Single-subject rule

From Ballotpedia

Ballot law
State laws
Initiative law Recall law 2009 lawsuits Statutory changes
Court cases
Lawsuit news Ballot access rulings Recent court cases Petitioner access Ballot title challenges Superseding initiatives Signature challenges

Single-subject rules require that an initiative contain only one issue or subject. The initiative can only address one question.

There are currently 14 states that have a single-subject rule in their I&R laws:

• Alaska (Alaska Stat. 15.45.040), Arizona, California (Const. Art. II, Sec. 8 (d)), Colorado (Const. Art. V, Sec. 1 (5.5) and Colo. Rev. Stat. 1-40-106.5), Florida (Const. Art. XI Sec. 3), Missouri (Const. Art. III Sec. 50), Montana, Nebraska (Const. Art. III sec. 2), Nevada (N.R.S. 295.009), Ohio (O.R.C. 3519.01), Oklahoma, [Oregon]] (Const. Art. IV sec. 1 (2)(d)), Washington and Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. 22-24-105 (a)).

Arguments in favor

Supporters of imposing a single-subject requirement on initiatives see its advantages as:

• Initiatives that address only one subject are easier for voters to understand.
• It allows voters to express a clear intent on a single issue.
• It prevents a situation arising where a single initiative is placed on the ballot that includes a provision that is very popular with voters along with an unrelated provision that an initiative proponent cares about, but about which voters care little, are neutral or opposed.

For example, in 1984, the Florida Supreme Court wrote:

"This (single subject) requirement avoids voters having to accept part of an initiative proposal, which they oppose in order to obtain a change in the

constitution, which they support. An initiative proposal with multiple subjects, in which the public has had no representative interest in drafting, places voters with different views on the subjects contained in the proposal in the position of having to choose which subject they feel most strongly about."^[1]

Arguments against

Those who criticize single-subject rules see its disadvantages as being:

• The rule can be so strictly enforced that only the narrowest of subjects can make it on the ballot.
• The existence of a single-subject rule can lead to frivolous or blocking lawsuits against initiatives, thus making the process of qualifying initiatives for the ballot more cumbersome and expensive.

Relevant court cases

• Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington. Invalidated Washington Initiative 695 (1999).

• Armatta v. Kitzhaber. In this 1998 decision, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated Oregon Ballot Measure 40 (1996) on single-subject grounds.

• California Trial Lawyers Association v. Eu. This lawsuit pre-emptively struck the proposed "Insurance Cost Control Initiative" of 1988 from the California ballot on single-subject grounds.

• Campbell v. Buckley. An unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's single-subject rule.

• Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association v. Deukmejian.

• Committee for a Healthy Future v. Carnahan.

• Dale v. Keisling.

• League of Oregon Cities v. Bradbury. Invalidated Oregon Ballot Measure 7 (2000).

• Missourians to Protect Initiative Process v. Blunt.

• United Gamefowl Breeders v. Nixon. Unsuccessful effort to invalidate the Missouri Cockfighting Initiative (1998) on single-subject grounds.

• Fine v. Firestone, a 1984 decision of the Florida Supreme Court.

External links

• Initiatives and the New Single-Subject Rule, by Daniel Lowenstein, in Election Law Journal, 2002.
• NCSL explanation of the single-subject rule
• Ending court protection of voters from the initiative process, Richard Hasen, in the Yale Law Journal, November 2006.
• New judicial resistance to direct democracy, Kenneth Miller, August 2002.

	v • d • e Laws governing the initiative process
State overviews	Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Florida · Idaho · Maine · Massachusetts · Michigan · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · New Mexico · Nevada · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · South Dakota · Utah · Washington · Wyoming
Signatures	Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Washington, D.C. • Wyoming
Lawsuits	2010 litigation • 2009 litigation • 2008 litigation • Ballot title litigation • Lawsuit news • Pay-per-signature litigation • Petitioner access • Post-certification signature challenges • Prohibited subjects • Signature challenges • Signature recovery lawsuits • Single-subject lawsuits • Superseding initiatives
Requirements	Access • Badges • Ballot title issues • Deadlines • Defining a signature • Distribution • Pay restrictions • Signature withdrawal • Residency • Signature numbers • Single subject • Signature transcription
Changes	2007 changes • 2008 changes • 2009 changes • Pseudo-reforms of the ballot initiative process
Terms	Ballot summary • Circulation period • Circulator • Circulator affidavit • Forged signature • Fraudulent signature • Invalid signature • Legislative tampering • Paid circulator • Petition • Registered voter • Signer • Valid signature • Volunteer circulator