How do party cues and policy arguments work together to influence voters' decisions? In direct democratic campaigns, citizens' vote choices are shaped by two critical factors: party cues and positions on arguments for or against a proposal. However, previous research often overlooks the interplay between these factors. First, these factors are not independent, they interact during political campaigns. Second, this interaction is dynamic, as citizens learn and adapt their opinions throughout the campaign. Based on motivated reasoning theory, we hypothesize that voters whose positions on policy arguments conflict with their perception of their preferred party's vote recommendation prioritize the latter. We test this hypothesis on three-wave panel data from two direct democratic votes in California and two in Switzerland. Contrary to our expectations, substantive evaluations of ballot measures override party cues, which only take the lead when voters lack strong positions on policy arguments. The results have strong implications for the role of information in direct democracy.