Frequently Asked Questions
Since it’s formation in 2007, Healthy Democracy Oregon has promoted and refined the Citizens' Initiative Review . Along the way, we’ve received numerous questions about the Review. Below are our responses to some of the most common ones. If you have an additional question for us, we’d be happy respond directly. Please click the following or send an email to info@healthydem.org. We look forward to hearing from you.
Why does Oregon need the Citizens’ Initiative Review?
Who participates in the review? How are they selected?
What happens during the Review?
What makes the Review trustworthy?
What will voters get from Citizens' Initiative Review?
How much does the Review cost?
Do other states have a review process like this one?
What is the 2010 Citizens' Initiative Review pilot?
Why did we have a 2010 pilot of the Review process?
How was the 2010 Citizens’ Initiative Review pilot evaluated?
After this successful Pilot, what’s next for the Citizens’ Initiative Review?
Why does Oregon need the Citizens’ Initiative Review?
In Oregon, voters have the constitutional right to directly lawmaking through the initiative process. We believe that responsibly exercising this right requires that as voters we all have reliable and clear information about ballot measures.
However, as every Oregonian knows, ballot measures are often complex issues which have significant financial and social implications for our state. Given that the stakes are so high, campaigns and interest groups spend millions on proven campaign tactics like poll-tested messages and sound bytes to shape the debate to their advantage. Their goal is to win. It’s common sense. However, it is also common sense that these tactics are primarily meant to influence, not necessarily to inform.
With the Citizens' Initiative Review , Oregonians have a powerful new tool to easily find reliable and clear information, and sort through even the toughest questions about ballot measures. As our name implies, we see this effort as one step towards a healthier democracy in Oregon. Our goal is that simple.
Who participates in the review? How are they selected?
For each Review, a panel of 24 Oregon voters is brought together. These 24 Oregon voters are selected at random, and then demographically-balanced to fairly represent a cross-section of the entire state electorate. Each panelist is given a modest stipend for their participation and their travel expenses so there is no barrier to participation.
We use a two-step selection process for the panel. First, a large random sample is selected from the state’s database of registered voters (10,000 people for the 2010 CIR Pilot). These voters are then sent a letter through the postal mail inviting them to apply to participate.
Next, from those who agree to serve, a large pool of several hundred potential panelists is put together. Each person in the pool is assigned a number (to protect their privacy) and then in a public meeting, a panel of 24 voters is assembled to match the demographics of state electorate. The demographics matched include, but are not limited to: age, gender, ethnicity, education, partisan affiliation and location of their residence.
What happens during the Review?
During the five day hearing, panelists hear from witnesses selected by the proponents and opponents of the initiative. Healthy Democracy Oregon, working with both initiative advocate teams and doing independent background research, identifies a range of additional background witnesses or policy experts. The panelists may choose to hear testimony from these witnesses either in person or in some cases via video or phone conference.
Panelists ask questions, prioritize what they want to learn about, and deliberate together. At the end of the process, the panelists draft a 'Citizens’ Statement,' detailing the most important findings about the measure, as well as reporting how many panelists support or oppose the measure. The 'Citizens’ Statement' is then published as a prominent new page in the voters’ pamphlet. An extensive, and easily searchable, public archive of the evaluation is also established online.
What makes the Review trustworthy?
Great care has gone into designing the Citizens' Initiative Review. Here are a few of the most important aspects of the Review that make it trustworthy:
The participants are randomly chosen, rather than self-selected or selected by anyone who has a stake in the outcome of the review. Therefore, the panelists are not selected to ‘push an agenda.’
Advocates for and against the measure are given equal time and opportunity to make their case.
The review is facilitated by professional mediators who are trained to be neutral and have no personal stake in the outcome.
During every stage of the Review, the process had been designed to eliminate the introduction of bias by moderators or staff.
Each day, and at the conclusion of the review, panelists and initiative advocates evaluate the process in terms of fairness and bias. The results of these evaluations are publicly reviewed each day in the process and included in the public report. The results of these evaluations from our initial field test of the process showed very high marks for fairness and lack of bias from all of the panelists and both of the initiative advocates.
Finally, the 'Citizens’ Statements' are written by the panelists themselves as an information resource for voters- the statements are not edited or screened in any way—it is simply voters communicating to other voters.
What will voters get from Citizens' Initiative Review?
With the ‘Citizens’ Statement,’ voters will receive clear, useful, and trustworthy information about ballot measures. The Citizens' Initiative Review does not tell people how to vote. Rather, it provides voters with information they may consider in their personal deliberations when it comes time to cast their vote. When fully implemented, the CIR will provide the State of Oregon with a high-quality public review process and public record for each measure on the ballot.
How much does the Review cost?
For Healthy Democracy Oregon to run a single Review, when including all of the staff, location, videographers, recruitment and other expenses it costs approximately $150,000. However, this is a generous estimate since full implementation of the CIR can greatly reduce costs by conducting multiple reviews simultaneously and utilizing existing state facilities.
It is important to put the cost of the Review into context. Over $100 million had been spent to sway voters during ballot measure elections in just the last ten years. During this same time period, as voters we’ve made decisions impacting over $50 billion in new spending and tax cuts. Taking into account the substantial spending by campaigners, and the impact of these measures on taxpayers, we view the Citizens' Initiative Review as a worthy investment in our democratic process.
Do other states have a review process like this one?
Not yet. However, Healthy Democracy Oregon’s success in promoting the Citizens' Initiative Review has created interest from leaders in other initiative states like Washington, California, Idaho and Colorado. And while none of those states have implemented the CIR, they are carefully watching our work. Once again, Oregon is leading the way with a unique and innovative reform.
What is the 2010 Citizens' Initiative Review pilot?
We have a page dedicated to the 2010 CIR pilot where you can find more information.
Why did we have a 2010 pilot of the Review process?
The purpose of the 2010 pilot of the Citizens' Initiative Review was to provide Oregonians with an opportunity to use this new information, and determine through a rigorous evaluation how much voters value the Citizens' Initiative Review as a new public service. To do this properly, a law was passed to place the results of the CIR, the 'Citizens’ Statement,' into a prominent new page in the statewide voters pamphlet. That’s the only way a rigorous evaluation of the CIR process could be done.
How was the 2010 Citizens’ Initiative Review pilot evaluated?
Recognizing the importance of this research opportunity, the National Science Foundation awarded $218,000 to a team of distinguished researchers from Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin to conduct the evaluation. Their purpose was to determine the quality of deliberation that took place during the review process itself, as well as the utility of the resultant Citizens’ Statements published in the statewide Voters’ Pamphlet. By both of these metrics, the 2010 pilot of the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) received high marks.
The research team’s evaluation included direct observation of the CIR panels; interviews with the panelists themselves; examination of full transcripts of the CIR panels; assessment of the Citizens’ Statements, and analysis of large statewide surveys.
The principle investigator on this study was John Gastil, a professor in communication and political science at the University of Washington (UW). He has published five scholarly books and dozens of articles on democracy and group behavior, and he has helped lead four other NSF-funded projects during the past seven years. The project’s graduate research assistant was Katherine Knobloch, a UW Ph.D. student in communication. Other collaborators included Professor Mark Henkels of the Public Policy and Administration and Political Science Departments at Western Oregon University, Associate Professor of political science Katherine Cramer Walsh at University of Wisconsin-Madison, and UW communication Ph.D. candidate Justin Reedy.
Click here for more on the evaluation findings.
After this successful Pilot, what’s next for the Citizens’ Initiative Review?
Healthy Democracy Oregon’s goal is for the Citizens' Initiative Review to become an ongoing public service for Oregon voters provided by the State of Oregon. We’ve been working carefully on various aspects of the proposal to ensure it has adequate safeguards and will remain worthy of the public’s trust once in place. Once fully implemented, we see our role as a ‘watchdog’ of the process, helping to ensure it is still a high quality, trustworthy process.
CIR Video
