http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Emrey, Jolly Ann (검색결과 1 건)
-
Direct democracy on trial: A multi-state study of the initiative, the referendums and the courts
Emrey, Jolly Ann Emory University 2002 해외박사(DDOD)
There exists a common wisdom in many of the initiative states that direct democracy, as an alternative policymaking process, has become an exercise in futility. This prevailing attitude among voters is predicated on the notion that once a ballot measure has been enacted into law, the new statute or constitutional amendment will be challenged in court. Moreover, the assumption is that these legal contests, more often than not, result in the invalidation of the policy. For the voters the judiciary has become an overwhelming obstacle to the implementation of their policy preferences. Researchers have examined the role of courts focusing on the rate of judicial invalidation of initiatives in the state of California (Holman and Stern 1998) and a comparative study of California, Oregon and Colorado (Miller 1999). These projects have demonstrated that the judiciary does play a very active role in the initiative process in these specific states. Evidence from these studies supports the conclusion that direct legislation tends to be litigated on a consistent basis. While this information is very beneficial, it is limited in that it does not yield any explanation as to why the outputs of direct legislation tend to end up in court with such frequency. Nor do previous studies tell us why some initiatives and referendums are challenged in court while others are not. Additionally, researchers have yet to examine a range of initiative states that extends beyond those on the West Coast. The purpose of this research is twofold. First, I examine under what conditions the validity of an initiative or referendum is most likely to be challenged in a court; and second, I attempt to identify factors that explain what happens to initiatives and referendums when their validity is challenged. I analyze these phenomena across court levels, 17 states, and four substantive issue areas, to provide evidence to support or negate existing theoretical arguments about the direct democracy process. The study of the relationship between direct legislation and the courts is important for students of democratic theory and judicial politics. The factors I find to predict court challenges to direct legislation include the form of direct legislation (initiative vs. referendum), subject matter of a ballot measure (civil rights and civil liberties policies), the presence of organized opposition to an initiative or referendum prior to its enactment (“vote no” campaigns), and the level of voter support at the ballot box. With regard to judicial decision making, I find that prevailing theories regarding individual voting behavior of jurists such as the attitudinal model (Segal and Spaeth 1993) and methods of judicial selection (Hall 1987) are not good predictors of outcomes when the act reviewed is an initiated or referred law.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
