Judicial review of initiatives is the power of courts to strike down voter-approved ballot measures that violate the Constitution or federal law. A measure approved by 70 percent of voters can be invalidated if it violates constitutional protections like equal protection or free speech.
Courts have invalidated initiatives targeting specific groups: Colorado Amendment 2 (Romer v. Evans, 1996) would have banned protections for gay and lesbian people; California Proposition 187 (largely invalidated 1998) would have denied public services to undocumented immigrants; and others on equal protection and civil rights grounds. Some invalidated initiatives pass with overwhelming support; voters' vote margin doesn't change the constitutional analysis.
This illustrates a fundamental principle: majorities can't violate minorities' constitutional rights through ballot initiatives. The Constitution constrains both elected officials and direct democracy. Courts must balance judicial humility (respecting voter choices) against constitutional guardianship (preventing rights violations). This tension remains live whenever initiatives target vulnerable groups.
Judicial review of initiatives shows that even direct democracy has constitutional limits. Voter approval doesn't make unconstitutional measures constitutional.
People sometimes think if voters approve something, courts should defer to the voters' will. Courts do respect voter choices, but not when they violate the Constitution. Ballot measures targeting minority rights face higher scrutiny.
Judicial review of initiatives shows that even direct democracy has constitutional limits. Voter approval doesn't make unconstitutional measures constitutional.
People sometimes think if voters approve something, courts should defer to the voters' will. Courts do respect voter choices, but not when they violate the Constitution. Ballot measures targeting minority rights face higher scrutiny.