Assessing the Electoral Impact of the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

Abstract

The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) distinguishes itself by linking a small deliberative body to the larger electoral process. Since 2010, CIR citizen panels have been a legislatively authorized part of Oregon general elections to promote a more informed electorate. The CIR gathers a representative cross-section of two dozen voters for 5 days of deliberation on a single ballot measure. The process culminates in the citizen panelists writing a Citizens’ Statement that the secretary of state inserts into the official Voters’ Pamphlet sent to each registered voter. This study analyzes the effect of one such Citizens’ Statement from the 2010 general election. In Study 1, an online survey experiment found that reading this Statement influenced Oregon voters’ values trade-offs, issue knowledge, and vote intentions. In Study 2, regression analysis of a cross-sectional phone survey found a parallel association between the Statement’s use and voting choices but yielded some mixed findings.

Emotions and Deliberation in the Citizens’ Initiative Review

“…In Arizona, 22 participants examined Proposition 205, which proposed ‘legalizing the possession and consumption of marijuana by persons who are 21 years of age or older’ (Gastil, Reedy, et al., ). In Oregon, 20 participants scrutinized Measure 97, which would have removed the cap on the corporate gross sales tax and tax all sales in excess of $25 million at 2.5 percent (Gastil et al, ). In Massachusetts, 20 participants studied the Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization Initiative, which proposed to “legalize marijuana but regulate it in ways similar to alcoholic beverages” (Gastil, Knobloch, et al, ).…”

Participatory innovations and maxi‐publics: The influence of participation possibilities on perceived legitimacy at the local level in Finland

“…In general, we should expect that wide publicity is attached to more institutionalised and empowered PIs such as referendums, national-level deliberative citizen assemblies and institutionalised citizens' initiative reviews (Gastil et al 2018). The causal effects on procedural fairness articulated in H1 and H3 necessitate that citizens are at least to some extent aware of how decisions are made in their jurisdictions, and what kinds of participation possibilities there are available.…”

“…Papadopoulos & Warin 2007b), but empirical research on this topic remains scarce. In general, we should expect that wide publicity is attached to more institutionalised and empowered PIs such as referendums, national-level deliberative citizen assemblies and institutionalised citizens' initiative reviews (Gastil et al 2018). In these types of processes, publicity is exercised by the government, interest groups and media.…”

“…The question of how participation possibilities affect democratic publics has been studied less than the other types of impact (Michels 2011: 288;Papadopoulos & Warin 2007b). Just recently, citizens' initiative reviews have been shown to moderately influence public opinion and voter knowledge in the context of direct democratic votes (Gastil et al 2018), and experimental study has found an effect of deliberative mini-publics on public opinion (Ingham & Levin 2018). PB has been shown to contribute to a more active civil society in Brazil (Touchton & Wampler 2014), and a citizen deliberation event in Belgium has made the majority of the wider public supportive of organising citizen deliberations in the future (Caluwaerts et al 2016: 13).…”

Digital Democracy: Episode IV—A New Hope, How a Corporation for Public Software Could Transform Digital Engagement for Government and Civil Society

“…These random samples of citizens exercise various forms of influence. Minipublics, in particular, have formulated referendums on policy controversies (Warren and Pearse 2008), created voting aids on ballot measures to educate fellow voters (Gastil, Knobloch, Reedy, Henkels, et al 2018), and exercised authority over political redistricting (Ancheta 2014). Researchers following these and other deliberative institutions have found that they generally fulfill their promise as a means of promoting better judgment, democratic civic attitudes, and future political engagement (Pincock 2012).…”