idea.” Benjamin, Gerald and Malbin, Michael J., eds. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Phillips, Frank. “Majority in Mass. Poll Oppose Gay Marriage; Survey Also Finds Civil Union Support.” The Boston Globe (February 22, 2004), A-1.Google Scholar

Phillips, Frank and Estes, Andrea. “Right of Gays to Marry set for Years to Come: Vote Keeps Proposed Ban Off 2008 State Ballot,” The Boston Globe (June 15, 2007), A-1.Google Scholar

Phillips, Frank and Kline, Rick. “Lawmakers are Divided on Response.” The Boston Globe (November 19, 2003): A-1.Google Scholar

Pildes, Richard. H. “Foreword: The Constitutionalization of Democratic Politics.” 118 Harv. L. Rev.28 (2004).Google Scholar

Pillsbury, E. S. and Sutro, Oscar, “Brief of Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. State of Oregon,” sum-marized in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912).Google Scholar

Pinello, Daniel R.America's Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Piott, Steven L.Giving Voters a Voice: The Origins of the Initiative and Referendum in America. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Polsby, Daniel D. “Buckley v. Valeo: The Special Nature of Political Speech.” Supreme Court Review 1976 (1976): 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polsby, Nelson W. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” The American Political Science Review 62, no. 1 (March 1968): 144–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polsby, Nelson W.. “Some Arguments Against Congressional Term Limits.” 16 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y101 (1993).Google Scholar

Polsby, Nelson W.. “Term Limits.” Brinkley, Alan, Polsby, Nelson W., and Sullivan, Kathleen M., eds. New Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution. New York: Norton & Co. 1997.Google Scholar

Polsby, Nelson W.. “Legislatures.” Greenstein, Fred L. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds. Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 3. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.Google Scholar

Porter, Kirk H. and Johnson, Donald Bruce, eds. National Party Platforms, 1840–1964. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966.

Porter, Mary Cornelia and Tarr, G. Alan, eds. State Supreme Courts: Policymakers in the Federal System. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1988.

Postman, David. “I-695 Ruling Fuels Debate Over Role of Courts.” The Seattle Times (April 11, 2000), B-1.Google Scholar

Prentice, Ron, Rosemary “Rosie” Avila, and Bishop George McKinney. “Argument in Favor of Proposition 8” in California Secretary of State, California General Election, Tuesday, November 4, 2008 Official Voter Information Guide, 56. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/2008g.pdf.

Price, Charles M. “The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon.” Western Political Quarterly 28, no. 2 (June 1975): 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Price, Charles M.. “The Guillotine Comes to California: Term-Limit Politics in the Golden State.” Benjamin, Gerald and Malbin, Michael J., eds. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Pritchard, Amy. “A Brief History of Abortion Related Initiatives and Referendums.” Waters, M. Dane, ed. Initiative and Referendum Almanac. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2003.Google Scholar

“Progressing Backward.” The New York Times (February 27, 1912), 8.

,Public Policy Institute of California. Just the Facts: Californians and the Initiative Process. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2006.Google Scholar

Pugno, Andrew, attorney for Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund. Interview. August 22, 2008.

Rakove, Jack N. “Parchment Barriers and the Politics of Rights.” Lacey, Michael J. and Haakonssen, Knud, eds. A Culture of Rights: The Bill of Rights in Philosophy, Politics, and Law – 1791 and 1991. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Ransom, William L.Majority Rule and the Judiciary: An Examination of Current Proposals for Constitutional Change Affecting the Relation of Courts to Legislation. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912.Google Scholar

“Recall of Judicial Decision Held to be Unconstitutional.” 92 Central Law Journal. 425 (1921).

Reed, Douglas S. “Popular Constitutionalism: Toward a Theory of State Constitutional Meanings.” 30 Rutgers L. J.871 (2001).Google Scholar

Reidinger, Paul. “The Politics of Judging.” A.B.A. Journal 73, (April 1987): 52–58.Google Scholar

“Republican Contract with America.” http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html.

“Reversing John Marshall.” The New York Times (February 27, 1912), 10.

Reynolds, Mike and Jones, Bill with Evans, Dan. Three Strikes and You're Out! A Promise to Kimber: The Chronicle of America's Toughest Anti-Crime Law. Fresno, CA. Quill Driver Books, 1996.Google Scholar

“The Road to Despotism.” The New York Times (March 9, 1912), 12.

Roe, Gilbert E.Our Judicial Oligarchy. New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1912.Google Scholar

Rojas, Aurelio. “Ruling on Ballot Title is Setback for Proposition 8 Backers.” The Sacramento Bee (August 9, 2008), 3A.Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “Criticism of the Courts.” The Outlook (September 24, 1910).Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “Nationalism and Popular Rule.” The Outlook (January 21, 1911).Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “Workmen's Compensation.” The Outlook (March 13, 1911).Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “A Charter of Democracy: Address Before the Ohio Constitutional Convention.” Roosevelt, Theodore. Progressive Principles: Selections form Addresses Made During the Presidential Campaign of 1912. New York: Progressive National Service, 1913.Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “The Right of the People to Rule.” Address at Carnegie Hall, New York, March 20, 1912. Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Principles: Selections form Addresses Made During the Presidential Campaign of 1912. New York: Progressive National Service, 1913.Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “A Confession of Faith” [1912]. Hagedorn, Hermann, ed. The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, Vol. XI: Social Justice and Popular Rule. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925.Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “Progressive Democracy: The People and the Courts.” The Outlook (August 17, 1912).Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “Introduction.” Ransom, William L., Majority Rule and the Judiciary: An Examination of Current Proposals for Constitutional Change Affecting the Relation of Courts to Legislation. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912.Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “To Benjamin Barr Lindsey” (November 16, 1912). Morison, Elting E., ed. The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, Vol. 7. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, 1954.Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore. “The Right of the People to Review Judge-Made Law.” The Outlook (August 8, 1914).Google Scholar

Roosevelt, Theodore and Lodge, Henry Cabot. Selections from the Correspondence of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, 1884–1918, Vol. II. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925.Google Scholar

Root, Elihu. “The Perils of the Judicial Recall.” Case and Comment, Vol. 18, 308–313 (1911).Google Scholar

Root, Elihu. “Experiments in Government and the Essentials of the Constitution.” Bacon, Robert and Scott, James Brown, eds., Addresses on Government and Citizenship (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Root, Elihu. “Judicial Decisions and Public Feeling: Presidential Address at the Annual Meeting of the New York State Bar Association in New York City, January 19, 1912.” Bacon, Robert and Scott, James Brown, eds., Addresses on Government and Citizenship (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ross, William G.A Muted Fury: Populists, Progressives, and Labor Unions Confront the Courts, 1890–1937. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Ross, William G.. Forging New Freedoms: Nativism, Education, and the Constitution, 1917–1927. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Rothenberg, Stuart. “Transplanting Term Limits: Political Mobilization and Grass-Roots Politics.” Benjamin, Gerald and Malbin, Michael J., eds. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Rottman, David. “The State Courts in 2006: Surviving Anti-Court Initiatives and Demonstrating High Performance.” The Book of the States, Vol. 38. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments, 2006.Google Scholar

Schaller, Thomas F. “Democracy at Rest: Strategic Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment.” Publius 28, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmidt, David D.Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Schrag, Peter. Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. New York: The New Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Schrag, Peter. “The Fourth Branch of Government: You Bet.” 41 Santa Clara L. Rev.937 (2001).Google Scholar

Schrag, Peter. California: America's High-Stakes Experiment. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Schumacher, Waldo. “Thirty Years of the People's Rule in Oregon: An Analysis.” Political Science Quarterly. 47 (June 1932): 243–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sears, David O. and Citrin, Jack. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California, enlarged edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Seelye, Katherine Q. “House Turns Back Measures to Limit Terms in Congress.” The New York Times (March 30, 1995), A-1.Google Scholar

Seidman, Louis Michael. “Romer's Radicalism: The Unexpected Revival of Warren Court Activism.” 1996 Sup. Ct. Rev.203 (1996).Google Scholar

Sepp, Pete. “A Brief History of I & R and the Tax Revolt.” Waters, M. Dane, ed. Initiative and Referendum Almanac. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Shultz, Jim. The Initiative Cookbook: Recipes and Stories from California's Ballot Wars. San Francisco: Democracy Center, 1996.Google Scholar

Smith, Daniel A.Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York: Routledge, 1998.Google Scholar

Smith, Daniel A.. “Overturning Term Limits: The Legislature's Own Private Idaho?” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (2003): 215–20.Google Scholar

Smith, Daniel A.. “Homeward Bound?: Micro-Level Legislative Response to Ballot Initiatives.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Daniel A. and Fridkin, Dustin “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): 333–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Daniel A. and Lubinski, Joseph. “Direct Democracy During the Progressive Era: A Crack in the Populist Veneer?” The Journal of Policy History 14, no. 4 (2002): 350–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Daniel A. and Tolbert, Caroline J.. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Duane A. “Colorado and the Judicial Recall.” The American Journal of Legal History 7, no. 3 (1963): 198–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, J. Allen. “Recent Institutional Legislation.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association. 4 (1907): 141–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwadron, Terry, ed. California and the American Tax Revolt. Proposition 13 Five Years Later. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Steyer, Tom. Letter to Patricia Galvan, Initiative Coordinator, Office of the Attorney General of the State of California, August 20, 2007. Available at http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/2007-08-21_07-0048_Initiative.pdf.

Storing, Herbert J.What the Anti-Federalists Were For. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Storing, Herbert J., ed. The Complete Anti-Federalist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.CrossRef

Storing, Herbert J.. The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Sullivan, James W.Direct Legislation by the Citizenship through the Initiative and Referendum. New York: Twentieth Century Publishing Co., 1892.Google Scholar

Sullivan, Kathleen M. “Political Money and Freedom of Speech.” 30 U.C. Davis L. Rev.663 (1997).Google Scholar

Taft, William Howard. “Veto Message [Returning without approval a joint resolution for the admission of the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona into the Union as States], August 22, 1911.” Burton, David H., ed., The Collected Works of William Howard Taft, Vol. IV (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

Taft, William Howard. “The Judiciary and Progress.” Address delivered at Toledo, Ohio, March 8, 1912, repr. S. Doc. 408, 62nd Cong., 2d. sess., 1912, 9.Google Scholar

Taft, William Howard. “The Selection and Tenure of Judges.” 38 Rep. Am. Bar Ass'n418 (1913).Google Scholar

Taft, William Howard. “The Initiative and the Referendum.” Burton, David H., ed. The Collected Works of William Howard Taft, Vol. V. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Taft, William Howard. “The Initiative, the Referendum, the Recall.” Burton, David H., ed. The Collected Works of William Howard Taft, Vol. V. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Taft, William Howard. “The Representative System.” David H. Burton, ed. The Collected Works of William Howard Taft, Vol. V. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Takaki, Ronald. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. New York: Little Brown, 1989.Google Scholar

Tallian, Laura. Direct Democracy: An Historical Analysis of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Process. Los Angeles: People's Lobby, 1977.Google Scholar

Tarr, G. Alan, ed., Constitutional Politics in the States: Contemporary Controversies and Historical Patterns. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996.

Tarr, G. Alan. Understanding State Constitutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Tarr, G. Alan. “For the People: Direct Democracy in the State Constitutional Tradition.” Abrams, Elliott, ed. Democracy: How Direct? Views from the Founding Era and the Polling Era. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.Google Scholar

Tarr, G. Alan. “Politicizing the Process: The New Politics of State Judicial Elections,” in Bybee, Keith J., ed., Bench Press: The Collision of Courts, Politics, and the Media (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Tarr, G., Alan, and Porter, Mary Cornelia Aldis. State Supreme Courts in State and Nation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

“Term Limits: Full Scope of Defeat May Wait Until '96.” The Hotline (March 30, 1995).

Thayer, James Bradley. “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law.” 7 Harv. L. Rev. 129 (1893).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thomas, David Y. “Direct Legislation in Arkansas.” Political Science Quarterly 29 (March 1914): 84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tarr, G. Alan. “Initiative and Referendum in Arkansas Come of Age.” American Political Science Review 27, no. 1 (February, 1933): 66–75.Google Scholar

Thoron, Samuel and Thoron, Julia Miller. “Argument Against Proposition 8” in California Secretary of State, California General Election, Tuesday, November 4, 2008 Official Voter Information Guide, 56. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/2008g.pdf.

“To Make Cowards of Judges.” The New York Times (March 12, 1912), 12.

Tolbert, Caroline J. “Changing Rules for State Legislatures: Direct Democracy and Governance Policies.” Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline J., eds. Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Tolbert, Caroline J.. “Public Policymaking and Direct Democracy in the Twentieth Century: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same.” Waters, M. Dane, 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.Google Scholar

Tushnet, Mark. “Fear of Voting: Differential Standards of Judicial Review of Direct Legislation.” 1 N.Y.U. J. Legis & Pub. Pol'y1 (1997).Google Scholar

Tyack, David B. “The Perils of Pluralism: The Background of the Pierce Case.” The American Historical Review 74, no. 1 (Oct. 1968): 74–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uelmen, Gerald F. “Review of Death Penalty Judgments by the Supreme Courts of California: A Tale of Two Courts.” 23 Loy. L.A. L. Rev.237 (1989).Google Scholar

Uelmen, Gerald F.. “Crocodiles in the Bathtub: Maintaining the Independence of State Supreme Courts in an Era of Judicial Politicization.” 72Notre Dame L. Rev.1133 (1997).Google Scholar

Uelmen, Gerald F.. “Handling Hot Potatoes: Judicial Review of California Initiatives After Senate v. Jones.” 41 Santa Clara L. Rev.999 (2001).Google Scholar

Villaraigosa, Antonio R., the Right Reverend William E. Swing, and Krys Wulff. “Argument Against Proposition 22,” California Secretary of State, California Voter Information Guide, Primary Election, March 7, 2000, 53. http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/2000p.pdf.

Vitiello, Michael and Glendon, Andrew J.. “Article III Judges and the Initiative Process: Are Article III Judges Hopelessly Elitist?” 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev.1275 (1998).Google Scholar

Wagoner, Jay J.Arizona Territory 1863–1912: A Political History. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1970.Google Scholar

Walsh, Edward. “Voters Say No but Sizemore Fights On.” The Sunday Oregonian, September. 7, 2008, B-1.Google Scholar

Waters, M. Dane, 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.

Waters, M. Dane, ed., Initiative and Referendum Almanac. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2003.

Wilson, Woodrow. Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics, Ninth Edition. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press, 1892.Google Scholar

Wilson, Woodrow. Constitutional Government in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1908.Google Scholar

Wilson, Woodrow. “The Issues of Reform.” Munro, William Bennett, ed. The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1912.Google Scholar

Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Greenstein, Fred I.. “The Repeal of Fair Housing in California: An Analysis of Referendum Voting.” American Political Science Review 62, no. 3 (Sep. 1968): 753–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wood, Gordon. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969.Google Scholar

Yardley, William. “Drive to Alter Race Rules Advances.” St. Petersburg Times (October 27, 1999) 1B.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, Joseph F.The Recall: Tribunal of the People. Westport, CT: Prager, 1997.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, Joseph F.. The Initiative: Citizen Law-making. Westport, CT: Prager, 1999.Google Scholar

Zimring, Franklin E., Hawkins, Gordon, and Kamin, Sam. Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You're Out in California. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.Google Scholar