Direkte Demokratie in Kalifornien

Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Kalifornien ist einer der 50 Bundesstaaten, die die Föderation der Vereinigten Staaten konstituieren. Damit genießt es zwar nicht den Status eines souveränen Staates, nutzt jedoch als ein großer und bevölkungreicher Staat innerhalb der USA häufig direktdemokratische Verfahren (Setälä und Schiller 2012). In Bezug auf Volksabstimmungen gilt Kalifornien im US-amerikanischen und im internationalen Vergleich als Vorreiter.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Abromeit, Heidrun. 2003. Nutzen und Risiken direktdemokratischer Instrumente. In Demokratisierung der Demokratie. Diagnosen und Reformvorschläge, hrsg. Claus Offe, 95-110. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, Robert M. 2002. Rolling the Dice with State Initiatives: Interest Group Involvement in Ballot Campaigns. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, David. 2011. Direct Democracy Worldwide. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baldassare, Mark, Dean Bonner, Sonja Petek und Jui Shrestha. 2013. California’s Likely Voters. Online unter www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=255, Zugriff am 13.12.2013.
  5. Banducci, Susan. 1998. Direct Legislation: When Is It Used and When Does It Pass? In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, hrsg. Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan und Caroline J Tolbert, 109-131. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bowler, Shaun und Amihai Glazer. Hrsg. 2008. Direct Democracy’s Impact on American Political Institutions. Basingstoke/New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Cain, Bruce E. und Thad Kousser. 2004. Adapting to Term Limits: Recent Experiences and New Directions. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
  8. California Proposition 98, Mandatory Education Spending. 1988. Ballotpedia.Google Scholar
  9. California Secretary of State. 2015a. History of California Initiatives. Online unter www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/resources-and-historical-information/history-california-initiatives/, Zugriff am 14.03.2016.
  10. California Secretary of State. 2015b. Recall History in California (1913 to Present). Online unter www.sos.ca.gov/elections/recalls/recall-history-california-1913-present/, Zugriff am 14.03.2016.
  11. California Secretary of State. 2015c. Summary of Referendum Data. Online unter www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/referendum/, Zugriff am 14.03.2016.
  12. Campbell, Ballard C. 1998. Tax Revolts and Political Change. Journal of Policy History 10 (1): 153-178.Google Scholar
  13. Center for Governmental Studies. 2008. Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Governmental Studies.Google Scholar
  14. Citrin, Jack. 2009. Proposition 13 and the Transformation of California Government. California Journal of Politics and Policy 1 (1): 1-9.Google Scholar
  15. Dubois, Philip L. und Floyd Feeney. 1998. Lawmaking by Initiative: Issues, Options and Comparisons. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  16. Dyck, Joshua J. und Nicholas R. Seabrook. 2010. Mobilized by Direct Democracy: Short-Term Versus Long-Term Effects and the Geography of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections. Social Science Quarterly 91 (1): 188-208.Google Scholar
  17. Fishkin, James S. 2011. When The People Speak. Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gibbs, Jewelle Taylor und Teiahsha Bankhead. 2001. Preserving Privilege: California Politics, Propositions, and People of Color. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. Griffin, Stephen M. 2008. California Constitutionalism: Trust in Government and Direct Democracy. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  21. Hajnal, Zoltan L., Elisabeth R. Gerber und Hugh Louch. 2002. Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections. The Journal of Politics 64 (1): 154-177.Google Scholar
  22. Hajnal, Zoltan L., Paul G. Lewis und Hugh Louch. 2002. Municipal Elections in California: Turnout, Timing, and Competition. Online unter www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=148, Zugriff am 13.12.2013.
  23. Hasen, Richard L. 2005. Rethinking the Unconstitutionality of Contribution and Expenditure Limits in Ballot Measure Campaigns. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  24. Hornig, Eike-Christian. 2011. Die Parteiendominanz direkter Demokratie in Westeuropa. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  25. Kamps, Klaus. 2014. Volksinitiativen und Referenden in Kalifornien. In Abstimmungskampagnen. Politikvermittlung in der Referendumsdemokratie, hrsg. Heike Scholten und Klaus Kamps, 453-472. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  26. Lowenstein, Daniel H. 1982. Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience, Public Choice Theory and the First Amendment. UCLA Law Review 29: 505-641.Google Scholar
  27. Lupia, Arthur und John G. Matsusaka. 2004. DIRECT DEMOCRACY: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science 7 (1): 463-482.Google Scholar
  28. Maduz, Linda. 2010. Direct Democracy. Living Reviews in Democracy 2.0. Online unter democracy.livingreviews.org, Zugriff am 11.10.2013.Google Scholar
  29. Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, Isaac William. 2008. The Permanent Tax Revolt: How the Property Tax Transformed American Politics. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mathews, Joe. 2006. The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  32. Mathews, Joe und Mark Paul. 2010. California Crackup How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Matsusaka, John G. 1993. Election closeness and voter turnout: Evidence from California ballot propositions. Public Choice 76: 313-334.Google Scholar
  34. Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative Process, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Polyakov, Mike, Peter Counts und Kevin Yin. 2012. California’s Initiative System: The Voice of the People Co-opted. Online unter http://uscommonsense.org/pdf/22.pdf, Zugriff am 14.03.2016.
  36. Pomper, Gerald M. 1980. Party Renewal in America: Theory and Practice. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  37. Ramakrishnan, Subramanian Karthick und Mark Baldassare. 2004. The Ties That Bind: Changing Demographics and Civic Engagement in California. Online unter www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_404KRR.pdf, Zugriffen am 13.12.2013.
  38. Schrag, Peter. 2004. Paradise Lost: California’s Experience, Americas Future. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schrag, Peter. 2008. California: America’s High-stakes Experiment. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  40. Setälä, Maija und Theo Schiller. Hrsg. 2012. Citizens‘ Initiatives in Europe. Procedures and Consequences of Agenda-Setting by Citizens. Basingstoke/New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, Daniel A. und Caroline J. Tolbert. 2001. The Initiative to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California. Party Politics 7 (6): 739-757.Google Scholar
  42. Wattenberg, Martin P. 1998. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations