A Theory of Direct Democracy and the Single Subject Rule

Abstract

Citizens in many states use direct democracy to make laws on everything from soda bottles and horsemeat to affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Does direct democracy save citizens from corrupt legislators, or does it enfeeble competent representatives and empower an ignorant crowd? These ideological extremes often collide in court over a technical rule – the single subject rule – that limits each ballot initiative to one “subject.” Opponents can invalidate an initiative by convincing a court that it contains two different subjects (say, marriage and domestic partnerships), while proponents can preserve it by showing that it contains only one subject (say, same-sex unions).\nDespite hundreds of cases, including recent challenges to initiatives on same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, eminent domain, and taxes on oil profits, judges and scholars have been unable to define a “subject” with precision. This has led to inconsistent case outcomes, accusations of judicial activism, calls to repeal the rule, and anxiety among judges who must decide inflammatory issues by applying an undefined concept.\nJudges and scholars will never find a legal definition of “subject” by focusing exclusively on logic and language. Instead, the definition must be drawn from political theory. In the legislature, representatives of the citizens can bargain with each other, allowing compromise among groups that disagree politically. In contrast, hundreds of thousands of unorganized voters must accept or reject initiatives as presented to them. Those voters cannot bargain among themselves, but they can override legislative bargains that serve special interests. This political vision exposes the true justification for the single subject rule: to empower the majority on issues where there is one, and to channel bargaining and compromise into the legislature where it belongs.