This study will provide the first comprehensive analysis of the factors that influence judicial decision-making in constitutional challenges to ballot propositions. Although there is a body of literature on judicial review of direct democracy, it is almost entirely normative in character, scholars have opined on how courts should review ballot proposals, but we know almost nothing about how they actually do it. Specifically, we do not know whether judges base their decisions on legal factors, or whether political considerations, the policy preferences of the judges and the implications of a particular decision for their reelection prospects, drive the outcomes in these disputes. To answer this question, this project focuses on litigation involving the single subject rule, a widespread state constitutional provision requiring ballot proposals to be limited to "one subject." Because "subjects" cannot be counted with precision, the rule often can be used to achieve whatever outcomes judges desire, making it an ideal vehicle for parsing out the relative effects of law and politics. A sample of single subject cases from a cross-section of states will be coded for data on outcomes, the political leanings and independence of the judges, and the political orientation of the ballot proposal at issue. Statistical analyses will then be used to identify the legal and political considerations that drive these cases and how they vary with different institutional configurations. The project will extend socio-legal scholarship on state courts, judicial review, direct democracy, and the single subject rule. The project could also have broader impacts on society and public policy. Recently, the single subject rule has taken center-stage in controversial litigation over same-sex marriage, reapportionment, and immigration. Some observers have criticized the outcomes of these cases and called for repeal of the rule. Identifying the determinants of single subject decisions could enhance discussion on the propriety and importance of this state constitutional provision. More generally, hundreds of ballot proposals have passed in the American states on topics ranging from affirmative action and stem cell research to the death penalty and nuclear waste. Judicial review is one of the few mechanisms by which elected lawmakers can influence this policymaking process. Understanding the factors that underpin judicial review in this area could inform debates on the proper role of law and courts in direct democracy.
