The American tradition of direct democracy dates from the 1630s in the New England Colonies (Willard, 1858, Miller, 1991, and Zimmerman, December 1999). Some New England town meetings still carry on that tradition (Zimmerman, March 1999).

Beginning in 1877, millions of American farmers began banding together to break the post Civil War, small-farmer enslaving crop lien system with co-op economics (Goodwyn, 1976 and 1978). When they were bested by corrupt and abusive practices of the national financial sector, they attempted to improve their circumstances by forming the People's Party and engaging in populist politics. Again they were bested, this time by the country's mainstream two-party system. However, the Progressive Era had just begun. Before it ended, it would become the greatest democracy movement in recorded history.

Fired by the valiant efforts of millions of farmers, exposes written by investigative journalists (the famous muckrakers), and correlations between special interests' abuses of farmers and special interests' abuses of urban workers, Progressives formed nationally connected citizen organizations to extend this democracy movement. From 1898 to 1918, the Progressives, supported by tens of millions of citizens, forced direct democracy petition components into the constitutions of twenty-six states (Cronin, 1989).

The constitutional placement of direct democracy petition components was seen by those citizen majorities as necessary. Given the obvious corruption in state governments, the lack of sovereign public control over the output of state legislatures was seen as "the fundamental defect" in the nation's legislative machinery. Advocates insisted that the only way to make the founding fathers' vision work was to take the "misrepresentation" out of representative government with the sovereign people's direct legislation (Special Committee of the National Economic League, 1912).

On June 6, 1978 Proposition 13 (a ballot initiative) was enacted by the voters of the State of California. Its passage resulted in a cap on property tax rates in the state, reducing them by an average of 57%. Proposition 13 received an enormous amount of publicity, not only in California, but throughout the United States. Its passage presaged a "taxpayer revolt" throughout the country.

Proposition 13 was officially titled the "People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation." It passed with 65% of voters in favor and 35% against, with 70% of registered voters participating. It was placed on the ballot through the California initiative (or referendum) process under which a proposed law or constitutional amendment, termed a "proposition," is placed on the ballot once its backers gather a sufficient number of signatures on a petition. When passed, Proposition 13 became article 13A of the California state constitution.

I&R citizen lawmaking spread across the United States because state legislatures were unresponsive in creating laws that the people needed to protect themselves from special interests, laissez-faire economics, and the era's Robber Barons (Cronin, 1989, and Schmidt, 1989, and Zimmerman, December 1999, and Waters, 2001). Additionally, while legislatures were quick to pass laws benefitting special interests, both legislatures and the courts were inflexible in their refusals to amend, repeal or adjudicate those laws in ways that would eliminate special interest advantages and end abuses of the majority (Cronin, 1989, Zimmerman, December 1999, and Waters, 2001).

That same special-interests-favoring lawmaking, unresponsiveness to the people, and inflexibility to amend or repeal laws abusive of the majority—continues to drive citizen lawmaking today (Schmidt, 1989, Zimmerman, December 1999, and Waters, 2001).

Court battles over the constitutionality of direct democracy, from the early 1900s to the late 1990s, have repeatedly established that the combination of sovereign citizen lawmaking and representative government is, in fact, an historically traditional republican form of government (Magleby, 1984, Natelson, 1999, and Zimmerman, December 1999).

In 1990, the civil society of Nevada—an I&R state—resolved to minimize the intense controversy raging around abortion. The Nevada legislature was under pressure from pro-life organizations to change the state's abortion law. The state's pro-choice organizations wanted the standing law, which conformed to Roe v. Wade, to be left as it was. The pro-choice organizations made use of a seldom-used feature in Nevada's I&R law. They petitioned for and passed a referendum on an existing state law. It was only the fifth time, since Nevada had gained citizen lawmaking in 1912, that the referendum on an existing state law had been used (Erickson, Questions On The Ballot). Because of the constitutional provisions defining this particular referendum, approval of the state law meant that the legislature is barred from ever amending the law. Only the people can amend such a law in what is called the "see us first" referendum provision.

This initiative process functioned as the safety valve it was designed to be. With an approving majority of over sixty percent, Nevada voters gave a degree of legitimacy to the standing law that no small number of legislators could ever invoke in such a visceral controversy. With the legislature legally taken out of the picture, and the referendum's large legitimacy recognized by both sides, the controversy quickly quieted. The legislature is free to refer proposed statutes or constitutional amendments relating to abortion to the people, but the people are now the decision-makers in this issue.

Citizens in Nebraska, after gaining the constitutional amendment initiative in 1912, used it to reduce their bicameral legislature of 133 members to a unicameral legislature of 43 members in 1934. Effective with the Nebraska legislature's first nonpartisan, unicameral session in 1937, it reduced cost, waste, secrecy and time (no conference committee required), while at the same time making the legislature more efficient and more cooperative with the press and civil society. The success of combining direct democracy governance components with a unicameral legislature has stood the test of time (Nebraska Legislature Online, 2004, The History of Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature).

Direct democracy governance components have contributed significantly to state-level policy and law. Schmidt (1989), Zimmermann (December 1999) and others contend that these contributions have been much more successful than most of direct democracy's critics admit.

References

• Cronin, Thomas E. (1989). Direct Democracy: The Politics Of Initiative, Referendum, And Recall. Harvard University Press. Despite the author's bias against direct democracy, the book is a good read for the issues, personalities, and organizations in the Progressive period of the Reform Era.
• Erickson, Robert. Political History Of Nevada — Questions On The Ballot.
• Goodwyn, Lawrence (1976). Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment In America. Oxford University Press.
• Goodwyn, Lawrence (1978). The Populist Moment: A Short History Of The Agrarian Revolt In America — Abridged version of Professor Goodwyn's 1976 book. Oxford University Press.
• Magleby, David B. (1984). Direct Legislation: Voting On Ballot Propositions In The United States. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Miller, Joshua I. (1991) The Rise And Fall Of Democracy In Early America, 1630--1789: The Legacy For Contemporary Politics Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Natelson, Robert G. (1999), Are Initiatives And Referenda Contrary To The Constitution's "Republican Form Of Government"?
• Nebraska Legislature Online (2004). The History of Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature.
• Schmidt, David D. (1989). Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Temple University Press.
• Waters, M. Dane (2001). The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking. Carolina Academic Press.
• Willard, Joseph (1858). Willard Memoir; or Life And Times Of Major Simon Willard. Phillips, Sampson, And Company (Boston). Simon Willard was a co-founder of Concord, Massachusetts, in 1635. From the town's first winter, 1635-1636, its representative government used referenda to decide political issues.
• Zimmerman, Joseph F. (March 1999). The New England Town Meeting: Democracy In Action. Praeger Publishers.
• Zimmerman, Joseph F. (December 1999). The Initiative: Citizen Law-Making. Praeger Publishers.