Ballotpedia:Analysis of 2018 changes in laws governing ballot measures

January 25, 2018
By The Ballot Measures Team

Laws governing ballot measures
State
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2025
• Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
• Analysis of 2025 changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2026 » « 2024

In 2018, Ballotpedia tracked 203 substantive proposals in 34 states concerning the citizen initiative and referendum power, statewide and local ballot measures, and recall. Of those, 34 were approved, 140 were rejected or abandoned, and nine were carried over to the next session.

The 34 approved laws were in 11 states, with 15 of the bills passing in South Dakota:

• California
• Colorado
• Idaho
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine

• Michigan
• Nebraska
• Oregon
• Oklahoma
• South Dakota

What happened in 2018

Michigan legislature passes distribution requirement for initiatives

The Michigan State Legislature approved and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed Michigan House Bill 6595 on December 28, 2018. HB 6595 created a distribution requirement for initiative signature petitions in Michigan limiting the number of signatures collected in any one congressional district to 15 percent of the total required. This effectively requires valid signatures from a minimum of seven different congressional districts for a successful initiative petition.

The bill also required the disclosure on petitions of whether a petitioner is paid or volunteer; mandated a petitioner affidavit; and made other changes regarding petitioners, valid signatures, and the timeline for certification. The bill was passed in the state House on December 12, 2018. It was amended and approved by the state Senate on December 21, 2018, in a vote of 26 to 12. In the Senate, 26 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, and all 11 Democrats along with one Republican, Tory Rocca, voted against the bill. The House concurred with the Senate's amended version on December 21, 2018, in a vote of 57 to 47. Among Republicans, the bill was approved 56-to-5. Among Democrats, the bill was rejected 42-to-1.

See also: Michigan 2018 ballot measures

Michigan voters approved three citizen initiatives in 2018:

• a marijuana legalization measure,
• an independent redistricting commission initiative, and
• an initiative establishing a constitutional right to certain voting policies.

See also: Distribution requirement

Of the 26 states with some form of ballot initiative or veto referendum petition process at the statewide level, 16 other states besides Michigan have a distribution requirement. Of those 16 other states with distribution requirements, in seven states, the distribution requirement is spread out over a state's counties (Arkansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, and Wyoming). In five states, it is calculated based on state legislative districts (Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Utah). In the other four states with a distribution requirement, it is based on U.S. congressional districts (Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, and Nevada). Washington, D.C., also has a distribution requirement based on city wards. Most recently, Colorado voters approved a distribution requirement specifically for initiated constitutional amendments in 2016. It was put on their ballot through a successful initiative petition.

Legislators in Maine, Oklahoma, and South Dakota considered distribution requirements for citizen initiatives in 2018, but none of the proposals were enacted.

Multiple changes to initiative and referendum process in South Dakota

In 2017, an interim committee to investigate the state's initiative and referendum process and recommend changes for consideration during the 2018 session was authorized. The task force met four times and recommended 10 proposals for consideration by the legislature in 2018.

Overall in 2018, the legislature considered 23 bills designed to make substantive changes to the initiative and referendum process. Of those, 15 were approved, and eight were rejected. See a full list of these bills below.

Changes made in 2018 included the following:

• Enacting a single-subject rule for ballot initiatives;
• Requiring that circulators disclose on petitions their names, phone numbers, email addresses, and if and how much they were being paid;
• Requiring a sworn statement from circulators to the secretary of state with residency information;
• Allowing the state board of elections to enact rules concerning ballot and petition formatting and font size;
• Establishing precise introductory ballot language for ballot initiatives and veto referendums;
• Allowing legal challenges to petition signature to use the secretary of state’ss signature verification results and shifting legal responsibility from the attorney general to the petitioners for legal challenges to signature validity;
• Establishing that when there are competing initiatives on the ballot and both receive majority approval, the one with more yes votes would supersede the other; and
• Establishing a fiscal impact statement requirement.

Speaker of the House Mark Mickelson (R-13) said that the state process was “being cluttered and crowded out by folks that don’t live here. [...] So now, we get used as a testing ground because we’ve got cheap media markets and low ballot signature requirements to get on.”

Rebecca Turk, a lobbyist for Dakota Rural Action, said,“We did not ask for the plethora of bills coming out of that task force, many of which, in our opinion, undermine the process."

North Dakota interim commission

During the 2017 legislative session, the North Dakota State Legislature passed a bill authorizing an interim commission to study the state's initiative and referendum process and propose changes. The commission met three times in 2017 and on March 20, 2018. A fifth meeting was held on May 22, 2018.

The commission approved and recommended to the legislature four proposals:

• a proposal to require a measure's fiscal impact statement to be included in the ballot language,
• a proposal to allow initiative proponents to request assistance in drafting initiatives from the legislative council,
• a proposal to apply the fiscal impact requirements for ballot initiatives to veto referendums as well,
• a proposal to add campaign finance reporting requirements for initiative proponents.

Draft proposals and information about the commission are available here.

The 19-member commission consisted of six members from the legislature, the secretary of state, and 11 civilian members. Of the 11 members who were not state officials, seven were appointed by the governor, one represented the Greater North Dakota Chamber, one represented the North Dakota Farm Bureau, one represented the North Dakota Farmers Union, and one represented the North Dakota Newspaper Association. The commission was chaired by Judge William A. Neumann.

2018 U.S. state ballot measures
2019 » « 2017
Overview
Scorecard
Tuesday Count
Deadlines
Requirements
Lawsuits
Readability
Voter guides
Election results
Year-end analysis
Campaigns
Polls
Media editorials
Filed initiatives
Finances
Contributions
Signature costs
Ballot Measure Monthly
Signature requirements
Have you subscribed yet? Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew. Click here to learn more.

Maine initiative and referendum process investigation

An investigation into the state's initiative and referendum process, specifically regarding campaign contributions to ballot measure campaigns, was authorized. Rep. Jeffrey Pierce (R-53) requested the investigation and The Legislature's Government Oversight Committee voted in favor of conducting it.

• In early November 2017, the Maine Ethics Commission voted four-to-one to impose fines totaling a record-breaking $500,000 for campaign finance reporting violations on the four committees registered in support of Question 1, the initiative designed to authorize a license for a casino or slot machines to be issued to Shawn Scott.

Arkansas Attorney General approves initiatives for circulation following supreme court ruling

See also: Arkansas 2018 ballot measures and Arkansas Attorney General election, 2018

In Arkansas, the attorney general must certify the proposed initiative and the name and ballot title for each initiative before signature gathering can begin. The attorney general has historically had wide discretion to reject initiatives or ballot titles. For the 2018 cycle, about 83 initiatives with ballot titles were submitted to Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R), many of which were revised versions of the same proposal. Prior to a supreme court ruling on May 23, 2018, Rutledge had approved one of these for circulation: an initiative to set six-year term limits on members of the state House and eight-year term limits on state Senators. Rejected initiatives included multiple versions of a marijuana legalization initiative, gambling and casino authorization initiatives, and an initiative to remove the state's sovereign immunity.

Proponents of several initiatives filed lawsuits against Rutledge seeking an injunction to require the certification of submitted initiatives and ballot titles so they could begin signature gathering. On May 23, 2018, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled on a case brought by David Couch, the proponent of the minimum wage initiative, that Rutledge needed to either certify the minimum wage initiative for circulation or provide an alternative ballot title that would be sufficient to proceed with signature gathering.

Several hours after the supreme court's ruling concerning the minimum wage initiative, Rutledge certified four initiatives and their ballot titles for circulation: the minimum wage initiative, two different initiatives to authorize new casinos, and a Congressional and state legislative redistricting commission initiative. Also on May 23, 2018, Rutledge again rejected the marijuana legalization initiative.

Rutledge said, "To be clear, today's certifications do not prevent a citizen from legally challenging a ballot proposal once the required number of signatures are submitted to the Arkansas Secretary of State." In 2016, four citizen initiatives were certified for the ballot by state officials, but three of them were later removed from the ballot by the Arkansas Supreme Court or disqualified by the Arkansas Supreme Court such that results for the measures weren't counted.

In April 2018, the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit by Driving Arkansas Forward, the proponent group for the initiative seeking authorization of four new casinos. The lawsuit also sought an injunction forcing Rutledge to clear the initiative for circulation. A prior case brought by David Couch against Rutledge over a rejected initiative was also dismissed by the state supreme court.

As the court case was ongoing, Rutledge stated that the state's initiative and referendum process should be altered to make the expectations for ballot titles and the deadlines clear to petitioners. She said, "Citizens should know very early in the process whether the Arkansas Supreme Court approves the language of their proposal, prior to their spending significant amounts of time and money collecting signatures and educating voters on the issue." She said she wanted to work with the legislature in 2019 to improve the process. Attorney General Candidate Mike Lee, who Rutledge faces in her re-election bid in November 2018, said, "As attorney general, I will institute a clear, public, and even-handed process to review initiatives and recommend revisions. But Arkansans should not have to wait. It is time for my opponent to do the work of the office to which she was elected. She should tell the public how these measures failed to meet legal standards and how they might be revised to clear the approval process, instead of exposing the state to litigation."

Rutledge was due to appear before Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffin on May 18, 2018, to testify about her decision-making process regarding ballot measures after a lawsuit was filed that claims she is violating Arkansas constitutional rights that allow citizens to propose laws. Rutledge moved the case to a federal court.

Approved legislation

Click [show] to reveal summaries of each of the 34 approved laws in 2018

a California Assembly Bill 187 was designed to "require a committee to file a report each time it makes contributions or independent expenditures aggregating $5,000 or more to support or oppose the qualification of a single local initiative or referendum ballot measure" and to prescribe rules for such reporting. a California Senate Bill 1153 was designed to allow proponents of a local initiative to withdraw the initiative up to 88 days prior to an election. a Colorado House Bill 1145 was designed to remove provisions from Colorado law that were permanently blocked from enforcement by a court ruling. Specifically, it removed provisions from the law that restricted payment of signature gatherers according to the number of signatures collected to 20 percent of their total compensation and that required signature gatherers to be state residents. a Colorado House Bill 1268 was designed to enact "procedures to govern the recall of a director of a special district." a Idaho House Bill 568 was designed to make changes the election date of county initiatives and referendums and to make state law compatible with a court ruling preventing the use of citizen initiatives or veto referendums regarding local zoning laws. a Kentucky Senate Bill 97 was designed to allow business or organizations—through the signature of a legal representative—sign petitions for a referendum on the annexation of a city. a Louisiana Senate Bill 457 was designed to require "that upon filing the recall petition, the chairman and vice chairman must provide a copy of a pictured identification that contains their names and signatures, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows their names and addresses" and require "the recall petition to include the signatures of the chairman and the vice chairman." a Louisiana House Bill 54 was designed to reduce the percentage of registered voters required for a successful recall petition for cities with larger populations. a Louisiana House Bill 682 was designed to make changes to procedures for local liquor option propositions. a Maine Legislative Document 1840 was designed to add requirements for referendums authorizing joint charter commissions for municipalities. It was vetoed, and the veto was overridden. a Michigan House Bill 6595 was designed to do the following: add a distribution requirement limiting the number of signatures collected in any one congressional district to 15 percent of the total required; require the disclosure on petitions of whether a petitioner is paid or volunteer; require a petitioner affidavit; and enact other provisions regarding petitioners, valid signatures, and the timeline for certification. a Michigan Senate Bill 809 was designed to revise and consolidate multiple sections of the state's election law and to repeal certain obsolete provisions. a Nebraska Legislative Bill 1000 was designed to require voter approval of bond measures and to prescribe rules for bond measure elections. a Nebraska Legislative Bill 377 was designed to repeal recall petition signature requirements specific to Class I school district board member recalls. a Oregon Senate Bill 1510 was designed to require "that final certified ballot title be included on official template of cover and signature sheets of initiative petition" and to limit "the number of signatures that may be included on a prospective petition to initiate a state measure at 2,000." a Oklahoma House Bill 2827 was designed to establish requirements for setting ballot titles for veto referendums. a South Dakota House Joint Resolution 1006 was designed to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot that would require future constitutional amendments—whether legislatively referred constitutional amendments or initiated constitutional amendment—to concern one single subject. This proposal required voter approval to be enacted; it was approved by voters in November 2018 and was enacted. a d South Dakota Senate Joint Resolution 1 was designed to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot that would require a 55 percent supermajority vote at the ballot to approve future constitutional amendments—both legislatively referred constitutional amendments and initiated constitutional amendments. Going into 2018, amendments to the state constitution required a simple majority vote for approval. This proposal required voter approval to be enacted; voters rejected it in November 2018. a South Dakota House Bill 1177 required a statement on any initiative or referendum petition containing the name, phone number, email address, and the paid or volunteer status of the signature gatherer. It also required paid circulators to include how much they were being paid in the petition statement. a South Dakota House Bill 1007 was designed require initiated state statutes to concern one single subject, a requirement known as a single-subject rule. a South Dakota House Bill 1196 required petition circulators to provide a sworn statement to the secretary of state with the following information: state of driver license issue and driver license expiration date, the state in which the circulator is registered to vote, the length of time at the circulator's current residence and the addresses of his or her two previous residences, a sworn statement indicating the petition circulator's intention to stay in the state following the petition effort, other information to prove residency such as a library card or utility bill, whether or not the circulator in-state tuition at any college or university, information about whether or not the circulator "obtains any resident hunting or resident fishing license of any kind." a South Dakota House Bill 1004 was designed to give the State Board of Elections the power to promulgate rules related to petition size and font size. a South Dakota House Bill 1005 was designed to establish precise wording for the ballot language for initiated constitutional amendments, initiated state statutes, and veto referendums as follows: For initiated constitutional amendments: "Vote 'Yes' to adopt the amendment" and "Vote 'No' to leave the Constitution as it is." For initiated state statutes: "Vote 'Yes' to adopt the initiated measure" and "Vote 'No' to leave South Dakota law as it is." for veto referendums: "Vote 'Yes' to repeal the Act of the Legislature" and "Vote 'No' to allow the Act of the Legislature to become law." a South Dakota House Bill 1006 was designed to require that the director of the state Legislative Research Council's written comments to initiative sponsors, the attorney general, and the secretary of state "include assistance regarding the substantive content of the initiated measure or initiated amendment in order to minimize any conflict with existing law and to ensure the measure's or amendment's effective administration." Going into 2018, state law required the director to provide written comments on initiatives but did not specify the content thereof. a South Dakota House Bill 1304 was designed to allow legal challenges to the validity of signature petitions to reference the secretary of states signature verification results and requires initiative proponents to defend the validity of signature petitions rather than the attorney general with regard to all aspects except actions by the secretary of state. a South Dakota Senate Bill 10 was designed to resolve conflicts in cases where initiated measures or constitutional amendments passed by voters in the same election conflict with one another by establishing that the measure or amendment receiving the highest number of votes becomes enacted. a South Dakota Senate Bill 13 was designed to require the director of the Legislative Research Council to provide the sponsor of an initiated amendment or measure effort with a fiscal note should the director determine that the proposed amendment or measure would "have an impact on revenues, expenditures, or fiscal liability of the state or its agencies and subdivisions." Going into 2018, the director was required to provide a fiscal note only if one was requested by a sponsor. a South Dakota Senate Bill 9 was designed to require the director of the Legislative Research Council to notify initiated amendment or measure sponsors and the secretary of state if the measure or amendment was not expected to have a fiscal impact. It was also designed to require the director to provide a fiscal note should he or she determine that the measure or amendment would have such an impact. a South Dakota Senate Bill 11 required proponents of an initiative or referendum to submit the measure to the Legislative Research Council for review and comment at least six months prior to when the initiative can be circulated. a South Dakota Senate Bill 1002 was designed to amend certain provisions related to campaign finance requirements for groups for and against ballot measures. a South Dakota Senate Bill 7 was designed to prohibit ballot question committees from making contributions to statewide candidates (or their campaign committees), county candidates (or their campaign committees), and political parties and to specify that ballot question committees may receive unlimited contributions from a number of entities, including people, political action committees, ballot question committees, and candidate campaign committees.

See also

• Changes in 2017 to laws governing ballot measures
• Residency requirements for petition circulators
• Paid circulator
• Ballot initiative
• Recall
• Veto referendum
• Ballot measure law
• Previous Ballot Law Updates

Footnotes

Laws governing ballot measures in the United States

Laws governing ballot measures

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Changes to laws governing ballot measures

Types of ballot measures

Citizen-initiated ballot measures • Legislatively referred ballot measures • Automatically referred ballot measures • Commission-referred ballot measures • Convention-referred constitutional amendments

Ballot measure policy terms

Glossary of ballot measure policy terms