Publius: The Journal of Federalism Advance Access originally published online on January 18, 2008
Publius: The Journal of Federalism 2008 38(3):488-514; doi:10.1093/publius/pjm039
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
State Policy Innovation and the Federalism Implications of Direct Democracy
*James Madison University; E-mail: ferraikm{at}jmu.edu
As state policy activism has flourished in recent years, increasingly that activism has taken place through the direct democracy process. While winning ballot measures often have implications for federal–state relations, federalism issues have largely been ignored in the direct democracy literature. I address this oversight by investigating how the outcomes of direct democracy politics affect the relationships among citizens, states, and the federal government. My analysis focuses on measures proposed over the last decade that represent either a response to perceived federal inaction or a challenge to federal policy. The findings suggest that initiatives have different effects on federal–state relations depending on the form they take. When ballot measures seeking to fill a policy void lead to federal action, they promote intergovernmental policy consensus and narrow the distance between public opinion and federal policy; if the federal government fails to address the issue at stake, additional state innovation will result and voter preferences and federal policy outcomes will move farther apart. Meanwhile, initiatives that challenge federal law create conflict and polarization between states and the federal government and widen the distance between public opinion and federal policy. The passage of initiatives in both categories heightens opinion-policy congruence at the state level as officials are often eager to publicly support and implement the results of successful ballot measures.