If you are exposed to enough politics, sooner or later youโll hear the old saw that the U.S. is โa republic and not a democracy.โ Along with that saying goes the following claim: Allowing voter initiatives and referenda is unconstitutional: If a state lets voters enact laws or veto tax hikes, the state is too democratic to meet the Constitutionโs mandate that it have a โrepublican form of government.โ
A new Independence Institute Issue Paper, which I authored, examines those assertions in detail. The Paper shows that both are essentially myths.
The nationโs best-known measure requiring voter approval of most tax hikes is Coloradoโs Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), adopted by the voters in 1992. This Issue Paper is published in response to a legal attack on TABOR: A group of government apologists has sued in federal court claiming that by limiting legislative control over fiscal measures, Colorado has violated the U.S. Constitution.
In a nutshell, the new Issue Paper finds:
* The American Founders did not firmly distinguish between a โrepublicโ and a โdemocracy.โ Some used the two words as if they were synonymous. Some adopted the view of Montesquieu that there were two kinds of republics: (1) Those controlled by a few (aristocracies) and (2) those controlled by the many (democracies).
* Dictionaries of the time defined โrepublicโ as merely a popular government, as opposed to a monarchy. One encyclopedia-type dictionary included an article tracking Montesquieuโs definitions.
* In drafting and debating the Constitution, the Founders talked a lot about republics. In most of the governments they identified as republics (like the Athenian and Roman), citizens voted on all laws.
* Various Founders stated explicitly that in republics the people could make laws directly as well as through representatives.
* The only kind of democracy the Founders thought โunrepublicanโ was what Madison (following Aristotle) labeled โpure democracy.โ This was a theoretical form of government without officials, and where the mob ran everything in defiance of the rule of law. Other terms for the same thing are โmob rule,โ โmobocracyโ and โochlocracy.โ
* The dominant purpose of the Constitutionโs mandate that states have republican forms of government was not to prevent popular votes at the state and local level. (In fact, referenda already were being used in some states.) The dominant purpose was to prevent any state from becoming a monarchy.
* The twin mythsโthat the Founders drew a sharp line between โrepublicsโ and โdemocraciesโ and that citizen lawmaking is unrepublicanโdid not arise until the 1840s, when conservatives invented and promoted them in response to disturbances in Rhode Island. In fact, until about 40 years ago, it was mostly conservatives who made such arguments. Beginning in the 1970s, liberals adopted them while opposing measures that give the voters โa say in what they pay.โ
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PAPER
Opponents of popular participation in government have long argued that when a state constitution or legislature permits the people to vote on revenue measures and other laws, this puts the state out of compliance with the U.S. Constitutionโs Guarantee Clause: the requirement at all states have a โRepublican Form of Government.โ
Get the Book Today!
Traditionally, their argument has been that the Constitution draws a sharp distinction between a republic and a democracy, and that citizen initiatives and referenda are too democratic to be republican. Recently, a group of plaintiffs sued in federal court, challenging Coloradoโs Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) relying on a variation of this theory.
In this Issue Paper, Professor Rob Natelson, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and the author of the most important scholarly article on the Guarantee Clause, sets the record straight.
Marshaling evidence from Founding-Era sources and from the words of the Founders themselves, he shows that the phrase โRepublican Form of Governmentโ permits citizen lawmakingโand that, in fact, most of the governments on the Foundersโ list of republics included far more citizen lawmaking than is permitted in Colorado or any other American state. He further shows that the principal purpose of the Guarantee Clause was not to restrict popular government, but to protect popular government by forestalling monarchy
DOWNLOAD THE FULL PAPER HERE (.pdf)
- How the Founders Explained Limits on the Federal Government - January 21, 2026
- The Constitution and the Trump Tariffs - December 7, 2025
- Ancient Rome and the Constitution - October 29, 2025