The Negative Effects of Populism on Gay and Lesbian Rights n Christine Pappas, East Central University Jeanette Mendez, Oklahoma State University Rebekah Herrick, Oklahoma State University Objective. The objective of this article is to examine the degree to which populist features of state governments affect minority interests, particularly gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (GLB) Method. We examine the effects of specific institutional fea- tures that affect state government responsiveness to majority preferences on GLB policies: bans on same-sex marriage and hate crime. We also control for variations in political environment. Results. Features that increase popular control over pol- icy making and policymakers advance anti-GLB policies but have little effect on pro-GLB policies; however, legislative term limits have the opposite effect. Further, constituency size and senators’ term length increases both types of policies. Conclusions. The findings indicate that an unpopular minority is likely to be harmed by populist features that increase the role of citizens and may be helped by features that shield legislators from majoritarian preferences. The Founders feared that when unfiltered by republican institutions, the majority of voters would reject calls for equality from a discrete and insular minority, particularly an unpopular one. The basic problem is well known; since a majority can easily trample on the rights of a minority, limitations on its influence are sometimes necessary to protect minority rights. The use of initiatives and referenda to limit the rights of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (GLB) illustrates the situations that can occur with majority rule. Between 2000 and 2006, only one of 28 statewide ballot measures curtailing the rights of lesbians and gays to marry failed to pass (Geis, 2006). 1 Similarly, in examining initiatives and referenda used between 1972–2001, Haider-Mar- kel and Meier found that 71 percent of the 90 statewide anti-gay items passed, while 69 percent of the 32 pro-gay rights items failed (2003:676). Although less conclusive, the research on the effects of ballot initiatives for n Direct correspondence to Christine Pappas, East Central University h cpappas@ ecok.edui . Dr. Pappas will share all data and coding information with those wishing to replicate the study. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Southwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting April 15, 2006 in San Antonio, Texas. The order of authors is arbitrary. 1 When Arizona defeated Proposition 107 in November 2006, it was the first state to reject an attempt to limit the right of gays and lesbians to marry or form domestic partnerships. SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 90, Number 1, March 2009 r 2009 by the Southwestern Social Science Association