In roughly half of U.S. states, state constitutions confer rights of direct democracy, allowing the people to make law directly through statutes or constitutional amendments. The exercise of direct democracy rights can lead to power struggles with state legislatures. In particular, state legislatures sometimes respond to successful ballot measures by passing new laws that make ballot measures harder to use. Disputes over these new burdens on direct democracy frequently land in state courts. This Report considers how state courts have responded to these power struggles, with special attention to case law analyzing process-altering legislation under state constitutional direct democracy rights.
This report analyzes an often-overlooked set of state entities that hold substantial power: judicial conduct commissions. These entities, which exist in every state, are primarily designed to protect the public from judicial misconduct and have broad authority to investigate and sanction state judges. As state courts gain increasing attention, the public and scholars should likewise attend to the entities that oversee them.
In recent years, legal commentators have analyzed—and often criticized—the U.S. Supreme Court’s “shadow docket.” To date, this dialogue has focused on the U.S. Supreme Court. But the real engines of the American legal system are state, not federal, courts. This paper offers a primer on shadow dockets in the states. ts core observation is that state supreme court shadow dockets are broader and less transparent versions of the federal model—shadow shadow dockets.
This Report surveys current state laws affecting direct democracy, with an emphasis on those relating to voter participation and understanding. For instance, what information appears on the ballot, and who prepares it? What standards exist, if any, to ensure that ballot language is clear and impartial? When, and how, can courts step in?
State-level administrative agencies, like their federal counterparts, play a significant role in governance across the nation. Their responsibilities run the gamut—from elections to education; from public waterways to public health; from property to prisons; from taxis to taxes. Many state legislatures, for their part, have sought to retain checks on agencies’ regulatory authority beyond the ordinary legislative and oversight processes via a "legislative veto."