Ballotpedia:Analysis of the 2018 ballot measures

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.

December 17, 2018
By The Ballot Measures Team

A total of 167 statewide ballot measures were on 2018 ballots in 38 states. Of those, 12 were decided at pre-November elections, and 155 statewide measures were on ballots for the November election in 37 states.

Of the total, 116 statewide measures were approved, and 50 were defeated. As of December 2018, the outcome of one measure—the Kentucky Marsy's Law Amendment—was pending a final court ruling.

The average number of statewide measures on the ballot in even-numbered years between 2010 and 2016 was 173.

By Topic

Notable 2018 topics for statewide ballot measures included elections policy and redistricting, marijuana, restrictions on taxes, Medicaid expansion, Marsy's Law, Energy, Abortion, and minimum wage.

The most prevalent issues addressed at the ballot in 2018 were as follows:

• Taxes - 36 statewide measures ranging from new tax proposals, tax renewals, and revenue allocation to restrictions on taxes and measures designed to repeal or preempt taxes.
• Elections and redistricting - 23 statewide measures
• Bond issues - 18 measures proposing the issuance of bonds and one related to previously issued bonds.
• Budgets and spending - 12 measures
• Law enforcement and trials - 12 measures
• Healthcare and Medicaid expansion - 9 measures
• Marijuana - 8 measures
• Transportation - 8 measures

Click [show] in the chart below to reveal a breakdown of all 2018 measures by topic.

:: Note: Most measures concerned multiple topics and are included in multiple categories below. Therefore, the sum of the number in each category does not equal the total of all statewide measures in 2018. For measures that concerned multiple topics, Ballotpedia staff identified the key topics of the measure.

2018 ballot measure topics
Topic	Total number	Number approved	Number defeated
Taxes	36	21	15
Elections and redistricting	23	18	5
Bond issues	19	16	3
Budgets and spending	12	8	4
Law enforcement and trials	12	11	1
Healthcare and Medicaid expansion	9	6	3
Marijuana	8	5	3
Transportation	8	4	4
State legislature	8	5	3
Direct democracy	7	4	3
Environment and natural resources	7	3	4
Energy	6	1	5
State judiciary	6	4	2
Gambling	6	5	1
Housing	5	3	2
Business regulation	4	1	3
Abortion	3	2	1
Labor and unions	3	1	2
Food and agriculture	3	2	1
Veterans	3	3	0
Animal treatment	2	2	0
Civil rights	2	2	0
Executive officials	2	0	2
Minimum wage	2	2	0
Tobacco	2	0	2
Banking	1	1	0
Firearms	1	1	0
Hunting and fishing	1	1	0
Immigration	1	0	1
LGBT issues	1	1	0
Pension	1	1	0
Religion and symbols	1	1	0
Time standards	1	1	0

Notable topics

Click on the arrows (▼) below for details about each topic and a list of notable 2018 ballot measures

Elections and redistricting: Voters in 16 states decided 21 measures concerning redistricting, voting requirements, ballot access, campaign finance, and ethics. Six measures in five states concerning changes to redistricting systems, and all six were approved.

Redistricting measures:

In 2018, voters in five states approved changes to their redistricting systems for state legislative districts, congressional districts, or both. Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah featured measures, with Ohio's on the ballot in May and the rest on the ballot in November. In Michigan, Missouri, and Utah, the redistricting measures were put on the ballot as citizen initiatives. In Ohio and Colorado, the measures were referred to the ballot by state legislatures, compromising with the proponents of citizen initiative efforts.

Measure	Description	Status
Ohio Issue 1 (May 2018)	Changing the standards used and the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps	a
Colorado Amendment Y	Creating a 12-member commission responsible for congressional redistricting	a
Colorado Amendment Z	Creating a 12-member commission responsible for state legislative redistricting	a
Michigan Proposal 2	Transfering congressional and state legislative redistricting authority to and independent commission	a
Utah Proposition 4	Creating a seven-member independent redistricting commission to recommend congressional and state legislature redistrictign maps and establishing certain redistricting criteria

Measures concerning voting requirements, election systems, and ballot access:

Measures concerning voting requirements, election systems, and ballot access were on the ballot in nine states in November. Topics include ranked-choice voting, voter identification requirements, term limits, automatic and same-day voter registration, the ability to vote after a felony conviction, the ability to run for office after a felony conviction, and ballot collection.

• Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - Issue 2 was designed to require individuals to present a valid photo ID to cast non-provisional ballots in person or absentee. The Arkansas State Legislature referred the measure to the ballot, with Republicans and four of 30 Democrats voting to put Issue 2 on the ballot. It was approved.

• Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) a - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.

• Louisiana Amendment 1, Felons Disqualified to Run for Office for Five Years Amendment (2018) a - This measure was put on the ballot by the state legislature. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 9 in 1998 to prevent convicted felons from seeking or holding public office for 15 years following the completion of their sentences. Amendment 9 was struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2016. It was approved.

• Maine Question 1, Ranked-Choice Voting Delayed Enactment and Automatic Repeal Referendum (June 2018) a - Proponents of ranked-choice voting in Maine collected signatures to challenge a bill passed by the legislature to delay and, potentially, repeal the ranked-choice voting initiative approved by voters in 2016. The veto referendum petition results in Question 1 on the June ballot. Maine voters supported ranked-choice voting and rejected the legislature's bill to delay and, potentially, repeal it.

• Maryland Question 2, Election-Day Voter Registration Amendment (2018) a - Legislative Democrats voted to place the amendment the ballot. The measure was designed to authorize a process for registering qualified individuals to vote at a precinct polling place on election day. It was approved.

• Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative (2018) a - Promote the Vote collected more than 315,654 valid signatures to get the initiative placed on the ballot. Proposal 3 was designed to add several voting policies to the Michigan Constitution, including straight-ticket voting, automatic voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day voter registration. It was approved.

• Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018) a - The Montana State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot, through the support of 80 of 91 Republicans and one of 59 Democrats. The measure was written to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. It was approved.

• Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018) a - The measure was designed to provide for the automatic voter registration of eligible citizens when receiving certain services from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Nevada Election Administration Committee, a project of iVote, collected more than the required 55,234 signatures to get Question 5 placed on the ballot. It was approved.

• North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.

• North Dakota Measure 2, Citizen Requirement for Voting Amendment Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Citizen Voting collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure was designed to clarify that only a U.S. citizen can vote in federal, state, and local elections in North Dakota. It was approved.

Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.

Measures concerning campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:

Five states featured measures concerning campaign finance, political spending, and ethics: Colorado, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Dakota. All of these measures were put on the ballot through citizen initiative petitions.

• Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) d - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.

• Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative was designed to establish a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood. It was approved.

• Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - Besides the redistricting provisions of Amendment 1 described above, Missouri Amendment one also made changes to the state's lobbying laws and campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates.

• North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Public Integrity collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. Measure 1 established an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest. It was approved.

• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018) d - The committee Represent South Dakota collected more than the required 27,741 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was designed to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and enact new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It was defeated.

• South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative banned out-of-state contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures within South Dakota. Rep. Mark Mickelson (R-13), speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, sponsored the initiative. It was approved.

Marijuana: Voters decided seven measures in five states concerning the legalization of medical or recreational marijuana; medical marijuana was approved in all three states where it was proposed, and recreational marijuana was approved in one of two states where it was proposed.

Oklahoma, Missouri, and Utah voters approved medical marijuana measures; in Missouri, voters approved one of three medical marijuana measures and rejected the other two. Michigan voters approved recreational marijuana, and North Dakota voters rejected a recreational marijuana initiative.

Measure	Description	Status
Michigan Proposal 1	Legalizing recreational marijuana	a
Missouri Amendment 2	Legalizing medical marijuana; revenue for veteran healthcare services	a
Missouri Amendment 3	Legalizing edical marijuana; revenue for Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute	d
Missouri Proposition C	Legalizing medical marijuana; revenue for veteran services, drug treatment, education, and law enforcement	d
North Dakota Measure 3	Legalizing recreational marijuana	d
Oklahoma State Question 788	Legalizing medical marijuana	a
Utah Proposition 2	Legalizing medical marijuana

A measure concerning the definition of industrial hemp was also on the ballot in Colorado, where it was approved.

Medicaid expansion and healthcare: Five measures were on the ballot in five states concerning Medicaid expansion, funding for Medicaid expansion, or both. There were five other measures related to healthcare in 2018 as well.

In November 2018, voters in Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, and Utah decided ballot initiatives concerning Medicaid expansion and the funding of expanded Medicaid coverage. In January, voters in Oregon approved Measure 101, thereby upholding 2017 legislation to provide funding for the state's portion of costs for expanded Medicaid coverage through a tax on healthcare insurance and the revenue of certain hospitals.

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was enacted in March 2010. Between 2013 and 2016, no statewide ballots featured measures related to Obamacare. In 2017, voters in Maine approved a ballot measure to expand Medicaid to persons under the age of 65 and with incomes equal to or below 138 percent of the federal poverty line. The measure was the first citizen initiative to implement an optional provision of Obamacare.

2018 measures:

Measure	Description	Status
Idaho Proposition 2	Expand coverage to 138 percent of the federal poverty line
Montana I-185	Extend expanded coverage and increase tobacco taxes	d
Nebraska Initiative 427	Expand coverage to 138 percent of the federal poverty line	a
Utah Proposition 3	Expand to 138 percent of the federal poverty line and increase sales tax
Oregon Measure 101	Upheld health insurance tax to fund expanded coverage	a

Other 2018 healthcare-related measures:

Measure	Description	Status
California Proposition 4	$1.5 billion in bonds for children's hospitals	a
California Proposition 8	Requiring dialysis clinics to issue refunds for revenue above 115 percent of patient care and improvements	d
Massachusetts Question 1	Establishing patient assignment limits for registered nurses working in hospitals	d
Nevada Question 4	Exempting certain medical equipment from sales tax	a

Energy: Voters in three states decided four different measures concerning fossil fuel and renewable energy. Three were defeated, and one was approved in Nevada but requires voter approval again in 2020 to be enacted.

In 2018, voters in Arizona, Nevada, and Washington decided ballot initiatives designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable resources. In Arizona and Nevada, the environmental organization NextGen Climate Action was financing ballot initiatives, Arizona Proposition 127 and Nevada Question 6, to require electric utilities to acquire 50 percent of their power from renewable sources. Arizona Proposition 127 was defeated, and Nevada Question 6 was approved, which means it goes on to the 2020 ballot where it must be approved again. In Washington, electors rejected Initiative 1631, which would have enacted a fee on carbon emissions from power plants, refineries, and other specified emitters.

Voters in Nevada considered a ballot initiative, Question 3, to eliminate electricity monopolies and require a competitive energy market. Question 3 was rejected. Although Question 3 would not have directly affected the use of renewable resources in Nevada, supporters and opponents of the initiative campaigned on the issue of Question 3's effect on the use of renewable resources, contending that deregulation would either increase or decrease the use of renewable resources.

Below are the most notable energy-related measures of 2018. For a full list, click here.

Measure	Description	Status
Arizona Proposition 127	Requiring electric utilities in Arizona to acquire 50 percent of electricity from renewable resources by 2020	d
Nevada Question 3	Requiring “an open, competitive retail electric energy market” and prohibiting state-sanctioned electrical-generation monopolies	d
Nevada Question 6	Requiring electric utilities to acquire 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2030.	a
Washington Initiative 1631	Enacting a carbon emissions fee with revenue going to fund environmental programs and projects	d

Restrictions on taxes: There were eight measures on ballots in six states concerning restrictions or limitations on taxes.

See also: Taxes on the ballot

In 2018, voters in six states considered ballot measures to cap, limit, or restrict types of taxes. In Oregon and Washington, voters decided ballot initiatives to prohibit governments from enacting taxes on groceries. Oregan voters rejected the grocery tax ban. In Washington, the measure was ahead by 5 percentage points with 64 percent of precincts reporting.

In Arizona, an initiative to prohibit new taxes or increased tax rates on services was approved. Voters in California defeated an initiated measure to require voter approval for the state legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future. It would have also repealed a gas tax increase passed in 2017.

Legislatures in Florida and North Carolina referred constitutional amendments capping taxes to the ballot and both were approved. Voters in Florida and Oregon also considered ballot measures to require supermajorities of the state legislature to increase taxes. In Florida, the measure was approved, and, in Oregon, it was defeated.

An additional initiative qualified for the ballot in California but was withdrawn after proponents agreed to a compromise bill with legislators to keep the initiative off the ballot. The initiative would have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate on all local taxes, including soda taxes. The compromise legislation prohibited local soda taxes until 2031.

Measure	Origin	Description	Status
Arizona Proposition 126	Initiative	Prohibits the state and local governments from enacting new taxes or increasing tax rates on services	a
California Proposition 6	Initiative	Requires voter approval for the state legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future	d
Florida Amendment 2	Legislature	Makes permanent the cap of 10 percent on annual nonhomestead parcel assessment increases set to expire	a
Florida Amendment 5	Legislature	Requires a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the state legislature to enact new taxes or fees or increase existing ones	a
North Carolina Amendment	Legislature	Lowers the maximum allowable state income tax rate from 10 percent to 7 percent	a
Oregon Measure 103	Initiative	Prohibits state and local governments from enacting taxes on groceries	d
Oregon Measure 104	Initiative	Requires a three-fifths vote of each chamber of the state legislature to increase revenue, such as via increasing taxes and decreasing tax exemptions	d
Washington Initiative 1634	Initiative	Prohibits local governments from enacting taxes on groceries	a

Marsy's Law: The Marsy's Law movement doubled the number of states with Marsy's Law crime victim rights in their constitutions; voters in six states approved Marsy's Law measures, although the validity of one was left pending a court ruling after the election.

Marsy's Law describes a set of constitutional protections for crime victims that have been proposed and adopted in some states. The model constitutional amendment released by the organization Marsy's Law for All, which closely resembles amendments proposed and passed in several states, includes the following key provisions:

• The right to be notified about and present at proceedings;
• The right to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, or parole of the accused;
• The right to have the safety of the victim and victim's family considered when making bail or release decisions;
• The right to be protected from the accused;
• The right to be notified about release or escape of the accused;
• The right to refuse an interview or deposition at the request of the accused;
• The right to receive restitution from the individual who committed the criminal offense.

2018 measures:

While five out of the six Marsy's Law measures that were approved before 2018 were citizen initiatives, all six of the measures on the ballot in 2018 were referred to the ballot by state legislators or, in the case of Florida, by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC).

In 2018, the following measures to enact Marsy's Laws appeared on the November ballot:

2018 Marsy's Law measures
State	Ballot measure	Status
Florida	Amendment 6	a
Georgia	Amendment 4	a
Kentucky	Marsy's Law Amendment	ot
Nevada	Question 1	a
North Carolina	Marsy's Law Amendment	a
Oklahoma	State Question 794	a

The Kentucky Marsy's Law measure received majority support from voters, but it's final outcome depends on a court ruling.

In South Dakota at the 2018 primary election on June 5, voters approved alterations proposed by the legislature to the Marsy's Law initiative that they approved in 2016. The proposed alterations—found in Constitutional Amendment Y—were proposed following a compromise with Marsy's Law for All, which supported Amendment Y.

$29.7 million was contributed to the support campaigns for the six pre-2018 Marsy's Law measures. In 2018, a combined $71 million was contributed to the support campaigns for the six Marsy's Law measures, with 99 percent coming from either the Marsy's Law for All Foundation and Henry Nicholas. Of that total, $36 million was contributed to support the Florida Marsy's Law amendment.

Minimum wage: Voters in two states approved minimum wage increases; the initiative process was involved in bringing about increases in two other states as well.

Measure	Description	Status
Arkansas Issue 5	Incrementally raising the minimum wage in Arkansas to $11 an hour by 2021	a
Missouri Proposition B	Incrementally raising the minimum wage in Missouri to $12 by 2023	a

Besides the two measures that were on the ballot, minimum wage increases were brought about partially through the initiative process in Michigan and Massachusetts as well. Proponents ran successful initiative petition drives in those states, but, in Michigan, the legislature approved the measure itself, precluding an election on it and also allowing the legislature to amend the initiative at a later date without a supermajority vote. In Massachusetts, a compromise was made between legislators and proponents of three different initiatives concerning minimum wage, paid sick leave, and a sales tax decrease.

Abortion: Voters in three states decided measures concerning abortion access, abortion funding, or both.

The measures in Alabama and West Virginia were put on the ballot by state legislators. The Oregon measure was put on the ballot through a citizen initiative petition. All three measures were designed to move state law in a more conservative direction.

Measure	Description	Status
Alabama Amendment 2	Making it state policy to "recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life" and establishing that nothing in the constitution provides a right to an abortion or requires funding of abortions	a
Oregon Measure 106	Prohibiting public funds from being spent on abortions in Oregon, except when determined to be medically necessary or required by federal law	d
West Virginia Amendment 1	Adding language to the West Virginia Constitution stating that "nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion."	a

Other notable measures

• Ohio Issue 1 was rejected. It would have reduced prison sentencing for non-violent drug crimes and other low-level, non-violent crimes.

• In Colorado, voter decided two initiatives concerning oil and gas development and property rights. Proposition 112 would have mandated that new oil and gas development projects, including fracking, be a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings and other areas designated as vulnerable. It was defeated. Amendment 74 would have required that property owners be compensated for any reduction in property value caused by state laws or regulations. Amendment 74 was also rejected.

• California Proposition 10 was rejected. It would have allowed local governments to enact rent control on any type of housing.

• Massachusetts Question 3 was approved, thus upholding the state’s gender identity anti-discrimination law.

• Arizona Proposition 305 was rejected, thus repealing an expansion of the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) program to make all students’ parents or guardians eligible to apply.

Statistical summary

The charts below include all statewide ballot measures certified for 2018 ballots including the 12 pre-November ballot measures:

2018 election stats
Total	Approved (%)	Defeated (%)
167	117 (70.06%)	50 (29.94%)

Initiated measures

See also: Ballot initiative and Veto referendum

Total initiatives	Amendments	Statutes	Veto referendums	Approved	Rejected
68	25	46	5	35 (51.47%)	33 (48.53%)

Legislatively referred amendments and statutes

See also: Legislative referral

Total referrals	Amendments	Statutes	Approved	Rejected
75	66	9	61 (81.3%)	14 (18.6%)

Florida Constitution Revision Commission

See also: Florida Constitution Revision Commission, 2018 proposals

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission is a commission unique to Florida that meets every 20 years to put proposed constitutional amendments before Florida voters.

Total commission referrals	Approved	Rejected
7	7 (100%)	0 (0.00%)

Bond issues

See also: Bond issue

Ballotpedia distinguishes between bond issues that are put on the ballot by the legislature through a legal process specifically designed for such proposals and alterations to state statute or the state constitution that call for bonded indebtedness.

In some states, the legislature is able to or sometimes required to put certain proposed bond issues before voters. This section lists legislatively referred bond questions. It does not list other types of measures that happened to propose the issuance of bonds or other indebtedness. For example, initiated constitutional amendments or initiated state statutes that were put on the ballot proposing the issuance of bonds are counted instead as initiated constitutional amendments and initiated state statutes, respectively. To see a full list of all statewide measures proposing the issuance of bonds, regardless of what type of measure was used, click here. In 2018, 14 bond issues were referred by state legislatures, four bond issues were proposed by initiated state statutes in Colorado and California (two each), and one additional measure in California concerned the topic of bond issues but is counted as a legislatively referred state statute.

Bond issues	Approved	Rejected
14	14 (100%)	0 (0%)

Advisory questions

See also: Advisory question

Questions	Approved	Rejected
2	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

Automatic ballot referrals

See also: Automatic ballot referral

In certain states, measures are automatically put on the ballot by law.

Questions	Approved	Rejected
1	0 (0%)	1 (100%)

Measures through the years

A trend of lower numbers of total statewide measures continued in 2018, with a total of 167 measures—well under the peak of 235 statewide measures seen in 2000 and below the average of about 191 in even-numbered years from 2000 through 2016.

The number of legislatively referred constitutional amendments fell by an average of 10 percent during each even-numbered year from 2010 to 2018. In 2016 and 2018, however, there were spikes in the number of citizen-initiated measures on the ballot.

There were more legislatively referred bond issues in 2018 than on average. Moreover, Florida's Constitution Revision Commission, which convenes every 20 years, met in 2018 and referred seven measures to the ballot.

Type	2018	2016	2014	2012	2010	Average (2010-2020)
Initiated ballot measures	68	76	40	61	50	59
Initiated constitutional amendments	26	25	8	19	17	19
Initiated state statutes	37	46	27	29	29	34
Veto referendums	5	5	5	13	4	6
Referred ballot measures	99	86	118	125	134	112
Legislative constitutional amendment	66	69	91	98	106	86
Legislative state statute	9	2	5	8	8	6
Commission-referred measure	7	0	1	0	0	2
Automatically referred measure	1	1	1	3	4	2
Bond issues	14	11	15	14	15	14
Advisory question	2	3	5	2	1	3
Total:	167	162	158	186	184	171

Click [show] in the chart below to see a breakdown of measures since 2000, including even- and odd-numbered years.

Total measures since 2000
Year	Initiatives	Legislative referrals	Other measures	TOTAL
2018	68	75	24	167
2017	4	19	4	27
2016	76	71	15	162
2015	5	17	6	28
2014	40	111	7	158
2013	3	24	5	31
2012	63	122	3	188
2011	12	22	0	34
2010	50	130	4	184
2009	8	24	0	32
2008	74	92	8	174
2007	4	39	1	44
2006	83	140	3	226
2005	19	26	0	45
2004	65	107	1	173
2003	7	60	1	68
2002	55	162	6	223
2001	4	35	0	39
2000	82	151	2	235
Even-year averages	66	116	7	189
Odd-year averages	13	38	2	54

Ballot initiative activity

See also: Ballot initiatives filed for the 2018 ballot

Initiatives on the ballot

Although the trend over the previous two decades had been for fewer total statewide measures on the ballot, in 2016 and 2018, there were spikes in the number of measures put on the ballot through citizen initiative or veto referendum petitions rather than by state legislatures.

• In 2016, 34 citizen initiatives and five veto referendums were certified for the ballot. This was more citizen-initiated measures than since 2006.
• In 2018, 68 citizen-initiated measures were put on the ballot. There were 16 other initiatives not on the ballot that were either enacted by state legislators or replaced by a compromise between legislators, different sets of initiative proponents, and other interests in the state. Moreover, several citizen-initiated measures were previously certified for the ballot but were removed or ruled invalid by court decisions.
• From 1980 through 2014, an average of 54 citizen initiatives appeared on the ballot during even-numbered years.
• Looking from 2008 through 2014, this average decreases to 49.

Number of initiatives since 2008
2018	2016	2014	2012	2010	2008	Average
68	76	40	63	50	74	62

Initiative filing activity

In 2018, 947 citizen-initiated measures were filed and 68 of them (7.18 percent) had successful signatures drives and made the ballot. Initiatives fail to make the ballot various reasons, including unconstitutional ballot text, shortage of valid signatures, and missed deadlines. Compared the election cycles between 2010 and 2018, 2018 had the second highest number of filings and the second higher number of citizen-initiated measures on the ballot.

Overview of proposals:

• Of the 26 states with some form of citizen-initiated measure, at least one measure was filed in 23 of them (88.5 percent).
• In Illinois, Maryland, and New Mexico, no citizen-initiated measures were proposed.
• The states with the most proposed citizen-initiated measures were Missouri (373), Washington (163), and Colorado (113).
• The states with the least proposed citizen-initiated measures were Wyoming (1), Maine (3), and Idaho (4).
• More than 80 percent of initiatives filed were in four states—Missouri, Washington, Colorado, and California.
• The highest rates of certification were in North Dakota (66.7 percent) and Nevada (57.1 percent)
• The lowest rates of certification were in Mississippi and Wyoming, where none of the proposals made the ballot.

Overview of certifications:

• Of the 26 states with some form of citizen-initiated measure, at least one measure appeared on the ballot in 21 of them (80.8 percent).
• Compared to 2010, 18 more citizen-initiated measures appeared on the ballot in 2018.
• Compared to 2012, five more citizen-initiated measures appeared on the ballot in 2018.
• Compared to 2012, 28 more citizen-initiated measures appeared on the ballot in 2018.
• Compared to 2016, eight less citizen-initiated measures appeared on the ballot in 2018.
• California and South Dakota featured the largest decrease in the number of initiatives on the ballot from 2016 to 2018. In California, the number fell six measures from 15 to 9. In South Dakota, the number fell six measures from nine to three.
• Michigan and Utah featured the largest increase in the number of initiatives on the ballot from 2016 to 2018—zero to three.

The following table illustrates the number of citizen-initiated measures proposed, the number that appeared on the ballot, and the percentage of proposals that appeared on the ballot.

	2010	2012	2014	2016	2018
Proposed	606	566	616	1,069	947
Certified	50	63	40	76	68
Certified (%)	8.25%	11.13%	6.49%	7.11%	7.18%

Signature collection costs

See also: Ballot measure signature costs, 2018 and Ballot measures cost per required signatures analysis

A total of between $74.4 million and $78.8 million was spent on the signature petitions for the 68 citizen-initiated measures that were on the ballot in 2018. A combined total of 11,110,180 valid signatures from registered voters were required to qualify the measures for the ballots. Ballotpedia tracked the total petition costs for each successful initiative and veto referendum petition drive, as well as the total cost compared to the number of valid signatures required to qualify the measure for the ballot, or the cost per required signature (CPRS).

Total cost

The total cost depends on all of the factors that can make a petition effort more or less expensive, including the population of the state and the state's signature requirements. This measurement does not necessarily indicate how difficult it is to run a signature petition campaign in a state relative to other states or how hard and expensive it is to collect a given valid signature. It takes into consideration the population and signature requirements for a state. For example, the average total cost of a successful initiative petition drive in California in 2016 was just over $2.9 million, while in Oklahoma the average total cost was about $870,000. Initiatives in California, however, require over four times as many signatures and affect 10 times as many people.

Cost per required signature (CPRS)

The cost per required signature cuts out the variable of a state's signature requirements and shows the cost for each signature needed to qualify the measure for the ballot. This second measurement is a better indication of how difficult it is to run a signature petition campaign in a given state relative to other states. For example, the average CPRS in California in 2016 was $6.20 while the average CPRS in Oklahoma was $9.59, but the average total petition cost was $2.9 million in California and about $870,000 in Oklahoma.

From the perspective of a national organization or proponents of a national agenda, this means that a lower CPRS generally means that a campaign could potentially affect more people and achieve more political influence per dollar spent, while the total petition cost might dictate in which states the campaign could actually afford to launch a successful petition drive.

Analysis, averages, and highlights

• A total of between $74.4 million and $78.8 million was spent on the signature petitions for the 68 citizen-initiated measures that were on the ballot in 2018.
  • A combined total of 11,110,180 valid signatures were required to qualify the measures for the ballots across the 21 states with citizen-initiated measures.
• The average total cost for qualifying an initiative or veto referendum for the ballot in 2018 was between $1.1 million and $1.2 million.
• The average CPRS across all the initiatives that were on the ballot in 2018 was between $6.19 and $6.85.
• In 2016, the average total cost was $1.03 million, and the average CPRS was $5.6.
  • From 2010 through 2016, the average total cost per initiative in even-numbered years was $801,836, and the average CPRS was $4.2. Citizen-initiated measures were on the ballot in between 14 and 17 states from 2010 through 2016.
• The states with the highest average total cost for initiative petitions were Florida, Ohio, and California.
• The states with the lowest average total cost for initiative petitions were Oklahoma, Maine, and South Dakota.
• The states with the highest average CPRS for initiatives that were on the ballot were Arkansas, Ohio, and Idaho.
• The states with the lowest average CPRS for initiatives that were on the ballot were Michigan, Maine, and Oklahoma.
• The most expensive individual initiative petition drives in 2018 were Arizona Proposition 127 ($5,843,652), Florida Amendment 3 ($5,282,534), and California Proposition 5 ($5,140,990).
• The three individual initiative petition drives with the highest cost per required signature in 2018 were Arizona Proposition 127 ($25.86), Idaho Proposition 1 ($22.27), and Arkansas Issue 4 ($16.69).
• Gambling was the topic with the most expensive signature gathering efforts; the three gambling-related initiatives on the ballot (in Arkansas, Florida, and Idaho) had the highest average CPRS at $15.28.

Referral changes

Statewide measures can be put on the ballot in a variety of ways depending on the state. Often, the measures that receive the most attention are put on the ballot through citizen signature petition drives. But the citizen-initiated measures are usually outnumbered by measures referred to the ballot by the state legislature, measures put on the ballot by certain commissions or conventions, and measures that are automatically required by state laws. A total of 99 referrals and automatic ballot measures were featured on the ballot in 2018. This compares to a total of 86 on the ballot in 2016. In 2014, 118 referrals and automatic ballot questions (ABQ) appeared on the ballot. In 2012 and 2010, 125 and 134 appeared on the ballot, respectively. These numbers showed a decreasing trend over the previous four even-year elections in the number of legislative referrals, with an uptick in 2018. One factor in 2018 was the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC), which convenes every 20 years, including in 2018, to refer constitutional amendments to the voters. In 2018, voters decided seven proposals put on the ballot by the Florida CRC. Legislative and commission referrals constituted about 60 percent of all 167 measures certified to appear on state ballots in 2018. Sixty-eight citizen-initiated measures (constitutional amendments, state statutes, and five veto referendums) also appeared on 2018 ballots.

Of the 99 referrals:

• Sixty-six (66) were legislatively referred constitutional amendments;
• Fourteen (14) were bond issues;
• Nine (9) were legislatively referred state statutes;
• Seven (7) were commission-referred ballot measures placed on the Florida ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission;
• Two (2) were advisory questions; and
• One (1) was an automatic ballot referral.

Highlights:

• A total of 13 more referrals and automatic questions appeared on the ballot in 2018 than in 2016.
• A total of 26 fewer referrals and automatic questions appeared on the ballot in 2018 than in 2012.
• A total of 35 fewer referrals and automatic questions appeared on the ballot in 2018 than in 2010.
• Of the 37 states with measures on the ballot, seven states—Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Washington—featured no legislatively referred measures.

Number of referrals and ABQs
	2010	2012	2014	2016	2018	Change from 2016
Totals:	134	125	118	86	92	+13

Campaign contributions

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2018

Note: Campaign finance filing deadlines for the 2018 election cycle vary by state and some final deadlines extend into late February of 2019, which means complete campaign finance data for ballot measure campaigns in 2018 was not available at the time of this report. The information below is based on the campaign finance filings available as of December 12, 2018, with additional ad-hoc updates.

Ballotpedia tracks all donations received by committees registered to support or oppose ballot measures. In certain instances, the same committee registered to support or oppose more than one ballot measure, which means that some contributions are duplicated and the total support and opposition contributions listed can be slightly higher than the total amount of money that was actually spent.

Total contributions

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2018

In 2018, Ballotpedia had tracked $1.186 billion in contributions to the ballot measure campaigns supporting and opposing 167 statewide measures that were put before voters across 38 states in 2018 and $1.16 billion in expenditures by those campaigns. These figures included both cash contributions and expenditures as well as in-kind goods and services. Support campaigns had raised about 53 percent of the campaign funds. The 68 citizen-initiated measures had featured about 87 percent of the campaign finance activity.

To put that in perspective, in 2016, Ballotpedia tracked $1.01 billion in contributions to ballot measure campaigns for the 162 statewide measures that were put before voters across 35 states in 2016. In 2014, Ballotpedia tracked $467 million in contributions to the campaigns in support of and opposition to the 158 statewide ballot measures. In 2012, the total was $491 million for the 188 statewide measures.

Most expensive measures

The following ten measures featured the largest amount in combined support and opposition campaign contributions. Eight of the 10 were defeated, and in each of the ten most expensive ballot measure battles, the side with the most in contributions won.

Measure	Status	Support	Opposition
California Proposition 8: Limits on Dialysis Clinics' Revenue	d	$18,943,227.65	$111,482,980.16
Nevada Question 3: Energy Market	d	$33,432,598.21	$63,960,356.43
California Proposition 10: Local Rent Control	d	$25,295,590.67	$71,366,691.31
Arizona Proposition 127: Renewable Energy Standards	d	$	$
California Proposition 6: Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal	d	$5,161,188.80	$46,719,587.54
Washington Initiative 1631: Carbon Emissions Fee	d	$16,398,381.52	$31,591,364.54
Florida Amendment 3: Voter Approval of Casino Gambling	a	$46,151,662.59	$1,769,842.00
Florida Amendment 6: Marsy's Law, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation	a	$37,252,863.00	$0.00
Massachusetts Question 1: Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits	d	$12,044,919.81	$24,808,566.78
Colorado Proposition 112: Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects	d	$1,685,374.63	$31,873,580.51

Contributions by state

Of the 37 states featuring statewide ballot measures in 2018, 32 also featured campaigns with contributions reported according to state campaign finance reports available as of December 12, 2018.

The most money was contributed to ballot measure campaigns in California, where a total of $372 million was provided to support and opposition ballot measure committees. The contributions in California amounted to 32 percent of all contributions tracked by Ballotpedia for 2018 ballot measures.

As of December 16, 2018, the 15 states with the most ballot measure campaign finance activity reported surrounding all 2018 measures are below. These 15 states featured 95 percent of all statewide ballot measure campaign finance activity in 2018:

1. California - $371,861,589.62 in contributions
2. Nevada - $126,247,260.34 in contributions
3. Florida - $126,176,280.94 in contributions
4. Washington - $79,905,809.30 in contributions
5. Colorado - $70,409,321.18 in contributions
6. Arizona - $65,617,278.67 in contributions
7. Missouri - $47,843,819.55 in contributions
8. Massachusetts - $44,041,049.28 in contributions

9. Montana - $35,463,345.66 in contributions
10. Oregon - $34,132,628.48 in contributions
11. Michigan - $32,164,577.74 in contributions
12. Oregon - $17,293,304.70 in contributions
13. Idaho - $14,333,794.81 in contributions
14. Alaska - $14,136,562.85 in contributions
15. Arkansas - $11,969,971.95 in contributions

Contributions per vote

One method for analyzing the effectiveness of campaigns is to look at the size of their funds relative to the number of votes their position received. This is a contributions-per-votes (CPV) amount.

Combined contributions per vote

The most expensive ballot measure of 2018 was California Proposition 8. Together, supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 raised more than a combined $130.3 million. California, however, has the largest electorate in the United States. The conflict surrounding Proposition 8 saw about $10.78 raised for each vote cast for or against the ballot initiative.

The ballot measure with the highest cost-per-vote was not in California but in neighboring Nevada, where $100.85 was raised per vote for or against Nevada Nevada Question 3. An additional two ballot measures had a total cost-per-vote above $50.00—Montana I-185 and Alaska Measure 1.

The following table includes the ten ballot measures with the highest total cost-per-vote in 2018.

Measure	Outcome	Votes	Contributions	CPV
Nevada Question 3	d	961,794	$97,000,320	$100.85
Montana I-185	d	501,077	$27,363,934	$54.61
Alaska Measure 1	d	275,547	$14,136,563	$51.30
Arizona Proposition 127	d	2,303,239	$54,815,991	$23.80
South Dakota Measure 25	d	331,429	$7,130,893	$21.52
Missouri Proposition A	d	1,393,256	$24,066,638	$17.27
Washington Initiative 1631	d	3,086,428	$47,975,365	$15.54
Montana I-186	d	496,498	$7,684,704	$15.48
Massachusetts Question 1	d	2,645,994	$37,553,163	$14.19
Colorado Proposition 112	d	2,488,022	$33,558,955	$13.49

Top support

The highest CPV amount for a campaign supporting a ballot measure was $105.40. The campaign was Nevadans for Affordable Clean, Energy Choices, which supported Nevada Question 3. The campaign raised $33.41 million in support of the initiative, which received 33 percent of the vote on November 6.

The following table illustrates the support campaigns with the five highest CPV amounts. All of the campaigns were supporting citizen-initiated measures. Several of the measures—Nevada Question 3, Montana I-185, and Alaska Measure 1—also featured opposition campaigns with some of the highest CPV amounts in 2018.

Measure	Outcome	Support CPV	Opposition CPV	Difference
Nevada Question 3	d	$105.40	$98.62	$6.79
Montana I-185	d	$41.50	$66.38	-$24.88
Arizona Proposition 127	d	$32.70	$19.72	$12.98
Alaska Measure 1	d	$20.04	$70.21	-$50.17
Arkansas Issue 4	a	$19.99	$0.39	$19.60

Top opposition

The highest CPV amount for a campaign opposing a ballot measure was $98.62. The campaign was the Coalition to Defeat Question 3, which opposed Nevada Question 3. The campaign raised $63.59 million in opposition to the initiative, which 67 percent of voters opposed on November 6.

The following table illustrates the opposition campaigns with the five highest CPV amounts. All of the campaigns were opposing citizen-initiated measures.

Measure	Outcome	Support CPV	Opposition CPV	Difference
Nevada Question 3	d	$105.40	$98.62	$6.79
Alaska Measure 1	d	$20.04	$70.21	-$50.17
Montana I-185	d	$41.50	$66.38	-$24.88
South Dakota Measure 25	d	$4.84	$35.10	-$30.25
Colorado Proposition 112	d	$1.51	$23.24	-$21.73

Largest differences

The greatest difference between the CPV amounts of support and opposition campaigns for the same measure is for Alaska Measure 1, which was defeated. Supporters had a CPV amount of $20.04, and opponents had a CPV amount of $70.21, meaning opponents raised $50.17 more in contributions per vote received than supporters.

The following table illustrates the largest differences between the CPV amounts of support and opposition campaigns. All of the campaigns were supporting or opposing citizen-initiated measures.

Measure	Outcome	Support CPV	Opposition CPV	Difference
Alaska Measure 1	d	$20.04	$70.21	-$50.17
South Dakota Measure 25	d	$4.84	$35.10	-$30.25
Montana I-185	d	$41.50	$66.38	-$24.88
Colorado Proposition 112	d	$1.51	$23.24	-$21.73
Arkansas Issue 4	a	$19.99	$0.39	$19.60

David and goliath races

Of the 167 statewide measures on ballots in 2018, there were 98 measures for which one side received significantly more in contributions than the other. Seven measures featured campaigns with similar amounts contributed in support and opposition, and 56 measures did not feature any committees with significant campaign contributions for either side. Out of the 98 were unbalanced from a campaign finance perspective, meaning that the difference between contributions on each side was a significant percentage (20 percent or more) of the total contributed to both campaigns. In many cases, one side spent millions or tens of millions of dollars more than the other. Out of those 98 races, the side with more money won 80 of them (81.6 percent). Of the 53 ballot measure battles with a total of at least $5 million in combined support and opposition contributions, the side with more money won in 49 of them.

• Total statewide ballot measures: 167
  • Unbalanced campaign finance: 98
  • Balanced campaign finance: 7
  • None or minor campaign spending: 56

• Out of the 98 unbalanced races in which campaign finance data was available and more than $20,000 was contributed to campaigns in support or opposition of the measures, the breakdown of victories and losses is below:
  • Victories after greater spending: 80
  • Losses after greater spending: 18

In 2016, there were 162 statewide measures. Of those, 102 featured support and opposition committees with unbalanced campaign contributions. The side with more money won in seventy-seven (75.5 percent) of these cases.

Comparison to prior years

In 2016, contributions to ballot measure campaigns exceeded a combined total of $1 billion. The average amount spent on a ballot measure was $6.2 million, with $12.3 million as the average for the 76 citizen-initiated measures and $881,907 as the average for the 86 legislative and automatic referrals. These averages were an increase from 2015, when a total of $32.1 million was raised for campaigns surrounding 28 ballot measures. An average of $1.1 million was raised per measure, with $4.3 million as the average for the five initiatives and $460,083 as the average for the 23 legislative referrals.

The table below provides a comparison of total and average contributions to ballot measure campaigns in 2015, 2016, and 2017:

Contributions and average contributions by year
Year		Initiatives	Referrals
2015	Amount	$21,514,284.70	$10,581,912.61
	Per measure	$4,302,856.94	$460,083.16
2016	Amount	$936,000,000.00	$76,000,000.00
	Per measure	$12,318,977.91	$881,907.49
2017	Amount	$96,176,428.12	$5,844,462.13
	Per measure	$24,044,107.03	$254,107.05

Readability

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

In 2018, Ballotpedia estimated the reading difficulty of ballot measures' titles and summaries using two formulas, the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). The formulas account for the number of syllables, words, and sentences in the ballot language, but not the difficulty or complexity of the ideas expressed in ballot language.

The entire report can be viewed here: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018.

In 2018, the average FKGL for the ballot titles or questions of all statewide ballot measures was between 19 and 20, comparable to the first year or two of a Ph.D. The average state scores ranged from 8 to 42.

Politician-sponsored ballot initiatives

See also: Politician-sponsored ballot initiatives

Politicians can utilize the initiative and referendum process as individual citizens. In 2018, politicians sponsored, co-sponsored, or developed 33 of the citizen-initiated measures proposed and 13 of the measures that appeared on the ballot.

Compared to an overall certification rate of 7.18 percent in 2018, 39.4 percent of politician-sponsored initiatives made the ballot. While politicians had a higher rate of success at getting initiatives certified for the ballot, politician-sponsored initiatives were approved at a lower rate than the total number of initiatives in 2018. Politician-sponsored initiatives were approved at a rate of 46.2 percent, while all of the year's initiatives were approved at a rate of 51.5 percent.

The following table provides an overview of the number of politician-sponsored initiatives in 2018:

Outcome of politician-sponsored ballot initiatives in 2018
Proposed	Certified	Approved	Defeated
33	13 (39.4 percent of proposed)	6 (46.2 percent of certified)	7 (53.8 percent of certified)

Highlights:

• Groups of Republican state representatives in Oregon sponsored two citizen-initiated measures in 2018—Measure 101, which would have repealed an assessment on insurances to provide funding for Medicaid, and Measure 105, which would have repealed the state’s sanctuary jurisdiction law. Voters upheld the tax in Measure 101 and rejected Measure 105. As of 2018, Oregon was a Democratic trifecta.
• Carl DeMaio's (R) California Proposition 6 received support from PACs affiliated with national Republicans, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). Voters rejected Proposition 6.
• Mark Mickelson (R-13), speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, sponsored two citizen-initiated measures in 2018—Measure 24, which banned out-of-state contributions to ballot measure committees, and Measure 25, which would have increased the state's tobacco tax. Voters approved Measure 24 and rejected Measure 25. Mickelson proposed both initiatives after similar bills failed to pass in the South Dakota State Legislature.
• There was one politician-sponsored ballot initiative that was approved as an indirect initiative. In Alaska, State Reps. Jason Grenn (I-22) and Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (D-35) proposed the Legislator Conflicts of Interest and Per Diem Limits Initiative, which the state legislature approved.
• There was one politician-sponsored ballot initiative that signatures were filed for but did not make the ballot—the Neighborhood Legislative Districts Initiative. John Cox (R), who ran for governor in 2018, developed the ballot initiative, which would have divided each state legislative district into about 93 smaller districts.

Compromises, withdrawals, and abandoned initiatives

In 2018, 68 citizen-initiated measures were put on the ballot. But the initiative process was also used to bring about changes in state law or policy without being put on the ballot and approved by voters. Ballotpedia tracked 16 other initiatives that had qualified or had made progress towards qualifying for the ballot that were either enacted by state legislators instead of being put on the ballot or that were withdrawn or abandoned following a compromise. In some cases, initiatives were withdrawn but replaced by alternative measures on the ballot as part of a compromise or put back on the ballot by a court ruling.

In 2018, there were initiatives that were withdrawn, abandoned, or enacted without going on the ballot in Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah. Also, compromises were made concerning initiatives in Washington and Utah that were ultimately on the ballot.

California:

Due to Senate Bill 1253 passed in 2014, statewide initiative proponents are allowed to withdraw initiatives that had qualified for the ballot up to 131 days before the election. In 2016, this allowed proponents of a minimum wage increase initiative to compromise with legislators and withdraw their initiative following the approval of a legislative bill to increase the state's minimum wage. In 2018, proponents of three different initiatives qualified their proposals for the ballot but withdrew them following compromises with the legislature and the approval of the legislation that came out of those compromises.

The three initiatives concerned (a) local tax preemption, (b) consumer personal information disclosure, and (c) school bonds and lead paid requirement (click [show] on the right to reveal details)

California Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative - Without the compromise over this measure, it would have joined the eight other 2018 statewide measures concerning restrictions or prohibitions on certain taxation. The initiative was backed by the California PAC of the American Beverage Association and would have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate to approve all local taxes, including soda taxes. After collecting enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot, proponents entered into a compromise with state legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown (D). On June 28, 2018, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation (Assembly Bill 1838) to preempt local soda taxes and other types of grocery taxes until 2031, while allowing local governments that enacted soda taxes before 2018 to continue to impose them. Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11) described the ballot initiative as a nuclear weapon aimed at the state and local governments in California. Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-2) said the compromise legislation resulted from extortion. He tweeted, “Extortion is the practice of obtaining something through force or threats. That’s what’s happening this week and the bad actors are the beverage industry.” Senate President Toni Atkins (D-39) said that the ballot initiative would have been worse. “We find ourselves under the biggest rock and the smallest hard place,” she said. California Consumer Personal Information Disclosure and Sale Initiative - This initiative would have allowed consumers to prevent certain businesses from selling or disclosing the consumer's personal information and would have authorized consumers to sue businesses for security breaches of personal information or for other violations of the measure's provisions. It was sponsored by Californians for Consumer Privacy, and the top donor to the campaign was Alastair Mactaggart. On June 28, 2018, the state government of California enacted legislation to require companies that store personal information to disclose to consumers what types of information is collected and allow consumers to prevent businesses from selling their information. The legislation, Assembly Bill 375, resulted from a compromise with Californians for Consumer Privacy, which agreed to withdraw its ballot initiative in exchange for the bill. Both the state House and state Senate passed the compromise bill in unanimous votes. Click here to read about the differences between AB 375 and the initiative. California Home and School Remediation Bond and Remove Status of Lead Paint as Public Nuisance Initiative - This initiative would have authorized $2 billion in general obligation bonds for the remediation of structural and environmental hazards in homes, schools, and assisted-living and senior housing. It also would have declared that lead-based paint was not a public nuisance and eliminated the liability of lead-paint manufacturers. Although proponents collected enough signatures for the initiative to appear on the ballot, initiative backers withdrew the initiative in exchange for legislators withdrawing legislation aimed at penalizing the lead paint companies beyond the court's order in People of California v. Conagra and Sherman Williams et al. Conagra Grocery Products Company, LLC, NL Industries, Inc., and The Sherwin Williams Company, which were all backed the initiative. They withdrew support from the ballot initiative after settling in People of California v. Conagra et al.

Colorado:

• In Colorado, voters approved Amendment Y and Amendment Z: measures establishing two 12-member, independent commissions to take over congressional and state legislative redistricting, respectively. The amendments were put on the ballot by the state legislature. They were approved for the ballot after a compromise between Fair Districts Colorado and People Not Politicians. Each group was proposing their own, competing redistricting measures. Fair Districts Colorado backed initiative proposals #48 and #50. Measures #95 and #96 were backed by People Not Politicians.

Ohio:

• Ohio Bipartisan Congressional Redistricting Commission Initiative - This initiative would have established a bipartisan redistricting commission in Ohio with authority over congressional redistricting. Proponents of the initiative withdrew it after the state legislature referred Issue 1 to the May 2018 ballot and voters approved it. Issue 1 left redistricting up to the legislature and an existing commission but changed the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps and the standards required in drafting new congressional district maps in Ohio.

• Ohio Rules for Breeding Dogs and Selling Puppies Initiative - This initiative would have required persons who keep, house, or maintain dogs for breeding and selling their puppies to provide the dogs and their puppies with certain levels and types of exercise, socialization, housing, food and water, and veterinary care. Supporters suspended their campaign for the ballot initiative after negotiations with the state legislature resulted in House Bill 506, which included some of the standards for dog breeders that the initiative would have required.

Massachusetts:

In Massachusetts, initiated state statutes require two installments of signatures. The first batch, consisting of most of the signatures required, qualifies the measure to go before the legislature. The legislature can approve the initiative, thereby precluding an election; if the initiative is not approved, a second small batch of signatures is required to put the initiative on the ballot. For three initiatives in the 2018 cycle, proponents submitted enough signatures to send the measures before the legislature.

Following a compromise between the legislature and the different sets of initiative proponents, initiative efforts concerning (a) minimum wage, (b) paid leave, and (c) a sales tax decrease were abandoned. (click [show] to the right to see details)

Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Initiative Massachusetts $15 Minimum Wage Initiative Massachusetts Sales Tax Decrease and Tax-Free Weekend Initiative The Democratic-controlled Massachusetts Legislature passed and Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed a compromise bill known as the grand bargain. The bill, House Bill 4640 (HB 4640), was a compromise with Raise Up Massachusetts, which backed the minimum wage and paid sick leave initiatives, and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, which backed the sales tax decrease initiative. Raise Up Massachusetts and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts agreed not to submit the second required batch of signatures for their proposed initiatives since the bill was approved. The bill authorized workers to take 12 weeks of paid leave, set incremental increases to the minimum wage until it reached $15 by 2023 (one year later than the initiative would have), and incrementally phased out time-and-a-half pay for Sunday work. The paid leave initiative was designed to provide employees and self-employed individuals (who elect coverage) with 16 weeks of paid family leave, 26 weeks of paid medical leave, or an aggregate of no more than 26 weeks of paid family and medical leave per year. The compromise bill also required the state to hold an annual sales-tax-free holiday in August. It did not reduce the state sales tax, as was proposed in the initiative. Governor Charlie Baker said, "The product of this is a far better product for the commonwealth than each of these as stand-alone entities would have been for Massachusetts, which is why I'm signing it."

Utah:

• Utah Income and Sales Tax Increase for Public Education Initiative - This initiative—backed by Our Schools Now—would have increased the state's income tax and sales tax to provide an estimated $700 million per year dedicated for education funding.

Our Schools Now negotiated a compromise with the state legislature that resulted in the approval of two bills during the 2018 session designed to increase revenue for education. (Click [show] on the right for details)

House Bill 293 to freeze property tax rates—which otherwise would have been adjusted downward. It also decreased income tax rates to 4.95 percent. The bill provided a net gain for education spending. House Joint Resolution 20 provided for the submission of a non-binding advisory question to the voters at the November 2018 election asking whether voters supported increasing gas taxes by $0.10 per gallon to fund local roads, which would have, in turn, freed up revenue from the general fund for education. Revenue from the tax was estimated at about $100 million per year. Estimates stated that, together, HB 293 and the proposed gas tax—if it has been approved by voters—would have provided about $375 million in additional education spending per year. Lane Beattie, president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber and member of the Our Schools Now steering committee, said, “Our support of the Our Schools Now initiative has always come with the hope that a legislative solution could be reached. We are thrilled with the efforts of dozens of stakeholders to find a compromise.”

• Utah Proposition 2, Medical Marijuana Initiative - This initiative qualified for the ballot and was approved. Before the election, however, negotiations between Utah legislators and Proposition 2 supporters (including the Utah Patients Coalition and Libertas Institute) and opponents (including Drug Safe Utah and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) resulted in an agreement concerning legislative alterations to Proposition 2 to be addressed by the legislature after the November election if the measure was approved, which it was.

The legislation designed to replace Proposition 2, known as the Utah Medical Cannabis Act or House Bill 3001 (HB 3001), was approved and signed by the governor on December 3, 2018. (Click [show] on the right to see details)

House Bill 3001 made the following changes, among others: Removed the provision allowing patients to grow their own marijuana; Reduced the number of privately-run dispensaries allowed; Required dispensaries to employ pharmacists to recommend dosages; and Made changes to qualifying condition provisions. Following the approval of HB 3001, Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) wrote in a prepared statement, "This is a historic day. With the passage of the Utah Medical Cannabis Act, Utah now has the best-designed medical cannabis program in the country. Working with trained medical professionals, qualified patients in Utah will be able to receive quality-controlled cannabis products from a licensed pharmacist in medical dosage form. And this will be done in a way that prevents diversion of product into a black market." The Deputy Director of the Marijuana Policy Project, which supported Proposition 2, said, "This bill is undoubtedly inferior to the law enacted by voters in November. However, Proposition 2 would very likely have been defeated without the compromise deal, which prevented an onslaught of opposition spending. Advocates made the responsible decision to negotiate with opponents and ensure that patients were not left without any access to medical cannabis." Read about the changes made by HB 3001 here. Utah Sen. Jim Dabakis (D) said, "The Republicans replaced the voter’s verdict on Prop 2 with their own nightmare version of Medical Cannabis. The GOP ‘compromise’ plan will make it much harder, if not impossible, for patients to get the help they need."

Washington:

• Washington Initiative 940, Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force Measure - This initiative was designed to create a good faith test to determine when the use of deadly force by police is justifiable, require police to receive de-escalation and mental health training, and require law enforcement officers to provide first aid.

Following a compromise between initiative proponents, the legislature, and certain law enforcement agencies, the legislature approved and then amended the initiative, thereby precluding an election on it. The courts ultimately ruled this was unconstitutional, however, and voters ended up deciding the issue in November.

The initiative was an Initiative to the Legislature—Washington's indirect initiated state statute—which means that, once signatures were submitted and verified for the initiative, it went before the state legislature. State law gives the legislature three options upon the verification of a sufficient initiative petition for an Initiative to the Legislature: (1) the legislature can approve the initiative unaltered, (2) the legislature can send the initiative to the voters, and (3) the legislature can send the initiative and an alternative proposal to the voters. With Initiative 940, legislators approved the initiative and approved a bill to make alterations to it—House Bill 3003—to take effect one day following the approval of Initiative 940. House Bill 3003 was the result of a compromise between Initiative 940 proponents and certain law enforcement agencies, including the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and the Fraternal Order of Police. Tim Eyman, a political activist who has sponsored or worked on a number of ballot initiative campaigns in Washington, filed a lawsuit against the state on March 12, 2018, arguing that the passage of HB 3003 altering Initiative 940 was unconstitutional and violated the state's process for Initiatives to the Legislature. Eyman said, "The Legislature went rogue, disrespecting the initiative petition signers and preventing voters from exercising their right to vote." Ultimately, the court ruled that Initiative 940 had to go before voters unaltered. It was approved. Sen. David Frockt (D-Seattle) said he would introduce a bill in the Senate to revise I-940 with input from Equal Rights Washington, the sponsors of the initiative, and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs which opposed the initiative.

Michigan:

• Michigan Renewable Energy Standards Initiative - This initiative was similar to two initiatives that were on the ballot in Arizona (defeated) and Nevada (approved, but requires approval again in 2020). It would have required Michigan electric providers to acquire electricity from a higher percentage of renewable resources per year until that percentage reached 30 percent in 2030. Proponents, however, withdrew the initiative following a compromise. Uniquely, the compromise, in this case, was with utility companies, not legislators, and it did not include the passage of a legislative bill. Proponents withdrew the initiative after the state's largest utilities committed to producing 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

Oklahoma:

• Oklahoma Increased Tax on Oil and Gas Wells for Education Funding Initiative - This initiative would have increased the state's oil and gas production tax to 7 percent with revenue earmarked for teacher salaries.

Although proponents of this initiative weren't directly involved in bargaining for legislation, proponents did cease work on the initiative when the legislature passed and the governor signed House Bill 1010 to increase the gross production tax on oil and gas to 5 percent and provide a $6,000 raise to teachers. (Click [show] on the right to see details)

Mickey Thompson, co-founder of the initiative's sponsoring group, said, "Our group still believes the gross production tax should be 7 percent across the board. We haven't changed our minds on that. We also haven't lost sight of the fact that we started this effort with one goal in mind and that was to give teachers a significant pay raise. It appears that has happened, so we do have a decision to consider. Our teachers are dramatically underpaid. $6,000 is a good start to getting us back to respectability. Our decision is not should the teachers get more than the legislature approved. We think that answer is yes. This deal in and of itself is just a good start." Thompson also said, "Our calculus is whether the voters of Oklahoma will vote yes when the teachers have already gotten a $6,000 pay raise. That's a different question."

Approved by the legislature

In states with an indirect initiative process, initiatives for which enough signatures were submitted first go to the legislature and then only to the ballot if the legislature does not enact them.

Alaska:

Alaska has an indirect initiative process for initiated states statutes. In Alaska, if enough signatures are submitted for an initiative, the legislature is notified and the initiative only goes on the ballot if the legislature does not enact legislation deemed to be equivalent by the office of the lieutenant governor.

• Alaska Legislator Conflicts of Interest and Per Diem Limits Initiative - This initiative was designed to create provisions related to (a) preventing legislator conflicts of interest, (b) making per diems for legislators contingent on passing a budget bill, (c) prohibiting lobbyists from buying meals and drinks for legislators, (d) justifying public expenses for travel to another country, and (e) restricting campaign spending and contributions of foreign-influenced corporations.

The legislature passed what was determined to be equivalent legislation, precluding an election on the initiative. (Click [show] to the right for details)

House Bill 44 passed in the legislature on May 11, 2018. The lieutenant governor announced on June 1, 2018, that the bill was deemed similar enough to the initiative to replace and preclude an election on it. Rep. Jason Grenn (I-Anchorage), a sponsor of the initiative, said, “As soon as the Governor signs the bill, the Alaskans for Integrity group [the initiative sponsoring group] will disband as we have decided not to pursue further action on keeping the initiative on the November ballot.” Alaska Governor Bill Walker signed the legislation into law on July 19, 2018.

Michigan:

Michigan has an indirect initiative process for initiated state statutes. In Michigan, if voters approve an initiative at the ballot, the legislature can amend or repeal that initiative with a three-fourths supermajority vote. If the legislature approves the initiative, precluding an election on it, the legislature can amend or repeal the initiative with a simple majority. Moreover, initiatives approved by the legislature cannot be vetoed by the governor.

• Michigan Repeal Prevailing Wages and Fringe Benefits on State Projects Initiative - This initiative qualified for the ballot, but the legislature approved the initiative instead of putting it on the ballot.

The measure repealed the state law requiring that workers be paid prevailing wages and fringe benefits on state projects that the state pays for in part or in whole. (Click [show] to the right for details)

According to Jeff Wiggins, president of the support committee Protecting Michigan Taxpayers, the goal of proponents was to have the Michigan State Legislature vote on and approve the ballot initiative. Wiggins said, "We are confident state lawmakers will do what is best for Michigan taxpayers and eliminate this costly carve-out." Gov. Rick Snyder (R) opposed repealing the prevailing wage law, but was not able to veto the initiative because of state laws governing initiatives.

• Michigan Minimum Wage Increase Initiative and Michigan Paid Sick Leave Initiative - These initiatives were designed to increase the state's minimum wage between 60 and 75 cents each year until reaching $12.00 in 2022 and require employers to provide employees with paid sick time, respectively.

Proponents collected enough signatures to qualify each measure for the ballot. The legislature approved the initiatives, rather than putting it on the ballot, and then amended them. (Click [show] to the right for details)

Most legislative Republicans supported adopting the initiatives. Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof (R-30) said Republicans would seek to amend the initiative at a future date. He said, “We’ll consider different options and a whole suite of things we think are more friendly to Michigan, to make sure that workers are indeed cared for, and that still provide for economic development moving forward.” Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich (D-27) said Republicans' adopt-and-amend approach was better called "approve and remove, or even more cynically on my part, undo and screw." He added, "There’s no question they plan on making dramatic changes, if not repealing it altogether. We have no idea what that’s going to be." The state legislature approved and Governor Rick Snyder (R) signed bills to amend both initiatives on December 13, 2018. The final version of the bill amending the paid sick leave initiative was designed to require businesses with 50 or more employees to provide paid sick leave. Businesses with less than 50 employees were not required to provide paid sick leave under the bill. The bill also capped the requirement to provide paid sick leave at 40 hours per year instead of 72 hours per year, as the original indirect initiative required for businesses with 10 or more employees. The bill amending the minimum wage initiative required incremental increases to $12.05 per hour by 2030 instead of to $12 per hour by 2022 as required by the initial initiative. The bill also delays the prescribed minimum wage increases if the state's unemployment rate was higher than 8.5 percent and made the tipped worker base minimum wage 38 percent of the full minimum wage, with a provision requiring the sum of tips and wages to be at least equal to the full minimum wage.

Bond and tax issues on the ballot

See also: Analysis of bond and tax issue approval on statewide ballots

Below is a summary of the bond and tax issues that appeared on the 2018 statewide ballots:

Bond issues

Bonds in 2018
Total bond measures:	18
Approved:	15
Defeated:	3

The following are statistics of bond issues that were on the ballot in 2018. Only ballot measures that specified the amount of bonds that would be issued in its ballot text were included in this study.

The following chart shows the total amount of potential authorized bonds that were on the ballot in 2018 and how much money was approved versus how much was defeated. Voters approved all of the 14 legislatively referred bond measures.

The fourteen legislatively referred bond issues came from five states: Maine and New Mexico each featured four, Rhode Island featured three, California featured two, and one was on the ballot in New Jersey. Two bond issues each were put on the ballot in both California and Colorado through citizen initiative petitions. The bond issues proposed a total of $29.1 billion in new debt.

Total amount on 2018 ballot	Approved total amount	Defeated total amount
$29,110,313,000	$10,733,313,000	$18,377,000,000

Bond issues were proposed for transportation, education facilities and buses, children hospitals, environment and water infrastructure, public libraries, housing, and senior citizen facilities. The three bond issues that were defeated were citizen initiatives. Two concerned transportation, and one concerned water infrastructure and conservation.

Tax issues

There were 36 ballot measures addressing taxes in 17 states in 2018. Measures related to taxes appeared on the ballot in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

Of the 36 measures, 21 (58 percent) were approved and 15 (42 percent) were defeated. Two measures among the defeated were non-binding advisory questions. One of them, Washington Advisory Vote 19, concerned whether or not to repeal a tax on crude oil, which voters decided to repeal. The other measure, Utah Nonbinding Opinion Question 1, asked voters if they supported a gas tax increase of 10 cents per gallon, which voters rejected. One measure that was approved was a veto referendum: Oregon Measure 101. Measure 101's approval upheld certain assessments/taxes on healthcare insurance and the revenue of certain hospitals to provide funding for Medicaid expansion by approving five sections of House Bill 2391. Of the other 33 measures, 20 were referred to the ballot by state legislatures and 13 were placed on the ballot through citizen-initiated petitions. Of the 20 legislatively referred measures, 17 were approved and four were defeated. Of the 13 citizen-initiated measures, four were approved and nine were defeated.

Highlights:

• In 2018, tax exemptions were the most common type of tax proposal, of which there were 11. Of the 11 proposals concerning tax exemption, nine concerned property tax exemptions and two concerned sales tax exemptions. Of the nine property tax exemption measures, seven were approved and two were defeated. The two sales tax exemption measures were in Nevada and concerned exempting (1) medical equipment and (2) feminine hygiene products. Both were approved.
• Tax increases were the second-most common type of tax proposal on statewide ballots in 2018, of which there were eight. Of the eight measures, two were approved and six were defeated. One of the approved measures concerning tax increases was Florida Amendment 5, which was approved. This measure did not result in any increase to taxes, rather, it established a two-thirds vote requirement of each chamber of the Florida State Legislature to enact new taxes or fees or increase existing ones. The one measure approved by voters that resulted in a tax increase was Utah Proposition 3, which increased the state sales tax from 4.70 to 4.85 percent to finance the state's portion of the costs to expand Medicaid.

See also

• 2018 ballot measures
• Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
• Ballot measure signature costs, 2018
• Ballot measure campaign finance, 2018
• Ballot Measure Scorecard, 2018
• Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2018
• List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
• 2018 ballot measure polls
• 2018 ballot measure media endorsements