Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections

TLDR

Critics argue that direct legislation allows an electoral majority to undermine the interests and rights of racial and ethnic minorities. The study aims to assess the claim that direct democracy harms minority interests. It does so by examining outcomes of California direct democracy since 1978. The analysis shows that while minorities lose on a small share of racially targeted propositions (under 5 % of all), overall most Latino, Asian American, and African American voters win the majority of propositions, indicating critics have overstated the negative impact of direct democracy.

Abstract

Critics argue that direct legislation (initiatives and referendums) allows an electoral majority to undermine the interests and rights of racial and ethnic minorities. We assess this claim by examining outcomes of direct democracy in California since 1978. Our analysis indicates that critics have overstated the detrimental effects of direct democracy. Confirming earlier critiques, we find that racial and ethnic minorities-and in particular Latinos-lose regularly on a small number of racially targeted propositions. However, these racially targeted propositions represent less than 5% of all ballot propositions. When we consider outcomes across all propositions, we find that the majority of Latino, Asian American, and African American voters were on the winning side of the vote. This remains true if we confine our analysis to propositions on which racial and ethnic minorities vote cohesively or to propositions on issues that racial and ethnic minorities say they care most about.