Evaluation Report to the Oregon State Legislatureon the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

8/8/2019 Evaluation Report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon Citizens Initiative Review

1/22

Evaluation Report to the Oregon State Legislature

on the 2010 Oregon Citizens Initiative Review

John Gastil and Katie KnoblochDepartment of Communication

University of Washington

with research assistance from

Mark Henkels

Western Oregon University

Katherine Cramer-Walsh

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Jacqueline Mount, Vera Potapenko,

Rory Raabe, Justin Reedy, and Victoria Pontrantolfi

University of Washington


2/22

Overview of Presentation

Section 1: CIR Deliberative Process Participants self-assessments

Expert judgment of discussion and decision making process

Section 2: CIR Utility for Voters

Voter awareness of the CIR

Voters ratings on the importance of CIR Statement

Impact of CIR Statements on voter decision making

Section 3: Recommendations


3/22

Report Section 1:

Evaluating the CIR

Deliberative Process


4/22

MONDAY: Orientation to process


5/22

TUESDAY: Pro/Con presentation/rebuttal


6/22

WEDNESDAY: Witnesses called by panel


7/22

THURSDAY: Pro/Con closing arguments

and developing Key Findings


8/22

FRIDAY: Write and Present Statement


9/22

Figure 1.1 (p. 11)

Panelists Overall Satisfaction with the CIR Process


10/22

Panelists self-assessment of having learned

enough to make an informed decisionFigure 1.2 (p. 15)

End-of-Week Assessment

Figure 1.3 (p. 15)

Follow-Up Assessment


11/22

Figure 1.6 (p. 29)

Panelists Position Before and After Deliberation


12/22

Table 1.1. (p. 8)

Quality of Deliberation in CIR Panels

!

"#$%$'!()#!*+',-'%$./!0&,$1'%$). !

2&'3-#&!45 !

67&.%&.8$./9 !

2&'3-#&!4: !

62'#$;-'.'9 !

!"#$%&'&()# *+*,-(./#%.0&%# # ! !

!!"#$!%'()(*!+#,)-!),,.&!)(/0'1#2)0( ! 34! 34!

!!"+$!56#1)( )(*!0/!.(7&'89)(*!:#8.&, ! 3;!! 3!

!!"-$!


13/22

Report Section 2:

Assessing the CIRs

Utility for Oregon Voters


14/22


15/22

Figure 2.1 (p. 33)

Weekly CIR Awareness, Aug 30-Nov 1

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Sept5 Se pt12 Sept19 Sept26 Oct3 Oct10 Oct17 Oct24 Nov1

11%

6%

7% 8% 9% 8% 7%12%

16%

18%

19%20%

16%11% 10%

19%

17%

26%

LastDayofSurveyWeek

Veryaware Somewhataware

Voters

Pamphlet arrives in mail


16/22

Figure 2.3 (p. 35)

Minutes Reading the CIR Statement and Other

Sections of the Voters Pamphlet


17/22

Figure 2.5 (p. 38)

Perceived Importance of CIR Key Findings

for Deciding How to Vote on Measure 73,


18/22

Figure 2.6 (p. 39)

Perceived Importance of CIR Key Findings

for Deciding How to Vote on Measure 74


19/22

Figure 2.7 (p. 41)

Results of online CIR Statement experiment

for voting preferences on Measure 73


20/22

Knowledge Gains from Reading CIR

Measure 73 (Sentencing) Measure 73 would apply to minors

Mandatory minimums do not have a proven deterrent effect

Previous mandatory minimums already have elevated Oregons

incarceration rate

Mandatory minimums reduce violent crime through incarceration

Measure 74 (Medical marijuana dispensaries) Measure 74 would pay for itself

Measure 74 would relieve pain for some users

Measure 74 wouldnt directly spur recreational use Current law forces many medical marijuana users

to the black market


21/22

Table 2.2. (p. 44)

Summary Estimates of the Influence of

CIR on Voter Support for Measures 73 and 74

Measure 73 (Sentencing)

Voters unaware of CIR: 66% in favor of Measure

Voters who read CIR casually: 50% in favor Voters who read CIR thoroughly: 35% in favor

Measure 74 (Medical marijuana dispensaries)

Voters unaware of CIR: 47% in favor of Measure

Voters who read CIR casually: 44% in favor Voters who read CIR thoroughly: 32% in favor


22/22

Conclusion and Recommendations

Evaluation Summary The process clearly met a high standard for public deliberation

Though many didnt read it, those voters who read the CIR found

it helpful in deciding how to vote on Measures 73 and 74.

Key Recommendations (Section 3 of report) CIR organizers should prepare witnesses more thoroughly for

their appearance before citizen panelists. (#11 on p. 49)

The purpose and limitations of the Shared Agreement section of

the Citizens Statement should be clarified. (#24 on p. 54)

The CIR Statement should be permitted to have a modicum offormatting to make it more visually engaging. (#26 on p. 55)

Documents

Evaluation Report to the Oregon State Legislatureon the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review