THE CITIZENS’ REVIEW THAT COULD HAVE BEEN

This chapter examines a proposal for a national Citizens’ Review that was developed but not implemented in advance of Australia’s 2023 Voice referendum. Drawing on the Citizens’ Initiative Review model pioneered in Oregon, the authors outline how a stratified random sample of lay citizens could have deliberated on competing claims, questioned experts and advocates, and produced a publicly distributed citizens’ statement summarising the strongest arguments on both sides. The chapter synthesises evidence that such mini-publics enhance public knowledge, reduce factual misperceptions, and mitigate motivated reasoning, arguing that these functions were especially needed in a referendum campaign marked by misinformation, information overload, and polarisation. It then details the Australian proposal’s design, including scale, representativeness, and dissemination strategy, before analysing why it failed to secure federal support or funding. The chapter concludes that while a Citizens’ Review might not have altered the referendum outcome, it could have improved the epistemic quality and democratic legitimacy of the campaign, offering lessons for future constitutional reform processes.