Minnesota Law Review

Direct Democracy and Campaigns Against Minorities

I explore some of the indirect effects of holding popular votes on minority rights. This Article examines how direct democracy may expand the scope of conflict over issues of minority rights by allowing campaigns that subject a minority group to public judgment. Campaigns may precipitate messages that treat a minority group as a threat, as well as activate negative stereotypes about the group targeted by the campaign. I use panel survey data to examine whether campaigns against same-sex marriage had a stigmatizing effect on attitudes about gays and lesbians in states where the right to marriage was on the ballot in 2004. It is important to consider that independent of policy outcomes, subjecting a minority group to public judgment about rights may promote animus toward the targeted group.


:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]