Obstacles to citizens’ understanding of the legal content of ballot measures were thought to lie in inconsistencies between the communicative practices of official summaries of such measures and citizens’ own legal communicative practices. Theory suggested that revising official ballot-measure summaries to include elements of citizens’ legal communicative practices would enhance citizens’ understanding of the legal content of ballot measures, confidence in that understanding, and confidence in their voting decision about such measures, and that intrapersonal reflection would mediate those effects. Those predictions were tested in a controlled experiment. Results showed no evidence of knowledge gains, but subjects exposed to a description of the policy objectives of a ballot measure showed significant increases in voting confidence. A subset of those subjects also experienced significant increases in knowledge confidence. Many findings were consistent with theories of sense-making (Dervin & Frenette, 2001), framing (Scheufele, 1999, 2000), and the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), and with the prediction that a “means-end” schema operates in citizens’ minds during deliberations about proposed laws.