The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR), 2010-2014:

Evaluation and Analysis of an Electoral InnovationJOHN GASTIL

Professor of Communication Arts & Sciences

Director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy

Pennsylvania State University

KATIE KNOBLOCH

Assistant Professor of Communication Studies

Associate Director of the Center for Public Deliberation

Colorado State University

Principal funding for this research came via two grants from the National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences:

• Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. (2014). Decision, Risk and Management Sciences, NSF Award #1357276/1357444: “Collaborative Research: A Multi-State Investigation of Small Group and Mass Public Decision Making on Fiscal

and Scientific Controversies through the Citizens’ Initiative Review” ($418,000).

• Gastil, J. (2010). Decision, Risk and Management Sciences and Political Science Programs, NSF Award # 0961774: “Investigating the Electoral Impact and Deliberation of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review” ($218,000).

Additional funding was provided by the Kettering Foundation (2012), the University of Washington (2010), and the Pennsylvania State University (2012). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed

in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or any of these foundations and universities.

Commission

Oversees Panel

Design/Selection

Panel Deliberates

4-5 Days

CIR Statement

Appears in Voters’

Pamphlet

Election Held

CIR Process Design and Research Findings

MONDAY Orientation to CIR

TUESDAY Pro/Con arguemnts/rebuttal

WEDNESDAY Witnesses called by panel

THURSDAY Pro/Con closing arguments

FRIDAY Write and present CIR

Statement

CIR Five-Day Agenda

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)

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: Mandatory minimum sentencing (Measure 73)

May 7, 2014, poster presentation at the Coalition

for National Science Funding Annual Exhibition

and Reception, titled “Investments in STEM

Research and Education: Fueling American

Innovation.” Both presenters attended at the

invitation of their principal professional

association, the National Communication Assn.

Unofficial

pilot panel

in Oregon

OR HB 2895

authorizes

official test

CIR panels

on sentencing

and marijuana

OR HB 2634

creates CIR

Commission

CIR panels on

tax reform and

private casinos

CIR research

workshop held

at Penn State

OR CIR panelsPilots likely in AZ

and CO, explored

in CA and WA