Data

General Issues
Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice & Corrections
Business
Education
Specific Topics
Criminal Law
Regulation
Taxation
Collections
University of Southampton Students
Location
California
United States
Scope of Influence
Regional
Videos
Support Campaign Video for the Motion.
Opposition Campaign Video for the Motion.
Start Date
End Date
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Approach
Direct decision making
Advocacy
Spectrum of Public Participation
Empower
Total Number of Participants
14600000
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Open to All
Targeted Demographics
Experts
Elected Public Officials
Stakeholder Organizations
General Types of Methods
Direct democracy
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Legislation, policy, or frameworks
Inform, educate and/or raise awareness
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
No
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
No Interaction Among Participants
Information & Learning Resources
Written Briefing Materials
Video Presentations
Decision Methods
Voting
If Voting
Plurality
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Traditional Media
New Media
Word of Mouth
Primary Organizer/Manager
The Government of California
Type of Organizer/Manager
Regional Government
For-Profit Business
Individual
Funder
State of California
Type of Funder
Regional Government
For-Profit Business
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in public policy
Changes in people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
Implementers of Change
Stakeholder Organizations
Appointed Public Servants
Lay Public
Formal Evaluation
Yes
Evaluation Report Documents
UCLAISAP_Prop64CannabisHealthReport2022Feb_Amended.pdf
Evaluation Report Links
Evaluation of the Public Health Influences of this bill.

CASE

Citizens’ Initiative Referendum in California 2016, Proposition 64

June 10, 2023 Paolo Spada
May 23, 2023 hd1g20
General Issues
Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice & Corrections
Business
Education
Specific Topics
Criminal Law
Regulation
Taxation
Collections
University of Southampton Students
Location
California
United States
Scope of Influence
Regional
Videos
Support Campaign Video for the Motion.
Opposition Campaign Video for the Motion.
Start Date
End Date
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Approach
Direct decision making
Advocacy
Spectrum of Public Participation
Empower
Total Number of Participants
14600000
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Open to All
Targeted Demographics
Experts
Elected Public Officials
Stakeholder Organizations
General Types of Methods
Direct democracy
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Legislation, policy, or frameworks
Inform, educate and/or raise awareness
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
No
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
No Interaction Among Participants
Information & Learning Resources
Written Briefing Materials
Video Presentations
Decision Methods
Voting
If Voting
Plurality
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Traditional Media
New Media
Word of Mouth
Primary Organizer/Manager
The Government of California
Type of Organizer/Manager
Regional Government
For-Profit Business
Individual
Funder
State of California
Type of Funder
Regional Government
For-Profit Business
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in public policy
Changes in people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
Implementers of Change
Stakeholder Organizations
Appointed Public Servants
Lay Public
Formal Evaluation
Yes
Evaluation Report Documents
UCLAISAP_Prop64CannabisHealthReport2022Feb_Amended.pdf
Evaluation Report Links
Evaluation of the Public Health Influences of this bill.

In 2016, Proposition 64 (Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act) qualified for a Citizens' Initiative Referendum in California, USA, by meeting the threshold of 365,880 signatures. The electorate subsequently approved the motion with 14,610,509 voters in November.

This was a joint project completed for the class ‘Reinventing Democracy: Innovation, Participation and Power’ 2023 at the University of Southampton, by Harvey Dane, Robert Stewart, Peter Beinomugisha, Mohammad Minhas and Arjan Kallar.



Problems and Purpose

California pioneered direct democracy in the United States “early in the twentieth century”, and this democratic innovation has been an influential and “controversial” force in regional politics [1]. On November 8th, the regional government put the ‘Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act’ to the electorate for approval following a petition. This bill set out to limit the “prohibition” of Marijuana by expanding on a previous Citizens’ Initiative Referendum (Proposition 215) chiefly to legalise the recreational usage of Marijuana [2], despite its ongoing status as a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act of 1971 [3]. If passed, this law would overturn existing regional laws by:

  • Legalising the recreational usage of Marijuana for citizens 21 years of age.
  • Allowing businesses to acquire a license to sell Marijuana commercially.
  • Imposing excise taxes on Marijuana.
  • Adapting the legal penalties for usage and possession [4].


Background History and Context

The state of California is home to roughly 40 million people and also home to the U.S.’s “largest […] prison system” [5]. “The level of overcrowding in California’s prisons [was] unprecedented” as in 2010, 155,000 prisoners were being detained within this system when it was “designed to house roughly half that amount” [6]. In addition, with a continuous spending deficit [7], California faced limited opportunities to ease the local Infrastructure Deficit caused by its rapidly rising population [8]. However, there were hopes that Citizens’ Initiative Referendums could ease California’s infrastructural issues and promote political change as it had done previously [9].

Proposition 64 could achieve this by providing the Californian State with the power to decriminalize “a range of nonviolent [drug] offences” to limit the burdens upon the local prison system whilst simultaneously bolstering taxation revenues [10]. To achieve this outcome, the federal influence of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which labelled marijuana as a “schedule I drug”, signifying that this substance had a ‘high potential for abuse’ [11], had to be limited. The ramifications of this policy in California were sizeable, as “13,300 felony and 6,411 misdemeanour arrests” involving marijuana were recorded in 2014, and high rates were recorded in the following year [12]. Subsequently, following these arrests, it was conservatively estimated that there were 2,000 incarcerations for isolated marijuana offences each year [13]. This state of affairs was worsened further as within the local area, African Americans, despite being 6% of the total population, were 24% “of those jailed for marijuana offences alone across the state” [14].

To tackle the aforementioned issues, on 7th December 2015, “Donald Lyman”, “Michael Sutton”, and “Lance Olson” began the process of undertaking a Citizens’ Initiative Referendum [15]. Although, this democratic innovation’s capacity to resolve an apparent democratic disconnect in California was clear. For example, Gallup polls have charted attitudes to legalisation and identified that support for legal Marijuana had grown considerably from 12% of Americans in 1969 to 58% in 2013 and had only developed further subsequently [16]. Furthermore, when measuring the rates of marijuana usage in California prior to legalisation, it was found that 34.7% of people had utilised the substance between 2014 and 2017 [17]. Therefore this implies that direct democracy could potentially amend Californian law to express the electorate's will [18].


Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

On the 4th January 2016, California’s Attorney General cleared Proposition 64 for electoral consultation. To qualify, 365,880 signatures were needed for the ballot to proceed [19]. Special interest groups employed the Kimball Petition Management, Inc. to gather these signatures, and 600,000 signatures were collected at the cost of roughly $2 million with a CPRS of $5.72 [20]; whilst no monetary cost for the collection was imposed on the public, the cost to the Californian government for verifying the paper signatures has been suggested to be significant [21].

Following verification, the Citizens’ Initiative Referendum was allowed to proceed. On November 8th 2016, Proposition 64 was put before the electorate and was organised by the Californian state government in every county. Public spaces were utilised as voting sites, and poll workers (encouraged to be bilingual) were paid to assist voters [22].


Participant Recruitment and Selection

Following the collection of the 600,000 signatures, a ballot measure was approved, and the barriers to voting in the referendum were exceptionally limited. All that was required for potential participants to vote on Proposition 64 was that they are a “United States citizen and a resident of California”, alongside being “18 years old” [23] and being registered to vote locally [24]. To register to vote on November 8th in the General Election, potential participants could go to ‘RegisterToVote.ca.gov’, call the “free Voter Hotline”, or fill out voter registration forms which were distributed in public-owned locations throughout California [25], indicating that the Californian governments’ potential participant supply was vast and inclusive.

The Californian government distributed a ‘Voter Information Guide’ as their primary recruitment strategy to ensure high participation rates. It was distributed to local residents and informed citizens on how to vote on Proposition 64. Whilst no direct undertaking was conducted to ensure that citizens of different backgrounds were recruited to participate, to ensure that all citizens had an equal capacity to be informed about their ability to vote on Proposition 64, the voting guides were distributed in multiple languages. Participation rates were also bolstered by extensive media coverage of Proposition 64 [26] alongside word-of-mouth. However, no incentives were offered to the electorate to vote.

High participation rates were secured as 19,411,771 individuals registered to vote on the 8th November [27]; of that number, 14,610,509 individuals voted on Proposition 64 [28]. Therefore, among registered voters, there was a turnout of 75.27%, which comprised roughly 37% of the total population of California. Participation rates were 2% higher than the average turnout for ballot measures in California [29], and high turnout was not localised to specific regions as rates were uniformly strong across counties [30].


Methods and Tools Used

The methodology utilised by the Californian government and the electorate was, as aforementioned, a Citizens’ Initiative Referendum, often referred to by alternate titles such as a ‘popular initiative/referendum’ or an “abrogative initiative or facultative referendum” [31]. In 1911, California amended its constitution to allow for this facility; however, this democratic innovation was initially pioneered in Switzerland in 1798 and was implemented in 1830 [32]. Since 1911, 396 initiatives have been put to the electorate, implementing changes to law and the constitution [33]. These referendums in California have proven to be exceptionally influential in shaping and directing public policy, and there is considerable evidence to suggest that the electorate is in favour of the continuation of this democratic innovation [34]. To find further information about this democratic innovation, see: https://participedia.net/method/164.

Graham Smith defines a Citizens’ Initiative Referendum as a democratic innovation that “enables citizens to propose a legislative measure […] or a constitutional amendment”, and then this proposal, after being subject to a successful petition, leads to “a binding vote” that is decided by the electorate not the legislature [35]. Although, this innovation should not be confused with an indirect initiative process whereby, the legislative body votes on agenda-setting initiatives to be voted on in referendums by the electorate. This methodology utilised in California is an informative example of direct democracy in practice. It is one of the pre-eminent forms of Participatory Democracy, which is becoming more popular globally. To find further information regarding direct democracy, see: https://participedia.net/method/191.

Contextually, this process in California would see signatures collected in all 58 local counties, and the electorate could then vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on the motion, and following a Pluralist Voting philosophy, the side with the most significant number of votes (>50%) wins. No incentives were offered, and it was not compulsory for citizens to vote as the electorate could freely choose to participate in this Citizens’ Initiative Referendum. Notably, it should be considered that this democratic innovation has remained popular in California despite the academic scholarship warning that this philosophy could create a ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ [36]. Additionally, in-person voting was utilised within this case study, and the Californian State Government legally conducted this referendum.

Whilst the purpose of a Citizens’ Initiative Referendum is to empower citizens to make political decisions, many steps and circumstances became tools to educate and illuminate the electorate about Proposition 64. Of the tools utilised, which simultaneously informed California’s citizens how to participate in the Referendum, the ‘Voter Information Guide’ was the primary tool utilised by the Regional Government to enhance considered judgment amongst voters. Firstly, this digestible document which was distributed to all of California’s residents, provided the means for potential voters to become acquainted with the judicial alongside economic impacts of the bill, outlined the “fiscal effects”, the judicial implications and “personal” consequences of the bill on the populace [37]. Secondly, to tackle a critical contention associated with Referendums which is that uninformed voters undermine the effectiveness of this democratic innovation, the document provided arguments for and against the motion, and counterarguments to each perspective were provided by experts and lobbyists [38]. Finally, to ensure that all citizens had an equal opportunity to be informed, translations of this discourse were provided, and the means to contact lobby groups and experts for additional information was provided.

Historically in California, it has been argued that lobbyists and expert analyses during the lead-up to referendums can distort the debates and misinform the public, who would be susceptible to misinformation as there is no direct deliberative platform they could engage with [39]. The capacity to legally challenge any misinformation present within this document was provided to prevent these circumstances from undermining the result of the proposition ballot. This facility was utilised twice to scrutinise the document, and judges ordered ten changes to the ‘Voter Information Guide’ [40].


What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Following a review in December 2015, the ‘Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act’ was sponsored by the California Cannabis Industry Association, Drug Policy Alliance and Marijuana Policy Project, and subsequently the ‘Petition’ process began. To proceed past this initial phase the participation of 365,880 California residents was required, as this number constituted 5% of the votes from the previous gubernatorial election, which established the qualification criteria for this proposition to be included in the November ballot [41]. Achieving this milestone necessitated an expansive effort from dedicated volunteers and hired firms throughout California, who used various informative materials to detail the proposal and its potential societal and economic benefits.

In the lead up to November 8th the ‘Campaign’ phase began with the California Secretary of State’s office preparing and distributing the Official Voter Information Guide. This vital interaction between the government and participants provided a comprehensive breakdown of Proposition 64, translating the complex legal jargon into digestible content for the general public. This guide meticulously covered the proposition’s crucial components, such as the licensing and regulation for commercial marijuana, details on the specific excise duties that would be imposed, and the anticipated tax revenue, alongside where these funds would be allocated in the state’s budget for various programs [42]. A key feature of the guide was an estimation by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, presenting conservative estimates of the potential marijuana tax revenue relative to the expected costs of implementing Proposition 64. Therefore, this document provided voters with a holistic understanding of the fiscal implications of the proposition, increasing knowledge amongst potential participants.

Furthermore, the guide hosted arguments from both supporters and critics of Proposition 64. Advocates advanced the perspective that the law would offer regulations as a solution to the current black market sale of marijuna, bolster state revenue, reduce criminal justice expenses, and protect minors. Conversely, opponents levied the claim that this act was a potential public health and safety risk as this legislation could stimulate a rise in drugged-driving incidents, and the possible economic dominance of large corporations in the marijuana industry. By offering a comprehensive, unbiased examination of Proposition 64, the Voter’s Digest aimed to equip voters with the necessary knowledge to make a well-informed decision, whilst appealing to their personal values and highlighting the potential ramifications for California in future.

The Californian government heavily relied on the extensive media coverage of Proposition 64 also during the ‘Campaign’ process in 2016. Following media interactions with the electorate, popular news outlet in California, the Los Angeles Times asserted that the amount of positive reports in connection to the legislative proposal was high [43]. Although, the media challenged the effectiveness of the medical community in informing the public about Proposition 64 as they argued that their interactions with potential participants were insufficient due to the contradicting narratives throughout this process [43]. However, the media eased this communicative disconnect by staging debates between representatives on Proposition 64 on ABC 10 News [44]. This interaction between the representatives and the public highlighted critical arguments against the motion such as the potential significant increase in cost for those who require medicinal marijuana for health conditions due to the increased demand, and this interaction bolstered perspective-taking amongst participants.

During this ‘Campaign’ process commercials were released by either side of the motion to lobby participants for support [45] [46] [47]. Those in favour of the proposition tended to appeal to the elderly, focusing on dismantling the perspective that the proposition would not affect the children of California, and that the proposition would have a positive impact on the state’s revenue [45] [46] [48]. Those against the proposition argued the opposite - that it would negatively impact the state’s youth and that it was highly likely for there to be more fatal accidents and medical emergencies as a result of the legislation [47].

The ‘Ballot’ phase began on 8th November 2016 and over 14 million voters in California went to the polls to cast their vote on Proposition 64, with 57.1% voting in favour of the proposition and 42.9% against it [49]. In the immediate aftermath and in the years following this result, pundits suggested that this result would “reverberate throughout the nation”, and that other states will follow the precedent set by California [50]. Moreover, in the years following this result, academics continued to reaffirm that this result “could foreseeably set the national standard for marijuana regulation and enforcement” [51].


Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The passage of Proposition 64, the Citizens' Initiative Referendum that aimed to legalise the recreational usage of marijuana in California, had a profound influence on various aspects of society with political, economic, social and judicial effects. From a political standpoint, Proposition 64 marked a significant shift in the legal and policy landscape surrounding marijuana. This was facilitated by achieving the goals of the organisers and the public: to harness grassroots support and mobilise the electorate to define a problem [52] and address it through public policy [53]. Therefore, this process also achieved the principles of participatory democracy by allowing citizens to participate directly in the decision-making process, circumventing the traditional legislative channels.

Firstly, Proposition 64's legalisation of recreational marijuana in California fostered a regulated market, fueling the growth of the legal marijuana industry. Acquiring licenses for commercial sales created jobs and generated tax revenues. In the first year post-passage, marijuana sales yielded approximately $1 billion in tax revenue, as the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration reported. These funds were allocated to public initiatives, encompassing education, healthcare, and drug prevention programs [54] [55].

Proposition 64 had notable effects on reducing arrests and incarcerations related to marijuana infractions, and the decriminalisation of non-violent marijuana offences also alleviated the burden on the local prison system [56]. As a result, many non-violent offenders were released, reducing overcrowding in California's prisons [57]. Furthermore, Proposition 64 included provisions targeting drug education policies, mainly aimed at minors, to promote responsible consumption and minimise the potential harm to vulnerable groups. To implement this provision, a portion of the tax revenue generated from commercial marijuana sales was allocated to fund youth education programs regarding the risks associated with marijuana usage [58].

As a result of decriminalisation Proposition 64 also promoted changes in individual behaviour. With the legalisation of recreational marijuana, there was a shift in attitudes and patterns of consumption among adults. A study conducted by Carlini et al., 2020, found that marijuana use increased among adults aged 18-25 in the years following the passage of Proposition 64 [59]. However, it is worth noting that the study also highlighted a decrease in problematic marijuana use and an increase in responsible consumption practices among this age group.

In conclusion, Proposition 64 transformed California politically, economically, socially, and judicially. It showcased the power of direct democracy, legalized recreational marijuana, created jobs and stimulated taxation revenues from excise duties, while prioritizing education and responsible consumption among minors. Whilst this ultimately lead to changing attitudes towards marijuana usage, it eased systemic issues in California which were not being achieved by traditional representative democracy.


Analysis and Lessons Learned

To analyse the effectiveness of this democratic innovation in the context of the ‘Methods and Tools’ utilised alongside the ‘What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation’ section, the analytical framework outlined by Graham Smith shall be utilised to evaluate the extent to which California’s Citizens’ Initiative Referendum realised Smith’s ‘democratic goods’ [60].

When analysing the ‘Petition’ process of this Citizens’ Initiative Referendum, it is evident that this phase was the most successful in establishing moderate rates of inclusion and popular control. Procuring 600,000 signatures, the Kimball Petition Management, Inc. secured wide cross-sectional participation across California, legitimising the legalisation of Marijuana as a critical issue to the public. By directly targeting the population, traditional channels of legislative legitimisation were overcame, transferring the ability to begin an initiative to the electorate and subsequently, high popular control over this ‘problem definition’ phase was achieved.

Although the issues associated with this phase stem from the logistics associated with collecting signatures in California. To validate a Proposition, 5% of the voters who participated in the previous election must sign a petition [61]. This high standard for qualification has been identified empirically to compel petition companies to misinform the public to increase the number of signatures, reducing considered judgement and popular control [62]. Representing a critical flaw within this phase, the necessity to rely on petition collecting companies undermines this democratic innovation’s efficiency as the costs are immense ($2 million), and this, thereby, undermines the transferability of this method to developing countries that need cost-effective democratic innovations [63]. However, this characteristic of the Citizens’ Initiative Referendum has likely been perpetuated due to the limited transparency in the operating procedures of these private companies, which prevents comprehensive reviews.

Furthermore, upon evaluating the extent to which the ‘Campaign’ stage achieved Smith’s democratic goods, ostensibly, it is clear that this stage was the least successful. Importantly transparency was strong during this phase as the ‘Voter Information Guide’ articulated, in various languages, the means through which voters could register to participate to encourage inclusion. High transparency was achieved further as the financial interests behind the lobbying campaigns were declared and freely available to the public. In this vein, the strength of efficiency was demonstrated by these guides being economical to distribute, digitally and in-person, [64] alongside the ‘Campaign’ media expenditure being carried by corporate interests rather than Californian citizens.

However, this emphasis on efficiency and transparency came with a cost. Whilst California did take steps to ensure that participants were knowledgeable and could engage in partial perspective-taking through the distribution of the aforementioned voting guides, which utilised expert debates, to encourage participants to consider the arguments of the opposition, alongside discussions about the bill’s specifics, considered judgement was limited [65]. Poll results suggest that considered judgement was not achieved among voters, as the data indicates that once knowledge of the bill increased there was a “[19-point]” decline in support for Proposition 64 [66]. Subsequently, it can be inferred that this failure to inform and encourage perspective-taking could be attributed to the absence of moderated discussions, multiple state-level expert-led debates and participant Q&As, which could have bolstered considered judgement, alongside inclusion through establishing voice amongst participants.

Although, in contrast to the ‘Campaign’ phase, the ‘Ballot’ stage presents the clearest fulfilment of Smith’s democratic goods and the principles of participatory democracy. Proposition 64 did not deviate from California’s trends of securing high participation rates (14,610,509 votes), thereby suggesting high rates of Inclusion [67]. Furthermore, robust Popular Control was derived from this ‘option selection’ phase as following the logic of ‘responsive rule’, this democratic innovation gave the public legislative power over Proposition 64, and as such, subsequently, the law was passed [68]. The transparency of the process bolstered this high rate of popular control as voters were aware of the procedure, as only 4.41% of collected votes were deemed invalid [69]. This circumstance was likely realised by the contributions of the ‘Voter Information Guide’ and the bilingual poll workers, who, with little cost to the government, provided efficient and informative assistance to participants on the day of the ‘Ballot’.

It is critical to assert that this ‘Ballot’ phase loses transferability across contexts. Inherently the Pluralist voting philosophy utilised within this phase limits the transferability of this democratic innovation as it should not be utilised in contexts with vulnerable minority groups who could be threatened by a ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ [70]. Additionally, it is also apparent that a Referendum appeals to simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ decisions, and therefore, this method should not be transferred to contexts where complex and nuanced subjects need solving [71]. Although a further consideration about this democratic innovation should be addressed. As previously stated, a Citizens’ Initiative Referendum is very efficient during the’ Ballot’ stage as the participants’ costs are exceptionally low. Therefore, it is plausible that turnout did not exceed 37% for Proposition 64 because voters do not view their vote as valuable when it is so accessible for other residents to participate also [72].

Despite the ‘Ballot’ phase garnering this democratic innovation strong rates of popular control, this process was undermined by the following ‘Implementation’ phase. The public, unable to draft the legislation, had no direct control over the substance of the bill and, therefore, over the effects of this Citizens’ Initiative Referendum (as discussed in ‘Influence, Outcomes, and Effects’). However, the disadvantages of this circumstance were remedied slightly by media informing the public about the results and the subsequent effects of the legislation frequently, stimulating high transparency.

Ultimately, many lessons were learned from this undertaking in California relating to the logistics and citizen participation in this Citizens’ Initiative Referendum. Logistically, the reliance upon private enterprise significantly hinders achieving democratic goods and the philosophy of participatory democracy. To ease this burden, those that want to implement a Citizens’ Initiative Referendum should consider keeping qualification thresholds for initiatives low and utilising e-petitioning to reduce the reliance on Petition companies. Furthermore, through the government’s failure to encourage considered judgement, the inequality in campaign funds (12.5:1 in favour of supporting the motion) likely undermined the discourse and thus popular control in the ‘Ballot’ phase [73]. Therefore, to resolve this logistical issue, the Californian government should consider equitable state campaign funding in future. In terms of Inclusion, this referendum perpetuated historic fears in California: that referendums amplify the attitudes of the “white, middle class” [74]. Beyond the aforementioned suggestion of California holding several moderated debates with citizen outreach to bolster voice and considered judgment, it is arguable that to ensure diversity in participation during the ‘Ballot’ stage, California could deploy compulsory voting, as successfully utilised in Australia [75].


See Also

Citizens’ Initiative Referendum - https://participedia.net/method/164

Direct Democracy - https://participedia.net/method/191.


References

[1] Allswang, J. M. (1996). The origins of direct democracy in Los Angeles and California: The development of an issue and its relationship to progressivism. Southern California Quarterly, 78(2): p. 175


[2] Vann Jr, B. (2022). Direct democracy and the adoption of recreational marijuana legalization in the United States, 2012–2019. International Journal of Drug Policy, 102, 103583. p. 2


[3] Mikos, R. A. (2013). Preemption under the controlled substances act. J. Health Care L. & Pol'y, 16, 5.


[4] California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016). 2023. Ballotpedia. Available at: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016) (Accessed: 12 May 2023).


[5] Specter, D. (2010). Everything revolves around overcrowding: the state of California's prisons. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22(3). p. 194


[6] Specter, D. (2010). Everything revolves around overcrowding: the state of California's prisons. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22(3), p. 194


[7] Bardhan, A., & Walker, R. A. (2010). California, pivot of the great recession.


[8] Crane, D., 2008. California's infrastructure deficit. Public Works Management & Policy, 12(3), pp.476-478.


[9] Todd, T., 2021. Taking the Initiative: Marijuana Law Reform and Direct Democracy. Fordham Urb. LJ, 49, p.553.


[10] Lj (2023) All you need to know about Prop 64, LaJolla.com. Available at:

https://lajolla.com/article/prop-64/ (Accessed: 13 May 2023).


[11] Marchini, G., & Parino, B. (2016). Proposition 64: Marijuana Legalization. California Initiative Review (CIR), 2016(1), 15. p. 2


[12] Marchini, G., & Parino, B. (2016). Proposition 64: Marijuana Legalization. California Initiative Review (CIR), 2016(1), 15. p. 4


[13] New Frontier Data. (2016). California jails - drug policy alliance | drug policy alliance. Available at: https://drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/NF-DPA-California-Incarcerations-Report-2016-FINAL.pdf (Accessed: 13 May 2023).


[14]  New Frontier Data. (2016). California jails - drug policy alliance | drug policy alliance. Available at: https://drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/NF-DPA-California-Incarcerations-Report-2016-FINAL.pdf (Accessed: 13 May 2023).


 [15] California Secretary of State. (2016). Marijuana legalization. initiative statute. - state of California. Available at: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/Title%20and%20Summary%20%2815-0103%29.pdf (Accessed: 13 May 2023).


[16] Gallup (2021) Support for legal marijuana holds at record high of 68%, Gallup.com. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record-high.aspx (Accessed: 12 May 2023).


[17] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2019. Behavioral Health Barometer: California, Volume 5: Indicators as measured through the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health and the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services. HHS Publication No. SMA-19-Baro-17-CA. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. p. 8


[18] California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016). 2023. Ballotpedia. Available at: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016) (Accessed: 12 May 2023).


[19] California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016). 2023. Ballotpedia. Available at: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016) (Accessed: 12 May 2023).


[20] Consumer Watchdog (2020). September 2020 - Consumer Watchdog | Consumer watchdog. Available at: https://consumerwatchdog.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/SeaChangeReport.pdf (Accessed: 13 May 2023).


[21] Consumer Watchdog (2020). September 2020 - Consumer Watchdog | Consumer watchdog. Available at: https://consumerwatchdog.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/SeaChangeReport.pdf (Accessed: 13 May 2023).


[22] California Secretary of State (2023). Poll Worker Information: California Secretary of State. Available at: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/poll-worker-information (Accessed: 13 May 2023).


[23] California Secretary of State (2023). Who Can Vote in California :: California Secretary of State. Available at: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/who-can-vote-california (Accessed: 13 May 2023).


[24] Padilla, A (2023). Official Voter Information Guide, General Election Tuesday November 8, 2016. State of California. Available at: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/general/en/pdf/complete-vig.pdf (Accessed: April 28, 2023).


[25] Padilla, A (2023). Official Voter Information Guide, General Election Tuesday November 8, 2016. State of California. Available at: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/general/en/pdf/complete-vig.pdf (Accessed: April 28, 2023).


[26] Miller, N (2016). Vote with us! The East Bay Express' endorsements for Election Day 2016: East Bay Express: Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda, East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda. Available at: https://eastbayexpress.com/vote-with-us-the-east-bay-express-endorsements-for-election-day-2016-2-1/ (Accessed: April 28, 2023)


[27] Bosler, K., Fiona, M., Yee, B., Assefa, S., Olsen, S., Adams, L., Nash, R., and Halsey, H (2022). REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE: APPROVED MANDATE CLAIMS. State of California: Commission on State Mandates. p. 25


[28] Carrillo, D. A., Duvernay, S. M., Gevercer, B., & Fenzel, M. (2018). California Constitutional Law: Direct Democracy. S. Cal. L. Rev., 92. p. 604

 

[29] Qvortrup, M. (2005). A Comparative Study of Referendums: Government by the People. Manchester University Press. p. 30

 

[30] State of California. 2023. Statewide summary by county for state ballot measures - California. CA.gov. Available at: https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-general/ssov/ballot-measures-summary-by-county.pdf (Accessed: April 28, 2023).


[31] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. p. 112.


[32] Benazir, K. R. (2021). Direct Democracy and the Rise of Populism in Switzerland. Journal of International Relations and Political Science Studies, (2), p. 25.


[33] Weber, S (2023). Initiatives summary of data - elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov. Available at: https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/summary-data.pdf (Accessed: 14 May 2023).


[34] Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. (2003, August). Popular attitudes towards direct democracy. In Paper presentado en American Political Science Association Meeting, Washington.


 [35] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. p. 112.


[36] Haider-Markel, D. P., Querze, A., & Lindaman, K. (2007). Lose, win, or draw? A reexamination of direct democracy and minority rights. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 304-314.


[37] Padilla, A (2023). Official Voter Information Guide, General Election Tuesday November 8, 2016. State of California. Available at: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/general/en/pdf/complete-vig.pdf (Accessed: April 28, 2023).


[38] Kildea, P., & Smith, R. (2016). The challenge of informed voting at constitutional referendums. University of New South Wales Law Journal, The, 39(1), p. 371

[39] Grant, W. (1996). Direct democracy in California: Example or warning?. Democratization, 3(1), 133-149.


[40] California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016). 2023. Ballotpedia. Available at: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016) (Accessed: 12 May 2023).


[41]   Leff, L. (2016, May 4). Pot legalization backers kick off California campaign. Associated

Press. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/758ea60e1ff0490fa9dc736123064fb4 (Accessed: 18 May 2023)


[42] California Secretary of State. (2016). Proposition 64: Marijuana legalization. 2016 general

election. Available at: https://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2016/general/en/quick-reference-guide/64.htm (Accessed: 18 May 2023)


[43] McGreevy, P (2016), The push to legalize pot for all has deeply divided the medical

marijuana community, Los Angeles Times, Available at: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-64-recreational-pot-opponents-201610 (Accessed: 18 May 2023)


[44] ABC 10 News, (2016), Debate: Proposition 64, Youtube, Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EhaCgUx4Ak, Accessed: 22.05.23


[45] Yes on 64 - The Adult Use of Marijuana Act, (2016), Youtube, Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_G6-LrB8k, Accessed: 22.05.23


[46] Yes on 64 - The Adult Use of Marijuana Act, (2016), Youtube, Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8faJaZMD80, Accessed: 22.05.23


[47] No on Prop 64, (2016), Smoke - No on Prop 64, Youtube, Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtkcI_VTm2k, Accessed: 22.05.23


[48] CBS Bay Area, (2016), Pro Prop 64 Ads Aim To Alleviate Parents' Legal Pot Concerns,

CBS, Available at:https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/pro-prop-64-ads-aim-to-alleviate-parents-legal-pot-concerns/, Accessed: 22.05.23


[49] Padilla, A, (2016), Complete Statement of Vote, State of California, Available at:

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-general/sov/2016-complete-sov.pdf, Accessed:

22.05.23


[50] McGreevy, P (2016), Voters legalize pot in California. Here’s what will happen next, Los

Angeles Times, Available at: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-64-california-legalizes-marijuana-snap-20161108-story.html, Accessed: 22.05.23


[51] Rosenberg, E, (2018), Interpretation of California's marijuana regulations after

Proposition 64 and pharmacy practice roles in medical marijuana dispensing against federal

enforcement risks, Journal of Contemporary Pharmacy Practice, 65(1), pp. 14-21.

 

[52] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. p. 166.


[53] California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016). 2023. Ballotpedia. Available at: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016) (Accessed: 12 May 2023).


[54] California Bureau of Cannabis Control. (2022). Cannabis Regulation. Available at: https://bcc.ca.gov/ (Accessed: 12 May 2023)


[55] California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. (2019). Cannabis Taxes and Fees. Available at: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/cannabis-tax.htm (Accessed: 12 May 2023)


[56] Drug Policy Alliance. (2022). Proposition 64 - California Proposition 64, Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) (2016). Available at: https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/proposition-64-california-proposition-64-adult-use-marijuana-act-auma-2016 (Accessed: 12 May 2023)


[57] The Marshall Project. (2018). Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Available at: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/09/25/proposition-64-the-adult-use-of-marijuana-act (Accessed: 12 May 2023)


[58] California Legislative Analyst's Office. (2016). Proposition 64: Marijuana Legalization. Retrieved from https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=64&year=2016 (Accessed: 12 May 2023)


[59] Carlini, B.H. and Schauer, G.L., 2022. Cannabis-only use in the USA: prevalence, demographics, use patterns, and health indicators. Journal of cannabis research, 4(1), pp.1-8.


[60] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. p. 166.


[61] Weber, S. (2023). Referendum: California Secretary of State. Available at: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/referendum (Accessed: 14 May 2023).

 

[62] Cronin, T.E., 1989. Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum, and recall. Harvard University Press. p. 208.

 

[63] Donovan, T. (2014). Direct democracy: lessons from the United States. Political Insight, 5(3), 26-29.

 

[64] Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2000). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting, and direct democracy. University of Michigan Press.

 

[65] Magleby, D. B. (1994). Let the Voters Decide-An Assessment of the Initiative and Referendum Process. U. Colo. L. Rev., 66, 13.

 

[66] SAM (2016) New poll: Support for Proposition 64 falls sharply as California voters learn more details about corporate-friendly measure, Smart Approaches to Marijuana. Available at: https://learnaboutsam.org/2016/09/new-poll-support-proposition-64-support-falls-sharply-california-voters-learn-details-corporate-friendly-measure/ (Accessed: 15 May 2023).


[67] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. p. 170.

 

[68] Budge, I. (1997). The new challenge of direct democracy. Electoral Studies, 16(2).

 

[69] Weber, S. (2023). General Election - Statement of Vote, November 8, 2016. Available at: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results/general-election-november-8-2016/statement-vote (Accessed: 14 May 2023).


[70] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. p. 139.

 

[71] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. p. 137.


[72] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. p. 138.


[73] California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016). 2023. Ballotpedia. Available at: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016) (Accessed: 12 May 2023).


[74] Lacy, D., & Niou, E. M. (2000). A problem with referendums. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12(1), 5-31.


[75] Fowler, A. (2013). Electoral and policy consequences of voter turnout: Evidence from compulsory voting in Australia. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(2), 159-182.


External Links

Link to the Organizers Website: https://www.ca.gov/


Notes