Difference between revisions of "Ballot Law Update: States propose 201 laws affecting initiative and referendum"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "{{law}}" to "{{LawSignup}}")
m (Updated dead link with link to Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.)
 
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
===Bills to watch===
 
===Bills to watch===
  
* [http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/billsummaries/SCR001.htm '''Colorado Senate Concurrent Resolution 1:'''] SCR 1 is a constitutional amendment that would require proposed amendments to receive a 60% super-majority for passage. This requirement does not apply to amendments repealing, wholly or partially, amendments passed before 2013. In addition, the amendment would create a geographic requirement based on the state's congressional districts. While these provisions would make the initiative process more difficult, the bill would require lawmakers to earn a 2/3 majority to modify or repeal a ballot measure for three years following its passage.<ref>[http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/02/09/bipartisan-coalition-proposes-making-it-harder-to-change-state-constitution/22688/ ''Denverpost.com,'' "Bipartisan coalition proposes making it harder to change state constitution," February 9, 2011]</ref> '''''Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: <span style="color:#FF0000"> Reduces initiative rights.</span>'''''
+
* [https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/billsummaries/SCR001.htm '''Colorado Senate Concurrent Resolution 1:'''] SCR 1 is a constitutional amendment that would require proposed amendments to receive a 60% super-majority for passage. This requirement does not apply to amendments repealing, wholly or partially, amendments passed before 2013. In addition, the amendment would create a geographic requirement based on the state's congressional districts. While these provisions would make the initiative process more difficult, the bill would require lawmakers to earn a 2/3 majority to modify or repeal a ballot measure for three years following its passage.<ref>[http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/02/09/bipartisan-coalition-proposes-making-it-harder-to-change-state-constitution/22688/ ''Denverpost.com,'' "Bipartisan coalition proposes making it harder to change state constitution," February 9, 2011]</ref> '''''Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: <span style="color:#FF0000"> Reduces initiative rights.</span>'''''
  
 
* [http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtSearch_lpa.html '''Connecticut Senate Joint Resolution 9:'''] SJ 9 proposes an amendment to the Connecticut constitution allowing for initiative and referendum. '''''Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: <span style="color:#088A4B"> Protects/expands initiative rights.</span>'''''
 
* [http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtSearch_lpa.html '''Connecticut Senate Joint Resolution 9:'''] SJ 9 proposes an amendment to the Connecticut constitution allowing for initiative and referendum. '''''Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: <span style="color:#088A4B"> Protects/expands initiative rights.</span>'''''
Line 33: Line 33:
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
  
*[[Portal:Ballot measure law|Ballot measure law]]
+
*[[Portal:Ballot Measure Law|Ballot measure law]]
 
*[[Signature requirements|State Signature Requirements]]
 
*[[Signature requirements|State Signature Requirements]]
  

Latest revision as of 06:10, 15 October 2014

April 11, 2011

Ballot law
BallotLaw final.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
Statutory changes
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges

Donate.png

By Tyler Millhouse

Since January 1, 2011, 201 laws have been proposed in 35 states, affecting the initiative and referendum process. Of these 201 proposed laws, two have so far been approved.[1]

The Citizens in Charge Foundation (CICF), a non-profit that promotes initiative and referendum rights, identifies potential laws which either ease or tighten restrictions on ballot initiatives. So far in 2011, CICF has identified 51 laws that make getting a measure on the ballot more difficult. They have identified 40 laws that would make the process easier. Of the two laws that have passed, one falls into each category.[2]

Overall, 2011 is on track to top 2010 in terms of introduced legislation. Historically, odd years have seen more proposed laws due to the structure of legislative sessions. Currently, 2011 is only 57 proposals short of 2010's total of 258.[1] However, it is possible that redistricting legislation and state budget battles may shift legislative attention away from the initiative process.

Bills to watch

  • Colorado Senate Concurrent Resolution 1: SCR 1 is a constitutional amendment that would require proposed amendments to receive a 60% super-majority for passage. This requirement does not apply to amendments repealing, wholly or partially, amendments passed before 2013. In addition, the amendment would create a geographic requirement based on the state's congressional districts. While these provisions would make the initiative process more difficult, the bill would require lawmakers to earn a 2/3 majority to modify or repeal a ballot measure for three years following its passage.[3] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.
  • Connecticut Senate Joint Resolution 9: SJ 9 proposes an amendment to the Connecticut constitution allowing for initiative and referendum. Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.
  • Florida Senate Bill 1504: SB 1504 would reduce the petition circulation time from 4 years to 30 months. In addition, it would ban out-of-state petition circulators, per-signature payment, and petition circulators that have been convicted of fraud, forgery or identity theft in the past five years. If a petition sponsor is convicted of hiring circulators contrary to these provisions, the sponsor would be subject to criminal penalties. The bill's authors have included a severability clause since a legal challenge of the residency requirement is likely. Five circuit courts in other parts of the country have struck down residency requirements.[4][5] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.
  • Massachusetts House Bill 183: H 183 would more than double Massachusetts' signature requirements for initiatives, amendments, referenda. To refer an initiative or amendment to the legislature, the requirement would jump from signatures equaling 3% of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to signatures equaling 7%. To override the legislature and place the measure on the ballot, the requirement would jump from .5% to 1.5%. In addition, the bill would double the current referendum requirement of 2%.[8][9] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.
  • Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution 37: SJR 37 would introduce a geographic distribution requirement for Oklahoma. Currently, petitioners must gather signatures equaling 8% of the vote cast for governor in the last election. Under SJR 37, petitioners would have to collect signatures equaling 8% of the vote cast for governor in each congressional district. Thus, while the total requirement would remain unchanged, petitioners would have to collect a portion of those of signature from each congressional district.[10] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

Approved legislation

  • Utah Senate Bill 165 (2011): SB 165 changes the basis of Utah's signature requirements from the number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to the number of votes cast in the last presidential election. This will raise the number of signatures required. In addition, the bill bans electronic signatures for ballot initiatives.[11] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.
  • Virginia Senate Bill 889 (2011): SB 889 removes the requirement that voters include the last four digits of their social security number when signing a petition. Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.

See also

References