We recently talked with Jane Suiter and David Farrell, who were instrumental in the implementation of the Irish Citizens’ Assembly. The Citizens' Assembly uses deliberative mini-publics to recommend policies to the Irish Parliament.

Listen to ourinterview with them here!

While we were talking, Jane discussed a deliberativedemocratic initiative happening on the other side of the pond, right here inthe United States. We thought we’d break it down for you.

The Oregon Citizens’Initiative Review

The closest thing we have in America to a Citizens’ Assemblyis Oregon’sCitizens’ Initiative Review (CIR), and while it’s a mini-public, itfunctions in a fundamentally different way than Ireland’s deliberative body. TheCitizens’ Initiative Review is a process that utilizes deliberativemini-publics to create comprehensive, voter-friendlysummaries of ballot initiatives to be decided during an election.These summaries are then widely distributed to voters.

The process works like this:

Step 1: More than10,000 residents of Oregon are solicited via mail to become part of thatelection cycle’s CIR. Of the respondents, 24 are picked to represent anaccurate portrayal of Oregon’s ethnic and political diversity.

Step 2: The CIRmembers undergotraining to learn how to engage in civil debates with one another,and how to evaluate the material they’ll be given.

Step 3: The CIRmembers then hear testimony from individuals and groups who are both for andagainst each ballot proposal. In addition to this testimony, they receivepresentations from neutral third-party experts, which they use as backgroundinformation. This step is almost identicalto the way in which the Irish Citizens’ Assembly carries out its meetings.

Step 4: Once bothsides have been heard, and expert testimony has been taken, CIR members breakinto small groups to discuss what they’ve learned. These groups are presidedover by moderators to ensure that opinions are being heard, and that equalopportunity is being given to each member. While the Irish Citizens’ Assemblyhas 100 members, and the CIR is comprised of only 24, this step is similar aswell.

Step 5: Oncedeliberation is concluded, the members reconvene and craft a statementregarding the specific ballot initiative. This statement, much like the reportcreated by their Irish counterpart, includes key findings and recommendations.The CIR statement also includes the best reasons to vote for or against theballot measure, as well as a list of which members supported it, and whichmembers didn’t. The statement is then disseminated widely, and is available aspart of the Voter’s Pamphlet the Oregon electorate receives.

Results

Since its passageinto law in 2011, the CIR has been hailed as a success. According toPenn State’s McCourtneyInstitute for Democracy, the CIR in Oregon provides easy tounderstand summaries of ballot initiatives, written by citizens for citizens. Thisincreases the accuracy of voters’ political decisions, creating a better informedelectorate willing to make better decisions. A study by theInternational Journal of Communication at USC Annenberg found thatvoters are very willing to turn to their deliberative peers for insights andadvice, and predicted as mini-public proliferate and become mainstream, mostvoters will trust and value the information and recommendations presented inthem. As it stands in its infancy, the CIR’s own websitereported that 40% of Oregon voters read and used the CIR summary when voting onballot measures in the last election.

As of this post, Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts had all created pilot CIR programs, but Oregon remains the only state with a CIR officially built into their electoral system.

WORKS CITED

• “ Relating to Elections; Appropriating Money; and Declaring an Emergency.” HB2634 2011 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System, olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2011R1/Measures/Overview/HB2634.

• “The 2018 Citizens' Statement.” Massachusetts Citizens' Review, www.cirmass.org/the-2018-citizens-statement.

• “About the Citizens' Assembly.” The Citizens' Assembly, www.citizensassembly.ie/en/what-we-do/.

• “Citizens' Initiative Review.” Healthy Democracy, healthydemocracy.org/cir/.

• Denver Post. “First Citizens' Initiative Review Delivers Guidance for Voters.” The Denver Post, The Denver Post, 27 Apr. 2016, www.denverpost.com/2014/09/30/first-citizens-initiative-review-delivers-guidance-for-voters/.

• “Evidence from Oregon Shows That Citizens' Initiative Reviews Can Improve Voters' Decision-Making about Ballot Measures - The McCourtney Institute for Democracy.” The McCourtney Institute for Democracy, The McCourtney Institute for Democracy, democracy.psu.edu/outreach/blog/evidence-from-oregon-shows-that-citizens2019-initiative-reviews-can-improve-voters2019-decision-making-about-ballot-measures.

• GASTIL, John; RICHARDS, Robert; KNOBLOCH, Katherine. Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections. International Journal of Communication, [S.l.], v. 8, p. 28, jan. 2014. ISSN 1932-8036. Available at: . Date accessed: 19 Dec. 2019.

• Hbeshear. “Arizona's First Citizens' Initiative Review to Be Launched.” Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, 20 Aug. 2014, publicservice.asu.edu/content/arizonas-first-citizens-initiative-review-be-launched.

• “Impact.” Healthy Democracy, healthydemocracy.org/impact/.

• “Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review.” Involve.org.uk, 13 June 2018, www.involve.org.uk/resources/case-studies/oregon-citizens-initiative-review.