Citizens act as legislators in initiative elections but lack legal training. Voters commonly misunderstand the legal effects of initiatives (Gastil, Reedy, & Wells, 2007) and courts frequently strike down initiatives as unconstitutional (Miller 2009). These factors point to flaws in the communication of legal information about ballot initiatives to citizens. “Plain legal language” research (Barnes, 2006; Tiersma, 1999) suggests that citizens’ understanding of legal information increases to the extent that the communication of such information accords with citizens’ own legal communicative practices. Yet we know little about such practices. The goal of this study is to increase our understanding of those practices. Citizens’ deliberations about the legal nature and effects of ballot measures were examined through a qualitative content analysis of transcripts from the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, the Citizens’ Statements produced by that review, and official state explanatory statements describing ballot measures. Deliberations and statements were coded for law-related topics, functions, uses of narrative, and motivations for narration. Citizens’ deliberations and Citizens’ Statements were found to emphasize the policy objectives and unintended or adverse consequences of ballot measures, as well as the application of legal rules to multiple factual scenarios. By contrast, official state explanatory statements describing ballot measures made no mention of policy objectives or unintentional or adverse consequences. Results suggest that citizens’ approach to assessing ballot measures may have both strategic/instrumental and realistic dimensions and that rule-application may play a key role in enabling citizens’ understanding of the legal aspects of ballot measures.

1. 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

2. Overview
Previous Research and Motivations for This Study
The Oregon Citizens‟ Initiative Review, and
Methodology
Four Results
Conclusion

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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”

9. Frequency of Statements on Policy Objectives
or Adverse Consequences During CIR Deliberation
Mandatory Minimums
Topical
Concepts
Medical Marijuana
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

10. 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”

11. 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

12. 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”

13. Frequency of Narrative During CIR Deliberation
Mandatory Minimums
Types of
Narrative
Thought
Units
Medical Marijuana
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

14. 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)

15. Comparison of Selected Topical and Functional Concepts During
CIR Deliberation, Mandatory Minimums (Measure 73)
Citizens’ Statement
Topical or
Functional
Concept
Number
of
Instances
Voter Guide
Percentage Number of
of All
Instances
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.

16. Comparison of Selected Topical and Functional Concepts During
CIR Deliberation, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Measure 74)
Citizens’ Statement
Topical or
Functional
Concept
Number
of
Instances
Voter Guide
Percentage Number of
of All
Instances
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.

17. 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

18. 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, 97128.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting, and direct
democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

19. 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&c
atid=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

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 selfreports. 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 governanceand why politics will never be the same. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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-informationconference-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-toknow/
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: 10.2202/19442866.1010

26. 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, 474494. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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

29. Contact
• Robert C. Richards, Jr., JD, MSLIS, MA, BA
• PhD Candidate
• The Pennsylvania State University Department of Communication
Arts and Sciences
• Email: rcr5122@psu.edu
• Web: http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/about/