Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures

Changes in 2016 →

← Changes in 2014

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

This page lists changes and proposed changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures - with a focus on the initiative, referendum and recall processes. Given the complexity of ballot measure law, these laws can address a wide range of topics, including:

• The legal right of citizens to initiate statutes, amendments, veto referendums or recalls
• Signature and distribution requirements for placing measures on the ballot
• Regulations governing signature collection and petition circulators
• Campaign finance requirements for initiative, referendum, and recall campaigns
• Administrative rules, involving filing deadlines, fiscal analyses, petition forms, etc

Note: This database is only periodically updated. For the current status of a single bill, click the title to view more details.

As of December 31, 2015, Ballotpedia was covering 160 bills concerning ballot measure law that were proposed or reconsidered during the 2015 legislative sessions of 41 states. Of the total, 31 were approved, 56 had been defeated or abandoned, and 73 were carried over to 2016. Most of the bills—154—were introduced this year, and the other six were carried over from the 2014 legislative session in New Jersey.

Notably, a bill was introduced in Nebraska that was designed to allow electronic signature collection, making the initiative process much more accessible and removing the necessity of large financial backing for a successful initiative petition. Another law, Legislative Bill 367, was unanimously approved in Nebraska repealing the state's seven-year-old ban on paying circulators a per-signature rate.

Hoping to prevent the success of an increasingly likely marijuana legalization initiative, Arizona Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-6) introduced a constitutional amendment that was designed to require a 75 percent supermajority for any citizen-initiated measure that conflicts with federal law. The law died in the House Rules Committee.

In Missouri and South Dakota, laws seeking to increase the signature requirements for initiatives and referendums were introduced, while in New Jersey, some lawmakers sought to lower the signature threshold for recall petitions. The law proposed in South Dakota was tabled by a senate committee. These bills did not make it out of the respective state legislative sessions.

Non-I&R states that featured bills proposing to establish the powers of initiative and referendum at the statewide level included Alabama, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia and Virginia. Moreover, a proposed legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Illinois was designed to remove a severe subject restriction on state initiatives, changing the process from a largely unused power with a narrow scope to a potentially important and influential facet of Illinois politics. See the relevant state section below for the outcomes of these bills.

Wyoming legislators approved Senate File 49, rewriting the state's initiative and referendum laws. Notably, the bill removed state residency requirements and a prohibition against paying initiative signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected. The prohibition against pay-per-signature circulators remained for referendum petitions.

Two bills introduced in Colorado were designed to put up speed bumps in the prolific process used in the state to initiate constitutional amendments. One proposal was set up to require a fiscal analysis to accompany initiative petitions. It was approved and signed into law in May 2015. Another would have established a two-election system for initiated constitutional amendments, one election to "authorize" the proposed amendment and another in the following year to "ratify" it. The bill proposing a two-election system was indefinitely postponed by the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. As of the beginning of 2015, Colorado voters had seen eight different initiatives seeking constitutional amendments since 2010.

Legend

= This legislation is still pending. = This legislation was carried over to the next session. a = This legislation was approved. d = This legislation was defeated or is dead or abandoned.

Laws approved in 2015

1. a Alabama Senate Bill 30: Was designed to allow constitutional amendments concerning local issues to be decided on local ballots. To be enacted, SB 30 required voter approval in 2016. It was approved.
2. a Arizona House Bill 2407: In general, this bill required stricter compliance with technical signature petition rules and is more preventative of signature petitions that are not in strict compliance. It was also designed to require that any individual signatures dated after the circulator affidavit is signed must be thrown out. Arizona House Bill 2107 (2014) was relevant to and spurred this change. HB 2407 also specified that signatures collected by an out-of-state or paid circulator who was not registered with the Arizona Secretary of State at the time the signatures were signed must be invalidated. HB 2407 made other ballot law changes regarding litigation, court rulings and other issues.
3. a Arizona House Bill 2649: This bill amended campaign finance disclosure rules and definitions.
4. a Arkansas House Bill 1688: Was designed "To Amend The Law Concerning Municipal Initiative And Referendum Petitions; And To Extend The Time For Circulation Of Municipal Initiative And Referendum Petitions."
5. a Arkansas Senate Bill 202: A law dictating that any "county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law."
6. a California Assembly Bill 1100: "Existing law requires a fee of $200 to be paid by the proponents when a proposed ballot initiative or referendum is submitted to the Attorney General for preparation of a circulating title and summary. This bill increased the filing fee from $200 to $2,000."This proposal was a response to the “Sodomite Suppression” Initiative filed in 2015.
7. a California Assembly Bill 1535: "Existing law authorizes a voter who has signed an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to remove his or her name from the petition by filing a written request to do so with the appropriate county elections official prior to the day the petition is filed. This bill would require the written request filed with the elections official to include the voter’s name, residence address, and signature."
8. a Colorado House Bill 15-1057: Was designed to require an initial fiscal impact statement to be prepared for any submitted initiative. The impact statement would have to be posted on the legislative council staff's website. The bill was also designed to require the fiscal impact statement to be summarized in a two-sentence abstract, which must be displayed on the petition signature sheets during circulation. HB 15-1057 also has provisions requiring each designated initiative sponsor to attend all review and comment meetings, dictating that the absence of any designated initiative sponsor effects the withdrawal of the initiative.
9. a Idaho House Bill 216: Was designed "to provide an additional election date for city initiative and referendum elections and to make a technical correction."
10. a Illinois House Bill 220: "Amends the Fire Protection District Act. Provides that a board of trustees of a fire protection district may submit a question to increase the current special tax rate for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of emergency and rescue crews and equipment to the voters of the fire protection district by referendum. Provides the special tax rate may be raised to a maximum of .10%. Provides the language to be used in the referendum. Effective immediately."
11. a Louisiana House Bill 131: Was designed to provide "that certain recalled elected officials are ineligible to become candidates in certain elections."
12. a Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution 39: Was designed to request "the House and Governmental Affairs and Senate and Governmental Affairs committees to meet and function as a joint committee to study the advisability of reducing the number of signatures required to have a recall election."
13. a Maine Legislative Document 176: "An Act To Amend The Law Governing The Gathering Of Signatures For Direct initiatives And People's Veto Referenda." Specifically, LD 176 was designed to establish residency requirements for circulators and require paid circulators to register.
14. a Massachusetts House Bill 3615: "An Act relative to the recall of elected officials in the town of Dighton"
15. a Michigan Senate Bill 571: This law was designed to prevent the use of public funds to support or oppose ballot measures. It also contained other provisions concerning campaign finance and elections.
16. a Missouri Senate Bill 104: "Requires actions challenging initiatives and referendums to be fully adjudicated more than fifty-six days prior to the election in which the measure will appear on the ballot."
17. a Missouri House Bill 722: Was designed to prohibit cities and counties from imposing local minimum wages that are higher than the state-set minimum wage. It was also designed to prevent any local bans, taxes or fees on paper or plastic bags. Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed the bill on July 10, 2015. The Missouri State Legislature overturned the governor's veto.
18. a Montana Senate Bill 289: Revised campaign finance laws to implement more rules and clarify definitions concerning the disclosure of funding sources. The bill also required disclosure of the funding sources of political ads and imposed other campaign finance disclosure requirements.
19. a Nebraska Legislative Bill 367: Eliminated ban on paying signature petition circulators based on the number of signatures collected.
20. a Nevada Assembly Bill 23: Changed recall law to require all petition signatures to be collected from voters who actually cast a vote in the election that put the targeted official into office. This provision was enacted in compliance with Nevada Supreme Court ruling Strickland v. Waymire. AB 23 also made other various changes to elections law.
21. a Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution 8: "Proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to require approval of certain initiative measures by a two-thirds vote;" State law requires approval in the state's following legislative session to put this proposal before voters. Then, a majority vote in a statewide election would be required for approval.
22. a Ohio House Joint Resolution 4: "Proposing to amend Section 1e of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to prohibit an initiated constitutional amendment that would grant a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specify or determine a tax rate, or confer a commercial interest, right, or license to any person or nonpublic entity." This resolution was designed to require ratification by statewide voters on November 3, 2015, as Issue 2 before it was enacted. Issue 2 was approved.
23. a Ohio House Concurrent Resolution 19: "To delegate to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives authority to designate groups of members to prepare arguments for and against amendments to the Ohio Constitution proposed by the General Assembly, a person or persons to prepare an argument for any law, section, or item submitted to the electors by referendum petition, and a person or persons to prepare an argument against any constitutional amendment proposed by initiative petition."
24. a Oklahoma Senate Bill 809: Prohibited local regulations of the oil and gas industry, with exceptions for "reasonable" provisions concerning road use, traffic, noise, odors and the health, safety and welfare of residents.
25. a Oklahoma House Bill 1484: "Initiative and referendum; modifying filing of initiative and referendum petitions; repealing provision relating to circulation of petitions; effective date; emergency."
26. a South Dakota Senate Bill 67: Was designed to "revise certain provisions regarding challenges to certain election petition signatures."
27. a Texas House Bill 40: "Relating to the exclusive jurisdiction of this state [Texas] to regulate oil and gas operations in this state and the express preemption of local regulation of those operations."
28. a Utah House Bill 107: "This bill amends the Election Code in relation to the definition of, and the requirements placed on, a political issues committee."
29. a Utah House Bill 120: "This bill changes the date on which certain filing entities are required to submit certain financial disclosures." It included campaign finance disclosure filings for ballot issue committees and corporations that donate to ballot issue campaigns.
30. a Washington House Bill 2055: "Concerning statements on ballot measures in voters' pamphlets." The governor partially vetoed this bill. For details see here.
31. a Wyoming Senate File 49: "An act relating to initiatives and referendums; repealing prior initiative and referendum provisions; creating separate initiative and referendum provisions; revising initiative and referendum procedures and language; removing restrictions on circulator qualifications and pay as specified; and providing for an effective date." This bill repealed the state's laws governing the initiative and referendum process and replaced them with revised provisions. The new sections were broken up into separate sections for the initiative and referendum powers, where previously the laws governing each were combined. Notably, the bill removed state residency requirements and a prohibition against paying initiative signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected. The prohibition against pay-per-signature circulators remained for referendum petitions.

Legislation by state

This section lists the ballot law bills that were introduced or reconsidered in 2015 in each state legislature, the status of the bill and a brief summary.

Alabama

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alabama

1. a Alabama Senate Bill 30: Was designed to allow constitutional amendments concerning local issues to be decided on local ballots. To be enacted, SB 30 required voter approval in 2016.
2. d House Bill 78: Would have authorized the power of initiative for constitutional amendments and general laws and would have allowed the legislature to propose an alternate proposal. HB78 was designed to amend the Alabama Constitution and, thus, would have required voter approval in a statewide election if it had been approved in the legislature.
3. d Senate Bill 73: Was designed to authorize the power of initiative for constitutional amendments and general laws and allow the legislature to propose an alternate proposal. SB73 was designed to amend the Alabama Constitution and, thus, would have required voter approval in a statewide election if it had been approved in the legislature.

Arizona

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arizona

1. a House Bill 2407: In general, this bill required stricter compliance with technical signature petition rules and is more preventative of signature petitions that are not in strict compliance. It was also designed to require that any individual signatures dated after the circulator affidavit is signed must be thrown out. Arizona House Bill 2107 (2014) was relevant to and spurred this change. HB 2407 also specified that signatures collected by an out-of-state or paid circulator who was not registered with the Arizona Secretary of State at the time the signatures were signed must be invalidated. HB 2407 made other ballot law changes regarding litigation, court rulings and other issues.
2. a House Bill 2649: This bill amended campaign finance disclosure rules and definitions.
3. d House Concurrent Resolution 2027: Was designed to require a 75 percent supermajority vote of the people to approve any citizen-initiated ballot measure that conflicts with federal law. This proposed constitutional amendment -- which would have required voter approval after being passed by the legislature -- was introduced by Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-6) and was designed, in part, to specifically target imminent initiative efforts to legalize marijuana, which conflict with federal law.
4. d House Concurrent Resolution 2030: This bill would have provided that "any initiative or referendum measure or proposed amendment to the constitution of this state and that provides for a new increase in state expenditures is effective only on the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the qualified electors voting on the measure or proposed amendment."
5. d Senate Bill 1418: Would have amended campaign finance disclosure laws and definitions.
6. d Senate Bill 1365: Was designed to remove the requirements that a circulator affidavit for an initiative or referendum petition be signed in front of an authorized notary. It would have continued to require any circulator to sign a sworn statement, including the statement that all signers signed the petition in his or her presence. Moreover, it would have changed the name of the circulator statement from "Affidavit" to "Statement of verification."

Arkansas

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arkansas

1. a House Bill 1688: Was designed "To Amend The Law Concerning Municipal Initiative And Referendum Petitions; And To Extend The Time For Circulation Of Municipal Initiative And Referendum Petitions."
2. a Arkansas Senate Bill 202: A law dictating that any "county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law."

California

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California

Note: Several bills proposing technical, non-substantive changes to language found in laws governing ballot measures were also introduced.

1. a Assembly Bill 1535: "Existing law authorizes a voter who has signed an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to remove his or her name from the petition by filing a written request to do so with the appropriate county elections official prior to the day the petition is filed. This bill would require the written request filed with the elections official to include the voter’s name, residence address, and signature."
2. a Assembly Bill 1100: "Existing law requires a fee of $200 to be paid by the proponents when a proposed ballot initiative or referendum is submitted to the Attorney General for preparation of a circulating title and summary. This bill increased the filing fee from $200 to $2,000."This proposal was a response to the “Sodomite Suppression” Initiative filed in 2015.
3. California Assembly Bill 700: Was designed to reform election campaign advertisement disclosure laws.
4. Senate Bill 283: Would require the state's legislative analyst to prepare the ballot title and summary for any ballot measure instead of the state's attorney general.
5. Assembly Bill 1296: Would establish direct initiative for cities, counties and special districts instead of an indirect process. In other words, under AB 1296, any local initiative petition that was certified by the appropriate elections official to have a sufficient number of valid signatures would go directly before voters, rather than having the possibility of first being approved by the relevant local legislative body.
6. Assembly Bill 884: "For statewide initiatives that the Attorney General has determined would likely result in a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights," this bill would require signatures to be included in public records and accessible to public inspection. It would also require the Attorney General to include his opinion that the initiative would violate constitutional rights in the ballot label and ballot title on the petition and would require a statement explaining that a signature attached to the petition would be subject to the California Public Records Act. It would also remove a provision in California elections law that prohibits petition signatures from being used for any other purpose than to qualify an initiative for the ballot. This proposal is in response to the “Sodomite Suppression” Initiative filed in 2015.
7. Assembly Bill 535: "Existing law requires the Attorney General to provide a ballot label and a ballot title for each measure to be submitted to the voters at a statewide election. Existing law requires the Attorney General to prepare a summary of the chief purposes and points of each statewide ballot measure as part of the ballot title. This bill would impose specified requirements with respect to the content of the ballot title and summary required to be prepared by the Attorney General."

Colorado

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Colorado

1. a Colorado House Bill 15-1057: Was designed to require an initial fiscal impact statement to be prepared for any submitted initiative. The impact statement would have to be posted on the legislative council staff's website. The bill was also designed to require the fiscal impact statement to be summarized in a two-sentence abstract, which must be displayed on the petition signature sheets during circulation. HB 15-1057 also has provisions requiring each designated initiative sponsor to attend all review and comment meetings, dictating that the absence of any designated initiative sponsor effects the withdrawal of the initiative.
2. d Senate Concurrent Resolution 15-002: This bill was designed to require two separate elections to enact initiated constitutional amendments, one to "authorize" the proposed amendment and one to "ratify" it. An exception would have been made for any initiated amendment that proposed simply to repeal previously adopted constitutional provisions.

Connecticut

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Connecticut

1. d Senate Bill 617: Was designed "to allow for recall of ineffective registrars of voters."
2. d Senate Bill 618: Was designed "to authorize the recall of municipal elected public officials."

Hawaii

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Hawaii

1. House Bill 418: Was designed to establish the powers of initiative, referendum and recall.
2. Senate Bill 220: Would require corporations to have approval from a majority of shareholders before contributing to any political committees, including ballot measure campaign committees. It also contains provisions that would require corporations to give notice of approved contributions to shareholders and allow shareholders that voted against the contribution to demand a prorated reimbursement. The bill would also prohibit "a corporation from making a contribution if the majority of its shares are owned by persons who are prohibited from making contributions under state law or taking political positions due to investments with the State or county."
3. Senate Bill 202: Would amend "the reporting requirements of non-candidate committees to include identification of a ballot issue being advocated for or against."
4. Senate Bill 1344: Relates "to campaign spending."

Idaho

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Idaho

1. a Idaho House Bill 216: Was designed "to provide an additional election date for city initiative and referendum elections and to make a technical correction."

Illinois

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Illinois

1. a House Bill 220: "Amends the Fire Protection District Act. Provides that a board of trustees of a fire protection district may submit a question to increase the current special tax rate for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of emergency and rescue crews and equipment to the voters of the fire protection district by referendum. Provides the special tax rate may be raised to a maximum of .10%. Provides the language to be used in the referendum. Effective immediately."
2. House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 4: Would put before voters an amendment that would remove the state's restriction on initiated constitutional amendments allowing them to only affect "structural and procedural subjects" contained in Article IV of the Illinois Constitution. In other words, it would change the initiative power in Illinois from a very narrowly restricted, largely unused process to a process that could actually affect many areas of state law. HJRCA 4 would also decrease the signature requirement to qualify initiatives for the ballot from eight percent to five percent of the total votes cast for Governor in the last gubernatorial election. The bill would require any initiated constitutional amendment to be approved by three-fifths of those voting on the amendment.
3. House Bill 174: "Provides the Local Government Dissolution Act. Provides that electors may petition for a referendum at the next general election to dissolve a non-home rule unit of local government. Sets forth the requirements for the petition, together with the form and requirements for the ballot referendum. Provides for the transfer of all real and personal property, and any other assets, together with all personnel, contractual obligations, and liabilities of the dissolving unit of local government to the receiving unit of local government. Amends the Election Code to provide exceptions for the Local Government Dissolution Act."

Indiana

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Indiana

1. d House Bill 1027: Was designed to provide "that a referendum on a controlled project may be held only at a general election, if the preliminary determination to issue bonds or enter into a lease for the controlled project is made after June 30, 2015. [Would have provided]... that a referendum for a referendum tax levy of a school corporation may be held only at a general election, if the resolution to hold the referendum is adopted after June 30, 2015." Supporters proposed that the higher voter turnouts at general elections were important. The bill's sponsor, Rep. David Frizzell (R-93), said, "... more people should have the ability to vote on these very important issues." Opponents argued the measure could unnecessarily delay important and popular education projects. JT Coopman, executive director of the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents, said, "Referendums [on education funding] should be held when school boards are reacting to the very real need and not by an imposed election cycle.”
2. d House Bill 1146: A different version of House Bill 1027 described above that had nearly identical provisions.
3. d House Bill 1253: Was designed to authorize "a county, city, or town to adopt an ordinance to permit the adoption of other ordinances or resolutions for the county, city, or town by a process initiated by voters of the county, city, or town."

Kansas

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Kansas

1. House Concurrent Resolution 5003: "Constitutional amendment; extend recall elections to elected judicial officers." This proposed amendment would require approval by the state's voters if it passes in the legislature. It also requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in both branches of the state legislature.

Kentucky

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Kansas

1. d Senate Bill 145: Would have changed laws concerning requirements for the circulation of a petition for a local liquor option, specified that the petitioners would pay for the election through posting a bond, and established other regulations.
2. d House Bill 373: The legislative summary of this bill read, "Amend KRS 242.020 to permit a local option question to be held on a primary or a regular election day; amend 242.030 to establish deadlines and procedures for the filing of petitions; amend KRS 242.060 to establish who will pay for a local option question election."

Louisiana

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Louisiana

1. d Senate Bill 201: "Constitutional amendment to provide for ballot initiatives."
2. a House Bill 131: Was designed to provide "that certain recalled elected officials are ineligible to become candidates in certain elections."
3. a House Concurrent Resoultion 39: Was designed to request "the House and Governmental Affairs and Senate and Governmental Affairs committees to meet and function as a joint committee to study the advisability of reducing the number of signatures required to have a recall election."

Maine

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine & Residency requirements for petition circulators

1. a Legislative Document 176: "An Act To Amend The Law Governing The Gathering Of Signatures For Direct initiatives And People's Veto Referenda." Specifically, LD 176 was designed to establish residency requirements for circulators and require paid circulators to register.
2. d Legislative Document 754: "An Act To Prohibit A Municipality From Holding A Referendum To Legalize The Recreational Use Of Marijuana"
3. d Legislative Document 1228: "An Act To Amend The Ballot Initiative Process To Ensure Support In Maine's Congressional Districts"
4. d Legislative Document 594: "An Act To Allow The Creation Of A Local Option Sales Tax By Referendum"
5. d Legislative Document 1148: "An Act To Implement A Local Ballot Referendum For Municipalities To Disallow Tax-Exempt Status To Large Land Trusts"
6. d Legislative Document 754: "Resolution, Proposing An Amendment To The Constitution Of Maine To Ensure That Laws Governing Hunting And Fishing Are Not Subject To The Citizen Petition Process"
7. d Legislative Document 837: "Resolution, Proposing An Amendment To The Constitution Of Maine To Limit The Application Of A Citizen Initiative Concerning Wildlife Matters To Counties In Which It Is Approved"
8. d Legislative Document 225: "This bill limits the collecting of signatures on petitions for the direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum to persons who have been residents of the State for at least one year."
9. d Legislative Document 53: "This bill requires a majority vote of a corporation's shareholders before the corporation makes a political contribution or expenditure and requires that once the contribution or expenditure has been made, the corporation posts notice of the contribution or expenditure on its website. This bill disallows a corporation that has over half of its shares owned by one or more institutional investors who cannot hold public office, such as a pension fund or a for-profit or nonprofit corporation, from making any political contributions or expenditures. This bill also allows a shareholder who disagrees with a corporation's political contribution or expenditure to receive from the corporation upon request a rebate of a percentage of the political contribution or expenditure equal to the percentage of ownership the shareholder has in the corporation."
10. d Legislative Document 145: "This bill removes the duty of verifying and certifying petitions in direct initiatives of legislation and people's veto referenda from municipal clerks and registrars and instead requires the Secretary of State to verify and certify all petitions. The Secretary of State is also required [by this bill] to send a random sampling of 10% of the petitions back to the municipalities to review for accuracy for audit purposes. The bill also creates 3 positions in the Secretary of State's office to assist in the verification and certification process for petitions in direct initiatives and people's veto referenda."
11. Legislative Document 742: "Resolution, Proposing An Amendment To The Constitution Of Maine To Require That 5 Percent Of Signatures On A Direct initiative Of Legislation Come From Each County"

Maryland

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maryland

1. d House Bill 43: "For the purpose of prohibiting a person from willfully and knowingly preventing, hindering, or delaying another person from signing a petition by certain means; and generally relating to prohibited actions relating to petitions." This bill would have also prevented someone coercing, pressuring, manipulating or bribing someone to either sign or not sign a petition and has provisions prohibiting fraudulent signatures and petitions.

Massachusetts

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Massachusetts

1. a House Bill 3615: "An Act relative to the recall of elected officials in the town of Dighton"
2. House Bill 561: "An Act to establish a citizens' initiative review commission"
3. House Bill 1570: States that no initiative can propose a constitutional amendment that restricts the rights "set forth in this constitution to freedom and equality, or the right of each individual to be protected by society in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws."
4. Senate Bill 57: States that no initiative can propose a constitutional amendment that restricts the rights "set forth in this constitution to freedom and equality, or the right of each individual to be protected by society in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws."

Michigan

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Minnesota

1. a Michigan Senate Bill 571: This law was designed to prevent the use of public funds to support or oppose ballot measures. It also contained other provisions concerning campaign finance and elections.
2. Senate Bill 535: Was designed to prohibit and establish penalties for "a circulator misrepresenting the contents of a ballot question or recall petition and a circulator misrepresenting whether he or she is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer."
3. Senate Joint Resolution K: This bill was designed to clarify the state's already existing provision preventing the use of the veto referendum power against appropriation bills.
4. House Bill 4756: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature.
5. House Joint Resolution U: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature.

Minnesota

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Minnesota

1. Senate File 539: "Recall elections for school board members authorization; school board authority to remove members elimination"
2. House File 1962: "Recall elections for school board members authorization; school board authority to remove members elimination"
3. House File 208: "Prohibiting use of public funds to promote or defeat a ballot question; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 5; 10A."
4. Senate File 327: The Senate version of HF 208; "Prohibiting use of public funds to promote or defeat a ballot question; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 5; 10A."

Mississippi

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Mississippi

1. d Senate Concurrent Resolution 549: Would have conformed the state's congressional district distribution requirement for initiative and referendum petitions to the new number of state congressional districts.
2. d House Bill 105: Would have provided for a procedure to recall local and state elected officials; "Mississippi Recall Act"
3. d Senate Bill 2533: Would have provided for a procedure to recall local and state elected officials; "Mississippi Recall Act of 2015"

Missouri

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Missouri

1. a Senate Bill 104: "Requires actions challenging initiatives and referendums to be fully adjudicated more than fifty-six days prior to the election in which the measure will appear on the ballot."
2. a Missouri House Bill 722: Was designed to prohibit cities and counties from imposing local minimum wages that are higher than the state-set minimum wage. Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed the bill on July 10, 2015. The Missouri State Legislature overturned the governor's veto.
3. d House Joint Resolution 19: "Proposes a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds majority for voter approval of any initiative relating to bird, fish, game, wildlife, or forestry resources;" requires voter approval.
4. d House Joint Resolution 13: "Proposes a constitutional amendment that increases the percentage of legal voters required to propose an initiative petition amending the Constitution from 8% to 15% of voters;" requires voter approval.
5. d House Bill 65: "Requires actions challenging initiatives and referendums to be fully adjudicated more than fifty-six days prior to the election in which the measure will appear on the ballot."

Montana

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Montana

1. a Senate Bill 289: Revised campaign finance laws to implement more rules and clarify definitions concerning the disclosure of funding sources. The bill also required disclosure of the funding sources of political ads and other campaign finance disclosure requirements.
2. d House Bill 131: Revises campaign finance reporting deadlines.
3. d House Bill 220: "An act revising recall laws; allowing elected officials of state-districts or political subdivisions to be recalled for any reason; amending signatures requirements for recall elections."
4. d House Bill 303: "Recall petitions for school board trustees must be filed with the county superintendent of schools responsible for overseeing the school district."

Nebraska

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nebraska & Pay-per-signature

1. Legislative Bill 214: Was designed to establish electronic signature collection for initiative and referendum petitions. Supporters said the bill would increase access to the initiative process and allow petition drives to succeed without huge financial support. Opponents argued that it would make the initiative process too easy and result in a large number of badly written laws going before voters.
2. a Legislative Bill 367: Eliminated ban on paying signature petition circulators based on the number of signatures collected.

Nevada

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada

1. a Assembly Bill 23: Changed recall law to require all petition signatures to be collected from voters who actually cast a vote in the election that put the targeted official into office. This provision was enacted in compliance with Nevada Supreme Court ruling Strickland v. Waymire. AB 23 also made various changes to elections law.
2. d Senate Bill 19: "Existing law authorizes the governing body of a county or city to submit an advisory question to the voters of the county or city. (NRS 295.230) Section 3 of this bill authorizes the board of trustees of a school district to submit an advisory question to the voters within its jurisdiction at a general election. Sections 1 and 2 of this bill make conforming changes."
3. d Senate Bill 434: Would have made many changes to the initiative process that would have increased the difficulty of putting an initiative on the ballot. Among other changes, SB 434 was designed to: (1) Require an initial 2,000 signatures to be submitted to successfully file an initiative with the secretary of state, (2) set guidelines for the title and summary of an initiative and require approval by the attorney general, (3) require the initiative to explain a source for any additional revenue if the initiative would require additional public expenditures, (4) allow anyone to challenge an initiative's title and summary, requiring a compromise or a court case, (5) prioritize any legal challenge of an initiative based on the single-subject rule, (6) require that a judge who finds an initiative in violation of the single-subject rule must kill the initiative entirely rather than change it to remove the violation and (7) require initiative proponents to file and keep current a list of paid circulators.
4. a Assembly Joint Resolution 8: "Proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to require approval of certain initiative measures by a two-thirds vote;" State law requires approval in the state's following legislative session to put this proposal before voters. Then, a majority vote in a statewide election would be required for approval.

New Jersey

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in New Jersey

1. d Senate Concurrent Resolution 54: Proposed a constitutional amendment to provide for the power of referendum and initiative with regard to directing fiscal restraint. This bill was carried over from 2014.
2. d Assembly Concurrent Resolution 36: Proposed a constitutional amendment to provide for the power of referendum and initiative with regard to directing fiscal restraint. This bill was carried over from 2014.
3. d Assembly Concurrent Resolution 67: Proposed a constitutional amendment to decrease the signature requirement for recall petitions. This bill was carried over from 2014.
4. d Assembly Bill 1494: Would have changed the signature requirement for recall petitions. This bill was carried over from 2014.
5. d Assembly Bill 1495: Would have changed the date when a recall election may be initiated from 50th to 90th day preceding completion of the first year of the term of office. This bill was carried over from 2014.
6. d Assembly Concurrent Resolution 78: Proposed a constitutional amendment to decrease the signature requirement for recall petitions from 25 percent of registered voters to 25 percent of those who voted in the last general election. This bill was carried over from 2014.

New York

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in New York

1. Senate Bill 4441: Was designed to "[provide] electors with the power of initiative and referendum."
2. Assembly Bill 6321: Was designed to "[provide] electors with the power of initiative and referendum."
3. Assembly Bill 279: "Establishes a procedure for a people's veto of [tax] laws enacted by the legislature."
4. Senate Bill 879: "Provides for initiative and referendum in New York State for the People as electors to propose or reject laws and submit amendments to the state Constitution."
5. Assembly Bill 4091: Same as S879. "Provides for initiative and referendum in New York State for the People as electors to propose or reject laws and submit amendments to the state constitution."
6. Senate Bill 1084: "Provides for the recall power of the electors to remove an elective officer."
7. Senate Bill 942: "Provides for recall; empowers the electors with the ability to remove elective officers."
8. Assembly Bill 1726: "Provides for the recall power of the electors to remove an elective officer."
9. Assembly Bill 4929: "Provides for initiative and referendum and recall; empowers the electors with the ability to propose statutes and amendments to the constitution, approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes, and remove elective officers."
10. Senate Bill 2725: "Provides for initiative and referendum and recall; empowers the electors with the ability to propose statutes and amendments to the constitution, approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes, and remove elected officers."
11. Senate Bill 3293: "Relates to town elections and permissive referendums."
12. Assembly Bill 5066: "Authorizes a mandatory referendum where a legislative body of a local government is amending or adopting local laws relating to an increase in taxes pursuant to state authority."
13. Assembly Bill 5085: "Authorizes a permissive referendum to be initiated by the local government or voters where a legislative body of a local government is amending or adopting local laws relating to the increase of taxes, fines, fees or surcharges pursuant to state legislative authority."

North Carolina

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in North Carolina

1. d House Bill 179: "The General Assembly shall not change or alter the form, structure, or electoral district boundaries of a county governing board, city governing board, or local board of education unless the subject is submitted for the approval of the qualified voters of the geographic area affected in a referendum called for that sole purpose."
2. House Bill 111: "An act to allow the recall of members of the Stanly County Board of Education."

North Dakota

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in North Dakota

1. d House Concurrent Resolution 3047: Was designed to require that if the legislative council determined a citizen initiative would cost the state $20 million or more over two years, it must go before voters at the next statewide general election.

Ohio

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio

1. a House Joint Resolution 4: "Proposing to amend Section 1e of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to prohibit an initiated constitutional amendment that would grant a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specify or determine a tax rate, or confer a commercial interest, right, or license to any person or nonpublic entity." This resolution was designed to require ratification by statewide voters on November 3, 2015, as Issue 2 before it could be enacted. Issue 2 was approved.
2. a House Concurrent Resolution 19: "To delegate to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives authority to designate groups of members to prepare arguments for and against amendments to the Ohio Constitution proposed by the General Assembly, a person or persons to prepare an argument for any law, section, or item submitted to the electors by referendum petition, and a person or persons to prepare an argument against any constitutional amendment proposed by initiative petition."

Oklahoma

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oklahoma

1. a House Bill 1484: "Initiative and referendum; modifying filing of initiative and referendum petitions; repealing provision relating to circulation of petitions; effective date; emergency."
2. a Senate Bill 809: Prohibited local regulations of the oil and gas industry, with exceptions for "reasonable" provisions concerning road use, traffic, noise, odors and the health, safety and welfare of residents.
3. Senate Bill 158: "Modifying procedures for circulation of petitions for signatures; stating time periods; requiring certain notifications;"
4. Senate Bill 566: "Modifying procedures for petition circulation; stating time period; requiring notification."
5. Senate Joint Resolution 13: "Constitutional amendment; modifying percentages of voters required to propose certain measures. Ballot title." Would decrease signature requirements.
6. House Bill 1159: "Initiative and referendum; modifying time limit for filing; effective date."
7. House Bill 1306: "Initiative and referendum; creating the Initiative and Referendum Reform Act; effective date."
8. House Bill 1307: "Initiative and referendum; creating the Initiative and Referendum Reform Act; effective date."
9. House Bill 1308: "Initiative and referendum; creating the Initiative and Referendum Reform Act; effective date."
10. House Bill 1309: "Initiative and referendum; creating the Initiative and Referendum Reform Act; effective date."
11. House Bill 1892: "Initiative and referendum; creating the Initiative and Referendum Reform Act; effective date."
12. House Bill 2201: "Initiative and referendum; creating the Initiative and Referendum Reform Act; effective date."
13. Senate Bill 158: "Initiative and referendum; modifying procedures for circulation of petitions; requiring notifications. Effective date."

Pennsylvania

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Pennsylvania

1. d Senate Bill 92: "A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, authorizing the use of the indirect initiative and referendum as powers reserved to the people."

Rhode Island

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Rhode Island

1. d Senate Bill 66: Would have "[established] a process for the establishment of voter initiative and referendum proposal and also for a process of submitting said proposals to the secretary of state, the general assembly and the governor for approval."
2. d Senate Resolution 67: "This joint resolution would have proposed an amendment to the state constitution, by establishing a voter initiative process to allow voters to initiate proposed legislation which would have, upon a majority vote of the electorate, become law."

South Carolina

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in South Carolina

1. Senate Joint Resolution 22: Amends the South Carolina Constitution "so as to establish a specified procedure for the enactment or repeal of laws and constitutional amendments by initiative petition and referendum and to provide exceptions."
2. Senate Joint Resolution 32: Amends the South Carolina Constitution "to establish a specified procedure for the enactment or repeal of laws and constitutional amendments by initiative petition and referendum and to provide exceptions."

South Dakota

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in South Dakota

1. d Senate Bill 166: Changes the number of signatures for a successful initiative or referendum petition from 5 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to 5 percent of registered voters. Due to low and fluctuating voter turnout this could double the number of signatures required. After vocal protestation from initiative proponents, Sen. Corey Brown (R-23), the sponsor of SB 166, abandoned his bill, leaving it to die without a hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee. Corey still defended his bill as a necessary definition. He said that the state's constitution needed clarifying since it says, “Not more than five percent of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum.” Corey believed that the state's interpretation of this as "voters in last gubernatorial election" is incorrect and expected a lawsuit to be filed when the next statewide initiative qualifies for the ballot. He said, “I do believe that there’s still a problem. I guess maybe there’s other avenues to fix that.”
2. a Senate Bill 67: "Revise certain provisions regarding challenges to certain election petition signatures."

Tennessee

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Tennessee

1. Senate Bill 1068: Was designed to increase "from 15 days to 30 days, the amount of time in which to cure a defect in the documentation required to initiate a petition for a recall election."
2. House Bill 688: Was designed to increase "from 15 days to 30 days, the amount of time in which to cure a defect in the documentation required to initiate a petition for a recall election."
3. Tennessee Senate Bill 1219: "Constitutional Amendments - As introduced, requires a summary of a constitutional amendment to precede the question on the ballot instead of requiring a summary for only those questions exceeding 300 words in length. - Amends TCA Section 2-5-208."
4. Tennessee House Bill 681: "Constitutional Amendments - As introduced, requires a summary of a constitutional amendment to precede the question on the ballot instead of requiring a summary for only those questions exceeding 300 words in length. - Amends TCA Section 2-5-208."

Texas

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Texas

1. a Texas House Bill 40: "Relating to the exclusive jurisdiction of this state [Texas] to regulate oil and gas operations in this state and the express preemption of local regulation of those operations."
2. d House Bill 540: Would have required local initiatives or referendums to be submitted to the state attorney general. Under the proposal, if the attorney general decides the proposed law is in violation of state or federal law or that it would cause the taking of private property, the measure could not be put on the ballot. This bill was, in part, proposed as a response to the fracking ban initiative approved by Denton voters in 2014.
3. d Senate Bill 328: "Relating to the numbering of local and state propositions on the ballot."
4. d House Bill 2595: "Relating to the use of municipal initiative and referendum to restrict property rights."
5. d House Joint Resolution 86: "Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing elections for the recall of independent school district trustees."
6. d House Bill 1327: "Relating to the recall of members of school district boards of trustees."

Utah

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Utah

1. a House Bill 107: "This bill amends the Election Code in relation to the definition of, and the requirements placed on, a political issues committee." Specifically, it exempted groups organized to support or oppose a single ballot proposition from the status of "political issue committee" and the rules governing such committees.
2. a House Bill 120: "This bill changes the date on which certain filing entities are required to submit certain financial disclosures," including campaign finance disclosure filings for ballot issue committees and corporations that donate to ballot issue campaigns.

Virginia

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Virginia

1. d House Joint Resolution 646: Proposed a constitutional amendment for a voter decision that would have instituted the power of indirect initiative on the state level. The power was designed to "not extend to laws providing appropriations for the expenses of state government and institutions or to laws that the General Assembly may not pass under this Constitution." This bill was left in the Privileges and Elections Committee.

Washington

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Washington

1. House Bill 1941: "Providing for a simple majority of voters voting to authorize school district bonds at general elections." Without this bill, a three fifths supermajority would continue to be required at all elections. Under this bill, a three fifths supermajority would still be required to approve bond issues at special elections.
2. House Bill 1942: "Relating to ballot measures regarding required information and filing fees."
3. a(Vetoed) House Bill 2055: "Concerning statements on ballot measures in voters' pamphlets." The governor partially vetoed this bill. For details see here.
4. d Senate Joint Resolution 8201: Would have proposed a constitutional amendment designed to require future initiatives having to do with state expenditures or state revenues to not upset the budget of the state. In other words, under the amendment, initiatives would have had to propose ways to pay for themselves. If the resolution had been approved by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the legislature, it would have gone to the voters, where a simple majority would have been required to pass the amendment. This bill was abandoned in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
5. House Joint Resolution 4204: Is a companion bill in the House to Senate Joint Resolution 8201 above. The resolution would propose a constitutional amendment that would require future initiatives having to do with state expenditures or state revenues to not upset the budget of the state. In other words, under the amendment, initiatives would have to propose ways to pay for themselves. If the resolution is approved by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the legislature, it would go to the voters, where a simple majority would be required to pass the amendment.
6. House Bill 1364: "Establishing a citizens' initiative review pilot program."
7. Senate Bill 5535: "Establishing a citizens' initiative review pilot program."
8. House Bill 1438: "Permitting cities, towns, and counties to prohibit the production, processing, and sale of marijuana under Initiative Measure No. 502 only by public vote."
9. House Bill 1412: "Concerning municipalities prohibiting the operation of recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail facilities within their jurisdictional boundaries."
10. House Bill 1228: "Requiring fiscal impact statements for ballot measures."
11. House Bill 1229: Would require a fiscal impact statement for initiatives and dictate where and when the statement must be displayed.
12. Senate Bill 5715: "Including the contents of fiscal impact statements in the ballot title for certain initiative measures."
13. Senate Bill 5528: Would establish that "a political committee may not receive seventy percent or more of its aggregate funds from another political committee, directly or through any combination of other political committees."
14. Senate Bill 5153: "Increasing transparency of campaign contributions." The bill would define "incidental committees" as any person or organization that, while not being registered directly in support of or opposition to a candidate or ballot measure, might incidentally contribute to a candidate or ballot measure either directly or through another organization or committee. The bill would also require such "incidental committees" to file with the appropriate state commission if they expect to or actually make contributions and expenditures of more than $25,000 for statewide campaigns and $5,000 for any other campaigns.
15. House Bill 1175: Would make it a class C felony to deliberately make a contribution or expenditure that requires disclosure according to state law "in such a way as to conceal the identity of the source of the contribution."
16. House Bill 1323: "Repealing advisory votes."
17. Senate Bill 5375: "Requiring disclosure by entities that compensate for petition signatures."
18. House Bill 1463: "Requiring disclosure by entities that compensate for petition signatures."

West Virginia

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in West Virginia

1. d House Joint Resolution 8: Would have amended the West Virginia Constitution to establish the powers of initiative, referendum and recall.

Wisconsin

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Wisconsin

1. Assembly Bill 164: Was designed to dictate that local initiatives "must be submitted to the electors at the next election that is at least 70 days from the date on which the council or board must act" on the sufficient petition.

Wyoming

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Wyoming

1. a Wyoming Senate File 49: "An act relating to initiatives and referendums; repealing prior initiative and referendum provisions; creating separate initiative and referendum provisions; revising initiative and referendum procedures and language; removing restrictions on circulator qualifications and pay as specified; and providing for an effective date." This bill repealed the state's current laws governing the initiative process and replaced them with revised provisions. Notably, the bill removed state residency requirements and a prohibition against paying initiative signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected. The prohibition against pay-per-signature circulators remained for referendum petitions.

See also

• Changes in 2014 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2013 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2012 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2011 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2009 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2008 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2007 to laws governing ballot measures

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