The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value

California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Law & policy 1989-10, Vol.11 (4), p.451-469
Hauptverfasser: BERG, LARRY L., HOLMAN, C. B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 469
container_issue 4
container_start_page 451
container_title Law & policy
container_volume 11
creator BERG, LARRY L.
HOLMAN, C. B.
description California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special interest groups. Since 1978, however, there has been a clear trend toward the “professionalization” of the initiative process in California. What was once a valuable agenda‐setting mechanism for citizens has increasingly become a tool of professional special interest groups. A survey of expenditures made in solely the qualification phase of statewide initiatives over time shows a growing dichotomy between those initiatives that qualify for the ballot and those that fail to qualify. Not only are dramatically more funds spent on behalf of successful qualification efforts, but these funds also are more likely to be spent on enlisting professional signature‐gathering services. The era of the “popular initiative” is coming to a close unless steps are taken to reduce the professionalization of its agenda‐setting function.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1467-9930.1989.tb00038.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61185240</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>61185240</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4201-83710015f2c44a449ebe37d3295e6c3a76e903d05bfa7ab688101ef4554ea5613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkctOwzAQRS0EEuXxDxFI7FLs2E5sJITKq1RUtIsCy5GTTMAlJBCn0P49jopYsEF4Y9k-c8d3LiEHjPaZX8fzPhNxEmrN_YVWut-mlFKu-ssN0vt52iQ9GsUyVJGg22THubmHmKa8R05nzxiMKtta09oPDKZNnaFzganywLYuuMSstJWtnoLBE1a5CR22bXd8MOUC98hWYUqH-9_7Lrm_vppd3ITjyXB0MRiHmYgoCxVPmG8oiygTwgihMUWe5DzSEuOMmyRG_5mcyrQwiUljpRhlWAgpBRoZM75Ljta6b039vkDXwqt1GZalqbBeOIgZU9Kb-xOUWnIlqfLg4S9wXi-aypsAxin1PRMtPHWyprKmdq7BAt4a-2qaFTAKXQAwh27K0E0ZugDgOwBY-uKzdfGnLXH1j0oYD6YTITvb4VrBuhaXPwqmeYE44YmEx7shCHnJ2O2jgnP-BXxFmhY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1300613794</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>BERG, LARRY L. ; HOLMAN, C. B.</creator><creatorcontrib>BERG, LARRY L. ; HOLMAN, C. B.</creatorcontrib><description>California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special interest groups. Since 1978, however, there has been a clear trend toward the “professionalization” of the initiative process in California. What was once a valuable agenda‐setting mechanism for citizens has increasingly become a tool of professional special interest groups. A survey of expenditures made in solely the qualification phase of statewide initiatives over time shows a growing dichotomy between those initiatives that qualify for the ballot and those that fail to qualify. Not only are dramatically more funds spent on behalf of successful qualification efforts, but these funds also are more likely to be spent on enlisting professional signature‐gathering services. The era of the “popular initiative” is coming to a close unless steps are taken to reduce the professionalization of its agenda‐setting function.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0265-8240</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9930</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9930.1989.tb00038.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>California ; Electoral Process ; Government and politics ; Initiatives ; Law ; Pressure groups ; Public Policy ; Referendum</subject><ispartof>Law &amp; policy, 1989-10, Vol.11 (4), p.451-469</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4201-83710015f2c44a449ebe37d3295e6c3a76e903d05bfa7ab688101ef4554ea5613</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4201-83710015f2c44a449ebe37d3295e6c3a76e903d05bfa7ab688101ef4554ea5613</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27844,27848,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>BERG, LARRY L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOLMAN, C. B.</creatorcontrib><title>The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value</title><title>Law &amp; policy</title><description>California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special interest groups. Since 1978, however, there has been a clear trend toward the “professionalization” of the initiative process in California. What was once a valuable agenda‐setting mechanism for citizens has increasingly become a tool of professional special interest groups. A survey of expenditures made in solely the qualification phase of statewide initiatives over time shows a growing dichotomy between those initiatives that qualify for the ballot and those that fail to qualify. Not only are dramatically more funds spent on behalf of successful qualification efforts, but these funds also are more likely to be spent on enlisting professional signature‐gathering services. The era of the “popular initiative” is coming to a close unless steps are taken to reduce the professionalization of its agenda‐setting function.</description><subject>California</subject><subject>Electoral Process</subject><subject>Government and politics</subject><subject>Initiatives</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Pressure groups</subject><subject>Public Policy</subject><subject>Referendum</subject><issn>0265-8240</issn><issn>1467-9930</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1989</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkctOwzAQRS0EEuXxDxFI7FLs2E5sJITKq1RUtIsCy5GTTMAlJBCn0P49jopYsEF4Y9k-c8d3LiEHjPaZX8fzPhNxEmrN_YVWut-mlFKu-ssN0vt52iQ9GsUyVJGg22THubmHmKa8R05nzxiMKtta09oPDKZNnaFzganywLYuuMSstJWtnoLBE1a5CR22bXd8MOUC98hWYUqH-9_7Lrm_vppd3ITjyXB0MRiHmYgoCxVPmG8oiygTwgihMUWe5DzSEuOMmyRG_5mcyrQwiUljpRhlWAgpBRoZM75Ljta6b039vkDXwqt1GZalqbBeOIgZU9Kb-xOUWnIlqfLg4S9wXi-aypsAxin1PRMtPHWyprKmdq7BAt4a-2qaFTAKXQAwh27K0E0ZugDgOwBY-uKzdfGnLXH1j0oYD6YTITvb4VrBuhaXPwqmeYE44YmEx7shCHnJ2O2jgnP-BXxFmhY</recordid><startdate>198910</startdate><enddate>198910</enddate><creator>BERG, LARRY L.</creator><creator>HOLMAN, C. B.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Published by B. Blackwell for the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy, State University of New York at Buffalo</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HFXKP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198910</creationdate><title>The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value</title><author>BERG, LARRY L. ; HOLMAN, C. B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4201-83710015f2c44a449ebe37d3295e6c3a76e903d05bfa7ab688101ef4554ea5613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1989</creationdate><topic>California</topic><topic>Electoral Process</topic><topic>Government and politics</topic><topic>Initiatives</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Pressure groups</topic><topic>Public Policy</topic><topic>Referendum</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>BERG, LARRY L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOLMAN, C. B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 17</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Law &amp; policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>BERG, LARRY L.</au><au>HOLMAN, C. B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value</atitle><jtitle>Law &amp; policy</jtitle><date>1989-10</date><risdate>1989</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>451</spage><epage>469</epage><pages>451-469</pages><issn>0265-8240</issn><eissn>1467-9930</eissn><abstract>California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special interest groups. Since 1978, however, there has been a clear trend toward the “professionalization” of the initiative process in California. What was once a valuable agenda‐setting mechanism for citizens has increasingly become a tool of professional special interest groups. A survey of expenditures made in solely the qualification phase of statewide initiatives over time shows a growing dichotomy between those initiatives that qualify for the ballot and those that fail to qualify. Not only are dramatically more funds spent on behalf of successful qualification efforts, but these funds also are more likely to be spent on enlisting professional signature‐gathering services. The era of the “popular initiative” is coming to a close unless steps are taken to reduce the professionalization of its agenda‐setting function.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1467-9930.1989.tb00038.x</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0265-8240
ispartof Law & policy, 1989-10, Vol.11 (4), p.451-469
issn 0265-8240
1467-9930
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61185240
source PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Periodicals Index Online
subjects California
Electoral Process
Government and politics
Initiatives
Law
Pressure groups
Public Policy
Referendum
title The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T05%3A23%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Initiative%20Process%20and%20its%20Declining%20Agenda-setting%20Value&rft.jtitle=Law%20&%20policy&rft.au=BERG,%20LARRY%20L.&rft.date=1989-10&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=451&rft.epage=469&rft.pages=451-469&rft.issn=0265-8240&rft.eissn=1467-9930&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1989.tb00038.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E61185240%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1300613794&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true