Key Findings from Research on
the 2010-2014 Oregon
Citizens’ Initiative Review
John Gastil, Professor, Dept. of Communication Arts & Sciences, and
Director, McCourtney Institute for Democracy, Pennsylvania State University
Served on U. Washington Dept. of Communication faculty, 1998-2011.
Ph.D. in communication from University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1994.
Additional analysis of CIR observational and survey data available on request, pro bono.
Contact info: [email protected], 814-644-5604
The research presented was supported by a 2010 grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate
for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences’ Political Science Program, a 2014 grant from the NSF Decision, Risk,
and Management Sciences Program, and grants from the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund, the
Kettering Foundation, the Pennsylvania State University Social Science Research Institute, and the McCourtney
Institute for Democracy. Opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, the Kettering Foundation, or any university partners.
Citizen panelists report being highly
satisfied with the CIR process.
Percentage of all Oregon CIR panelists
70%
60%
60%
50%
40%
35%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
1%
Very Low
Satisfaction
Low
4%
Neutral
High
Very High
Satisfaction
Results are from 155 Oregon CIR panelists from 2010-2014, surveyed at the close of their last day of their deliberation, with a response rate of 100%.
CIR panelists become confident that
they can make informed judgments.
90%
80%
Percentage of all CIR panelists
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
18%
20%
10%
2%
0%
Unsure/No
Probably Yes
Definitely Yes
Question: “Do you believe that you learned enough this week
to make an informed decision [on the ballot measure]?”
Results are from 155 Oregon CIR panelists from 2010-2014, surveyed at the close of their last day of their deliberation, with a response rate of 100%.
Neutral observers give the CIR high
ratings, though extensive process
redesign in 2014 presented challenges.
Year
Ballot Measure
Civil and
Rigorous
Democratic
Issue Analysis Process
Quality of
Citizens’
Statement
Mandatory sentencing (M73)
B+
A-
A-
Medical marijuana (M74)
B+
A-
A
Non-tribal casinos (M82)
A-
B+
B+
Corporate “kicker” (M85)
A-
A
A
Open primaries (M90)
A-
A-
B+
GMO labeling (M92)
B
A-
B
2010
2012
2014
Grades are assigned by teams of 2-3 researchers who observe first-hand the entire CIR and assess each segment of its agenda.
By the time they turn in their ballots,
most Oregon voters become aware of
the CIR Statements.
Percentage of all Oregon voters
aware of the CIR after voting
60%
52%
54%
2012
2014
50%
40%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2010
Results are from telephone surveys of 111 likely voters in 2010, 323 in 2012, and 403 in 2014. AAPOR RR3 response rates were 9% (2010, by UW Survey
Center), 4% (2012 by Elway Polling), and 3% (2014 by DHM Research [Portland]). Each survey had respondent demographics, partisan distributions, and
voting outcomes comparable to census data and the final ballot tallies from each respective year.
Oregon voters typically learn about
the CIR from the Voters’ Pamphlet.
Question: “Where
Social media/ blogs, 5%
did you first learn of
the Oregon CIR?” Newspaper, 8%
Other, 1%
Word of mouth, 11%
Oregon Voters'
Pamphlet, 58%
TV/Radio, 17%
Results are from 247 responses in 2014 telephone survey of likely Oregon voters who stated they were aware of the CIR. AAPOR RR3 response rate
was 3%, and COOP3 was 55%, meaning that the majority of eligible respondents reached by phone completed the survey.
Percentage of all CIR Statement readers
Most Oregon voters who read CIR
Statements find them helpful.
100%
90%
80%
35%
27%
44%
42%
42%
45%
14%
13%
Open primaries
(M90, 2014)
GMO labeling
(M92, 2014)
70%
60%
50%
40%
37%
39%
30%
20%
10%
28%
34%
Non-tribal casinos
(M82, 2012)
Corporate “kicker”
(M85, 2012)
0%
Very helpful
Somewhat helpful
Made no difference
Question: “In deciding how to vote on [the measure],
how helpful was it to read the CIR Statement? ”
Results are from 2012 and 2014 telephone surveys referenced earlier.
The most consistent effect of reading
CIR Statements is greater knowledge.
True/False Statement: “The labeling requirements in Measure 92 DO
NOT apply to alcoholic beverages, or prepared restaurant food.”
Correct answer: TRUE
60%
Percentage of survey
experiment participants
50%
56%
Don't know/Incorrect
Correct but unsure
45%
Correct and certain
40%
32%
30%
23%
22% 23%
20%
10%
0%
Control Group
Shown CIR Statement
Results are from 2014 Qualtrics survey panel experiment using registered Oregonians who intended to vote but had not yet read the Voters’ Pamphlet.
Data from prior Oregon online surveys were collected by YouGov/Polimetrix panels (2010) and a mass-email survey of registered voters (2012).
Summary
1. CIR panels create high-quality Statements when
given access to information and time for deliberation
in a well-structured, facilitated process.
2. Prominent placement in the Voters’ Pamphlet is the
key to disseminating the CIR Statement.
3. Some voters will not discover or choose to ignore
the CIR Statements, but those who read them will
usually find them helpful.
4. Implementing a CIR in Washington is likely to increase
the issue-relevant knowledge that voters can use
when completing their ballots.