Do Popular Votes on Rights Create Animosity Toward Minorities?

• Published date: 01 December 2013
• Date: 01 December 2013
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912913478839
• Author: Caroline Tolbert,Todd Donovan
• Subject Matter: Articles

478839PRQXXX10.1177/1065912913478839Po
litical Research QuarterlyDonovan and Tolbert
Article
Political Research Quarterly
66(4) 910 –922
Do Popular Votes on Rights Create
© 2013 University of Utah
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Animosity Toward Minorities?
DOI: 10.1177/1065912913478839
prq.sagepub.com
Todd Donovan1 and Caroline Tolbert2
Abstract
We examine whether votes on minority rights make the public less sympathetic to the targeted group. Panel data are
used to test whether votes on marriage changed public attitudes about gays and lesbians. We propose the marriage
debate had a stigmatizing effect on attitudes about gays and lesbians in states where marriage was on the ballot. Results
reveal a conditional relationship. Religious people in states where marriage was voted on had lower affect for gays and
lesbians after the campaign. Independent of policy outcomes, subjecting a minority group to public judgment about
rights may promote animus toward the group.
Keywords
public opinion, same-sex marriage, direct democracy, ballot measures, attitudes about homosexuality
Introduction
minority rights. A number of studies stress that minorities
are harmed by direct democracy because it allows a
Examples of voter-approved ballot initiatives that target
majority of voters’ fears and prejudices to be expressed
minorities for differential treatment are numerous. Early
in policies that target minorities and restrict minority
in the twentieth century, Oklahomans approved an initia-
rights. Classic studies (Stouffer 1955) have established
tive stripping voting rights from African Americans.
that the publics’ initial response to questions about “out
California voted to prohibit Asians from owning land,
groups” is almost universally intolerant. Moreover, white
and Arizonans passed an initiative that prohibited
voters’ racial attitudes and racial animus have been
employment of immigrants (Cronin 1987). In the later
shown to affect how they vote in candidate contests
decades of that century, voters in several states approved
(Kinder and Sanders 1996; Mendelberg 2001; Reeves
ballot measures that repealed school desegregation.
1997; Sniderman and Piazza 1993). It may come as little
Californians approved initiatives repealing fair access to
surprise, then, that voters frequently approve ballot mea-
housing and barring illegal immigrants from access to
sures targeting minority groups. Gamble (1997) demon-
public services. Voters in Arizona and other states made
strated that initiatives restricting the civil rights of
English an “official” language, and Colorado passed an
minorities passed at a much higher rate than initiatives on
initiative that prohibited extending antidiscrimination
all other subjects. Haider-Markel, Querze, and Lindaman
protections to gays and lesbians (Gamble 1997; HoSang
(2007) also showed that minorities (gays and lesbians)
2010). California voters passed an initiative that repealed
lost more often than they won when questions about their
bilingual education programs, and voters in multiple
rights were decided by a public vote. Hajnal, Gerber, and
states approved initiatives repealing applications of
Louch (2003) showed that racial and ethnic minority vot-
affirmative action when based on criteria of race and
ers were regularly on the losing side of racially targeted
ethnicity. More recently, voters in several states approved
propositions. Tolbert and Hero (1996) contend that the
ballot measures that denied same-sex couples access to
popularity of initiatives targeting minorities can be
marriage rights enjoyed by opposite sex couples. This
explained in terms of the “threat” that a diverse racial/
article explores how votes on same-sex marriage affected
popular attitudes about gays and lesbians in 2004.
1Western Washington University, Bellingham, USA
2University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
Direct Democracy and Minorities
Corresponding Author:
Todd Donovan, Department of Political Science, Western Washington
Scholarly research has produced a somewhat conflicted
University, Bellingham, WA 98225, USA.
portrait of how direct democracy affects minorities and
Email: Todd.Donovan@wwu.edu

---

Donovan and Tolbert
911
ethnic context poses to white voters (see also Branton
public opinion has largely been overlooked. We assume
and Jones 2005; Key 1949; Tolbert and Grummel 2003).
that placing questions about rights on a statewide ballot
Another set of results suggest that direct democracy
means that the state will experience a campaign that not
has a more benign effect on minority groups and minority
only brings increased attention to the policy question but
rights. A comprehensive study of voting on initiatives in
also produces additional negative information about the
California demonstrated that the vast majority of initia-
group made the subject of debate. Nicholson (2005)
tives were not racially targeted, and that most Latino/a
established that the issue content of a ballot measure can
American, Asian American, and African American voters
prime voters to consider that specific issue when they
were on the winning side of a large proportion of ballot
evaluate candidates seeking office (see also Donovan,
measures. These authors concluded that “critics have
Tolbert, and Smith 2008). In other words, direct democ-
overstated the detrimental effects of direct democracy”
racy has spillover effects. Our interest here is with how
(Hajnal, Gerber, and Louch 2003, 154). Lax and Phillips’s
ballot measures targeting a minority right might spill
(2009, 383) assessment of how institutions make policy
over and affect how people evaluate the group targeted
more or less responsive to public opinion also concluded
by the measure.
that “direct democracy does not significantly affect the
We propose that placing a question about minority
adoption of gay rights policies one way or the other.”
rights on the ballot will produce a campaign context that
Another study comparing pro-minority (pro-gay/-lesbian)
generates information—beyond what would be present
outcomes from voter initiatives with outcomes from state
had the question not been put to a vote—that may
legislatures found that both produced antiminority results
increase popular animosity toward members of the
most of the time (Haider-Markel, Querze, and Lindaman
minority group. Campaigns, for example, disproportion-
2007). Furthermore, voter-approved initiatives designed
ately focus on negativity, as they have been found to be
to establish “English Only” policies and to repeal bilin-
more effective (Geer 2006). We assume that discussion
gual education in California ended up not being imple-
of a rights question during the campaign need not be
mented or were easy for opponents to defy (Gerber et al.
framed with malevolent language to stigmatize the tar-
2001, 37; 78). Others note that most measures targeting
geted group. Campaigns against a particular right may be
minority rights are eventually nullified by state and fed-
framed with benevolent, neutral, or malevolent language.
eral courts, and Bowler, Nicholson, and Segura (2006)
As an example, ballot measures that proposed repealing
contended that racially targeted initiatives can backfire
protections against job discrimination based on sexual
by mobilizing voter opposition to the political party that
orientation were couched in terms of “no special rights”
supported the measure.
(Marcosson 1995; Witt and McCorkle 1997). Likewise,
rather than mentioning affirmative action in their titles,
Ballot Measures,
initiatives repealing such programs emphasized they
were promoting the equal application of “civil rights”
Public Opinion, and Minorities
(Chavez 1998).
Does this mean we might conclude that direct democracy
Yet the presence of these measures on a state’s ballot
does not harm minorities? One approach to answering
generates information about why the initiative is needed—
this question is to focus on policy adoptions. A number of
information that can contain explicit or implicit antimi-
initiatives affecting minority interests have survived
nority appeals (Mendelberg 2001). Although antiminority
court scrutiny, so some racial, ethnic, and sexual orienta-
themes may also surround discussions of a minority rights
tion minorities have been adversely affected by voter-
in noninitiative states, direct democracy may act as a vehi-
approved polices. For example, initiatives repealing
cle that opponents of a minority right can use to generate
affirmative action and those banning same-sex marriage
media attention and to expand the scope of the conflict
have survived court challenges.
over the question of rights beyond what it would be in
We take an alternative tack here in assessing how
states where it was not put to a popular vote (Gamble
direct democracy affects minorities. The core feature of
1997, 249; Schattschneider 1960). Nicholson, further-
direct democracy, be it a legislative referendum or a citi-
more, has demonstrated that above and beyond the effects
zen initiative,1 is the act of having a popular vote on a
of initiative campaigns and media attention, voters are sig-
question of public policy. Rather than assessing potential
nificantly more aware of ballot measures involving rights
policy consequences of a voter-approved policy, we
and morality questions than they are of other measures.2
...