Direct Democracy During the Progressive Era: A Crack in the Populist Veneer?

Journal of Policy History

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 349-383

  Smith, Daniel A ^a   Lubinski, Joseph ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937376101     PISSN: 08980306     EISSN: 15284190     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/jph.2002.0026     Document Type: Article

References (120)

1. For concise overviews of the main substantive and normative issues concerning the direct-democracy debate, see Daniel A. Smith, “Direct Democracy and Its Critics,” in Peter Woolley and Albert Papa, eds. American Politics: Core Argument/Current Controversy, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 2002)
2. Todd Donovan and Shaun Bowler, “An Overview of Direct Democracy in the American States,” in Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Caroline Tolbert, eds. Citizens as Legislators (Columbus, Ohio, 1998)
3. David Schmidt, Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution (Philadelphia, 1989)
4. David Magleby, Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States (Baltimore, 1984), chap. 10.
5. For an overview of many of the ballot measures adopted during the Progressive Era, see Schmidt, Citizen Lawmakers, 25–26.
6. Delos Wilcox, Government by All the People (New York, 1912), 3-10.
7. David Broder, “Ballot Initiatives Subvert Election Process,” Denver Post, 14 May 2000, K1;
8. Idem, Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money (New York, 2000).
9. Peter Schrag, Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future (New York, 1998), 195.
10. Lydia Chavez, The Color Bind: California's Battle to End Affirmative Action (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1998)
11. Charles Mahtesian, “Grassroots Charade,” Governing (November 1998): 38–42.
12. Schmidt, Citizen Lawmakers, 25–26.
13. Joseph Zimmerman, The Initiative: Citizen Law-Making (Westport, Conn. 1999), 94-95.
14. Elisabeth Gerber, The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation (Princeton, 1999), 5.
15. See, for instance, Ellis Oberholtzer, The Referendum in America (New York, 1900)
16. Charles Beard and Birl Shultz, Documents on the State-wide Initiative, Referendum and Recall (New York, 1912)
17. William Munro, ed. The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (New York, 1912)
18. George Haynes, “People's Rule on Trial,” Political Science Quarterly 28 (1913): 18-33;
19. Lawrence Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government (New York, 1913)
20. James Barnett, The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon (New York, 1915)
21. Robert Cushman, “Recent Experience with the Initiative and Referendum,” American Political Science Review 10 (1916): 532-39;
22. Arnold Hall, Popular Government (New York, 1921).
23. Not all eyewitness accounts during the Progressive Era, however, were sanguine about the process. For an overview, see Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan, Demanding Choices (Ann Arbor, 1998), 7-20.
24. For example, Link and McCormick write, “Two new formal mechanisms of public opinion,” the initiative and referendum, “permitted voters themselves to propose and enact legislation even against the will of the legislature,” and “seemingly gave everyone an equal opportunity to change the laws, but in practice they were used most effectively by well-organized interest groups, such as labor unions, prohibitionists, and woman suffragists.” Link and McCormick make no mention of how corporate interests also used the mechanisms.
25. Arthur Link and Richard McCormick, Progressivism (Arlington Heights, Ill. 1983).
26. The term “mythic narrative” is borrowed from Richard Ellis, Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America (Lawrence, Kan. 2002), 177.
27. Schmidt erroneously reports that Colorado also adopted the recall in 1910. In fact, Coloradoans approved a constitutional amendment ballot initiative (Measure 9) in 1912 that permitted the recall of public officials. See Schmidt, Citizen Lawmakers, 226. There are several other inaccuracies in works concerning the adoption of public policies in Colorado via the initiative. For instance, Cronin reports incorrectly that “after several failed attempts, initiative petition in Colorado … granted the vote to women.” Thomas Cronin, Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (Cambridge, Mass. 1989), 97.
28. For brief histories of the adoption of initiative and referendum in Colorado, see Curtis Martin and Rudolph Gomez, Colorado Government and Politics, 4th ed. (Boulder, 1976), 205;
29. Schmidt, Citizen Lawmakers, 15–20.
30. For especially good accounts of the campaigns to adopt initiative and referendum mechanisms in other states, see Thomas Goebel, “‘A Case of Democratic Contagion’: Direct Democracy in the American West, 1890-1920,” Pacific Historical Review (May 1997): 213-30;
31. Steven Piott, “The Origins of the Initiative and Referendum in America,” Hayes Historical Journal 11 (Spring 1992): 5-17;
32. in the case of California, Allswang, The Initiative and Referendum in California, 8–18.
33. Francis Anne Huber, “The Progressive Career of Ben B. Lindsey, 1900- 1920” (Ph.D. diss. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1963), 332-34.
34. Huber, “The Progressive Career of Ben B. Lindsey,” 332–34.
35. California, Oregon, and several other states had parallel partisan experiences during this period. See Allswang, The Initiative and Referendum in California, 8–18;
36. Ellis, Democratic Delusions, 26–30.
37. For the reemergence of party involvement in ballot campaigns, see Daniel A. Smith and Caroline Tolbert, “The Initiative to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California,” Party Politics 7 (Winter 2001): 781-99.
38. See “Citizens’ League Petitions Are Filed with Supervisors,” Rocky Mountain News, 13 April 1910;
39. “Evans-Speer Gangs Vote Bosses’ Will at Primaries,” Rocky Mountain News, 22 April 1910;
40. “Senator Patterson Asks W. G. Evans for Definite Statement of Moffat Road's Future,” Rocky Mountain News, 12 April 1911.
41. Interpretations of Roosevelt's speech at the special session vary. Musselman claims that Roosevelt was “equivocal,” at best, in his support of the direct legislation measure. See Lloyd Musselman, “Govern John F. Shafroth and the Colorado Progressives: Their Fight for Direct Legislation, 1909-1910” (M.A. thesis, University of Denver, 1961), 86-89.
42. Roosevelt did exclaim that the legislators should “BE PROGRESSIVE. A great democracy has got to be progressive or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy.” See Colorado Senate, Senate Journal of the Seventeenth General Assembly of the State of Colorado. Extraordinary Session (Denver, 1910), 138-39.
43. After visiting with Roosevelt, Judge Lindsey stated that he thought Roosevelt was “radical —just as radical as we want him,” and that he supported the initiative, referendum, and recall, much to the chagrin of conservatives. Quoted in Huber, “The Progressive Career of Ben B. Lindsey,” 254–55.
44. Colorado Senate, Senate Journal, 152–58.
45. See Barnett, The Operation of The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon, 75–85;
46. Ellis, Democratic Delusions, 30–35.
47. The Denver Post and The Denver Times took no official stance on the merits of direct democracy. At the time, the Denver Post was being sued for libel, so it understandably kept its editorializing to a minimum. See Harlan Knautz, The Colorado Progressive Party of 1912 (M.A. thesis, University of Denver, 1964).
48. See “Initiative and Referendum Held Valid,” Denver Post, 24 September 1912. Opponents of direct democracy then tried to convince Secretary of State James Pearce, a Democrat, that the vast majority of the signatures on the various petitions circulating for the 1912 election were forgeries. William Malone, a member of the DLL and secretary to Governor Shafroth responded by saying, “Corporation influence is being brought to bear to prevent the submission of the public utilities court bill and the headless ballot initiated by the Direct Legislation League.” See “Corporations Lend Influence to Kill Initiative Bills,” Rocky Mountain News, 10 July 1912. Although Pearce agreed that many of the signatures were indeed forgeries, he insisted that he was powerless to do anything because the 1910 law gave no remedy for fake signatures on petitions.
49. Despite opposition by the influential Denver Republican newspaper and many public officials from both major parties, voters reelected Governor Shafroth in 1910 with 54 percent of the vote. Richard Lamm and Duane Smith, Pioneers and Politicians: 10 Colorado Governors in Profile (Boulder, 1984), 99.
50. These early results contradict the established finding that compulsory referendums placed on the ballot by state legislatures are historically much more likely to pass than initiatives and popular referendums. See David Magleby, “Direct Legislation in the American States,” in David Butler and Austin Ranney, eds. Referendums around the World (Washington, D.C. 1994), 230—31.
51. Among the factual errors found in Schmidt's work, which other scholars have unquestionably praised as an “excellent history of the initiative in the United States” (Philip DuBois and Floyd Feeney, Lawmaking by Initiative: Issues, Options, and Comparisons [New York, 1998], 20), is his account of Colorado's development of the initiative. Schmidt wrongly states that there were “22 Initiatives on the ballot, of which nine passed.”
52. Schmidt, Citizen Legislators, 226.
53. No official records on turnout are available for the 1912 election. For estimates of voter turnout in Colorado during the Progressive Era, see R. C. Spencer, “Activities of the Colorado Electorate,” American Political Science Review 17 (1923): 101-8.
54. Huber, “The Progressive Career of Ben B. Lindsey,” 345–46.
55. Huber, “The Progressive Career of Ben B. Lindsey,” 343.
56. See “League Preparing Reply to Foes of School Measure,” Denver Times, 18 October 1912;
57. “Teachers Outline Attitude Toward New School Law,” Denver Times, 19 October 1912;
58. “Judge Lindsey Is Answered,” Rocky Mountain News, 24 October 1912
59. “Two Initiated Measures Which School Well Wishers Condemn,” Denver Republican, 3 November
60. In 1913, the DLL, as well as some Democratic members of the House, circulated a petition for an initiative on the 1914 ballot that would have dissolved the state Senate. Although it never made it on the ballot, during the circulation phase proponents of the measure claimed it was the upper chamber of the legislature that had become corrupted by corporate influences, and that the only cure was to abolish the Senate. “Bill to Abolish State Senate as Corporation Tool and Bar to Progress to be Initiated,” Rocky Mountain News, 8 January 1913;
61. “House Democrats Plan to Head Petitions for Abolition of State Senate,” Rocky Mountain News, 9 January 1913.
62. See Elizabeth Garrett, “Perspective on Direct Democracy: Who Directs Direct Democracy?” University of Chicago Law School Roundtable 4 (1997): 17-36;
63. Daniel A. Smith, Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy (New York, 1998)
64. Idem, “Reevaluating the Causes of Proposition 13,” Social Science History 23:2 (Summer 1999): 173-210;
65. Idem, “Campaign Financing of Ballot Initiatives in the American States,” in Larry Sabato, Bruce Larson, and Howard Ernst, eds. Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America (Lanham, Md. 2001)
66. Idem, “Special Interests and Direct Democracy: An Historical Glance,” in M. Dane Waters, ed. The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking (Durham, N.C. 2001).
67. Colorado Bar Association, Analysis of Thirty-Two Measures Submitted to the Electors of Colorado Under the Initiative and Referendum Amendment and by the 18th General Assembly (Denver, 1912), 26.
68. Analysis of Thirty-Two Measures Submitted to the Electors of Colorado Under the Initiative and Referendum Amendment and by the 18th General Assembly
69. See Colorado Bar Association, Analysis of Thirty-Two Measures, 73, 75, 83-84;
70. “Vote for Eighteen of the Proposed Measures, Cast Your Vote Against Fourteen of the Bills,” Denver Post, 30 October 1912.
71. Lee Scamehorn, Mill & Mine: The C.F. & I. in the Twentieth Century (Lincoln, 1992), 21.
72. David Lonsdale, “The Movement for an Eight-Hour Law in Colorado, 1893- 1913” (Ph.D. diss. University of Colorado at Boulder, 1963), 274-77.
73. See P. R. Griswold, David Moffat's Denver, Northwestern and Pacific: “The Moffat Road” (Denver, 1995), and
74. Edgar McMechen, The Moffat Tunnel of Colorado: An Epic of Empire (Denver, 1927).
75. See John Lapp, “Public Utilities,” American Political Science Review 6 (1912): 576—78.
76. It should be noted that the Oregon legislature had passed a law creating a public utilities commission in 1911, but it was challenged (and thereby temporarily suspended) by a popular referendum that was placed on the ballot in 1912. The referendum, Measure 8, was approved by the voters, thereby reinstating the legislation. See Oregon Blue Book, “Initiative, Referendum and Recall 1912-1914.” .
77. Colorado Bar Association, Analysis of Thirty-Two Measures, 46.
78. The 1914 initiative, Measure 8, sought to put the “public press” under the control of the Public Utilities Commission. Not surprisingly, the proposal was roundly condemned by area newspapers. See “So the People May Know,” Denver Post, 2 November 1914.
79. “Business Men in Public War over Utilities Bill,” Denver Post, 10 October 1912.
80. “Utilities Bill Is Drawn by Phone Heads, Is Charge,” Denver Republican, 25 October 1912.
81. “The Two ‘Utilities’ Bills,” Rocky Mountain News, 17 October 1912.
82. Colorado Bar Association, Analysis of Thirty-Two Measures, 8–25.
83. “The Two ‘Utilities’ Bills,” Rocky Mountain News, 17 October 1912.
84. Colorado Secretary of State, State of Colorado: Roster of Elected Officers and Tabulated Statement of the Votes Cast for the Several Candidates, 1913.
85. George Haynes, “The Education of Voters,” Political Science Quarterly 22:3 (1907): 484-97, 485.
86. See also Arthur Lupia, “Dumber than Chimps? An Assessment of Direct Democracy Voters,” in Sabato, Ernst, and Larson, eds. Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America;
87. Arthur Lupia, “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections,” American Political Science Review 88 (1994): 63-76.
88. Only 94,485 voters (out of the more than 263,000 who voted for President) cast ballots on Measure 13, and just 79,354 voted on Measure 4; in contrast, 192,651 voters cast ballots on Measure 1—which received the highest tally of any ballot measure—calling for statewide prohibition. Colorado Secretary of State, State of Colorado: Roster of Elected Officers and Tabulated Statement of the Votes Cast for the Several Candidates, 1913. For the keen interest of voters regarding prohibition measures in other states during the Progressive Era, see Lester Shippee, “Washington's First Experiment in Direct Legislation,” Political Science Quarterly 30 (1915), 235-53;
89. Barnett, The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon, 1915;
90. Allswang, The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898—1998
91. Beard and Shultz, Documents on the State-wide Initiative, Referendum and Recall, 1912.
92. See Howard Gitelman, Legacy of the Ludlow Massacre: A Chapter in American Industrial Relations (Philadelphia, 1988)
93. Colorado State Archives, “The Governor Elias M. Ammons Collection at the Colorado State Archives.” .
94. See Melvyn Dubofsky, We Shall Be All: A History of the Industrial Workers of the World (Chicago, 1969)
95. Philip Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, vol. 4 (New York, 1965)
96. Robert Wiebe, The Search for Order, 1877-1920 (New York, 1967)
97. David Brody, ed. The American Labor Movement (New York, 1971)
98. Benjamin Hanford, The Labor War in Colorado (New York, 1904).
99. Walter Wellman, “Walter Wellman's Indictment of Moyer, Haywood and the Western Federation of Miners,” unpublished manuscript, Denver Public Library, Western History and Genealogy, 1910, 10.
100. See Harold Knight, Working in Colorado: A Brief History of the Colorado Labor Movement (Boulder, 1971), 49.
101. Lonsdale, “The Movement for an Eight-Hour Law in Colorado,” 271.
102. Miners’ Magazine, vol. 12, no. 487, 24 October 1912, 3.
103. Denver Post, 2 August 1911;
104. Rocky Mountain News, 2 August 1911.
105. W. A. Schnader, “Proper Safeguards for the Initiative and Referendum,” American Political Science Review 10 (1916): 515—31, 519.
106. As Lonsdale writes: “The Federation obtained affidavits from many whose names appeared on the petition stating that they had never seen the petition. These affidavits were given to the Secretary of State.”
107. Lonsdale, “The Movement for an Eight-Hour Law in Colorado,” 274.
108. Colorado Bar Association, Analysis of Thirty-Two Measures, 66;
109. “The Eight- Hour Laws.” Rocky Mountain News, 24 October 1912.
110. The evidence is mixed that public policies come closer to citizen preferences in initiative states than in noninitiative states. See John Matsusaka, “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years,” Journal of Political Economy 103 (1995): 587–623;
111. Idem, “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative,” Journal of Politics 63 (2001): 1250–56;
112. Elisabeth Gerber, “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 99-128;
113. but see Edward Lascher, Michael Hagen, and Steven Rochlin, “Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies, and Public Opinion,” Journal of Politics 58 (1996): 760-75;
114. John Camobreco, “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process,” Journal of Politics 60 (1998): 819-29;
115. Michael Hagen, Edward Lascher, and John Camobreco, “Response to Matsusaka: Estimating the Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Policy Responsiveness,” Journal of Politics 63 (2001): 1257–63.
116. Irrespective of whether public policy in states permitting the initiative is more consistent with the median voter than in noninitiative states, individual legislators in initiative states seem to interpret initiative results from a rational, selfish perspective, which includes noting how their own constituents voted on ballot measures. See Daniel A. Smith, “Homeward Bound? Micro-Level Legislative Responsiveness to Ballot Initiatives,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1 (2001): 50–61.
117. Ellis, Democratic Delusions, 203.
118. Western Federation of Miners, Official Proceedings, 409–10.
119. Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York, 1955), 261.
120. David McCuan, “California's Political Warriors: Campaign Professionals and the Initiative Process,” in Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Caroline Tolbert, eds. Citizens as Legislators (Columbus, Ohio, 1998), 55-56.