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

题目：博士论文研究：直接民主的单一主体规则和司法审查项目摘要：本研究将首次全面分析在对投票提案的宪法挑战中影响司法决策的因素。虽然关于直接民主的司法审查有大量的文献，但它在性质上几乎完全是规范的，学者们对法院应该如何审查投票提案提出了意见，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因素，还是政治考虑、法官的政策偏好以及特定决定对他们连任前景的影响，推动了这些争议的结果。为了回答这个问题，本项目将重点放在涉及单一主体规则的诉讼上，这是一项广泛存在的州宪法条款，要求投票提案仅限于“一个主体”。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，使其成为分析法律和政治相对影响的理想工具。将对来自各州的单一主题案例样本进行编码，以获取有关结果、法官的政治倾向和独立性以及争议投票提案的政治倾向的数据。然后将使用统计分析来确定推动这些案件的法律和政治考虑因素，以及它们如何随不同的制度配置而变化。该项目将扩大有关州法院、司法审查、直接民主和单一主体规则的社会法学研究。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位置。一些观察人士批评了这些案件的结果，并呼吁废除这一规定。确定单一主体决定的决定因素可以加强对这一州宪法条款的适当性和重要性的讨论。更广泛地说，美国各州已经通过了数百项投票提案，涉及的主题从平权行动、干细胞研究到死刑和核废料。司法审查是当选议员能够影响这一决策过程的为数不多的机制之一。了解支持这一领域司法审查的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.