Making Initiative Elections More DeliberativeA Summary of Research on the Citizens’ Initiative Review

John GastilProfessor of Comm. Arts & Sciences and Political ScienceDirector of the McCourtney Institute for DemocracyPennsylvania State University

Presentation at the King County Bar Assn.April 24, 2014

The research presented in this report was supported by the National Science Foundation NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences’ Political Science Program 2010 Award and Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences Program 2014 Award and by funding from the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund, the Kettering Foundation and The Pennsylvania State University Social Science Research Institute and McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, the Kettering Foundation, or any university partners.

Research collaborators and CIR designers• Katie Knobloch (Colorado State U.), Co-Principal Investigator• Penn State University

Robert Richards: observation, transcript coding, surveyDavid Brinker: survey design and analysisGuoray Cai and Jessica Kropczynski: observation and analysis

• Other academic collaboratorsLauren Archer and Traci Feller (U. Washington), Justin Reedy (Oklahoma U.), Mark Henkels (Western Oregon U.), Katherine Cramer (U. Wisconsin), Laura Black (Ohio U.), Genevieve Fuji-Johnson (U. British Columbia), Jennifer Ervin (U. Arizona), Lilach Nir (Hebrew U.),Ekaterina Lukianova (St. Petersburg State U.)

• Civic reformersNed Crosby, Jefferson Center for New Democratic ProcessesTyrone Reitman, Healthy Democracy

Overview

• The idea of deliberative elections• Two examples of election reform• The Citizens’ Initiative Review

– Basic design of the CIR– Quality of CIR deliberation– CIR impact on voters

• Would the CIR work in Washington?• Summary and ongoing research

The Idea ofDeliberative Elections

Two quick definitions

A deliberative democracy is a political system that privileges high-quality public argument, civility and respect among citizens, and informed judgment at all levels of decision making.

Deliberative elections are those in which voters consider the full array of candidate/policy choices on their ballots to reach informed and reflective judgments on each question placed before them.

Initiative voting is not deliberative

• Limited knowledge of what ballot measures would do, as well as their legal/constitutional meaning

• Systematic bias in the selection, processing, and retention of issue-relevant information

• Failure to consider counter-arguments from opposing viewpoints

• Partisans’ over-reliance on elite “voting cues”

Example: WA Initiative 841 (2003)

• Initiative 841 repealed state ergonomics regulations and directed the Dept. of Labor and Industries not to adopt new state laws unless required to do so by federal standards.

• Hundreds of millions of dollars at stake (state insurance fund, insurance, and other savings, minus compliance costs)

Many voters didn’t understand I-841

Perceived Effect Supporters Opponents UndecidedEnacts regulations 16% 2% 4%Repeals regulation 11% 18% 46%Unsure 73% 81% 49%Total 100% 100% 100%

• Supporters of the repeal incorrectly believed only a handful of workers suffered ergonomics-related injuries each year.

• Opponents of the repeal incorrectly believed that most other states had similar regulations.

• A majority of voters surveyed could not recall even one argument from the other side.

Oct 28-30 2003 phone survey of 404 frequent voters in King County

Two Examples of Deliberative

Election Reform

PriorityConference

DesignPanel

B.C.Citizens’

Assembly

Citizens’Initiative Review

PolicyJury

Public policy problem identified

Ballot measure proposed

Proposalvoted up or down

Citizen deliberation can occur at five stages of the initiative process

Video clip of British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly

B.C. Citizens’ Assembly history

1996 B.C. Liberals win but lose Won a plurality of the votes (42%) but only 33 of the 72 seats

2001 Liberals campaign on reform and win

2003 B.C. Citizens’ Assembly established

2004 Citizens’ Assembly deliberates Single-Transferable-Vote system recommended

2005 B.C. public votes on election reform Wins 57% of vote and a majority in 77 of 79 ridings

Video clip of 2010 Oregon CIR

Citizens’ Initiative Review history

1974 Jefferson Center and the Citizens’ Jury

2008 Unofficial CIR demonstrated the process

2009 Oregon legislature passes initial CIR law

2010 CIR held on two ballot measures

2011 Divided legislature makes CIR permanent

2012 CIR repeated on two new ballot measures

2014 CIR pilot projects underway in AZ, CO, WA

House Vote - May 23, 2011 Senate Vote - June 1, 2011

D D D D DD D D D DD D D D RR R R R RR

R R R R RR R

D D D D DD D D D DD D D D D

Not Voting 2D R

R R R R RR R R R RR R R R RNo 22Yes 36

D D D D DD D D D DD D D D DD R R R RR R

R R R R RR R R

No 8Yes 22

HB 2634: Creates Citizens' Initiative Review Commission to oversee review of state initiative measures by citizen panels

Ballot measures addressed by CIR

2010

Measure 73: Establish mandatory minimum sentencesPanel opposed 21-3 - Passed with 57% of final vote

Measure 74: Allow medical marijuana dispensariesPanel favored 13-11 - Failed with 44% of final vote

2012

Measure 85: Redirect corporate tax refund to K-12Panel favored 19-5 - Passed with 60% of final vote

Measure 82: Enable privately-owned casinos Panel opposed 17-7 - Failed with 28% of final vote

Basic Design of the 2010-12 Citizens’ Initiative Review

Sequence of the CIR process

1. Collect a demographically stratified random sample of 24 voters to serve as Citizen Panelists

2. Citizens’ Panel gets a week to deliberate and hear from pro/con advocates and neutral witnesses

3. Panelists write a Citizens’ Statement, which goes into the official state Voters’ Pamphlet

4. Voters use the Citizens’ Statement to study ballot measures and reach more informed judgments

MONDAY Orientation to CIR

TUESDAY Pro/Con presentation/rebuttal

WEDNESDAY Witnesses called by panel

THURSDAY Pro/Con closing arguments

FRIDAY Write and present CIR Statement

Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet

Quality of CIR Deliberation

CIR participants express high levels of process satisfaction (2012)

Question: “Looking back over the past five days, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with the CIR process?” Post-survey response rate = 100% (24 panelists from each 2012 CIR)

CIR panels held in 2010 and 2012 were both deliberative and democratic

2010 2012

Evaluative categoryM73

Mandat.Mins.

M74 Marij.

Dispens.

M85Corp. Taxes

M82Non-Tribal

Casinos

Rigorous deliberation Learning basic issue information B+ B+ B+ A-

Examining of underlying values B- B B A

Considering a range of alternatives A B A B

Weighing pros/cons of measure A A A A-

Democratic process Equality of opportunity to participate A A A B+

Comprehension of information B+ B+ A- B+

Consideration of different views A A A A-

Mutual respect A- A A B

Well-reasoned Citizens’ Statement Informed decision making A-

A A

B

Non-coercive process A A A A-Letter grades based on summary of qualitative observations of CIR by on-site researchers.

CIR panel on Measure 73(Aug 9-13, 2010)

Measure 73 would establish increased minimum sentences for certain repeated sex crimes and drunk driving.

STRONGLY STRONGLY OPPOSE OPPOSE NEUTRAL FAVOR FAVOR

BEFORE DELIBERATION

STRONGLY OPPOSE NEUTRAL FAVOR STRONGLY OPPOSE FAVOR

AFTER DELIBERATION

CIR panelist views on Measure 73

This is an animated slide showing opinion change at

the 2012 CIR on sentencing: Blue = liberal panelists, yellow = independents,

red = conservatives.

General findings about CIR deliberation

• Supermajorities achievable, even contrary to prevailing public opinion

• Quality and depth of argument trumps style

• Rebuttal and indirect cross-examination effective

• Process robust enough to withstand internal and external challenges

CIR Impact on Voters

Oregonians were more aware of CIR in 2012 than in 2010

Rolling cross-sectional phone surveys, N = 400 ea. week

Roughly two-thirds of voters found the CIR at least “somewhat” useful (2012)

Elway Poll, Oct-Nov 2012,n = 312 and 249, respectively

Casinos (Measure 82) Kicker (Measure 85)0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

26% 29%

40%43%

Somewhat usefulVery useful

“In deciding how to vote [on Measure

82/85], how helpful was it to read the Citizens' Initiative

Review Statement?”

Voters trust in CIR comparable to theofficial sections of Voters’ Pamphlet (2012)

How much voters trust info. source

Online survey in Oct-Nov, 2012, N = 457

Reading the CIR Statement increased initiative-relevant voter knowledge (2012)

Ten item knowledge battery e.g., “Measure 85 PREVENTS the Oregon Legislature from redirecting current K-12 funds to other non-education budgets”. F 3, 329 = 12.8, p < .001.

415 respondents from an online poll conducted by YouGov/Polimetrix Oct. 22-Nov. 1, 2010 (RR3 response rate = 41%).

Example of CIR impact on electorate: Measure 73 (mandatory minimums, 2010)

Would the CIR Work in Washington?

CIR draft legislation originally created for WA

The original CIR legislation was created by Ned Crosbyand the Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes

Support for CIR proposal in Washington (2006)

35.6%33.8%

9.2%

12.6%

7.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Strong yes Yes No Strong no Don't know

69.4% 21.8%Total Yes Total No

Oct 25-31, 2006 survey of 700 Washington residents (margin of error = +/- 4%). Question: “One proposal being considered for state law would establish independent panels of Washington citizens to provide voters with more reliable information about initiatives. Each panel would consists of a cross-section of Washington citizens, who would spend a full week hearing testimony and deliberating on the merits of each initiative. The Secretary of State would publish the citizens' final reports in the Voters Pamphlet, and the panel proceedings would be made available online. : If a vote to adopt this measure were taken today, would you support it or oppose it?”

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Strong yes Yes No Strong no Don't know

Democrat

Republican

Independent

Support for CIR proposal in Washington by political party (2006)

Total % Yes or Strong Yes 72% Dem.69% GOP70% Indep.

Reflections onDeliberative Design

Bottom line: Does the CIR work?

• High-quality deliberation is taking place during every CIR panel

• After two election cycles, more than half the OR electorate has become aware of CIR

• Voters appreciate the CIR’s neutral information, though not all choose to use it

• The CIR is changing what voters know about initiatives and influencing their judgments

Ongoing research in 2014

• Ongoing analysis of data from 2010 and 2012• CIR in Medford (Jackson County), Oregon,

April 27-30 on genetically modified crops• Official CIRs in Oregon, plus pilots developing

in Arizona, Colorado, and Washington• Usability testing across multiple states• Oregon phone surveys will provide third data

point on developing use over time• Online survey experiments continue to test

design and impact on different voter groups

ReferencesReports written for the Oregon Legislature and the Citizens Initiative Review Commission• Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., Richards, R., & Feller, T. 2013. Evaluation Report on the 2012 Citizens' Initiative Reviews for the Oregon CIR

Commission. Available online at http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/ReportToCIRCommission2012.pdf.• Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. 2010. Evaluation Report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Available

online at http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/OregonLegislativeReportCIR.pdf.

Relevant books and articles • Reedy, J., Wells, C., & Gastil, J. In press. How voters become misinformed: An investigation of the emergence and consequences of false

factual beliefs. Social Science Quarterly. • Gastil, J., Richards, R., & Knobloch, K. 2014. Vicarious deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review influenced deliberation in

mass elections. International Journal of Communication, 8. Available online at http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2235.• Gastil, J., & Richards, R. 2013. Making direct democracy deliberative through random assemblies. Politics & Society, 41, 253-281.• Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Walsh, K. C. 2013. Did they deliberate? Applying an evaluative model of democratic deliberation to the

Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 105-125.• Gastil, J., Braman, D., Kahan, D., & Slovic, P. 2011. The cultural orientation of mass political opinion. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 711-

714.• Wells, C., Reedy, J., Gastil, J., & Lee, C. 2009. Information distortion and voting choices: Assessing the origins and effects of factual beliefs in

an initiative election. Political Psychology, 30, 953-969.• Gastil, J. 2008. Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.• Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. 2008. Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication,

25, 23-36.• Gastil, J., Burkhalter, S., & Black, L. 2007. Do juries deliberate? A study of deliberation, individual difference, and group member satisfaction

at a municipal courthouse. Small Group Research, 38, 337-359.• Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Wells, C. 2007. When good voters make bad policies: Assessing and improving the deliberative quality of initiative

elections. University of Colorado Law Review, 78, 1435-1488.• Gastil, J., & Crosby, N. 2006, November 26. Taking the initiative. Seattle Times, Sunday editorial section. Available online at http://

seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003448042_sungastil26.html.• Gastil, J., & Crosby, N. 2005, August/September. Hey, Washingtonians: Show some initiative! Washington Law & Politics, 14. Available online

at http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/cir.html• Forehand, M., Gastil, J., & Smith, M. A. 2004. Endorsements as voting cues: Heuristic and systematic processing in initiative elections.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2215-2234.• Gastil, J., Smith, M. A., & Simmons, C. 2001. There’s more than one way to legislate: An integration of representative, direct, and deliberative

approaches to democratic governance. University of Colorado Law Review, 72, 1005-1028.• Gastil, J. 2000. By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley, CA: University of

California.

Aug 9-13

CIR on Measure 73 mandatory

min. sentencing

CIR panel votes AGAINST 21-3

M73 sponsors had engaging in CIR-style

deliberation

June 26, 2009CIR established

by Oregon House Bill 2895

St

atew

ide

Surv

ey D

ata

CIR

Pane

l Dat

a

Citi

zens

’ Ini

tiativ

e Re

view

Aug 5-31, 2010

Wave 1 of online panel survey by

YouGov/Polimetrix

N = 640 W1 onlyN = 971 both W1

and W2

Also includes Qs re: Measure 76 as a

comparison

2012-2013Discussions held with delegations from Arizona, California, Colorado, and other states regarding potential

CIR panels in 2014 elections

Aug 16-20

CIR on Measure 74 medical marijuana

CIR panel votes FOR 13-11

M74 sponsors rallied effectively mid-week to

win a tepid CIR endorsement

Aug 6-10

CIR on Measure 85 corporate tax “kicker”

refund

CIR panel votes FOR 19-5

M85 sponsors did not participate; got tepid

endorsement

Aug 20-24

CIR on Measure 82 authorizing private

casinos

CIR panel votes AGAINST 17-7

In mid-Oct, M82 sponsors suspended

their campaign

Nov 2, 2010

Oregon general election

57% vote for M73 44% vote for M74

Nov 6, 2012

Oregon general election

60% vote for M85 29% vote for M82

June 16, 2011CIR established

by Oregon House Bill 2634

August 30 – November 1

Rolling cross-sectional phone surveyby Washington Research Center N = 1,991

Oct 22-Nov 1, 2010

Second wave of online panel. Includes an

experimental manipulation, plus a Wave 2-only sample

N = 509

Oct 26 – Nov 2CIR panelists

follow-up survey N = 38

Aug 9-13: M73

Complete transcript and video of panel

Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist

questionnaires N=24

Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil,

& Reedy

Aug 16-20: M74

Complete transcript and video of panel

Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist

questionnaires N=24

Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil, & Cramer-Walsh

Aug 6-10: M85

Complete transcript and audio of panel

Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist

questionnaires N=24

Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil,

& Richards

Aug 20-24: M82

Complete transcript, audio of small group sessions,

plus video of large-group sessions

Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires

N=24

Researchers’ detailed notes and codings

Knobloch, Richards,& Feller

Oct 4-Nov 5, 2012

Online survey in Qualtrics. Includes experimental manipulation; detailed M82

section dropped early in survey period after sponsors withdrew N = 1539

Oct 25-Nov 5, 2012

Brief phone survey by Elway Polling N = 800

2012 2010

Summary of CIR Data Collection, 2010-2012