Ballot propositions are increasingly being promoted to influence Senate, Congressional, and even presidential races, but the actual spillover effects may be smaller than commonly believed, a report by the Initiative and Referendum Institute at USC has found.
Controversial ballot initiatives — such as gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion — draw voters to the polls who might otherwise abstain, possibly helping or hurting candidates on the same ballot, according to the report written by Jeffrey R. Makin, a research associate with the Initiative and Referendum Institute.
The best known case was in 2004 when a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage in Ohio was alleged to have given George W. Bush the extra votes needed to win the state and the presidency. Yet a review of the growing scholarly evidence suggests that the marriage amendment did not help Bush after all, and may even have hurt him.
But 2004 may be a bad test case since most politically interested citizens would have turned out to vote even without ballot propositions. Research suggests that ballot propositions may have a larger effect in off-year elections when many more voters tend to abstain.
The November 2006 elections appear to provide a more hospitable environment for ballot proposition spillovers and interest groups have positioned themselves to take advantage of them. Most notably, progressive groups qualified minimum wage measures in several states specifically to generate support for Democratic candidates.
“Ballot propositions are increasingly viewed as a way to influence candidate elections,” said John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute. “Interest groups, particularly progressive organizations, are actively trying to exploit spillovers this fall, taking a page from what they believe to be the conservative playbook.”
This year, several ballot propositions could influence competitive elections across the country. They include “voter mobilizing” propositions that get voters to polls who would otherwise abstain, and “candidate defining” propositions that force candidates to take stances on issues they would otherwise not address.
Examples of voter mobilizing issues may include gay marriage, minimum wage and environmental initiatives. Some argue that the marriage amendments in 2004 mobilized partisan voters. Possibly, the minimum wage initiatives currently on state ballots may mobilize Democrats.
“Candidate defining” measures include gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, minimum wage, immigration and affirmative action.
“Candidates may prefer not to address a particular issue during the campaign, but a high-profile initiative may force them to take a position,” Matsusaka said.
For example, candidates in states with a minimum wage initiative may want to avoid the issue but find themselves forced to take a position — in some cases even having to oppose the popular initiative to maintain consistency with past votes.
Missouri’s stem cell initiative is another possible example: The U.S. Senate candidates have taken opposite positions on it, creating a clear distinction between them.
To read the full report, please visit www.iandrinstitute.org/ballotwatch.htm
Previous Article
