Lessons from Reform Leaders and Coalitions

If institutional conditions provide the terrain, political leadership and coalition strategy determine whether reform campaigns succeed. The history of initiative adoption is replete with examples of individuals and coalitions that turned diffuse public frustration into durable institutional change.

In South Dakota, Walter E. Kidd and Rev. Robert W. Haire were instrumental in adopting the nation’s first statewide initiative process in 1898. Kidd was chair of the Populist Party State Central Committee and a state representative. Haire spread his gospel about direct democracy through the literature of the Knights of Labor. Their activism was closely tied to Populist and Socialist movements that sought to bypass a state legislature seen as dominated by corporate interests.¹

In Oregon, William Simon U’Ren—often called the “father” of the initiative process in Oregon and “Referendum U’Ren”—was a lawyer, legislator, and founder of the Direct Legislation League of Oregon. Through the Direct Legislation League, he helped build public support, educate voters, and craft legislative strategy. U’Ren deliberately positioned the campaign as nonpartisan, focusing not on specific policies but on the principle that voters deserved more power. His coalition included major labor organizations and reform-minded civic groups, and it laid the foundation for a wave of democratic reforms in the state, including direct primaries and recall of certain elected officials.²

Along with the American Federation of Labor (AFL), organized farming groups like The Grange Movement were critical members of the coalition advancing statewide direct democracy. Farmers generally supported initiatives because they offered a way to fight back against railroads and other corporate powers that dominated state legislatures. Some of the earliest initiatives, like North Dakota’s 1918 initiative that led to the creation of a state-owned mill and bank, were specifically designed to benefit farmers.³ Eric D. Lawrence, Todd Donovan, and Shaun Bowler found that states with more farmers per capita were more likely to adopt initiatives.⁴

John W. Sullivan, another central figure, was the author of 1893’s Direct Legislation by the Citizenship Through the Initiative and Referendum, the source code for the U.S. direct democracy movement.⁵ Drawing inspiration from Switzerland’s pioneering model of subnational direct democracy, Sullivan worked through the National Direct Legislation League to spread the idea across the United States. His influence extended into labor circles, including the AFL, which formally endorsed the initiative process in 1892. His book is also credited with sparking U’Ren’s interest in the movement.

Though Sullivan’s writings inspired action across the growing union, national leaders and advocacy organizations played a limited role in the spread of initiative processes. Early activists identified key lessons for future national organizers based on some of their perceived shortcomings. The National Popular Government League (which succeeded the Direct Legislation League) was founded in 1913 with the support of the AFL and The Grange. The League was led by the writer and activist Judson King, who documented several lessons and best practices for national initiative organizers that we can apply today, including how a national organization could:⁶

• serve as a clearinghouse for accurate initiative data, providing insight into how the initiative process works in states across the country;
• be a resource to activists in non-initiative states for help crafting advocacy campaigns, legislation, and other materials;
• help build momentum for initiative adoption across states; and
• help prepare for and defend against attacks on the initiative process (just like efforts to roll back the initiative today, legislators in initiative states were already working to undermine the initiative process in the 1910s).

Third parties and coalitions played a pivotal role in the rise and success of the early direct democracy movement, not just as ideological supporters but as strategic drivers of reform. According to Stephen L. Piott’s Giving Voters a Voice, Socialists, labor activists, and Populists were instrumental in pushing for initiative and referendum, especially in the West, where disillusioned farmers and workers sought alternatives to a two-party system that had left them behind.⁷ John G. Matsusaka affirms that many reformers embraced direct democracy to circumvent legislatures dominated by elite interests, which included the major party machines.⁸ Bridges and Kousser further show that third-party reformers often turned to I&R when they lacked legislative power but believed they had popular support.⁹ Research also shows the initiative was more likely to take root in states with weak party systems and active grassroots movements, conditions often fueled by third-party energy.¹⁰

The Populists and Socialists in particular led successful pro-I&R coalitions, especially in states like South Dakota, where they helped pass the country’s first statewide initiative law in 1898 by forming strategic alliances with reform-minded Republicans and Democrats.¹¹ In Oregon and Colorado, Populist Progressives used their legislative footholds to champion I&R even without majority control.¹² These coalitions, backed by grassroots organizing and media campaigns, helped frame direct democracy as a means to break elite control and democratize policymaking. Their efforts were often co-opted by the major parties and laid crucial groundwork for later Progressive successes in institutionalizing I&R.

California’s experience underscores the power of aligning grassroots and intraparty organizing with electoral strategy. Dr. John Haynes, a wealthy reformer and Socialist, founded the California Direct Legislation League and successfully pushed for I&R in Los Angeles’s city charter before turning his attention statewide. In 1907, facing a corrupt state government captured by the Southern Pacific Railroad, Haynes and a group of journalists launched the Progressive Republican “Lincoln-Roosevelt League” to replace corrupt lawmakers with reformers who would champion not just direct democracy but women’s suffrage, public utilities regulation, and other Progressive causes. Governor Hiram Johnson was elected on the Lincoln-Roosevelt League platform in 1910 and California adopted I&R the following year.

Besides political parties, outside advocates with inside-government experience were likewise important. Grassroots influencers like Kidd (South Dakota) and U’Ren (Oregon) straddled the arenas of movement-building and actual lawmaking. Their public education and coalition-building work helped put I&R on the political agenda and gain support inside their statehouses. Future I&R adoption campaigns will require existing advocacy leaders to run for office and champion the issue from the inside. Advocacy organizations, perhaps a reconstituted Direct Legislative League or National Popular Government League, can also recruit and train state legislative candidates to run at least partially on the commitment to promote direct democracy if elected.

Given that most states ultimately adopted the initiative process through a constitutional amendment, politicians at the local, state, and national levels were often a vital component of successful campaigns. The Lincoln-Roosevelt League of California tried to align itself with then–Progressive Republican President Teddy Roosevelt even before Roosevelt became a vocal but measured proponent of statewide initiative and referendum. After his presidency, Roosevelt lent his platform and elite credibility to the movement. His advocacy included a speech to the 1912 Ohio constitutional convention in which he opined that direct democracy is a supplement to representative democracy rather than a substitute: “In the great majority of cases it is far better [that] action on legislative matters should be taken by those specially delegated to perform the talk; in other words, that the work should be done by the experts chosen to perform it. But where the men thus delegated fail to perform their duty, then it should be in the power of the people themselves to perform the duty.”¹³ The 1912 convention resulted in an amendment to establish I&R that was approved by voters the same year.

The support of executive officials was critical to the I&R adoption movement. In the Ohio case, the mayors of Toledo and Cleveland also used their platforms to advance the amendment. But across the country,governors proved to be particularly influential allies.¹⁴ For example, as governor of California from 1911 to 1917, Hiram Johnson led one of the most influential state-level reform agendas in U.S. history. A former prosecutor, Johnson sought to dismantle the power of the Southern Pacific Railroad and restore public trust in government. Under his leadership, California adopted the initiative, referendum, and recall, creating a robust system of direct democracy that remains a national bellwether for policy as well as a favorite target for critics who see it as a cautionary tale of “too much democracy.” In modern times, Mississippi Governor Bill Allain, a Democrat, advocated for I&R in his state by initiating a constitutional review process that helped spark interest in initiatives.

In today’s polarized state legislatures, governors may again be the most viable champions of reform, especially those with a reform mandate or cross-party appeal.