Court rulings on local efforts to manage growth by initiative and referendum in California
unusually broad and well-entrenched in California. As a result of that right, residents of that state have employed both of these tools of direct democracy to manage local growth. In this article the initiative will be treated as the power of voters to draft and implement growth control measures within local governmental settings. The local growth control referendum will, in turn, represent their power to rescind local governmental actions that fail to promote a desired level of growth control. This article describes how courts in California have developed a body of case law governing such local efforts to control growth by direct legislation.
Trends in Local Growth Control Ballot Measures in California
This article began as a background resource paper to provide information and analysis for a discussion of local growth control by initiative and referendum. It was used in conjunction with the first annual LAND USE LAW AND PLANNING CONFERENCE presented by the Public Policy Program, UCLA Extension, on February 20, 1987. The research for this article was designed to assess several prevalent perceptions about the use of land use ballot measures. First, there has been a growing and widespread perception that attempts at planning by initiative have dramatically increased in cities and counties throughout California in the last two years. It is also perceived that more and more voters favor these ballot measures as a means of controlling growth. There is a belief that the use of initiatives and referenda to achieve local growth controls is not only increasing in frequency, but that the range of land use issues addressed by these measures is changing in significant ways. Last, there has been considerable discussion about the likely future of land use ballot measures. In order to determine the accuracy of these perceptions, we collected and analyzed information about all identified local land use ballot measures in California since 1971. The "Methodology" section of this article describes how the data was collected and compiled in the Matrix of Land Use Planning Measures. Using the data in this Matrix, we analyzed the frequency of ballot
Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall@@@Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution
outcomes of ballot propositions) would be magnified at the national level. Those searching for theoretical development of the subject must look elsewhere. Sections of both books contain descriptive analyses of the origins of the direct legislation processes, while Cronin's development of a "sensible democracy" model provides little room for theorizing. As to data, Cronin contributes a Gallup poll of national opinion commissioned for the volume and has uncovered previously unpublished studies of the process at the state level. The data for Schmidt's chapters is taken largely from newspaper accounts or personal interviews. His own role as participant-observer in some of the campaigns described is unclear. Where social scientists have conducted research, the literature is often not referred to; and in one instance his findings go against the grain of current research. In discussing the role of money in ballot proposition campaigns, Schmidt determines that between 1976 and 1984, money was the decisive factor in only about one-eighth of the initiative campaigns. Cronin, reflecting the literature on the subject, finds "big money" has about a 25% success rate in initiating ballot propositions but a 75% chance of defeating propositions.