The goal of this study was to examine the effect that readability and plain language had on voters' responses to Georgia's five legislatively-referred constitutional amendments (LRCA) in the November 2018 election. This study sought to answer the following questions regarding ballot readability and plain language: Do voters distinguish the difference between traditionally composed ballots and plain language ballots? Do voters have a preference between conventional worded ballots and reworded ballot language that improved readability? Given that partisan lawyers and lobbyists write many state ballot questions, there may be tendencies to compose legislatively-referred constitutional amendments in confusing and unclear language designed to increase the likelihood of passage. Simplification of the language, wording, and clarity of legislatively-referred constitutional amendments may have the opposite effect of facilitating a "no" vote on these amendments.
Readability, Plain Language, Direct Democracy, Voter Ballots, Language and Literacy Education, Reading and Language
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations