Doctoral Dissertation Research: The Single Subject Rule and Judicial Review of Direct Democracy

PI和Co-PI：Robert Cooter和Michael D. GilberTitle：博士论文研究：直接民主的单一主体规则和司法审查072134项目摘要本研究将提供第一次全面分析的因素，影响司法决策的宪法挑战，以选票的主张。 尽管有大量关于直接民主的司法审查的文献，但它几乎完全是规范性的，学者们对法院应该如何审查选票提案提出了意见，但我们对他们实际上是如何做的几乎一无所知。具体来说，我们不知道法官的决定是基于法律的因素，还是政治考虑，法官的政策倾向以及某一裁决对其连任前景的影响，决定了这些争端的结果。 为了回答这个问题，这个项目的重点是涉及单一主题规则的诉讼，这是一个广泛的州宪法规定，要求投票提案仅限于“一个主题”。由于“主体”无法精确计算，该规则通常可以用来实现法官想要的任何结果，使其成为解析法律和政治相对效果的理想工具。 将对来自各州的单一主题案例样本进行编码，以获得有关结果、法官的政治倾向和独立性以及有争议的投票提案的政治取向的数据。 然后，将利用统计分析来确定推动这些案件的法律的和政治考虑因素，以及它们如何随不同的机构配置而变化。 该项目将扩大关于州法院、司法审查、直接民主和单一主体规则的社会法律奖学金。 该项目还可能对社会和公共政策产生更广泛的影响。 最近，单一主体规则在同性婚姻、重新分配和移民等有争议的诉讼中占据了中心地位。 一些观察家批评了这些案件的结果，并呼吁废除这一规则。 确定单一主题决定的决定因素可以加强对这一国家宪法规定的适当性和重要性的讨论。 更广泛地说，美国各州通过了数百项投票提案，涉及的主题从平权行动和干细胞研究到死刑和核废料。 司法审查是当选立法者能够影响这一决策过程的少数机制之一。 了解这一领域司法审查的基础因素，可以为关于法律和法院在直接民主中的适当作用的辩论提供信息。

PI and Co-PI: Robert Cooter and Michael D. GilberTitle: Doctoral Dissertation Research: The Single Subject Rule and Judicial Review of Direct Democracy 072134Project AbstractThis 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.