Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Ballot Law Update: States consider restrictions on I&R following 2016 initiatives
By Ballot Measures Project staff
As of March 16, 2017, Ballotpedia was covering 125 bills concerning laws surrounding ballot measures and recall that were proposed or reconsidered during the 2017 legislative sessions of 30 states. Of the bills being tracked, 115 were pending, six bills had been defeated or had died in committee, and four had been approved. These laws include proposals to make the following changes:
- Establish the processes of citizen initiative, referendum, or recall in states that don't have them;
- Lift restrictions on the processes for initiatives, referendums, or recall;
- Add restrictions on the processes for initiatives, referendums, or recall;
- Restrictions proposed in 2017 include the addition of distribution requirements, an increase in signature requirements, the removal of prohibitions against legislative amendment or repeal of initiatives, and others.
- Change campaign finance rules for committees filed to support or oppose ballot measures;
- Three state legislatures considered bills to ban or restrict out-of-state contributions to ballot measure campaigns.
- Add restrictions on the power of local authority, thereby preventing local ballot measures concerning topics such as LGBT issues, plastic bag bans, and fracking restrictions; and
- Change the state's laws governing direct democracy in any other way.
The map below shows states (colored in blue) in which legislators have proposed bills related to ballot measure and recall laws in 2016. States in which more bills have been proposed are displayed in a darker shade:
Proposed restrictions on initiatives as a response to 2016 measures
Arizona
In 2016, Arizona voters decided four statewide measures. Two were initiatives: Proposition 206—which increased the minimum wage upon approval—and Proposition 205—which would have legalized recreational marijuana if it had been approved.
In the 2017 legislation session, state legislators have introduced seven bills or resolutions calling for constitutional amendments that would restrict the initiative process. These bills and resolutions included proposals to enact a distribution requirement for initiative signature petitions, allow the legislature to amend or repeal initiated state statutes, restrict out-of-state spending on ballot measure campaigns, ban paying circulators according to the number of signatures collected, and add registration and notice requirements. Some of the bills or resolutions are slightly different versions of the same or similar legislation. Details are below.
- A constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to amend or repeal citizen-initiated measures by repealing Proposition 105—a measure that voters approved in 1998—was proposed.
- Two versions were introduced, one to allow legislative amendment or repeal of both initiatives and veto referendums and one to allow only veto referendums to be amended or repealed.
- Both versions were passed by the state House last month and require approval in the Senate and by voters to be enacted.
- Another bill that would require a notice to be included on initiative petition sheets and the ballot explaining to voters that initiated state statutes could not be substantively changed or repealed without voter approval. It would, however, leave the prohibition against what is commonly called legislative alteration in place.
- This bill was approved by the House and requires approval in the Senate and the governor's signature to be enacted.
- A constitutional amendment to establish a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives and veto referendums was also proposed.
- Going into 2017, state law required 15 percent of votes cast for governor in the preceding election for qualify initiated constitutional amendments for the ballot, 10 percent for initiated state statutes, and 5 percent for veto referendums, and the law allowed these signatures to be collected from anywhere in the state. This amendment was written to require these signatures to be collected from voters distributed across all of the state's legislative districts.
- Both Senate and House versions were introduced, the House version, HCR 2029, was approved by the House and requires approval by the Senate to put the amendment before voters.
- Whether or not a state has a distribution requirement such as this one is a key factor in determining how difficult it is to run a successful signature petition drive in that state.
- A bill to prohibit contributions or expenditures in support of or opposition to a ballot measure from individuals that are not Arizona state residents and committees that are not registered in Arizona was introduced and passed in one committee but has not been approved by either the House or the Senate.
- Similar bills were also introduced in North Dakota and South Dakota.
- Another bill that has passed in the House and requires Senate approval and the governor's signature is House Bill 2404, which would do the following:
- prohibit paying circulators according to the number of signatures collected;
- require paid circulators to register with the state, make certain disclosures, complete a training program provided by the state, and pay a registration fee;
- require initiative proponents to post bonds for paid signature gatherers ranging from $10,000 to $50,000; and
- create an Initiative and Referendum Integrity Fund.
Read Ballotpedia's ballot law tracker by clicking here for details.
Arizona's 2017 legislative session convened on January 9, 2017, and adjourns in mid-April.
Maine
Voters in Maine also decided on initiatives to legalize marijuana—Question 1—and raise the minimum wage—Question 4—both of which were approved. Moreover, voters chose to add an additional 3 percent tax to income above $200,000 through approving Question 2 and establish ranked-choice voting to be used in statewide elections through approving Question 5. An initiative to require background checks for gun purchases and make other restrictions on the transfer of firearms was also on the ballot as Question 3. It was defeated.
Gov. LePage called on the legislature to roll back provisions of Question 2 and Question 4 during the swearing in of the legislature. The legislature is considering bills to both repeal or substantially amend Question 2 and Question 4. Maine is one of 12 states with the initiative and referendum power that have no restrictions on when or how legislators can repeal or amend citizen initiatives.
Moreover, legislators introduced laws that would make it harder to put initiatives on the ballot. Specifically, bills are being considered that would enact a distribution requirement, increase Maine's signature requirement for initiatives, and ban paying circulators according to the number of signatures collected. Another bill, which appears to have very little to do with the 2016 initiatives, was proposed that would prohibit the use of citizen initiatives to pass laws regarding wildlife.
These bills are yet to go to a full vote of either branch of the legislature. The Maine legislative session convened on December 7, 2016, and will adjourn in mid-June of 2017.
South Dakota
Voters in South Dakota decided 10 statewide ballot measures including seven citizen initiatives and two citizen-initiated veto referendums in 2016. Initiatives included topics such as payday lending, elections, redistricting, campaign finance restrictions, law enforcement, and minimum wage. More than $10 million was spent in support of or opposition to initiatives in South Dakota in 2016. In 2014, $1.7 million was spent on ballot measure campaigns. Less than $300,000 was spent in 2012, and no ballot measure campaign contributions were reported in 2010.
The state legislature passed a bill to repeal one of the initiatives—Measure 22—that was designed to impose restrictions on campaign finance and establish a publicly funded campaign finance system.[1][2][3]
Besides repealing Measure 22, legislators considered changes to the state's initiative processes that would make it more difficult to put an issue before voters:
South Dakota House Bill 1074 was designed to prohibit any committees registered to support or oppose ballot measures from accepting contributions from out-of-state sources that equal more than 75 percent of the committee's funding. This proposal was similar to bills introduced in Arizona and North Dakota. HB 1074 was passed by the state House, and would need approval in the state Senate and the governor's signature to be enacted.
South Dakota House Bill 1200 was designed to require additional campaign finance disclosures from ballot measure committees. It was also passed in the state House and needs approval in the state Senate and the governor's signature to become law. But it was deferred by committee to the 41st legislative day.
South Dakota Senate Joint Resolution 2 was designed to amend the state constitution to do the following:
- require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the legislature rather than a simple majority to approve proposed constitutional amendments for the ballot; and
- require 60 percent supermajority approval instead of a simple majority at statewide elections to approve constitutional amendments.
- SJR 2 was approved by the state Senate and requires approval in the state House and by voters to be enacted.
The South Dakota State Legislature has approved three bills that addressed ballot measures—a fiscal impact report requirement, a law to delay the effective date for approved ballot measures, and the establishment of a task force to investigate the state's initiative and veto referendum processes and suggest changes. Details are below.
The legislature also considered and chose not to pass a bill to establish a distribution requirement for initiative signature petition drives and a bill to establish a citizen review and public commentary period for ballot measures.
Some other non-substantive changes to laws governing ballot measures in South Dakota were also introduced, but not included in this list. The South Dakota legislative session convened on January 10, 2017, and will adjourn in late March 2017.
Approved legislation
State legislatures have approved four ballot measure law-related bills in 2017 so far. The South Dakota legislature approved three changes, and the Utah legislature approved one.
South Dakota
South Dakota Senate Bill 77 requires a fiscal impact report and summary be provided for any initiated or referred measure.
South Dakota Senate Bill 59 makes the effective date for approved ballot measures—initiatives and referred measures—the first day of July after the election results for the measure are certified instead of the day upon which the election results for the measures are certified.
South Dakota House Bill 1141 established a task force to investigate the state's initiative and veto referendum processes and suggest changes.
Utah
Utah Senate Bill 69 requires the following information to be provided to voters in a municipality with a proposition on the ballot in certain prescribe ways—including by mail, electronically, and online:
- the ballot title of the proposition;
- instructions about how to filed arguments in support of or opposition to the proposition;
- the deadlines for submitting such arguments.
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ South Dakota Legislature, "House Bill 1069," January 24, 2016
- ↑ Huffington Post, "South Dakota GOP Rushes To Repeal Ethics Reforms Passed By Voters," January 23, 2017
- ↑ Washington Post, "South Dakota Republicans are about to get rid of the state’s first independent ethics commission," January 24, 2017
| |||||
