The Single Subject Rule

Most states with ballot initiatives follow some variation of the Single Subject Rule. The Rule has been criticized by me (and countless more luminous figures) as unmanageable and, indeed, unmanaged. Critics of many different ideological bents seem to agree that the SSR gives "activist" courts an excuse to overturn voter-enacted legislation without directly addressing the merits of the law.

I've attached an interesting debate between several well-known scholars of election law which has taken place in the Columbia Law Review over the last few months. I hope to add a few comments of my own, as well.

First, in April, the Columbia Law Review published this article, "A Theory of Direct Democracy and the Single Subject Rule," by Robert D. Cooter and Michael Gilbert, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 687 (2010). 

A week later, Richard Hasen and John Matsusake posted this reply to the Columbia Law Review "Sidebar," which was respectfully critical of Cooter and Gilbert.

Most recently, Cooter and Gilbert published a brief note in reply to them.