1. Making Initiative Elections More Deliberative A Summary of Research on the Citizens’ Initiative Review John Gastil Professor of Comm. Arts & Sciences and Political Science Director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy Pennsylvania State University Presentation at the King County Bar Assn. April 24, 2014 The research presented in this report was supported by the National Science Foundation NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences’ Political Science Program 2010 Award and Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences Program 2014 Award and by funding from the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund, the Kettering Foundation and The Pennsylvania State University Social Science Research Institute and McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, the Kettering Foundation, or any university partners.

2. Research collaborators and CIR designers Katie Knobloch (Colorado State U.), Co-Principal Investigator Penn State University Robert Richards: observation, transcript coding, survey David Brinker: survey design and analysis Guoray Cai and Jessica Kropczynski: observation and analysis Other academic collaborators Lauren Archer and Traci Feller (U. Washington), Justin Reedy (Oklahoma U.), Mark Henkels (Western Oregon U.), Katherine Cramer (U. Wisconsin), Laura Black (Ohio U.), Genevieve Fuji-Johnson (U. British Columbia), Jennifer Ervin (U. Arizona), Lilach Nir (Hebrew U.), Ekaterina Lukianova (St. Petersburg State U.) Civic reformers Ned Crosby, Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes Tyrone Reitman, Healthy Democracy

3. Overview The idea of deliberative elections Two examples of election reform The Citizens’ Initiative Review – Basic design of the CIR – Quality of CIR deliberation – CIR impact on voters Would the CIR work in Washington? Summary and ongoing research

4. The Idea of Deliberative Elections

5. Two quick definitions A deliberative democracy is a political system that privileges high-quality public argument, civility and respect among citizens, and informed judgment at all levels of decision making. Deliberative elections are those in which voters consider the full array of candidate/policy choices on their ballots to reach informed and reflective judgments on each question placed before them.

6. Initiative voting is not deliberative Limited knowledge of what ballot measures would do, as well as their legal/constitutional meaning Systematic bias in the selection, processing, and retention of issue-relevant information Failure to consider counter-arguments from opposing viewpoints Partisans’ over-reliance on elite “voting cues”

7. Example: WA Initiative 841 (2003) Initiative 841 repealed state ergonomics regulations and directed the Dept. of Labor and Industries not to adopt new state laws unless required to do so by federal standards. Hundreds of millions of dollars at stake (state insurance fund, insurance, and other savings, minus compliance costs)

8. Many voters didn’t understand I-841 Supporters of the repeal incorrectly believed only a handful of workers suffered ergonomics-related injuries each year. Opponents of the repeal incorrectly believed that most other states had similar regulations. A majority of voters surveyed could not recall even one argument from the other side. Oct 28-30 2003 phone survey of 404 frequent voters in King County

9. Two Examples of Deliberative Election Reform

10. Priority Conference Design Panel B.C. Citizens’ Assembly Citizens’ Initiative Review Policy Jury Public policy problem identified Ballot measure proposed Proposal voted up or down Citizen deliberation can occur at five stages of the initiative process

11. Video clip of British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly

12. B.C. Citizens’ Assembly history 1996 B.C. Liberals win but lose Won a plurality of the votes (42%) but only 33 of the 72 seats 2001 Liberals campaign on reform and win 2003 B.C. Citizens’ Assembly established 2004 Citizens’ Assembly deliberates Single-Transferable-Vote system recommended 2005 B.C. public votes on election reform Wins 57% of vote and a majority in 77 of 79 ridings

13. Video clip of 2010 Oregon CIR

14. Citizens’ Initiative Review history 1974 Jefferson Center and the Citizens’ Jury 2008 Unofficial CIR demonstrated the process 2009 Oregon legislature passes initial CIR law 2010 CIR held on two ballot measures 2011 Divided legislature makes CIR permanent 2012 CIR repeated on two new ballot measures 2014 CIR pilot projects underway in AZ, CO, WA

15. House Vote - May 23, 2011Senate Vote - June 1, 2011 D D D D D D D D D R R R R R R R R D D D D D Not Voting 2 D R R R R R R No 22Yes 36 D D D D D D R R R R R R R R R R R R R No 8Yes 22 HB 2634: Creates Citizens' Initiative Review Commission to oversee review of state initiative measures by citizen panels

16. Ballot measures addressed by CIR 2010 Measure 73: Establish mandatory minimum sentences Panel opposed 21-3 - Passed with 57% of final vote Measure 74: Allow medical marijuana dispensaries Panel favored 13-11 - Failed with 44% of final vote 2012 Measure 85: Redirect corporate tax refund to K-12 Panel favored 19-5 - Passed with 60% of final vote Measure 82: Enable privately-owned casinos Panel opposed 17-7 - Failed with 28% of final vote

17. Basic Design of the 2010-12 Citizens’ Initiative Review

18. Sequence of the CIR process 1.Collect a demographically stratified random sample of 24 voters to serve as Citizen Panelists 2.Citizens’ Panel gets a week to deliberate and hear from pro/con advocates and neutral witnesses 3.Panelists write a Citizens’ Statement, which goes into the official state Voters’ Pamphlet 4.Voters use the Citizens’ Statement to study ballot measures and reach more informed judgments

19. MONDAY Orientation to CIR TUESDAY Pro/Con presentation/rebuttal WEDNESDAY Witnesses called by panel THURSDAY Pro/Con closing arguments FRIDAY Write and present CIR Statement

20. Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet

25. Quality of CIR Deliberation

26. 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)

27. CIR panels held in 2010 and 2012 were both deliberative and democratic 20102012 Evaluative category M73 Mandat. Mins. M74 Marij. Dispens. M85 Corp. Taxes M82 Non- Tribal Casinos Rigorous deliberation Learning basic issue information B+ A- Examining of underlying values B- B B A Considering a range of alternatives A B A B Weighing pros/cons of measure A A A A- Democratic process Equality of opportunity to participate A A A B+ Comprehension of information B+ A- B+ Consideration of different views A A A A- Mutual respect A- A A B Well-reasoned Citizens’ Statement Informed decision making A- A A B Non-coercive process A A A A- Letter grades based on summary of qualitative observations of CIR by on-site researchers.

28. CIR panel on Measure 73 (Aug 9-13, 2010) Measure 73 would establish increased minimum sentences for certain repeated sex crimes and drunk driving.

29. STRONGLY OPPOSEOPPOSENEUTRALFAVOR FAVOR BEFORE DELIBERATION STRONGLY OPPOSE NEUTRAL FAVOR STRONGLY OPPOSE FAVOR AFTER DELIBERATION CIR panelist views on Measure 73 This is an animated slide showing opinion change at the 2012 CIR on sentencing: Blue = liberal panelists, yellow = independents, red = conservatives.

30. General findings about CIR deliberation Supermajorities achievable, even contrary to prevailing public opinion Quality and depth of argument trumps style Rebuttal and indirect cross-examination effective Process robust enough to withstand internal and external challenges

31. CIR Impact on Voters

32. Oregonians were more aware of CIR in 2012 than in 2010 Rolling cross-sectional phone surveys, N = 400 ea. week

33. Roughly two-thirds of voters found the CIR at least “somewhat” useful (2012) Elway Poll, Oct-Nov 2012, n = 312 and 249, respectively “In deciding how to vote [on Measure 82/85], how helpful was it to read the Citizens' Initiative Review Statement?”

34. Voters trust in CIR comparable to the official sections of Voters’ Pamphlet (2012) How much voters trust info. source Online survey in Oct-Nov, 2012, N = 457

35. 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.

36. 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: Measure 73 (mandatory minimums, 2010)

37. Would the CIR Work in Washington?

38. CIR draft legislation originally created for WA The original CIR legislation was created by Ned Crosby and the Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes

39. Support for CIR proposal in Washington (2006) 69.4%21.8% Total Yes Total No Oct 25-31, 2006 survey of 700 Washington residents (margin of error = +/- 4%). Question: “One proposal being considered for state law would establish independent panels of Washington citizens to provide voters with more reliable information about initiatives. Each panel would consists of a cross-section of Washington citizens, who would spend a full week hearing testimony and deliberating on the merits of each initiative. The Secretary of State would publish the citizens' final reports in the Voters Pamphlet, and the panel proceedings would be made available online. : If a vote to adopt this measure were taken today, would you support it or oppose it?”

40. Support for CIR proposal in Washington by political party (2006) Total % Yes or Strong Yes 72% Dem. 69% GOP 70% Indep.

41. Reflections on Deliberative Design

42. Bottom line: Does the CIR work? High-quality deliberation is taking place during every CIR panel After two election cycles, more than half the OR electorate has become aware of CIR Voters appreciate the CIR’s neutral information, though not all choose to use it The CIR is changing what voters know about initiatives and influencing their judgments

43. Ongoing research in 2014 Ongoing analysis of data from 2010 and 2012 CIR in Medford (Jackson County), Oregon, April 27-30 on genetically modified crops Official CIRs in Oregon, plus pilots developing in Arizona, Colorado, and Washington Usability testing across multiple states Oregon phone surveys will provide third data point on developing use over time Online survey experiments continue to test design and impact on different voter groups

44. References Reports written for the Oregon Legislature and the Citizens Initiative Review Commission Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., Richards, R., & Feller, T. 2013. Evaluation Report on the 2012 Citizens' Initiative Reviews for the Oregon CIR Commission. Available online at http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/ReportToCIRCommission2012.pdf.http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/ReportToCIRCommission2012.pdf Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. 2010. Evaluation Report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Available online at http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/OregonLegislativeReportCIR.pdf.http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/OregonLegislativeReportCIR.pdf Relevant books and articles Reedy, J., Wells, C., & Gastil, J. In press. How voters become misinformed: An investigation of the emergence and consequences of false factual beliefs. Social Science Quarterly. Gastil, J., Richards, R., & Knobloch, K. 2014. Vicarious deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review influenced deliberation in mass elections. International Journal of Communication, 8. Available online at http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2235.http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2235 Gastil, J., & Richards, R. 2013. Making direct democracy deliberative through random assemblies. Politics & Society, 41, 253-281. Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Walsh, K. C. 2013. Did they deliberate? Applying an evaluative model of democratic deliberation to the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 105-125. Gastil, J., Braman, D., Kahan, D., & Slovic, P. 2011. The cultural orientation of mass political opinion. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 711- 714. Wells, C., Reedy, J., Gastil, J., & Lee, C. 2009. Information distortion and voting choices: Assessing the origins and effects of factual beliefs in an initiative election. Political Psychology, 30, 953-969. Gastil, J. 2008. Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. 2008. Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication, 25, 23-36. Gastil, J., Burkhalter, S., & Black, L. 2007. Do juries deliberate? A study of deliberation, individual difference, and group member satisfaction at a municipal courthouse. Small Group Research, 38, 337-359. Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Wells, C. 2007. When good voters make bad policies: Assessing and improving the deliberative quality of initiative elections. University of Colorado Law Review, 78, 1435-1488. Gastil, J., & Crosby, N. 2006, November 26. Taking the initiative. Seattle Times, Sunday editorial section. Available online at http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003448042_sungastil26.html. http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003448042_sungastil26.html Gastil, J., & Crosby, N. 2005, August/September. Hey, Washingtonians: Show some initiative! Washington Law & Politics, 14. Available online at http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/cir.htmlhttp://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/cir.html Forehand, M., Gastil, J., & Smith, M. A. 2004. Endorsements as voting cues: Heuristic and systematic processing in initiative elections. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2215-2234. Gastil, J., Smith, M. A., & Simmons, C. 2001. There’s more than one way to legislate: An integration of representative, direct, and deliberative approaches to democratic governance. University of Colorado Law Review, 72, 1005-1028. Gastil, J. 2000. By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

45. Aug 9-13 CIR on Measure 73 mandatory min. sentencingMeasure 73 CIR panel votes AGAINST 21-3 M73 sponsors had engaging in CIR-style deliberation Aug 9-13 CIR on Measure 73 mandatory min. sentencingMeasure 73 CIR panel votes AGAINST 21-3 M73 sponsors had engaging in CIR-style deliberation June 26, 2009 CIR established by Oregon House Bill 2895 House Bill 2895 Statewide Survey Data CIR Panel Data Citizens’ Initiative Review Aug 5-31, 2010 Wave 1 of online panel survey by YouGov/Polimetrix N = 640 W1 only N = 971 both W1 and W2 Also includes Qs re: Measure 76 as a comparison Measure 76 Aug 5-31, 2010 Wave 1 of online panel survey by YouGov/Polimetrix N = 640 W1 only N = 971 both W1 and W2 Also includes Qs re: Measure 76 as a comparison Measure 76 2012-2013 Discussions held with delegations from Arizona, California, Colorado, and other states regarding potential CIR panels in 2014 elections Aug 16-20 CIR on Measure 74 medical marijuanaMeasure 74 CIR panel votes FOR 13-11 M74 sponsors rallied effectively mid-week to win a tepid CIR endorsement Aug 16-20 CIR on Measure 74 medical marijuanaMeasure 74 CIR panel votes FOR 13-11 M74 sponsors rallied effectively mid-week to win a tepid CIR endorsement Aug 6-10 CIR on Measure 85 corporate tax “kicker” refundMeasure 85 CIR panel votes FOR 19-5 M85 sponsors did not participate; got tepid endorsement Aug 6-10 CIR on Measure 85 corporate tax “kicker” refundMeasure 85 CIR panel votes FOR 19-5 M85 sponsors did not participate; got tepid endorsement Aug 20-24 CIR on Measure 82 authorizing private casinosMeasure 82 CIR panel votes AGAINST 17-7 In mid-Oct, M82 sponsors suspended their campaign Aug 20-24 CIR on Measure 82 authorizing private casinosMeasure 82 CIR panel votes AGAINST 17-7 In mid-Oct, M82 sponsors suspended their campaign Nov 2, 2010 Oregon general election 57% vote for M73 44% vote for M74 Nov 2, 2010 Oregon general election 57% vote for M73 44% vote for M74 Nov 6, 2012 Oregon general election 60% vote for M85 29% vote for M82 Nov 6, 2012 Oregon general election 60% vote for M85 29% vote for M82 June 16, 2011 CIR established by Oregon House Bill 2634 House Bill 2634 August 30 – November 1 Rolling cross-sectional phone survey by Washington Research Center N = 1,991 August 30 – November 1 Rolling cross-sectional phone survey by Washington Research Center N = 1,991 Oct 22-Nov 1, 2010 Second wave of online panel. Includes an experimental manipulation, plus a Wave 2-only sample N = 509 Oct 22-Nov 1, 2010 Second wave of online panel. Includes an experimental manipulation, plus a Wave 2-only sample N = 509 Oct 26 – Nov 2 CIR panelists follow-up survey N = 38 Oct 26 – Nov 2 CIR panelists follow-up survey N = 38 Aug 9-13: M73 Complete transcript and video of panel Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires N=24 Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil, & Reedy Aug 9-13: M73 Complete transcript and video of panel Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires N=24 Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil, & Reedy Aug 16-20: M74 Complete transcript and video of panel Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires N=24 Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil, & Cramer-Walsh Aug 16-20: M74 Complete transcript and video of panel Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires N=24 Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil, & Cramer-Walsh Aug 6-10: M85 Complete transcript and audio of panel Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires N=24 Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil, & Richards Aug 6-10: M85 Complete transcript and audio of panel Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires N=24 Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil, & Richards Aug 20-24: M82 Complete transcript, audio of small group sessions, plus video of large-group sessions Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires N=24 Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Richards, & Feller Aug 20-24: M82 Complete transcript, audio of small group sessions, plus video of large-group sessions Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires N=24 Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Richards, & Feller Oct 4-Nov 5, 2012 Online survey in Qualtrics. Includes experimental manipulation; detailed M82 section dropped early in survey period after sponsors withdrew N = 1539 Oct 4-Nov 5, 2012 Online survey in Qualtrics. Includes experimental manipulation; detailed M82 section dropped early in survey period after sponsors withdrew N = 1539 Oct 25-Nov 5, 2012 Brief phone survey by Elway Polling N = 800 Oct 25-Nov 5, 2012 Brief phone survey by Elway Polling N = 800 2012 2010 Summary of CIR Data Collection, 2010-2012