Key Findings from Research on the 2010-2014 Oregon

Citizens’ Initiative Review

John Gastil, Professor, Dept. of Communication Arts & Sciences, and Director, McCourtney Institute for Democracy, Pennsylvania State University

Served on U. Washington Dept. of Communication faculty, 1998-2011.

Ph.D. in communication from University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1994.

Additional analysis of CIR observational and survey data available on request, pro bono.

Contact info: jgastil@psu.edu, 814-644-5604

The research presented was supported by a 2010 grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences’ Political Science Program, a 2014 grant from the NSF Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences Program, and grants from the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund, the Kettering Foundation, the Pennsylvania State University Social Science Research Institute, and the McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, the Kettering Foundation, or any university partners.

Citizen panelists report being highly satisfied with the CIR process.

Results are from 155 Oregon CIR panelists from 2010-2014, surveyed at the close of their last day of their deliberation, with a response rate of 100%.

Perc

enta

ge o

f all

Ore

gon

CIR

pane

lists

Very Low Satisfaction Low Neutral High Very High Satisfaction0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 1%4%

35%

60%

CIR panelists become confident that they can make informed judgments.

Perc

enta

ge o

f all

CIR

pane

lists

Unsure/No Probably Yes Definitely Yes0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2%

18%

80%

Results are from 155 Oregon CIR panelists from 2010-2014, surveyed at the close of their last day of their deliberation, with a response rate of 100%.

Question: “Do you believe that you learned enough this week to make an informed decision [on the ballot measure]?”

Neutral observers give the CIR high ratings, though extensive process redesign in 2014 presented challenges.

Year Ballot MeasureRigorous

Issue Analysis

Civil and Democratic

Process

Quality of Citizens’

Statement

2010Mandatory sentencing (M73) B+ A- A-

Medical marijuana (M74) B+ A- A

2012Non-tribal casinos (M82) A- B+ B+

Corporate “kicker” (M85) A- A A

2014Open primaries (M90) A- A- B+

GMO labeling (M92) B A- B

Grades are assigned by teams of 2-3 researchers who observe first-hand the entire CIR and assess each segment of its agenda.

By the time they turn in their ballots, most Oregon voters become aware of the CIR Statements.

Perc

enta

ge o

f all

Ore

gon

vote

rsaw

are

of th

e CI

R aft

er v

oting

2010 2012 20140%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

40%

52% 54%

Results are from telephone surveys of 111 likely voters in 2010, 323 in 2012, and 403 in 2014. AAPOR RR3 response rates were 9% (2010, by UW Survey Center), 4% (2012 by Elway Polling), and 3% (2014 by DHM Research [Portland]). Each survey had respondent demographics, partisan distributions, and voting outcomes comparable to census data and the final ballot tallies from each respective year.

Oregon voters typically learn about the CIR from the Voters’ Pamphlet.

Results are from 247 responses in 2014 telephone survey of likely Oregon voters who stated they were aware of the CIR. AAPOR RR3 response rate was 3%, and COOP3 was 55%, meaning that the majority of eligible respondents reached by phone completed the survey.

Oregon Voters' Pamphlet; 58%

TV/Radio; 17%

Word of mouth; 11%

Newspaper; 8%

Social media/ blogs, 5% Other; 1%Question: “Where did you first learn of the Oregon CIR?”

Most Oregon voters who read CIR Statements find them helpful.

Results are from 2012 and 2014 telephone surveys referenced earlier.

Question: “In deciding how to vote on [the measure], how helpful was it to read the CIR Statement? ”

Perc

enta

ge o

f all

CIR

Stat

emen

t rea

ders

Non-tribal casinos (M82, 2012)

Corporate “kicker” (M85, 2012)

Open primaries (M90, 2014)

GMO labeling (M92, 2014)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

28% 34%14% 13%

37%39%

42% 45%

35%27%

44% 42%

Very helpful Somewhat helpful Made no difference

The most consistent effect of reading CIR Statements is greater knowledge.

Control Group Shown CIR Statement

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

45%

22%

32%

23%23%

56% Don't know/Incorrect

Correct but unsure

Correct and certain

True/False Statement: “The labeling requirements in Measure 92 DO NOT apply to alcoholic beverages, or prepared restaurant food.”Correct answer: TRUE

Perc

enta

ge o

f sur

vey

expe

rimen

t par

ticip

ants

Results are from 2014 Qualtrics survey panel experiment using registered Oregonians who intended to vote but had not yet read the Voters’ Pamphlet. Data from prior Oregon online surveys were collected by YouGov/Polimetrix panels (2010) and a mass-email survey of registered voters (2012).

Summary1. CIR panels create high-quality Statements when

given access to information and time for deliberation in a well-structured, facilitated process.

2. Prominent placement in the Voters’ Pamphlet is the key to disseminating the CIR Statement.

3. Some voters will not discover or choose to ignore the CIR Statements, but those who read them will usually find them helpful.

4. Implementing a CIR in Washington is likely to increase the issue-relevant knowledge that voters can use when completing their ballots.