Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Ballot Law Update: 2015 could feature big changes in ballot law
January 28, 2014
By Josh Altic
As of January 28, at least 60 bills concerning ballot measure law were proposed or reconsidered during the 2015 legislative sessions of 21 states. Of the total, 54 were introduced this year, and the other six were carried over from the 2014 legislative session in New Jersey. The changes in laws proposed this year range from efforts to make the initiative and referendum process more difficult or regulate campaign contributions to bills that would establish the power of initiative in non-I&R states or make the power more accessible. There are also some important changes in the forecast for local petition laws in Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee, where activists are suing for the right to use electronic signatures in a marijuana decriminalization initiative, and Springfield, Missouri, where the city council is looking at ways to make referendum petitions more difficult in the wake of a successful signature campaign against the council's LGBT non-discrimination ordinance.
See this article for a periodically updated list of proposed ballot measure law changes in each state. The page also includes a brief summary of each proposed bill, the status of the bill and links to more information.
Laws increasing accessibility of initiative, referendum and recall
This year, lawmakers in at least four non-I&R states will be pushing to establish the initiative and referendum power. These states include New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Also in New Jersey, some lawmakers are seeking to lower the signature threshold for recall petitions from 25 percent of registered voters to 25 percent of those who voted in the last general election. Because voter-turnout fluctuates and is often lower than 50 percent, this would drastically shrink the required signature threshold.
Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution 13, introduced by Sen. David Holt (R-30), seeks a constitutional amendment that would decrease the signature requirement for statutory initiatives and referendums from 8 percent of legal voters to just 2 percent. It would also lower the requirement for an initiated constitutional amendment from 15 percent to 10 percent of registered voters.[1] Moreover, a proposed legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Illinois - HJRCA 4 - would remove a severe subject restriction on state initiatives, changing the process from a largely unused power with a small scope to an important and influential facet of Illinois politics.
| Voting on Direct Democracy Measures |
|---|
|
| Ballot Measures |
| By state |
| By year |
| Not on ballot |
| Ballot Law Update |
Laws increasing restrictions to initiative, referendum and recall
In Missouri, an amendment seeking to increase the signature requirement for initiated constitutional amendments from 8 percent to 15 percent was introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick (R-158) and is moving through the legislature as HJR 13.[2]
Senate Joint Resolution 8201 in Washington seeks a constitutional amendment that would require future initiatives having to do with state expenditures or state revenues to not upset the budget of the state. In other words, under the amendment, initiatives would have to propose ways to pay for themselves, where previously they could give a mandate that would have to be enforced and implemented by the state through existing funds. If the resolution is approved by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the legislature, it would go to the voters, where a simple majority would be required to pass the amendment.[3][4]
Two separate state legislatures will be considering bills that would restrict political contributions from corporations - including donations in support of or opposition to ballot measures. Both Senate Bill 220 in Hawaii and Legislative Document 53 in Maine were designed to require corporations to get approval from a majority of shareholders before contributing to any political committees. They would also require that the corporation give notice of approved contributions to its shareholders and allow shareholders that voted against the contribution to demand a prorated reimbursement of the donation. The bills would also prevent any corporation from making a political contribution if the majority of its shares are owned by companies or persons who are prohibited from making contributions under state law or are barred from taking a political position in the state.[5][6]
The stated purpose of Washington Senate Bill 5153 is to increase the "transparency of campaign contributions." The bill would create a new definition, stating that an "incidental committee" is any person or organization that, while not being registered directly in support of or opposition to a candidate or ballot measure, might incidentally contribute to a candidate or ballot measure either directly or through another organization or committee. The bill would require such "incidental committees" to file with the appropriate state commission if they expect to or actually make contributions and expenditures of more than $25,000 for statewide campaigns and $5,000 for any local campaign.[7][8]
| Voting on Hunting & Fishing |
|---|
|
| Ballot Measures |
| By state |
| By year |
| Not on ballot |
Other notable bills
Rep. Linda Black (R-117) pre-filed Missouri House Joint Resolution 19 for the 2015 legislative session. If approved by the legislature and the voters, the proposal would amend the Missouri Constitution to require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the people for any future initiatives concerning "bird, fish, game, wildlife, or forestry resources."[9]
Local ballot measure law news
Pro-marijuana activists in Nashville, Tennessee, sue for the right to use electronic signatures for initiative:
In late 2014, members of the Tennessee branch of NORML proposed a signature petition campaign to put a marijuana decriminalization initiative before voters. Hoping to put the measure on the city-county's August ballot, they announced the intention to use electronic signatures to help qualify the initiative for the ballot. The Davidson County Election Commission, a committee of five members who are responsible for approving signature petitions for charter amendments, said they would not allow electronic signatures. On January 15, 2015, this motivated Tennessee NORML, joined by an organization called Democracy Nashville, to file a lawsuit against the Davidson County Election Commission in Chancery Court, seeking to require the commission to accept electronic signatures. According to Daniel Horwitz, an attorney representing the initiative petitioners, the lawsuit is based on the state's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, which says that "if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law." In a 2012 publication, however, former Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper (D) gave the opinion that this law was designed to apply to other more individual uses of signatures and did not require election commissions to accept signatures collected via the internet for an initiative petition.[10][11]
Since this lawsuit is based on a state law, the outcome could have a resounding effect on local petition processes throughout the state. A ruling in favor of NORML could result in the possibility of using electronic signatures to put measures before Tennessee voters wherever the initiative and referendum powers are allowed, thereby making the initiative process much more accessible.
Springfield LGBT non-discrimination ordinance referendum spurs discussion of tougher referendum petition requirements:
In 2014, a group that opposed Council Bill 2014-189, which included sexual orientation and gender identity under the city's non-discrimination policy, successfully collected enough signatures to put the new law to a vote of the people in April of this year. Following this petition campaign, the city revisited the idea of changing the laws governing signature petitions to make it harder for petitioners to qualify referendums for the city ballot.[12]
The new bundle of bills would demand signatures from 7 percent of registered voters instead of the currently required threshold of signatures equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the last election. Because of generally low voter-turnout, this move could nearly triple the signature requirement. Another proposed change would eliminate a secondary grace period during which petitioners are allowed to collect more signatures if their first submission proves insufficient. The other bills would institute a "petitioners' committee," require an opinion from the office of the city attorney on the legality of any proposed petition and mandate the inclusion of an estimated fiscal impact statement on any petition or initiated ballot question.[12]
The council was considering putting these changes on the April ballot. After a group called People's Visioning of Springfield protested the bills, however, the city council temporarily tabled the proposals to allow time to improve them and to wait until after the council member election in April was finished.[12]
See also
- Signature requirements
- Campaign finance regulation
- Electronic petition signature
- Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures
- Ballot measure law
- Previous Ballot Law Updates
Footnotes
- ↑ Openstates.org, "Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution," accessed January 28, 2015
- ↑ Missouri Legislature website, "House Joint Resolution 13," accessed January 23, 2015
- ↑ The Bellingham Herald, "Lawmakers want to limit ballot measures without funding plan," January 20, 2015
- ↑ Washington Legislature website, "Senate Joint Resolution 8201," accessed January 28, 2015
- ↑ Hawaii Legislature website, "Senate Bill 220," accessed January 23, 2015
- ↑ Maine Legislature website, "Maine LD 53," accessed January 23, 2015
- ↑ LegiScan, "Senate Bill 5153," accessed January 26, 2015
- ↑ Bellingham Herald, "Lawmakers want to limit ballot measures without funding plan," January 20, 2015
- ↑ Missouri Legislature website, "House Joint Resolution 19," accessed January 23, 2015
- ↑ The Tennessean, "Referendum on marijuana prosecution sought in Nashville," January 15, 2015
- ↑ The Tennessean, "Marijuana group sues to use online signatures for petition," January 21, 2015
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Springfield News-Leader, "Council holds off on vote to change petition process," January 12, 2015
| |||||
