DIRECT DEMOCRACY AFTER DOBBS: PARADOX, IRONY AND THE COMING RECALIBRATION.

Direct democracy has come to the forefront of the abortion debate. Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the seismic Supreme Court decision overruling Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a number of high-profile ballot measures about abortion have drawn both public attention and substantial turnout. The result in every such election since Dobbs has favored the pro-choice side, even in some culturally conservative states. Surveys of public opinion in the wake of Dobbs suggest that there is significant support for abortion rights and opposition to highly restrictive laws in most states. This misalignment between public opinion and abortion law is precisely the circumstance that direct democracy, and especially the initiative, is well situated to mitigate. Yet, paradoxically, precisely where direct democracy seems most needed, it is being most aggressively resisted by legislative opponents of abortion rights. In this Article, I examine this paradox, along with the reconfigured countermajoritarian difficulty that has emerged since Dobbs. It is now state legislatures in many states, and not courts, that are frustrating democratic resolution of abortion policy. All of this suggests the need to recalibrate institutional debates about abortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]