Legislation by Amateurs: The Role of Legal Details and Knowledge in Initiative Deliberation

LEGISLATION BY AMATEURS: THE ROLE OF LEGAL DETAILS AND KNOWLEDGE IN INITIATIVE DELIBERATION

Robert C. Richards, Jr. and John Gastil

The Pennsylvania State University

Department of Communication Arts & Sciences

Presentation at National Communication Association, November, 2013

Overview

Previous Research and Motivations for This Study

The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, and

Methodology

Four Results

Conclusion

Key Findings of Previous Research

Empirical research shows voters commonly misunderstand the legal effects of ballot measures

Courts frequently strike down ballot measures as unconstitutional or inconsistent with other laws

Citizens deliberating about ballot measures frequently use narrative to discuss unintended / adverse consequences of measures

Motivations for This Study

Determine characteristics of citizens’ narrative and non-narrative discourse about measures

Identify differences between citizens’ deliberative discourse, and official voter guide descriptions of measures

The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

• Public deliberation by a random sample of 24 citizens on a ballot initiative; analysis is published in official voter guide

• In 2010 two measures: (1) Mandatory Minimums, and (2) Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Methodology

Content analysis of transcripts of citizens’ deliberations and written statements, and official voter guide descriptions of measures

Original coding scheme

Developed from prior study of government lawyers

Limitations

Main Results

1. Citizens frequently discussed policy objectives and negative and unanticipated effects of measures.

2. Citizens frequently engaged in application of law to facts, explanation of laws, evaluation of laws, and persuasion.

3. Citizens frequently used narrative.

4. Official voter guide descriptions of measures generally lacked these topics, functions, and mode.

1. Citizens Frequently Discuss Objectives and Adverse Consequences of Measures

Policy Objectives:• “It is what that’s about. It’s about the patients who need

their medical marijuana and cannot get it”• “This is about people that truly need it. If you don’t

understand that point, the rest of it’s moot”

Adverse / Unintended Consequences:• “Well, we’re saying the Measure is defective … in that it

has an unintended consequence of … exposing 15 to 17 year olds to potential 25 year sentences”

Frequency of Statements on Policy Objectives or Adverse Consequences During CIR Deliberation

Mandatory Minimums Medical Marijuana

Topical Concepts

Number of Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

Number of Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

Unintended or Adverse Consequences of Laws

229 7% 410 5%

Policy Objectives or Purposes of Laws

213 6% 367 4%

Note. Mandatory Minimums: n=3447. Medical Marijuana: n=8377. Instances are thought units

2. Common Functions of Citizens’ Legal Talk

Evaluating Laws:• “…it is ambiguous and there is a lack of concrete steps in the

measure. There is too much left open to interpretation and actions after it passes.”

Applying Laws to Facts:• Panelist 1: “You say that you get drunk or something, somebody

got hurt and say, ‘Well, it was my first time.’ I’m not going to put him in 25 years in jail because it was the first time. ...”

• Panelist 2: “But looking at the other side what about the families? Somebody got killed. It’s a 15 year old girl who got run over you know”

Frequency of Legal Communication Functions During CIR Deliberation

Mandatory Minimums Medical Marijuana

Functional Concepts

Number of Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

Number of Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

Evaluating Laws

625 18% 684 8%

Applying Laws to Facts

587 17% 1161 14%

Explaining Laws

235 7% 1419 17%

Persuading Others

218 6% 643 8%

Note. Mandatory Minimums: n=3447. Medical Marijuana: n=8377. Instances are thought units

3. Citizens Use Narrative Frequently to Discuss Legal Aspects of Ballot Measures

“…so I don’t see any reason why a person couldn’t go in one day and buy some [medical marijuana], go in the next day and buy some to sell to his friends and I have seen no evidence anywhere that any state has tried to prevent that from happening”

Frequency of Narrative During CIR Deliberation

Mandatory Minimums Medical Marijuana

Types of Narrative Thought Units

Number of Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

Number of Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

All Types of Thought Units

454 13% 1031 12%

Counterfactual Thought Units

260 8% 827 10%

Co-Created Thought Units

61 2% 152 2%

Responsive Thought Units

23 1% 75 1%

Note. Mandatory Minimums: n=3447. Medical Marijuana: n=8377. Instances are thought units

4. Discrepancies Between Official Voter Guide Descriptions of Measures, and Citizens’ Deliberations and Written Statements

Official voter guide descriptions of measures: • did not discuss policy objectives or negative or unanticipated consequences

• did not evaluate laws, • rarely applied laws to facts• did not use narrative (present in citizens’ oral

deliberations but not citizens’ written statements)

Comparison of Selected Topical and Functional Concepts During CIR Deliberation, Mandatory Minimums (Measure 73)

Citizens’ Statement Voter Guide

Topical or Functional Concept

Number of

Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

Number of Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

Objectives or Purposes

6 19% 0 0%

Negative or Unanticipated Consequences

3 10% 0 0%

Evaluating Law 5 16% 0 0%

Applying Law to Facts

3 10% 1 7%

Note. Citizens’ Statement: n=31. Official Voter Guide Explanatory Statement: n=14. Instances are thought units.

Comparison of Selected Topical and Functional Concepts During CIR Deliberation, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Measure 74)

Citizens’ Statement Voter Guide

Topical or Functional Concept

Number of

Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

Number of Instances

Percentage of All

Instances

Objectives or Purposes

4 12% 0 0%

Negative or Unanticipated Consequences

2 6% 0 0%

Evaluating Law 5 15% 0 0%

Applying Law to Facts

2 6% 0 0%

Note. Citizens’ Statement: n=33. Official Voter Guide Explanatory Statement: n=33. Instances are thought units.

Conclusion

• Citizen-lawmakers strategically and realistically analyze measures

• Voter guides lack information voters need• Test coding scheme and coding• Replicate this study• Examine other states’ voter guides

References

• Archer, L. (2012). Evaluating experts: Understanding citizen assessments of technical discourse. Paper presented at GPSSA 2012, the annual conference of the Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

• Aronsson, K., & Nilholm, C. (1990). On memory and the collaborative construction and deconstruction of custody case arguments. Human Communication Research, 17, 289-314.

• Aronsson, K., & Nilholm, C. (1992). Storytelling as collaborative reasoning: Co-narratives in incest case accounts. In M. L. McLaughlin, M. J. Cody, & S. J. Read (Eds.), Explaining one’s self to others: Reason-giving in a social context (pp. 245–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Barnes, J. (2006). The continuing debate about ‘plain language’ legislation: A law reform conundrum. Statute Law Review, 27, 83-132. doi:10.1093/slr/hml004

• Bennett, W. L. (1992). Legal fictions: Telling stories and doing justice. In M. L. McLaughlin, M. J. Cody, & S. J. Read (Eds.), Explaining one’s self to others: Reason-giving in a social context (pp. 149–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Bennett, W. L., & Feldman, M. S. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgement in American culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press

• Binder, M., Boudreau, C., & Kousser, T. (2011). Shortcuts to deliberation? How cues reshape the role of information in direct democracy voting. California Western Law Review, 48, 97-128.

• Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting, and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

References (continued)• Brien, P. (2002). Voter pamphlets: The next best step in election reform. Journal of Legislation,

28(1), 87-112.• Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of

public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12, 398-422.• California Commission on Campaign Financing (1992). Democracy by initiative: Shaping

California’s fourth branch of government. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Responsive Government.• Carter, T. (2001, February). Silent partners. ABA Journal, 87(2), 22-23.• Center for Governmental Studies (2008). Democracy by initiative: Shaping California’s fourth

branch of government (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Center for Governmental Studies. Retrieved from http://www.cgs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=164:PUBLICATIONS&catid=39:all_pubs&Itemid=72

• Clark, K. (1998). The ethics of representing elected representatives. Law and Contemporary Problems, 61(2), 31-45.

• Coonjohn, J. J. (1994). A brief history of the California Legislative Counsel Bureau and the growing precedential value of its digest and opinions. Pacific Law Journal, 25, 211-235.

• Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630

• Delli Carpini, M. X., & Williams, B. A. (1994). Methods, metaphors, and media research: The uses of television in political conversation. Communication Monographs, 21, 782-812. doi:10.1177/009365094021006007

References (continued)• Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45

years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622-727. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622

• Drucker, S. J. (2005). Legal communication: A review in search of a field. Review of Communication, 12, 13-14. doi: 10.1080/1535859052000340569

• Edwards, F. H. (1987, February). The Office of Legislative Counsel. Georgia State Bar Journal, 23(3), 114-115, 154.

• Garner, B. A. (Ed.) (1999). Black’s law dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group.• Gastil, J. (2000). By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative

elections. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.• Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.• Gastil, J. (2011, January 31). Connecting small group deliberation with electoral politics: An assessment

of the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Paper presented at the Annenberg Research Seminar, University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, Los Angeles, California.

• Gastil, J. (2011). Investigating the electoral impact and deliberation of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. 2010 National Science Foundation Political Science Program Awards. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 151-154. doi: 10.1017/S1049096510002362

• Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., Weiser, P. J., & Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. (2010). Evaluation report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

References (continued)

• Gastil, J., Knobloch, K., Reedy, J., Henkels, M., & Walsh, K. C. (2011). Hearing a public voice in micro-level deliberation and macro-level politics: Assessing the impact of the Citizens’ Initiative Review on the Oregon electorate. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

• Gastil, J., Knobloch, K., & Richards, R. (2012). Vicarious deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review influences deliberation in mass elections. Paper presented at the fifteenth biennial conference of the Rhetoric Society of America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

• Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

• Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Wells, C. (2007). When good voters make bad policies: Assessing and improving the deliberative quality of initiative elections. University of Colorado Law Review, 78, 1435–1488.

• Gastil, J., & Richards, R. (2012). Making direct democracy deliberative through random assemblies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Denver, Colorado.

• Genn, H. (1999). Paths to justice: What people do and think about going to law. Oxford: Hart.• Glennon, M. J. (1998). Who’s the client? Legislative lawyering through the rear-view mirror.

Law and Contemporary Problems, 61(2), 21-30.• Goldsmith, D. J., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy of speech

events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23, 87-114.

References (continued)

• Grant, M. (2001). Legislative lawyers and the model rules. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 14, 823-838.

• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

• Ingham, S. (forthcoming). Disagreement and epistemic arguments for democracy. Politics, Philosophy & Economics. doi: 10.1177/1470594X12460642

• Kissam, P. C. (1989). Law school examinations. Vanderbilt Law Review, 42, 433-504.• Knobloch, K., & Gastil, J. (2012, November). Civic (re)socialization: The educative effects of deliberative

participation. Paper presented at the Ninety-Eighth Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Orlando, FL.

• Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Walsh, K. C. (2013). Did they deliberate? Applying an evaluative model of democratic deliberation to the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Journal of Applied Communication Research. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2012.760746

• Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., Richards, R., & Feller, T. (2012). Preliminary evaluation report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2012 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. State College: Pennsylvania State University.

• Knobloch, K., & Raabe, R. (2011). Exploring the effects of deliberative participation through panelist self-reports. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

• Kruse, B. (2001). Comment: The truth in masquerade: Regulating false ballot proposition ads through state anti-false speech statutes. California Law Review, 89, 129-181.

• Leighninger, M. (2006). The next form of democracy: How expert rule is giving way to shared governance-and why politics will never be the same. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

References (continued)

• Lowenstein, D. H. (2002). Initiatives and the new single subject rule. Election Law Journal, 1(1), 35-48. doi:10.1089/153312902753300051

• Lupia, A., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). Direct democracy: New approaches to old questions. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 463-482. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104730

• Magleby, D. B. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

• Magleby, D. B. (1989). Opinion formation and opinion change in ballot proposition campaigns. In M. Margolis & G. A. Mauser (Eds.), Manipulating public opinion: Essays on public opinion as a dependent variable (pp. 95-115). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

• Magleby, D. B. (1995). Let the voters decide? An assessment of the initiative and referendum process. University of Colorado Law Review, 66(1), 13-46.

• Manweller, M. (2005). The people vs. the courts: Judicial review and direct democracy in the American legal system. Bethesda, MD: Academica Press.

• Marcello, D. A. (1996). The ethics and politics of legislative drafting. Tulane Law Review, 70, 2437-2464.• Marchant, R. J. (2002). Representing representatives: Ethical considerations for the legislature’s

attorneys. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 6, 439-465.• Maynard, D. W. (1988). Narratives and narrative structure in plea bargaining. Law & Society Review, 22,

449-482.• McGarity, T. O. (1998). The role of government attorneys in regulatory agency rulemaking. Law and

Contemporary Problems, 61(1), 19-32.• Miller, K. P. (2009). Direct democracy and the courts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References (continued)• Moses, M. S., & Farley, A. N. (2011). Are ballot initiatives a good way to make education policy? The

case of affirmative action. Educational Studies, 47, 260-279. doi: 10.1080/00131946.2011.573607• Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.• O’Barr, W. M., & Conley, J. M. (1985). Litigant satisfaction versus legal adequacy in small claims

court narratives. Law and Society Review, 19, 661-701.• O’Barr, W. M., & Conley, J. M. (1988). Ideological dissonance in the American legal system.

Anthropological Linguistics, 30, 345-368.• Oregon. (2009). HB 2895: An act relating to state measures; and declaring an emergency. 2009

Oregon Laws, ch. 632. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.or.us/09orlaws/sess0600.dir/0632.htm • Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (2010). [Transcript] day 4 – week 2. Portland: Healthy Democracy

Oregon.• Oregon Secretary of State. (2010). Voters’ pamphlet: Oregon general election, November 2, 2010.

Salem, OR: Oregon Secretary of State. Retrieved from http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/doc/history/nov22010/guide/book13.pdf

• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.

• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 3, 521-533.

• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-558.

References (continued)• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror

decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.• Powers, K. C. (2002, July). Inside the world of the legislative lawyer. Nevada Lawyer, 10(2), 7, 34-

35.• Purdy, R. (1987). Professional responsibility for legislative drafters: Suggested guidelines and

discussion of ethics and role problems. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 11(1), 67-120. • Reiling, D. (2009). Technology for justice: How information technology can support judicial reform.

Leiden: Leiden University Press.• Richards, R. (2009). Definition: Legal communication. Retrieved from

http://www.personal.psu.edu/rcr5122/Definitions.html#LEGALCOMMUNICATION• Richards, R. (2009, June). What is legal information? Paper presented at the Boulder Summer

Conference on Legal Information: Scholarship and Teaching, Boulder, Colorado. Retrieved from http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/what-is-legal-information-conference-paper/

• Richards, R. (2010, August 5). What do citizen lawmakers need to know? [Web log post]. Slaw.ca. Retrieved from http://www.slaw.ca/2010/08/05/what-do-citizen-lawmakers-need-to-know/

• Richards, R. (2012). Legal narrative in the citizens’ panel: Identifying theories to explain storytelling in a small group deliberation about ballot initiatives. Paper to be presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

• Shulman, S. W. (2009). The case against mass e-mails: Perverse incentives and low quality public participation in U.S. federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1, 23-53. doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1010

References (continued)• Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., and Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative politics in

action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.• Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public

Deliberation, 3(1), art. 12. Retrieved from http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol3/iss1/art12• Sunwolf. (2006). Decisional regret theory: Reducing anxiety about uncertain outcomes during

group decision making through shared counterfactual storytelling. Communication Studies, 57, 107-134. doi: 10.1080/10510970600666750

• Sunwolf. (2010). Counterfactual thinking in the jury room. Small Group Research, 41, 474-494. doi: 10.1177/1046496410369562

• Sutro, S. H. (1994). Comment: Interpretation of initiatives by reference to similar statutes: Canons of construction do not adequately measure voter intent. Santa Clara Law Review, 34, 945-976.

• Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497-520. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070555

• Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.• Weiksner, G. M., Gastil, J., Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2012). Advancing the theory and

practice of deliberative civic engagement: A secular hymnal. In T. Nabatchi, J. Gastil, G. M. Weiksner, & M. Leighninger (Eds.), Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement (pp. 261-273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References (continued)• Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes

that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 555-569.

• Wells, C., Reedy, J., Gastil, J., & Lee, C. (2009). Information distortion and voting choices: Assessing the origins and effects of factual beliefs in an initiative election. Political Psychology, 30, 953-969. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00735.x

• Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias. London: Verso.

Acknowledgements

• Grateful thanks to:

• Professor Dr. Katherine R. Knobloch of the Colorado State University Department of Communication Studies

• David Brinker of The Pennsylvania State University Department of Communication Arts & Sciences

Contact

• Robert C. Richards, Jr., JD, MSLIS, MA, BA

• PhD Candidate• The Pennsylvania State University Department of Communication

Arts and Sciences• Email: [email protected]• Web: http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/about/