Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures
Ballotpedia tracked 248 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall elections in 37 states during 2022 legislative sessions.
Of the 248 introduced bills, 25 bills (10.1%) were passed and enacted into law.
On this page, you will find:
- a list of state ballot measures to change ballot measure processes in 2022
- a list of bills enacted in 2022 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
- a map and list of bills proposed bills in 2022 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
- a list of court rulings that changed ballot measure processes
State ballot measures on initiative and referral processes
Voters in four states decided on five legislative proposals to change citizen-initiated ballot measure processes or legislative ballot measures on November 8, 2022. Voters in Florida rejected an amendment to abolish the Constitution Revision Commission. On June 7, voters in South Dakota rejected a constitutional amendment.
November 8
| State | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AR | Issue 2 | Require a 60% vote to approve ballot initiatives |
|
353,812 (41%) |
511,580 (59%) |
|
| AZ | Proposition 128 | Allow the Legislature to amend or repeal voter-approved ballot measures that contain provisions ruled unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court |
|
859,675 (36%) |
1,502,368 (64%) |
|
| AZ | Proposition 129 | Require citizen-initiated ballot measures to embrace a single subject |
|
1,311,046 (55%) |
1,062,533 (45%) |
|
| AZ | Proposition 132 | Require a 60% vote to pass ballot measures to approve taxes |
|
1,210,702 (51%) |
1,176,327 (49%) |
|
| CO | Proposition GG | Require a table showing changes in income tax owed for average taxpayers in certain brackets to be included in the ballot title for initiated measures |
|
1,704,757 (72%) |
665,476 (28%) |
|
| FL | Amendment 2 | Abolish the Florida Constitution Revision Commission |
|
3,744,930 (54%) |
3,206,762 (46%) |
June 7
| State | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD | Constitutional Amendment C | Require a three-fifths vote of approval for ballot measures that increase taxes or fees or require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years |
|
59,125 (33%) |
122,417 (67%) |
Legislation approved in 2022
Are you aware of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was enacted during a 2022 legislative session that is not listed here, email us at [email protected].
By legislative vote
The table below presents a list of bills passed in 2022, along with the percentages of Democrats and Republicans who voted in favor of these bills:
| State | Bill | D Support (%) | R Support (%) | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | HCR 2015 | 0.00% | 100.00% | R+100.0% |
| Florida | SB 524 | 1.82% | 99.00% | R+97.2% |
| Florida | HB 921 | 3.51% | 99.01% | R+95.5% |
| Ohio | HB 140 | 2.56% | 94.19% | R+91.6% |
| Alabama | SB 313 | 18.75% | 100.00% | R+81.3% |
| Florida | HB 777 | 96.43% | 100.00% | R+3.6% |
| Idaho | HB 695 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 0.0% |
| Michigan | HB 5252 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 0.0% |
| Nebraska | LB 843 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 0.0% |
| South Dakota | SB 138 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 0.0% |
| Utah | HB 218 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 0.0% |
| Utah | SB 38 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 0.0% |
| Virginia | HB 439 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 0.0% |
| South Dakota | SB 2 | 100.00% | 96.70% | D+3.3% |
| South Dakota | SB 187 | 100.00% | 96.67% | D+3.3% |
| Colorado | SB 237 | 100.00% | 69.23% | D+30.8% |
| California | SB 1360 | 100.00% | 26.32% | D+73.7% |
| California | AB 1416 | 95.35% | 7.69% | D+87.7% |
| New York | AB 4158 | 100.00% | 9.68% | D+90.3% |
| Washington | HB 1876 | 95.35% | 0.00% | D+95.3% |
| Maine | LD 1830 | 100.00% | 4.29% | D+95.7% |
| California | AB 2582 | 97.67% | 0.00% | D+97.7% |
| Maine | LD 1754 | 100.00% | 1.43% | D+98.6% |
| California | AB 2584 | 100.00% | 0.00% | D+100.0% |
| Colorado | SB 222 | 100.00% | 0.00% | D+100.0% |
By state
Alabama
- Senate Bill 313: The legislation was designed to prohibit public officials or public employees from spending public funds to advocate for or against a state or local ballot measure.[1]
Arizona
- House Concurrent Resolution 2015 (Proposition 132): The constitutional amendment required a 60% vote for voters to pass ballot measures to approve taxes. Voters approved the constitutional amendment at the election on November 8, 2022.
California
- Assembly Bill 1416: The legislation required ballot measure labels, which is the language that voters see on the ballot, to include a list of supporters and opponents of the ballot measure. Under AB 1416, the lists of supporters and opponents are those found in the voter information guide, and the two lists are each limited to 125 characters in length.[2]
- Assembly Bill 2582: The bill changed how local recall elections work in California. Previously, local recall elections involved two questions: "First, should the targeted elected official be recalled? Second, which candidate should replace the recalled official?" Under AB 2582, only the first question is part of a recall election — 'Should the targeted elected official be recalled?' If an official is recalled, then the vacancy is filled, typically by appointment or special election.[3]
- Assembly Bill 2584: The bill increased the number of proponents needed to initiate a recall petition depending on a jurisdiction's number of registered voters. The bill also created a review period of 10 days for local recall petitions, in which a voter can challenge the reasons listed on the recall petition as false, misleading, or inconsistent with legal requirements.[4]
- Senate Bill 1360: The legislation made changes to statements required on initiative, referendum, and recall petitions, including adding "You have the right to see an 'official top funders' sheet;" "This petition may be circulated by a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer. You have the right to ask;" and other statements.[5]
Colorado
- Senate Bill 222 (Proposition GG): Voters approved SB 222 as Proposition GG on November 8, 2022. The legislation required the ballot titles and fiscal impact summaries for initiatives that affect income taxes to include information on how the change would affect income taxes for different categories of income.[6]
- Senate Bill 237: The legislation changed the definition used to determine whether an organization, such as a nonprofit, must report spending to support or oppose ballot measures with the state.[7]
Florida
- Senate Bill 524: The legislation made changes to the state's election policies, including but not limited to ballot initiatives. SB 524 required state officials to discontinue reviewing an initiated amendment should signatures expire during the review process; these officials have 30 days to review an initiated amendment. The bill also increased criminal penalties for forging someone's signature on an initiative petition and for paying a circulator based on the number of petition forms gathered.[8]
- House Bill 777: The legislation required that local referendums dealing with certain local tax levies, such as tourist development taxes, children’s services special district taxes, local option fuel taxes, school district millage taxes, and others, be voted on at general elections. Therefore, the bill required that these referendum votes cannot be held as special elections.[9]
- House Bill 921: The legislation was designed to make multiple changes to campaign finance rules regarding ballot measures, including a provision to prohibit an out-of-state donor from giving more than $3,000 to support or oppose an initiative during signature gathering and to prohibit a political action committee that does not have an office in Florida from accepting a contribution of more than $3,000 and a provision banning political contributions surrounding Florida elections from foreign nationals.[10]
- On June 15, 2022, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor issued a permanent injunction against the bill, blocking the changes from taking effect.[11]
Idaho
- House Bill 695: The legislation aligned the number of signatures required for a local recall petition with the votes cast in that specific district, subdistrict, or zone. Previously, state law aligned the number of signatures with the votes cast in the district, without mention of subdistrict or zone.[12]
Maine
- Legislative Document 1754: In Maine, a major contributor must file a major contributor report. A major contributor is defined as an organization that contributes $100,000 or more to a PAC or ballot measure committee to influence a ballot question outcome. One of the requirements is to report the five largest sources of funds received by the major contributor during the six months prior to making the first contribution. LD 1754 provided major contributors with the ability to ask for a waiver upon a sworn statement explaining the circumstances preventing a timely or complete report. Under LD 1754, The Maine Ethics Commission decides whether to grant a waiver or not.[13]
- Legislative Document 1830: The legislation made changes to the state's election policies, including but not limited to ballot initiatives. LD 1830 provided that the Maine secretary of state must propose a ballot question for an indirect initiative after signatures are verified, rather than at the end of the legislative session. The bill also provided procedures that a voter can use to challenge the ballot question, starting the process in the Maine Superior Court, which must issue an opinion no later than 60 days before the election, with an option to further appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which must issue an opinion no later than 50 days before the election. LD 1830 also provided that the fiscal impact statement for an initiative petition must be printed on the first page of a petition, rather than on each page.[14]
Michigan
- House Bill 5252: The legislature required the Michigan secretary of state to post on the department's website a summary of a ballot measure petition and the date the petition was filed.[15]
Nebraska
- Legislative Bill 843: The legislation made changes to the state's election policies, including but not limited to ballot initiatives. LB 843 prohibited initiative sponsors from making a change to their proposal "that is substantially different in form or substance from the initial filing or the changes recommended by the Revisor of Statutes."[16]
New York
- Assembly Bill 4158: The bill prohibited private individuals or entities from paying for the administrative costs associated with conducting a referendum election.[17]
Ohio
- House Bill 140: The bill made changes to the ballot language for local property tax ballot measures, including requiring property tax levies to be displayed as an amount per $100,000 of appraised value and stating the estimated amount of annual tax revenue from the levy.[18]
South Dakota
- Senate Bill 2: The bill required that ballot initiatives approved by voters be published in the state's session laws.[19]
- Senate Bill 138: The legislation clarified provisions related to when a local referendum against an ordinance or resolution can be filed. Language changed from "within 20 days... after publication" to "within 20 days... after publication of the ordinance or resolution in the last to publish official county newspaper."[20]
- Senate Bill 187: The bill required state agencies to provide information requested by the Legislative Research Council to prepare fiscal notes for ballot initiatives.[21]
Utah
- House Bill 218: The bill made several changes to the ballot initiative process in Utah, including establishing a process for electronically collecting signatures, within the presence of a signature gatherer using an approved device.[22]
- Senate Bill 38: The legislation redesigned the language that appears on the ballot for state ballot initiatives. Previously, a ballot title was prepared for each citizen-initiated ballot measure. Under SB 38, a ballot title to not exceed 25 words and a ballot summary to not exceed 125 words are prepared.[23]
Virginia
- House Bill 439: The bill provided that when a constitutional amendment or statewide referendum is included on the ballot, the instructions accompanying absentee ballot materials must include the website address where the explanation for that specific amendment or referendum can be found on the Department of Elections' website.[24]
Washington
- House Bill 1876: The legislation required public investment impact disclosure statements to appear on the ballot for ballot measures that would repeal, levy, or modify a tax or fee or has a fiscal impact that would cause a net change in state revenue. The bill provided that a public investment impact disclosure statement must appear in the following format — "This measure would (increase or decrease) funding for (description of services)."[25]
Legislation in 2022
The following map shows the number of bills related to ballot measures or recall elections in each state. Click on a state to see a list of bills in that state. Click Back in the upper left-hand corner to return to the map.
Rulings in 2022
The following is a list of court rulings issued in 2022 that affected the ballot measure process.
Arizona
Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Hobbs
On August 19, 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court released the order for an earlier ruling, finding that veto referendums cannot repeal tax decreases or increases, except in cases when a tax would fund a new government department. As of 2022, the Arizona Constitution prohibited referendums against legislation regarding the support and maintenance of state government. Justice John Lopez IV wrote the 7-2 majority's opinion, stating that both tax increases and decreases relate to the "support and maintenance of existing departments of the state government and state institutions." Justices Bill Montgomery and James Beene dissented.[26]
In December 2021, Maricopa Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper ruled that a veto referendum that leaves the state with additional funds, rather than less, does not hinder the support and maintenance of state government.[27]
The decision removed a veto referendum from the ballot that sought to repeal a bill to reduce the state's income tax from four brackets (ranging from 2.59% to 4.50%) to two brackets (2.55% and 2.98%) and further reduce the tax brackets to a flat rate of 2.50% when state revenue exceeds $12.976 billion.[28]
Maine
We the People PAC et al. v. Bellows
- See also: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, We the People PAC et al. v. Bellows, July 7, 2022
On July 7, 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the state from enforcing a law requiring petition circulators to be registered voters, and, therefore, state residents. "[T]he burden on core political speech that the residency- and voter-registration requirements each imposes arises from the drastic limitation on the pool of out-of-state circulators that each inherently imposes," wrote the Court.[29]
We the People PAC initiated the litigation. The PAC hired professional out-of-state petition circulators, along with in-state circulators, to collect signatures for the Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative.
On February 16, 2021, Judge John Woodcock of the U.S. District Court for Maine enjoined the state from enforcing a law requiring petition circulators to be registered voters, and, therefore, state residents. Woodcock wrote that "the First Amendment’s free speech protections trump the state’s regulatory authority."[30]
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows appealed the district court's ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Michigan
League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State
- See also: Michigan Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, January 24, 2022
On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state.[31] [32]
In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The legislation—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, the Michigan House and Senate filed lawsuits against Nessel. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens decided that the House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel. The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
On January 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 unconstitutional.[33] The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel
On July 31, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that legislators adopting a citizen-initiated statute, and then amending the initiative during the same legislative session, violated the Michigan Constitution. The decision was along partisan lines, with the court's four Democrats ruling against adopt-and-amend. The court's three Republicans dissented.[34]
Justice Elizabeth Welch (D) wrote the court's opinion, which said, "[W]e hold that Article 2, § 9 provides the Legislature with three—and only three—options upon receiving a valid initiative petition. Any legislative response to a valid initiative petition that falls outside those three discrete options is unconstitutional and impermissibly infringes upon the people’s reserved power." The three options are: (1) enact the law “without change or amendment” within 40 days; (2) “reject the proposed law, in which case the proposed law will appear on the ballot;” or (3) propose a competing measure to appear on the ballot alongside the initiative.
Justice Elizabeth Clement (R), in her dissent, wrote, "There is certainly reason to be frustrated by the Legislature’s actions here... But nothing in Article 2, § 9 restricts the Legislature from doing so. And as tempting as it might be to step into the breach, this Court lacks the power to create restrictions out of whole cloth."
In 2018, two indirect initiated state statutes — one to increase the minimum wage, and the other to require paid sick leave — received enough signatures to appear on the ballot in Michigan. These proposed ballot measures were indirect initiated state statutes. In Michigan, citizen-initiated statutes that receive enough valid signatures are sent to the Legislature, which then has 40 days to pass the initiative into law. Otherwise, the initiative appears on the next general election ballot.
On September 5, 2018, the House and Senate voted to pass the indirect initiatives, enacting them into law. On December 4, 2018, the Legislature voted to amend the enacted initiatives, and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the bills on December 13.
Michigan One Fair Wage and Michigan Time to Care — the campaigns behind the two initiatives — sued the state of Michigan. Plaintiffs described the legislative amendments as an adopt-and-amend tactic that violated Section 9 of Article 2 of the Michigan Constitution. Defendants argued that nothing prohibited the Legislature from amending enacted indirect initiatives.[35]
On July 19, 2022, Court of Claims Judge Douglas Shapiro ruled against the state, holding that the legislature's amendments to the enacted initiatives were unconstitutional. Judge Shapiro wrote, "Both the letter and spirit of Article 2, § 9 support the conclusion that the Legislature has only three options to address voter-initiated legislation within the same legislative session—adopt it, reject it, or propose an alternative. Once the Legislature adopted the Earned Sick Time Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Act, it could not amend the laws within the same legislative session. To hold otherwise would effectively thwart the power of the People to initiate laws and then vote on those same laws—a power expressly reserved to the people in the Michigan Constitution."[35] Judge Shapiro stayed the court's order until February 19, 2023.[36]
On January 26, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling, upholding the legislative action as constitutional. Judge Christopher Murray said, "The constitutional convention record squarely supports the conclusion that there was no intention to place a temporal limit on when the Legislature could amend initiated laws enacted by the Legislature."[37][38] Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), as well as the campaigns behind two affected initiatives, appealed the ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on June 21, 2023.[39][40][41] On December 7, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the adopt-and-amend legislative action.[42]
On July 31, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that adopt-and-amend was unconstitutional. As the legislature's actions were ruled unconstitutional, the court ordered that the ballot initiatives go into effect on Feb. 21, 2025, with amended timelines for implementation.
Missouri
No Bans on Choice et al. v. Ashcroft
On February 8, 2022, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that state law prohibiting signature gathering for a veto referendum before the referendum's official ballot title is certified violates citizens' constitutional rights to use the referendum process. The 3-2 opinion upheld a lower court's ruling, which held that the statutes "dramatically reduce the time available for the circulation of a referendum petition, both in theory and in practice." As of 2022, veto referendum campaigns in Missouri had 90 days following the legislature's adjournment to submit enough valid signatures for a veto referendum. The challenged statutes permitted the government to take up to 51 days to prepare an official ballot title, leaving campaigns with "39 days under the worst-case scenario" to collect signatures, according to the court.[43]
The No Bans on Choice Committee and ACLU filed the litigation after suspending their signature drive for a veto referendum, saying there was insufficient time. The organizations were supporting a referendum against House Bill 126 (HB 126), which included an eight-week abortion ban except in the case of medical emergencies.[44]
On December 4, 2020, Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem ruled that Missouri could not prohibit campaigns from gathering signatures prior to receiving a certified ballot title.[45] The ruling was appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Montana
Pierce et al. v. Jacobsen et al.
On August 10, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Montana is allowed to ban paying circulators based on the number of signatures collected but cannot restrict circulators from out-of-state.[46]
Regarding the restriction on out-of-state signature gatherers, Judge John Tunheim wrote, "[T]he residency requirement imposes an outright ban on a form of core political speech for all non-residents and necessarily diminishes the pool of (petition) circulators. We thus hold that the residency requirement here imposes a severe burden on the First Amendment rights of both out-of-state residents and instate proponents."[47]
Regarding the ban on pay-per-signature, the opinion read that "the restriction rationally reduces the incentive to forge signatures and commit fraud" and "the state has established that an important regulatory interest is furthered by this restriction."[46]
Nevada
Cegavske v. Hollowood et al.
On June 28, 2022, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that sponsors of certified statewide ballot initiatives could have their initiatives withdrawn. In 2021, the Legislature passed a bill allowing initiative sponsors to withdraw measures after having signatures verified up to 90 days before the election. Justice Lidia Stiglich wrote, "Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution sets out the initiative petition process, does not specifically bar withdrawal of an initiative petition, and permits the Legislature to enact statutes facilitating the initiative-petition process."[48]
In 2021, the Clark County Education Association sponsored two initiatives—a sales tax initiative and a gaming tax initiative—that qualified for the ballot following signature drives. However, following negotiations with the legislature, the sponsors reached a compromise and agreed to withdraw the initiatives.
Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) said the Nevada Constitution did not grant her the power to remove initiatives from the ballot. She cited the constitutional provision that directs her office to place initiatives on the ballot once sufficient signatures are verified. Sponsors filed a lawsuit against Cegavske. On March 9, 2021, First Judicial District Court Judge James Wilson ruled against Cegavske, writing, "Reading the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions in harmony, the Secretary of State’s ministerial duty in this instance becomes clear: take no further action on these initiative petitions."[49] On March 15, 2022, Cegavske appealed the ruling.[50]
Evaluating the effect of legislative changes on ballot initiatives
Ballotpedia has identified the following legislative changes as making the ballot initiative process more difficult in a given state.
The legislative changes examined in this analysis are based on general concepts found in proposed and approved bills concerning ballot measures. These changes do not always make the initiative process harder or easier to use. The effect of these changes depends on the specific details of each change, how the various policies in a state interact, and the particular ballot initiatives being considered.
There are often competing ideas about a bill's intent. While a bill's sponsor could view a change as intended to increase rural representation or reduce out-of-state organizations from being involved in state politics, a bill's opponent could view a change as undermining the ballot initiative process or designed to impede certain initiative campaigns. Ballotpedia does not endorse a position or argument regarding the policies listed below.
The following list was designed to evaluate policies based on their likelihood of making signature drives or campaigns more resource-intensive, including requiring more spending or travel; increasing the likelihood of signatures being rejected; limiting the potential pool of signature gatherers; limiting the potential pool of campaign donors; making an initiative or petition more susceptible to litigation; and decreasing the odds of a measure being approved due to specific election requirements.
| Topic | Policy change | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Signature requirements | Increase the number of signatures required for a citizen-initiated measure | Increase a signature requirement from 5% of registered voters to 8% of registered voters |
| Increase the number of political subdivisions, such as legislative districts or counties, that signatures must be gathered from | Increase the signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated measures from 15 counties to 50 counties | |
| Increase the number of signatures that must be collected from each political subdivision | Increase the number of signatures needed in each legislative district from 3% of qualified voters to 6% of qualified voters | |
| Circulation period | Decrease the number of days that campaigns have to collect signatures | Decrease the number of days that a campaign has to collect signatures from 180 days to 120 days |
| Provide that signatures expire at the end of an election cycle | Provide that a campaign's signatures cannot be collected during one election cycle and submitted during the next one | |
| Decrease the cure period length for signatures | Repeal a law allowing campaigns to submit additional signatures when their initial submission falls short of the requirement | |
| Tighten the qualifications to have a signature cure period | Increase the number of valid signatures needed with an initial signature submission to be allowed to have a signature cure period | |
| Initiative content | Create or make stricter a single-subject rule | Provide that a citizen-initiated ballot measure must address a single subject |
| Create or make stricter subject restrictions | Provide that citizen-initiated ballot measures cannot address certain subjects | |
| Prohibit initiatives that allocate funds without a funding source | Provide that citizen-initiated ballot measures cannot allocate funds without providing a specific funding source, like a tax | |
| Create or make stricter a separate-vote requirement | Provide that a constitutional amendment cannot amend different parts of a state constitution | |
| Circulator requirements | Prohibit or otherwise restrict out-of-state or out-of-jurisdiction signature gatherers | Prohibit volunteer or paid signature gatherers who reside outside the state |
| Prohibit people from collecting signatures for previous criminal convictions | Prohibit persons with criminal convictions or specific criminal convictions from collecting signatures | |
| Prohibit or otherwise restrict paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected (pay-per-signature) | Prohibit paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected, which is an efficient method of payment for campaigns | |
| Create circulator registration and training requirements | Require potential signature gatherers to register with the state and/or take a training course | |
| Create or make stricter circulator in-the-filed requirements | Require signature gatherers to read petitions out loud; require them to give an initiative text to each signer; and require them to swear that a signer read and understood the text | |
| Require circulators to sign an affidavit or obtain notarization for a petition sheet | Require the person who collects the signatures for a given petition sheet to sign an affidavit or have the sheet notarized | |
| Signer requirements | Require that petition signers be disclosed on a government-sponsored website | Require that the state or local jurisdiction publish the names of persons who signed a petition |
| Require additional information to be provided or disclosed for petition signers | Require that additional information about petition signers be provided or disclosed, such as a signer's birth date, voter ID number, address, or other information | |
| Petition requirements | Increase the number of official proponents required to initiate a petition | Increase the number of official proponents or sponsors needed from three to 10 persons to initiate a petition |
| Require or increase a filing fee for proposed initiatives before signature gathering can begin | Increase a filing fee for proposed initiative petitions from $500 to $2,000 | |
| Reduce the number of signatures allowed per petition sheet | Require that no more than a certain number, such as 25, signatures can be added to a petition sheet | |
| Require that petition sheets must be used within specific jurisdictions and not others | Provide that signatures cannot be collected from, for example, two counties using the same petition sheet | |
| Create or make stricter requirements regarding the detailed appearance or format of petitions | Require petition format to follow specific detailed guidelines and void signatures when the format is incorrect | |
| Ballot language | Provide that officials write the ballot language for a measure after signatures are collected | Change when the ballot language, such as the question or title, is published, from before to after signature gathering is completed |
| Litigation requirements | Increase the susceptibility of initiative petitions to litigation | Increase the length of periods during which challenges to initiatives may be filed |
| Election requirements | Increase the size of the vote required for a ballot measure to pass | Require a supermajority vote, rather than a simple majority, for voters to pass a ballot measure |
| Require that a ballot measure be passed at more than one election to be approved | Require that a ballot measure be approved in two sequential elections, as is the case for initiated amendments in Nevada, before the measure is enacted | |
| Add a double majority requirement for ballot measures | Require that a ballot measure receive a majority vote and that a certain percentage of registered voters cast ballots or vote on the measure | |
| Campaign finance requirements | Establish or make stricter restrictions on contributions to ballot measure campaigns | Provide that donors to ballot initiative committees cannot give above a certain amount |
| Establish or make stricter restrictions on out-of-state donors to ballot measure campaigns | Provide that potential donors who do not live or are not incorporated in the state cannot contribute to ballot initiative committees | |
| Establish or make stricter restrictions on contributions to ballot measure campaigns during the signature-gathering phase | Provide that a single donor cannot give more than a certain amount to a ballot initiative committee until the measure is certified for the ballot |
Disclosure of information and other changes
The disclosure of campaign finance or other information, such as fiscal impact statements, can have variable effects on ballot initiative campaigns depending on how voters respond to the disclosed information. Other changes that could affect initiative outcomes are the criminalization of fraudulent signature-gathering and election date requirements. These types of policies are not included in this analysis on legislative changes that make the ballot initiative process more difficult due to their variable effects.
| Topic | Policy change | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Signature withdrawal | Provide that information on how to withdraw a signature from a petition | Publish information on the steps that a person would need to take to get their signature removed from a petition |
| Impact statements | Require a financial or economic impact statement for a ballot measure to be provided on a petition or on the ballot | Require that a petition for an initiative include information on possible fiscal or economic effects of a proposal |
| Require a government spending or revenue impact statement for a ballot measure to be provided on a petition or on the ballot | Require that a petition for an initiative increasing or decreasing taxes include information on how government revenue and programs could be affected | |
| Provide that officials write the fiscal impact statement for a measure after signatures are collected | Change when the fiscal impact statement is published, from before signature gathering to after circulation | |
| Legislative hearing requirements | Require legislative hearings to be held on a proposed ballot initiative | Require that a legislative committee or other government body hold public hearings on a proposed ballot initiative |
| Require that a legislative committee or other officials vote to support or oppose a measure and have that information published | Require that petitions include information on the stances of certain public officials | |
| Criminal penalties | Establish specific crimes, charges, and penalties related to the initiative process | Making the willful submission of fraudulent petition signatures a specific crime with a specific punishment |
| Campaign finance disclosure | Require that the names of some donors be included on or with petitions for potential signers to see | Require that a sheet listing the top three donors to a ballot initiative committee be given to potential signers |
| Election requirements | Provide that measures proposing supermajority requirements for other measures must pass by the same vote requirement being proposed | Provide that a measure proposing a two-thirds vote on certain initiatives must itself receive a two-thirds vote |
| Provide that ballot measures can only be decided on certain election dates | Require that ballot measures must be decided on special election dates, rather than general election dates |
See also
- Changes to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures
Footnotes
- ↑ Alabama State Legislature, "Senate Bill 313," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1416," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 2582," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 2584," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1360," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "Senate Bill 222," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "Senate Bill 237," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Florida State Senate, "Senate Bill 524," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Florida State Senate, "House Bill 777," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Florida State Senate, "House Bill 921," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ News4Jax, "Judge strikes down law limiting ballot initiative donations," accessed June 16, 2022
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "House Bill 695," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1754," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1830," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 5252," accessed June 13, 2023
- ↑ Nebraska State Legislature, "Legislative Bill 843," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ New York State Senate, "Assembly Bill 4158," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Ohio State Legislature, "House Bill 140," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 2," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 138," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 187," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 218," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 38," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Virginia Legislative Information Service, "House Bill 439," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Washington State Legislature, "House Bill 1876," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Arizona Supreme Court, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Hobbs, August 19, 2022
- ↑ Tucson.com, "Judge: Arizonans have right to vote on Legislature's $1.9 billion tax cut plan," December 22, 2021
- ↑ ArizonaDailyIndependent.com, "New Flat Rate Income Tax Structure Is Upheld By Arizona Supreme Court," April 22, 2022
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, "We the People PAC et al. v. Bellows," July 7, 2022
- ↑ Bangor Daily News, "Federal judge puts key Maine referendum law on hold amid GOP lawsuit," February 17, 2021
- ↑ Detroit CBS, "Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Law To Make Petition Drives Harder," January 24, 2022
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State," January 24, 2022
- ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Senate and House of Representatives v. Secretary of State," January 27, 2020
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "Mothering Justice et al. v. Michigan, July 31, 2024
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 Michigan Court of Claims, "Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel," July 19, 2022
- ↑ JDSUPRA, "Michigan Court Reinstates Minimum Wage and Sick Leave Initiative Unconstitutionally Amended by State Legislature," August 2, 2022
- ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel, January 26, 2023
- ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Michigan minimum wage increase, paid sick leave wiped out after appeals panel ruling," January 26, 2023
- ↑ Michigan Attorney General, "AG Nessel asks Michigan Supreme Court to Weigh in on Adopt and Amend," March 10, 2023
- ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Group appeals minimum wage, sick time ruling to Michigan Supreme Court," February 10, 2023
- ↑ The Center Square, "Michigan Supreme Court will hear minimum wage appeal," June 21, 2023
- ↑ NPR, "Michigan Supreme Court to hear arguments on 'adopt-and-amend'," December 7, 2023
- ↑ Missouri Supreme Court, No Bans on Choice et al. v. Ashcroft, February 8, 2022
- ↑ Idaho Statesman, "Missouri referendum petition laws ruled unconstitutional," December 7, 2020
- ↑ Idaho Statesman, "Missouri referendum petition laws ruled unconstitutional," December 7, 2020
- ↑ 46.0 46.1 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Pierce et al. v. Jacobsen et al., August 10, 2022
- ↑ Helena Independent Record, "Appeals court allows out-of-state signature gathers in Montana," August 10, 2022
- ↑ Nevada Supreme Court, Cegavske v. Hollowood, June 28, 2022
- ↑ The Nevada Independent, "Judge rules sales, gaming tax petitions must be taken off 2022 ballot," March 9, 2022
- ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Cegavske will appeal ruling on withdrawal of tax-hike initiatives," March 15, 2022
