A Handicapped, Not Sleeping, Giant: The Devastating Impact of the Initiative Process on Latina/o and Immigrant Communities

Abstract

Copyright ? 2008 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. t Dean, University of California, Davis, School of Law, and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies; A.B., University of California, Berkeley; J.D., Harvard University. Thanks to Angela Onwuachi-Willig for helping to organize this symposium and commenting on a draft of this article. Keith Aoki offered helpful direction on research avenues for this article. The excellent research assistance of Sarah Martinez, UC Davis class of 2009, helped immensely. Last but not least, thanks to the editors of the California Law Review for their hard work on this symposium. 1. See, e.g., Symposium, The Voice of the CrowdThe Colorado Initiative, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1337 (2007) (collecting articles analyzing Colorado's initiative process); Symposium on the Impact of Direct Democracy, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 835 (2005) (analyzing many significant issues implicated by initiative lawmaking); Ethan J. Leib, Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?, 54 Buff. L. Rev. 903, 906-11 (2006) (summarizing the pathologies of direct democracy); Ben Hovland, Comment, Championed by Progressives and William U'Ren: Can Oregon Give the Ballot Initiative to the People Again?, 85 Or. L. Rev. 275 (2006) (analyzing many possible reforms to the initiative process). For a recent?and most forceful?claim that initiatives are unconstitutional, see Erwin Chemerinsky, Challenging Direct Democracy, 2007 Mich. St. L. Rev. 293 (2007). 2. See generally Philip L. Dubois & Floyd Feeney, Lawmaking by Initiative (1998) (comprehensively analyzing initiative lawmaking). 3. See, e.g., Elizabeth Garrett & Mathew D. McCubbins, The Dual Path Initiative Framework, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 299 (2007); Michael S. Kang, Democratizing Direct Democracy: Restoring Voter Competence Through Heuristic Cues and Disclosure Plus, 50 UCLA L. Rev. 1141 (2003); Glenn C. Smith, Solving the Initiatory Construction Puzzle (and Improving Direct Democracy) by Appropriate Refocusing on Sponsor Intent, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 257 (2007).