Citizens’ Initiative Review Research Articles

Deliberative panels as a source of public knowledge: A large-sample test of the Citizens' Initiative Review.

Evolving US media and political systems, coupled with escalating misinformation campaigns, have left the public divided over objective facts featured in policy debates. The public also has lost much of its confidence in the institutions designed to adjudicate those epistemic debates. To counter this threat, civic entrepreneurs have devised institutional reforms to revitalize democratic policymaking. One promising intervention is the Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR), which has been adopted into law in Oregon and tested in several other states, as well as Switzerland and Finland. Each CIR gathers a demographically stratified random sample of registered voters to form a deliberative panel, which hears from pro and con advocates and neutral experts while assessing the merits of a ballot measure. After four-to-five days of deliberation, each CIR writes an issue guide for voters that identifies key factual findings, along with the most important pro and con arguments. This study pools the results of survey experiments conducted on thirteen CIRs held from 2010 to 2018, resulting in a dataset that includes 67,120 knowledge scores collected from 10,872 registered voters exposed to 82 empirical claims. Analysis shows that reading the CIR guide had a positive effect on voters' policy knowledge, with stronger effects for those holding greater faith in deliberation. We found little evidence of directional motivated reasoning but some evidence that reading the CIR statement can spark an accuracy motivation. Overall, the main results show how trust in peer deliberation provides one path out of the maze of misinformation shaping voter decisions during elections.

The Genre of Deliberative Guidance: Rhetoric and Deliberation in Citizens’ Initiative Review Statements

During the last decade, the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) has offered an innovative design to incorporate citizen deliberation into ballot initiative elections, using a citizens’ jury process to evaluate evidence and write an advisory CIR Statement on the measure for public engagement. This analysis turns attention to the Statements, and applying genre analysis, identifies an emerging genre of deliberative guidance. We argue that the genre of deliberative guidance invites readers to engage in a hermeneutic process of interpretation and decision making on ballot measures. We identify three components of the genre, offering evaluation and insights for deliberative design and practice.

A Typology of Reasoning in Deliberative Processes: A Study of the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

Deliberative democracy processes encourage people to engage in thoughtful analysis and well-reasoned discussion about a public issue. Though scholarship examining deliberative forums has expanded greatly in recent years, there is still much to learn about information processing in deliberation – more specifically, how citizens express different forms of reasoning, and how they voice disagreement with their fellow participants. To more closely examine these two areas, we conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of transcripts from a notable deliberative forum, the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR), with a focus on the 2010 Oregon CIR forum on medical marijuana legalization. We used this analysis to develop a typology of different forms of reasoning expressed in deliberation: inductive, deductive, causal, analogical, expressing uncertainty, and questioning. In addition, we identified four primary forms of voicing disagreement in deliberation: questioning, repackaging, agreeing-to-disagree, and discrediting others. We conclude by exploring the implications of this analysis for deliberation scholarship and practice, and suggesting future areas of research that could further explore reasoning and disagreement in deliberative democracy.

Do Hostile Media Perceptions Constrain Minipublics? A Study of How Oregon Voters Perceive Citizens' Statements

The deliberative quality of a minipublic often depends on its ability to inform the opinions of a larger public. The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) aims to do so by producing a Citizens’ Statement, which we conceptualize as a deliberative form of mass media. Like any mass media, this Statement can only influence public opinion to the extent that citizens consider it unbiased and credible. Hostile media perceptions often prevent favorable evaluations of media content, but no prior work has considered whether these perceptions could undermine the output of deliberative minipublics. To examine that possibility, we analyze online survey data on Oregon voters’ assessments of two 2014 Citizens’ Statements. Results showed that voters’ evaluations of the Statements were unaffected by hostile media perceptions. Assessments were more favorable when voters had confidence in their knowledge of the CIR’s design, process, and participants. Evaluations also were more favorable for those voters with greater faith in deliberation’s capacity to render considered judgments. We elaborate on these findings in our discussion section and consider their theoretical and practical implications for implementing minipublics and bolstering their deliberative quality.

A Typology of Reasoning in Deliberative Processes: A Study of the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.Deliberative democracy processes encourage people to engage in thoughtful analysis and well-reasoned discussion about a public issue. Though scholarship examining deliberative forums has expanded greatly in recent years, there is still much to learn about information processing in deliberation – more specifically, how citizens express different forms of reasoning, and how they voice disagreement with their fellow participants. To more closely examine these two areas, we conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of transcripts from a notable deliberative forum, the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR), with a focus on the 2010 Oregon CIR forum on medical marijuana legalization. We used this analysis to develop a typology of different forms of reasoning expressed in deliberation: inductive, deductive, causal, analogical, expressing uncertainty, and questioning. In addition, we identified four primary forms of voicing disagreement in deliberation: questioning, repackaging, agreeing-to-disagree, and discrediting others. We conclude by exploring the implications of this analysis for deliberation scholarship and practice, and suggesting future areas of research that could further explore reasoning and disagreement in deliberative democracy.

Deliberative Mini-publics Facilitating Voter Knowledge and Judgement: Experience from a Finnish Local Referendum

ABSTRACT This article examines the use of a Citizens’ Jury as a source of voter information in the context of a government-initiated (top-down) referendum. Several studies show the capacity of the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) to enhance voters’ knowledge and capacity of judgement in ballot initiative processes. However, similar procedures have not been tested outside the U.S.A. or in the context of government-initiated referendums. Our case is a Citizens’ Jury on Referendum Options organised in the municipality of Korsholm (Finland) in 2019. Even though the referendum concerned a contested municipal merger, we find that jury's participants were nonetheless satisfied with the deliberative process and found it impartial. A large majority of voters in Korsholm had read the statement by the jury and thought it was a useful and trustworthy source of information. Based on a field experiment, we find that reading the statement increased trust in the jury, factual knowledge, issue efficacy and perspective-taking.

Scaling up Deliberation: Testing the Potential of Mini‐Publics to Enhance the Deliberative Capacity of Citizens

AbstractThis paper tests the possibility of embedding the benefits of minipublic deliberation within a wider voting public. We test whether a statement such as those derived from a Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) can influence voters who did not participate in the pre‐referendum minipublic deliberation. This experiment was implemented in advance of the 2018 Irish referendum on blasphemy, one of a series of social‐moral referendums following the recommendations of a deliberative assembly. This is the first application of a CIR‐style voting aid in a real world minipublic and referendum outside of the US and also the first application to what is principally a moral question. We found that survey respondents exposed to information about the minipublic and its findings significantly increased their policy knowledge. Further, exposing respondents to minipublic statements in favour and against the policy measure increased their empathy for the other side of the policy debate.

Varieties and effects of emotional content in public deliberation

Abstract The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is a deliberative process that has been used in the United States to involve panels of citizens in producing balanced and easily understandable accounts of proposed ballot measures and their potential effects. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the CIR process is shaped by evaluative framing in which the rational component cannot be clearly separated from the emotive base of assigning responsibility. We analyze the argumentative dynamic of advocates’ presentations during the 2010 CIR on Measure 73 and discuss emotional claims as products of narrative structures that define problem situations. We explore how the distinction between manipulative and valid emotional claims within the context of public deliberation can be made with the help of three categories of analysis: Themes, Ideals, and Scenarios.

Citizens’ Initiative Review process: mediating emotions, promoting productive deliberation

The interplay between emotion and reason is of interest to scholars of deliberative democracy, yet it has been little analysed. Examining a 2010 Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) in Oregon, USA, we find (1) that the participation of chief petitioners, advocates and witnesses is conducive to the expression of emotions and (2) that, aided by moderators, panellists remain focused on clarifying key points and writing their Citizens’ Statement. We conclude that the competitive–collaborative structure of the CIR offers opportunities for emotional expression and reasoned deliberation while productively combining these important forms of discourse.

Assessing the Electoral Impact of the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) distinguishes itself by linking a small deliberative body to the larger electoral process. Since 2010, CIR citizen panels have been a legislatively authorized part of Oregon general elections to promote a more informed electorate. The CIR gathers a representative cross-section of two dozen voters for 5 days of deliberation on a single ballot measure. The process culminates in the citizen panelists writing a Citizens’ Statement that the secretary of state inserts into the official Voters’ Pamphlet sent to each registered voter. This study analyzes the effect of one such Citizens’ Statement from the 2010 general election. In Study 1, an online survey experiment found that reading this Statement influenced Oregon voters’ values trade-offs, issue knowledge, and vote intentions. In Study 2, regression analysis of a cross-sectional phone survey found a parallel association between the Statement’s use and voting choices but yielded some mixed findings.

Beyond Endorsements and Partisan Cues:

Abstract Voters often rely on cognitive shortcuts and partisan cues under low-information conditions. But it would be preferable for voters to adopt deliberative cues so that their low-information vote at least follows the judgements of similar high-information voters. One such deliberative cue is the Oregon Citizens Initiative Review, where citizen panels exhaustively review policy initiatives and report their findings for voters. When exposed to documents produced by the panels, readers become more informed voters and can use their new knowledge to make independent voting choices, rather than relying on judgmental shortcuts and voting cues.

Beyond Endorsements and Partisan Cues: Giving Voters Viable Alternatives to Unreliable Cognitive Shortcuts

Voters often rely on cognitive shortcuts and partisan cues under low-information conditions. But it would be preferable for voters to adopt deliberative cues so that their low-information vote at least follows the judgements of similar high-information voters. One such deliberative cue is the Oregon Citizens Initiative Review, where citizen panels exhaustively review policy initiatives and report their findings for voters. When exposed to documents produced by the panels, readers become more informed voters and can use their new knowledge to make independent voting choices, rather than relying on judgmental shortcuts and voting cues.

Teaching, Practicing, and Performing Deliberative Democracy in the Classroom

Inspired by the Citizens Initiative Review Process in Oregon, Healthy Democracy, and the Living Voters Guide, this paper proposes that undergraduate educators should teach, practice, and perform deliberative democracy in the classroom. This paper will identify deliberation as a tool for resolving difficulties in current democratic practices and propose a specific classroom activity to teach deliberative skills. The sample undergraduate activity involves student research, local political leaders coming to speak and answer questions, and in-class deliberations. Using survey data collected from the students/participants, it was found that the activity had positive learning outcomes for students. Students reported feeling more knowledgeable and informed about the democratic process the ballot measure on which students deliberated (Missouri’s Proposition E from the 2012 election). Results also suggest that this activity allowed for students to learn about and gain confidence in argumentation, advocacy, deliberation, and democracy.

Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review

As deliberative forums proliferate, scholars and practitioners need to establish a shared evaluative framework grounded in a theoretical definition of deliberation, applicable across contexts, and capable of yielding results comprehensible to public officials and key stakeholders. We present such a framework and illustrate its utility by evaluating the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR), a public event that serves as both a critical case study and an important practical innovation in its own right. Our analysis shows that the CIR met a reasonable standard for democratic deliberation, and we pinpoint CIR features that both aided and detracted from its overall quality. We also show how we summarized these results to communicate our evaluation efficiently to the Oregon State Legislature. We conclude by making recommendations for future applications of our theoretical model and evaluative framework and offer practical suggestions for future deliberative forums.