Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures
| Ballot law |
|---|
|
| State laws |
| Initiative law Recall law Changes to law |
| Court cases |
| Ballot measure lawsuits |
| Local ballot measure laws |
This page lists changes and proposed changes in 2020 to laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It also lists changes and proposed changes to state laws concerning legislative referrals, ballot measure-related campaign finance, and other laws related to ballot measures and recall—both at the statewide and local level.
Ballotpedia tracked 164 legislative proposals concerning ballot initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall in 33 states in 2020. Seventeen (17) bills were approved in nine states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin. Of the remaining proposals, 143 were rejected or died, and four were carried over to the next session in New Jersey.
Approved legislation
Colorado House Bill 1416 was designed to require a full fiscal impact statement to appear on initiative petitions in circulation instead of an abstract of fiscal information. The bill was designed to allow proponents or registered electors to challenge the fiscal summary in the same manner that ballot language may be challenged.
Colorado Senate Bill 209 was designed to specify the effective dates for bills that are subject to veto referendum petitions.
Florida Senate Bill 1794 was designed to make the following changes:
- increase the signature requirement threshold to trigger a review of the initiative petition by the Florida Supreme Court from 10% to 25% of the total requirement to qualify a measure in half of congressional districts instead of one-fourth of them;
- require the Florida Supreme Court to review whether a proposed amendment is "facially invalid under the United States Constitution" in addition to existing requirements for reviewing the ballot title and reviewing the initiative for compliance with the state's single-subject rule;
- require petitioners to pay the actual cost of verifying signatures rather than the existing fee of the lesser of either $0.10 per signature or the actual cost;
- allow any citizen to challenge the registration of a paid circulator;
- make signatures invalid after February 1 of even-numbered years each cycle instead of allowing signatures to remain valid for a period of two years;
- allow 60 days (instead of 30) for county elections supervisors to verify signatures except within 60 days from the February 1 deadline;
- require elections supervisors to reject signatures collected by paid circulators not validly registered at the time the signatures were collected;
- require specific statements concerning the impact of the measure on the state budget (negative, positive, or indeterminate) to be included on the ballot;
- make exceptions for initiative petition signatures gathered prior to the effective date of the bill (April 8, 2020); and
- other provisions related to the cost of signature verification, requirements for supervisors to post certain information about signature validity and verification costs, and fiscal impact statements.
Idaho Senate Bill 1350 was designed to add a fiscal impact and funding source statement to the voter information guide for ballot initiatives that would be drafted by the Division of Financial Management.
Idaho House Bill 548 was designed to require that initiatives be limited to a single subject, require a statement on initiative petitions telling signers that they may remove their signatures from the petition, require those who pay signature gatherers to report such activity to the secretary of state, and set the earliest and default effective date for ballot initiatives as July 1 of the year following the election.
Idaho Senate Bill 1310 concerns provisions relating to recall elections in the state. It requires that a non-conflicting officer be responsible for the ordering of a recall election.
Idaho House Bill 347 was designed to require "that taxing districts wait a period of eleven months after a failed bond election before a subsequent bond question of the same type or subject can be placed on the ballot in that district."
Idaho House Bill 501 was designed to "allow all of the electors in the district in which there is a petition to excise and all the electors in the district in which the area proposed to be annexed to vote on the proposed annexation. It also increases the time period so that the local board of trustees has sufficient time to research the impact of the petition and get input from district patrons."
Illinois Senate Bill 3143 was designed to allow counties with less than 3,000,000 persons to change the manner in which it selects its county assessor or county supervisor of assessments via a ballot measure.
New Jersey Assembly Bill 4037 was designed to require an electronic signature and submission process for all candidate, recall, initiative, and referendum petitions for remaining 2020 elections and thereafter during the COVID-19 emergency.
Oklahoma House Bill 2871 was designed to allow participants in the Address Confidentiality Program to use the address given to them by the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office to sign an initiative petition.
Oklahoma House Bill 3826 was designed to do the following:
- specifically require a signer's first and last names, zip code, house number, and month and day of his or her birth date to be included on initiative petition sheets,
- require petition sheets to include the names, addresses, and signatures of three primary initiative sponsors, and
- require three or more data points included by the signer to match his or her voter registration record in order to count a signature as valid.
South Dakota Senate Bill 180 was designed to require paid circulators to register with the secretary of state and provide certain information.
- In June 2021, District Court Judge Lawrence Piersol overturned Senate Bill 180.
Utah Senate Bill 143 made changes to laws governing fiscal impact statements for initiatives.
Utah Senate Bill 47 classified signatures on an initiative petition as protected records.
Utah House Bill 75 required the county clerk to post the name and voter identification number (rather than the name and precinct) of each registered voter who signed an initiative petition on the county's website.
Wisconsin Assembly Bill 310 changed the procedures for political subdivisions to hold a referendum to increase the local levy limit. The bill allows referendums to increase the limit on the same election dates as a school board referendum or at the next primary or general election. It also required that if the limit increase was for the next fiscal year the ballot question must include the percentage increase from the previous year.
If you know of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was approved during a 2020 legislative session, email editor@ballotpedia.org.
What else happened in 2020?
Arkansas signature-gatherer background check requirement lawsuit
- See also: Arkansas 2020 ballot measures
The Arkansas Supreme Court removed all three citizen-initiated measures from the 2020 ballot—Issue 4, Issue 5, and Issue 6—that had been certified for the ballot. The rulings were all based on certifications filed by measure sponsors that said background checks were acquired for all signature gatherers. State law requires the certifications to state that background checks were passed by all signature gatherers.
Under Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3), sponsors are required to certify to the secretary of state that each paid canvasser passed a state and federal criminal background check. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled on August 27, 2020, that proponents of the three measures failed to certify that paid signature gatherers passed background checks. The certifications submitted by petitioners stated that background checks were acquired, but did not say they were passed.
South Dakota disclosure requirement overturned
In January 2020, U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann ruled that South Dakota House Bill 1094 violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The bill was designed to do the following:[1]
- require a paid petition circulator to register with the secretary of state and provide certain information;
- establish a paid petition circulator registration fee of $20;
- require petitioners to wear a badge identifying the committee and ballot measure for which they are collecting signatures and their paid or volunteer status; and
- make other changes to the state’s rules on petition circulators
SD Voice and Cory Heidelberger filed the lawsuit challenging House Bill 1094. In the ruling Kornmann wrote that the bill’s definition of a petition circulator was broad enough to apply to anyone who publicly advocated for the signing of an initiative petition and that the disclosure requirements were discriminatory against initiative petition supporters and restricted free speech. Kornmann wrote, “These disclosure provisions place serious and draconian burdens on protected speech. While the state's interests in effective administration of the law and ensuring that its laws are followed are important, the state has ample means of doing so that would not chill speech.” Kornmann also ruled that all of the provisions of 1094 were intimately connected and that, therefore, none of the other provisions could be severed from the disclosure requirements he ruled unconstitutional.[2]
House Bill 1094 was approved by the state legislature in a vote of 19-13 in the state Senate and 51-14 in the state House. Gov. Kristi Noem (R) signed it into law on March 21, 2019. South Dakota is one of 21 Republican state government trifectas, which means Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s office.
Michigan's distribution requirement
- See also: Distribution requirement
In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed and the governor signed legislation enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The bill—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, lawsuits were filed against Nessel's ruling by the Michigan House and Senate. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens upheld Nessel's ruling, deciding that the Michigan House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel and agreeing with certain of Nessel's arguments. The decision was appealed.
On January 27, 2020, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, decided that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Michigan State Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 (2018) unconstitutional.[3]
The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. In December 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court sent the case back to the court of appeals without ruling on it, saying that plaintiffs did not have standing.[4]
On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state but said requiring paid circulators to identify that they are paid on their petitions forms is constitutional.[5]
- To read more about HB 6595, click here.
Missouri's certified ballot title requirement overturned
On December 4, 2020, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem ruled that Missouri could not prohibit initiative campaigns from gathering signatures prior to receiving a certified ballot title from the Missouri Secretary of State. Beetem wrote, "The State may not constitutionally delay the circulation of a referendum petition for the purpose of certifying a ballot title."
The ruling was the outcome of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the No Bans on Choice Committee, sponsors of a veto referendum designed to overturn House Bill 126 (HB 126), which included an eight-week abortion ban except in the case of medical emergencies. Proponents filed the lawsuit after suspending their signature drive due to insufficient time. They argued that Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) delayed the certification of a ballot title leaving the proponents with two weeks to gather signatures.[6]
Legislation by state
| Legend |
 = This legislation is still pending. = This legislation was approved. = This legislation was defeated or is dead. = This legislation could have carried over to the next session.
|
Alaska
Alaska House Joint Resolution 1 was designed to amend the state constitution to prohibit "the imposition of a broad-based individual income tax or statewide general sales tax without the approval of the voters of the state."
Alaska Senate Joint Resolution 4 was designed to amend the state constitution to require voter approval of any legislation to increase state taxes and to require any citizen initiative that enacts a new tax or increases a tax to be approved by the legislature after it is approved by voters. Constitutional amendments, such as SJR 4, require voter approval.
Alaska Senate Bill 80 "An Act relating to proposing and enacting laws by initiative; and prohibiting the state and its agencies and corporations from spending funds to influence the outcome of certain ballot propositions and questions."
Arizona
Arizona House Bill 2508 was designed to specify that, for an officer elected in a nonpartisan election and who is the subject of a recall, the last preceding general election is the last preceding election in which the officer was
declared elected.
Arizona House Bill 2527 was designed to provide for the electronic submission of signatures for ballot initiatives.
Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2032 was designed to require that citizen-initiated ballot measures embrace a single subject.
Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2039 was designed to create a distribution requirement for citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2040 was designed to require that citizen-initiated ballot measures embrace a single subject.
Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2046 was designed to require that citizen-initiated ballot measures be reapproved by voters every 10 years to stay in effect.
Arizona Senate Bill 1020 was designed to require the following language be printed on ballots: "Notice: Pursuant to Proposition 105 (1998), these measures cannot be changed in the future if approved on the ballot except by a three-fourths vote of the members of each house of the legislature and if the change furthers the purpose of the original ballot measure, or by referring the change to the ballot."
Arizona Senate Bill 1434 was designed to make changes to the state's recall process, including statute related to signature withdrawal and signature fraud.
Arizona Senate Bill 1471 was designed to provide for the electronic submission of signatures for ballot initiatives.
Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1020 was designed to allow the state legislature to amend ballot initiatives that address public health or safety by a simple majority vote.
Arizona House Bill 2121 was designed to add "to the identification requirements for informational and publicity pamphlet submissions for school district override, initiative and bond elections."
Arizona House Bill 2776 was designed to "[modify] the deadline for filing an argument for or against a measure or constitutional amendment."
California
California Assembly Bill 2140 was designed as implementing legislation for a constitutional amendment to transfer from the attorney general to the legislative analyst the duty of preparing the title and summary for a proposed initiative or referendum.
California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 was designed to amend the state constitution to "transfer from the Attorney General to the Legislative Analyst the duty of preparing the title and summary for a proposed initiative or referendum."
California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 20 was designed to amend the state constitution to transfer from the attorney general to the legislative analyst the duty of preparing the title and summary for a proposed initiative or referendum.
California Senate Bill 636 was designed to require the names of those who sign the official arguments for ballot measures included in voter guides to be listed on the ballot as supporters and opponents.
California Senate Bill 684 was designed to prohibit initiative proponents from asking for their initiatives to be withdrawn if certain conditions are met and require the secretary of state to reject any conditional withdrawals.
California Senate Bill 1014 was designed as implementing legislation for a constitutional amendment related to recall elections.
California Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 repeal a 1950 initiated constitutional amendment in order to allow housing projects that are intended for low-income people and that receive government funding or assistance to be developed, constructed, or acquired without a local referendum.
California Senate Constitutional Amendment 2 was designed to make changes regarding the recall process for certain elected officials.
Colorado
Colorado House Bill 1416 was designed to require a full fiscal impact statement to appear on initiative petitions in circulation instead of an abstract of fiscal information. The bill was designed to allow proponents or registered electors to challenge the fiscal summary in the same manner that ballot language may be challenged.
Colorado Senate Bill 209 was designed to specify the effective dates for bills that are subject to veto referendum petitions.
Florida
Florida Senate Bill 1794 was designed to make the following changes:
- increase the signature requirement threshold to trigger a review of the initiative petition by the Florida Supreme Court from 10% to 25% of the total requirement to qualify a measure in half of congressional districts instead of one-fourth of them;
- require the Florida Supreme Court to review whether a proposed amendment is "facially invalid under the United States Constitution" in addition to existing requirements for reviewing the ballot title and reviewing the initiative for compliance with the state's single-subject rule;
- require petitioners to pay the actual cost of verifying signatures rather than the existing fee of $0.10 per signature or the actual cost, whichever is less;
- allow any citizen to challenge the registration of a paid circulator;
- make signatures invalid after February 1 of even-numbered years each cycle instead of allowing signatures to remain valid for a period of two years;
- allow 60 days (instead of 30) for county elections supervisors to verify signatures except within 60 days from the February 1 deadline;
- require elections supervisors to reject signatures collected by paid circulators not validly registered at the time the signatures were collected;
- require specific statements concerning the impact of the measure on the state budget (negative, positive, or indeterminate) to be included on the ballot;
- make exceptions for initiative petition signatures gathered prior to the effective date of the bill (April 8, 2020); and
- other provisions related to the cost of signature verification, requirements for supervisors to post certain information about signature validity and verification costs, and fiscal impact statements.
House Bill 7037 was the state House version of Senate Bill 1794.
Florida House Joint Resolution 301 and Senate Joint Resolution 142 were designed to abolish the Florida Constitution Revision Commission.
Florida Senate Joint Resolution 176 was designed to limit Florida Constitution Revision Commission referrals to a single subject.
Florida Senate Joint Resolution 3396 was designed to limit Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission referrals to a single subject.
Florida House Joint Resolution 545 and Senate Joint Resolution 1452 were designed to create a process to allow Florida residents to initiate statutory legislation. As of 2020, Florida residents could only initiate constitutional measures.
Florida Senate Joint Resolution 7062 and House Joint Resolution 7093 concern the distribution requirement for Florida initiatives. Specifically, the bills were designed to require that initiative sponsors must collect a certain number of signatures from each congressional district. As of 2020, initiative sponsors needed to collect a certain number of signatures from each of half of the congressional districts in the state.
Georgia
Georgia House Bill 812 was designed to provide that an election on a referendum must be held in even-numbered years at least 29 days after the referendum election has been called, on either (a) the date of a presidential preference primary, (b) the primary election, or (c) the first Tuesday in November.
Hawaii
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Hawaii
Hawaii House Bill 459 was designed to create a referendum process for Hawaii residents.
Hawaii House Bill 2072 was designed to create a process of initiative, referendum, and recall for Hawaii residents.
Idaho
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Idaho
Idaho Senate Bill 1350 was designed to add a fiscal impact and funding source statement to the voter information guide for ballot initiatives that would be drafted by the Division of Financial Management.
Idaho House Bill 548 was designed to require that initiatives be limited to a single subject, require a statement on initiative petitions telling signers that they may remove their signatures from the petition, require those who pay signature gatherers to report such activity to the secretary of state, and set the earliest and default effective date for ballot initiatives as July 1 of the year following the election.
Idaho Senate Bill 1310 concerns provisions relating to recall elections in the state. It requires that a non-conflicting officer be responsible for the ordering of a recall election.
Idaho House Bill 347 was designed to require "that taxing districts wait a period of eleven months after a failed bond election before a subsequent bond question of the same type or subject can be placed on the ballot in that district."
Idaho House Bill 501 was designed to "allow all of the electors in the district in which there is a petition to excise and all the electors in the district in which the area proposed to be annexed to vote on the proposed annexation. It also increases the time period so that the local board of trustees has sufficient time to research the impact of the petition and get input from district patrons."
Illinois
Illinois Senate Bill 3143 was designed to allow counties with less than 3,000,000 persons to change the manner in which it selects its county assessor or county supervisor of assessments via a ballot measure.
Illinois House Bill 194 was designed to establish "a procedure for an election to recall the Mayor of Chicago."
Illinois House Bill 307 was designed to "provide that electors may petition for a referendum at the next general election to dissolve a unit of local government."
Illinois House Bill 843 was designed to establish "a procedure for an election to recall the Mayor of Chicago, an alderman of the City of Chicago, and the Cook County State's Attorney."
Illinois House Bill 2446 was designed to allow school district ballot measures for entering into a joint agreement with other school boards to share the services of a superintendent or other administrator.
Illinois House Bill 3543 was designed to establish a process for recall for a mayor, city council members, or a state's attorney.
Illinois House Bill 4794 was designed to establish a process for recall for a mayor, city council members, or a state's attorney.
Illinois Senate Bill 1287 was designed to allow a municipality's police department to be discontinued via a ballot measure approved by the electors of the municipality.
Illinois Senate Bill 1538 was designed to allow school district ballot measures for entering into a joint agreement with other school boards to share the services of a superintendent or other administrator.
Illinois Senate Bill 3239 was designed to allow school district ballot measures for entering into a joint agreement with other school boards to share the services of a superintendent or other administrator.
Illinois Senate Joint Resolution 16 was designed to establish a process for recall for all state executive branch officers and members of the general assembly.
Iowa
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Iowa
Iowa Senate File 183 was designed to set rules for election dates of local ballot measures.
Iowa Senate File 575 was designed to allow a notice published by the state elections office to fulfill the requirement in the state constitution that proposed constitutional amendments must be published between the first legislative session in which they are considered and the second. Going into 2019, the secretary of state was required to publish the approved constitutional amendments. SF 575 was also designed to make changes to notices required for bond issues and other state and local election provisions.
Kentucky
Kentucky House Bill 162 was designed to establish a procedure for the recall of any elected sheriff, jailer, constable, or peace officer and penalize giving compensation in exchange for a signature on a petition.
Senate Bill 113 was designed to redefine a "political issues committee" to be three or more residents of Kentucky joining together to advocate or oppose a ballot issue. It was also designed to prohibit a corporation organized outside this state and nonresidents from making contributions or expenditures to support a ballot issue.
Louisiana
Louisiana Senate Bill 248 was designed to amend the state constitution to provide "for initiative measures for use by the electorate to propose and adopt or reject laws and constitutional amendments."
Maryland
Maryland Senate Bill 56 was designed to require that the purpose statement of a proposed ballot question on a petition be understandable by individuals that have no higher than a grade 6 level of reading comprehension.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Senate Bill 415 was designed to create a "citizens’ initiative review" commission to review proposed ballot measures.
Massachusetts Senate Bill 407 was designed to prohibit petition circulators from receiving compensation based on the number of signatures gathered.
Michigan
Michigan House Joint Resolution P was designed to eliminate indirect initiatives, meaning initiated state statutes that received enough signatures would go directly to the ballot.
Michigan Senate Bill 1209 was designed to prohibit misrepresentation and false statements by petition circulators for initiative, referendum, and recall petitions and to invalidate any signatures collected by an individual violating provisions prohibiting misrepresentation and false statements.
Michigan Senate Bill 1210 was designed to create a procedure for a registered voter to remove his or her signature from an initiative, referendum, or recall petition that he or she has signed.
Michigan House Bill 6523 was designed to provide a penalty of up to $1,000 for individuals that use misrepresentation or false statements to collect initiative, referendum, and recall petition signatures and to provide a penalty of up to $10,000 for any entity that employs such an individual.
Michigan Senate Bill 1212 was designed to ban paying petition circulators based on the number of signatures collected and require, instead, such circulators to be paid an hourly rate.
Michigan Senate Bill 1213 was designed to clarity the procedure for counting duplicate signatures on a signature petition.
Michigan House Bill 5990 was designed to postpone the deadline for initiative signature petitions caused by the state's 180-day time limit on circulation when the governor declares a state of emergency and to delay it by the same number of days as the state of emergency is in effect.
Minnesota
Minnesota House File 427 was designed to prohibit the use of any public funds to support or oppose a ballot question.
Minnesota House File 452 was designed to allow owners of agricultural land, real property, or small business property to vote on levy and bond referendums that are held in the location of the property.
Minnesota House File 2384 was designed to require certain information in a certain format on the ballot for local bond referendums.
Minnesota House File 2968 and Minnesota Senate File 3475 were designed to extend the notice period for school referendum elections.
Minnesota Senate File 1567 was designed to require certain information in a certain format on the ballot for local bond referendums.
Minnesota Senate File 1567 was designed to require certain information in a certain format on the ballot for local bond referendums.
Mississippi
Mississippi House Concurrent Resolution 43 was designed to create a distribution requirement for initiative signatures.
Missouri
Missouri House Bill 2138 was designed to require "ballot language to be written in plain language easily understood by an individual with a sixth-grade reading level."
Missouri House Bill 1355 - "This bill requires ballot titles to be written in plain language and that the ballot contain a specified example of the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote on the ballot measure. Examples are limited to 50 words in the same way as ballot titles and may be litigated in the same manner as a ballot title challenge under Chapter 116, RSMo."
Missouri House Bill 1811 was designed to change the formatting of signature petitions and create a Secretary of State's Petition Publications Fund.
Missouri House Bill 1720 would require initiative petitioners to pay a $500 filing fee and would be refunded if the petition makes the ballot.
Missouri House Bill 1980 was designed to "create a website and allow citizens of Missouri to electronically sign ballot measures that are approved for circulation."
Missouri House Bill 2360 was designed to "establish procedures for school board member recall elections."
Missouri House Bill 2133 was designed to "establish procedures to recall a county commissioner."
Missouri House Bill 2080 was designed to "establish procedures to recall a county commissioner."
Missouri House Bill 2090 would change the procedures that independent expenditures to candidates or ballot measure committees are reported.
Missouri House Bill 1431 would limit cash and in-kind contributions made by nonprofit corporations to ballot measure committees.
Missouri House Bill 1981 would require "any individual, committee, and group supporting or opposing any ballot measure to disclose the original source of contributions and intermediaries through which donations pass when donations are used for election purposes."
Missouri Senate Bill 907 was designed to "establish procedures to remove first class county commissioners by recall petition."
Missouri Senate Bill 546 would "require all non-profit organizations exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)4 of the Internal Revenue Code to make certain disclosures regarding expenditures made for the purpose of electioneering activities by means of covered communications."
Missouri Senate Bill 789 would "requires all non-profit organizations exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)4 of the Internal Revenue Code to make certain disclosures regarding expenditures for the purpose of electioneering activities by means of covered communications made in the previous calendar year."
Missouri Senate Bill 860 would "prohibits gathering signatures for a statewide ballot measure within 100 feet of a polling place."
Missouri Senate Bill 522 would change the type of paper, font, and the filing fee amount for initiatives and referendums.
Nebraska
Nebraska Legislative Bill 246 was designed to set a deadline for submitting local initiative petitions on September 1 of the year of the general election instead of having initiatives go on the ballot for the next election scheduled at least 70 days out.
Nebraska Legislative Bill 415 was designed to repeal the recall process for certain political subdivisions.
Nebraska Legislative Bill 210 was designed to regulate electioneering communications related to ballot questions.
New Jersey
New Jersey Assembly Bill 4037 was designed to require an electronic signature and submission process for all candidate, recall, initiative, and referendum petitions for remaining 2020 elections and thereafter during the COVID-19 emergency.
New Jersey Assembly Bill 3120 was designed to change the signature requirement for recall initiatives from 25 percent of registered voters to 25 percent of votes cast at the most recent general election.
New Jersey Assembly Bill 3121 was designed to change the signature requirement for recall initiatives from 25 percent of registered voters to 25 percent of votes cast at the most recent general election.
New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 131 was designed to change the "date when a recall election may be initiated from 50th to 90th day preceding completion of first year of term of office."
New Jersey Senate Concurrent Resolution 28 was designed to create a process of statewide initiative and referendum.
New Mexico
New Mexico House Bill 229 was designed to change the deadline for referendum petitions.
New York
New York Assembly Bill 3220 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish processes for ballot initiatives, veto referendums, and recall of elected officials.
New York Assembly Bill 1448 was designed to require the state board of elections to post the full text and ballot language on its website from three months prior to the election through the election.
New York Assembly Bill 2636 was designed to provide for initiated state statute and initiated constitutional amendment processes.
New York Assembly Bill 5291 was designed to provide "for the recall power of the electors to remove an elective officer."
New York Assembly Bill 5938 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish a process for ballot initiatives.
New York Assembly Bill 7294 was designed to provide "electors with the power of initiative and referendum."
New York Senate Bill 70 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish processes for ballot initiatives and veto referendums.
New York Senate Bill 556 was designed to provide "for the recall power of the electors to remove an elective officer."
New York Senate Bill 1168 was designed to provide for a process for initiated state statutes and initiated constitutional amendments.
New York Senate Bill 1258 was designed to provide for a process for the recall of elected officials.
New York Senate Bill 2011 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish processes for ballot initiatives, veto referendums, and recall of elected officials.
New York Senate Bill 2325 was designed to require the state board of elections to post the full text and ballot language on its website from three months prior to the election through the election.
New York Senate Bill 3397 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish processes for ballot initiatives and veto referendums.
Ohio
Ohio House Joint Resolution 1 was designed to increase the state's distribution requirement for initiated constitutional amendments from 44 counties to 53 counties.
Ohio House Bill 76 was designed to require the ballot language for local property tax levy measures to contain (a) an explanation of the proposed tax rate in dollars based on fair market value as well as in mills based on the assessed property tax value and (b) an estimate of the total revenue that would be generated by a proposed property tax levy.
Ohio House Bill 187 was designed to "prohibit local tax-related proposals from appearing on an August special election ballot."
Ohio House Bill 92 was designed to "Require voter approval to increase county sales tax rate."
Oklahoma
Oklahoma House Bills 3244-3246 were designed to create the Initiative Petition Modernization Act of 2020.
Oklahoma House Bill 2871 was designed to allow participants in the Address Confidentiality Program to use the address given to them by the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office to sign an initiative petition.
Oklahoma House Bill 3826 was designed to do the following:
- specifically require a signer's first and last names, zip code, house number, and month and day of his or her birth date to be included on initiative petition sheets,
- require petition sheets to include the names, addresses, and signatures of three primary initiative sponsors, and
- require three or more data points included by the signer to match his or her voter registration record in order to count a signature as valid.
Oklahoma Senate Bill 1477 was designed to state that "no individual may be denied access to any public retail business location that is located within 100 feet of a public street or public walkway if the individual is informing the public or gathering signatures for any properly formatted and certified federal, state or municipal government petition."
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania House Bill 429 was designed to require a fiscal impact statement for ballot questions proposing the issuance of statewide or local debt.
Pennsylvania House Bill 611 was designed to provide for a constitutional convention to propose revisions to the state constitution.
Pennsylvania House Bill 1651 was designed to provide for a recall election process of elected public officers.
Pennsylvania House Bill 1652 was designed to provide for a recall election process of state and local officers.
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 525 was designed to establish processes for ballot initiative and veto referendum.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island House Bill 7380 was designed to amend the procedures for recalling members of the Central Coventry Fire District Board of Directors.
South Carolina
South Carolina Senate Joint Resolution 30 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish processes for ballot initiatives and veto referendums.
South Carolina House Bill 4203 was designed to change the definition of ballot measure committee in laws governing campaigns.
South Dakota
South Dakota Senate Bill 180 was designed to require paid circulators to register with the secretary of state and provide certain information.
- In June 2021, District Court Judge Lawrence Piersol overturned Senate Bill 180.
Tennessee
Tennessee Joint Resolution 173 was designed to amend the Tennessee Constitution to allow people to propose laws by initiative.
Tennessee House Bill 2183 was designed to "modify procedures for voters to file a petition protesting the issuance of a local government's general obligation bonds."
Tennessee Senate Bill 2546 was designed to "delete the provision that limited the availability of recall elections for school board members to only Madison County."
Tennessee Senate Bill 2375 was designed to "authorize the county election commission to notify individuals filing a petition for recall, referendum, or initiative to notify the individuals of any defects in the petition that must be cured prior to certification for final approval."
Utah
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Utah
Utah Senate Bill 143 made changes to laws governing fiscal impact statements for initiatives.
Utah Senate Bill 47 classified signatures on an initiative petition as protected records.
Utah House Bill 75 required the county clerk to post the name and voter identification number (rather than the name and precinct) of each registered voter who signed an initiative petition on the county's website.
Utah House Bill 112 was designed to require voter approval when the state legislature amends or repeals a passed initiative.
Virginia
Virginia House Bill 977 was designed to remove the referendum requirement for county food and beverage taxes.
Senate House Bill 682 was designed to remove the referendum requirement for county food and beverage taxes.
Senate House Bill 799 was designed to remove the referendum requirement for county food and beverage taxes.
Washington
Washington House Joint Resolution 4202 was designed to amend the state constitution to require initiatives and veto referendums to pass in a majority of the state's counties as well as statewide to be approved.
Washington House Joint Resolution 4204 was designed to amend the state constitution to allow counties to opt out of implementing any statewide citizen initiative or veto referendum.
Washington House Bill 1157 was designed to implement House Joint Resolution 4204—which was designed to allow counties to opt out of implementing statewide citizen initiatives and veto referendums—provided HJR 4204 is approved by the legislature and by voters.
Washington Senate Bill 5224 was designed to repeal provisions for advisory votes and repeal requirements for advisory votes on all tax increases that were originally enacted by Initiative 960 in 2007.
Washington House Bill 2032 was designed to establish and require certain formatting for initiative and referendum petitions.
Washington House Joint Resolution 4215 and House Bill 2267 were designed to prohibit the legislature from enacting any bills concerning the same subject of an initiative that was rejected by voters for a period of two years.
Washington Senate Joint Resolution 8202 was designed to amend the state constitution to require a 55 percent supermajority vote of voters to approve local school bond issues and property taxation to pay for them.
Washington House Bill 1032 was designed to do the following:
- require "a legible copy of a proposed initiative, that is filed with the secretary of state, to be in the amendatory format required under RCW 29A.72.100."
- require "the sponsor of the measure to accept the recommendations of the code reviser's office that directly relate to the required amendatory format."
- authorize "the secretary of state to refuse to file a submitted petition if the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition does not follow the required amendatory format."
Washington House Bill 2772 concerns when a "ballot proposition" is considered proposed as it relates to campaign finance reporting. For purposes of the campaign finance reporting laws, a proposition would be considered proposed "at the time when it is initially filed with the appropriate election official or is initially circulated for signatures, whichever occurs first." The bill would also state that campaign finance reporting requirements apply to expenditures made once a ballot proposition is considered proposed.
Washington House Bill 2887 would prohibit a county, city, town, special district, or other local government from obtaining "an injunction to restrain a statewide ballot measure" or obtain declaratory judgment "about its rights, status, or other legal relations with respect to a statewide ballot measure."
Washington House Bill 2297 was designed to state that no court has jurisdiction to handle a case concerning an initiative or referendum's ballot language after the superior court has made a decision and filed a certified ballot title or summary with the secretary of state.
Washington House Bill 2224 was designed to provide that, "If the estimated fiscal impact of a ballot measure is indeterminate, the office of financial management must provide a reasonable projection of the range of potential fiscal impact, based on reputable methods of fiscal analysis."
Washington House Bill 6238 was designed to require members of a ballot measure committee to be registered voters in the jurisdiction voting on the measure.
West Virginia
West Virginia House Joint Resolution 27 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish processes for ballot initiatives, veto referendums, and recall petitions.
West Virginia House Bill 4662 was designed to allow cities to hold elections to recall city ordinances.
West Virginia House Bill 4850 was designed to allow counties to hold elections to recall county ordinances.
West Virginia Senate Joint Resolution 7 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish a process for recall petitions.
West Virginia Senate Bill 628 was designed to define ballot issue committee, political action committee, and political committee, and to amend rules for such committees pertaining to campaign finance, campaign organization, and campaign communications.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Assembly Bill 310 changed the procedures for political subdivisions to hold a referendum to increase the local levy limit. The bill allows referendums to increase the limit on the same election dates as a school board referendum or at the next primary or general election. It also required that if the limit increase was for the next fiscal year the ballot question must include the percentage increase from the previous year.
Wisconsin Assembly Joint Resolution 32 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish processes for ballot initiative and veto referendum.
Wisconsin Assembly Bill 245 was designed to change the procedures for recounts and recall petitions.
Wisconsin Assembly Joint Resolution 111 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish processes for ballot initiative and veto referendum.
Legislative alteration context
From 2010 through 2018, 97 initiated state statutes and two initiated ordinances in D.C. were approved by voters. Of these 99 total initiatives from 2010 through 2018, 28 were repealed or amended as of April 2019. The states with the most total cases of legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010 were Maine—with four initiatives altered out of eight approved—and Colorado and Oregon—each with three initiatives altered out of five approved. Among initiatives approved from 2010 through 2018, marijuana was the topic that drew the most legislative alterations, with eight initiatives. Other topics addressed by legislatively altered initiatives included elections and campaigns, term limits, education, business regulation, law enforcement, minimum wage, taxes, and gambling.
The rate of legislative alteration was 13 percentage points higher for initiatives approved in 2016 and 2018 than initiatives approved from 2010 through 2015.
| Legislative alteration rates | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year span | # approved | # altered | Alteration rate | ||
| 2010 - 2018 | 99 | 28 | 28.28% | ||
| 2016 - 2018 | 56 | 19 | 33.9% | ||
| 2010 - 2015 | 43 | 9 | 20.9% | ||
Click here for information about all legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010.
See also
- Changes to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2017 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2016 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures
- 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
- ↑ South Dakota Legislature, "South Dakota House Bill 1094," accessed January 12, 2020
- ↑ Dakota Free Press, Case 1:19-cv-01017-CBK Document 44 Filed 01/09/20," accessed January 12, 2020
- ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Senate and House of Representatives v. Secretary of State," January 27, 2020
- ↑ Michigan Radio, "State Supreme Court sends case over ballot initiative law to lower court for dismissal," December 30, 2020
- ↑ Detroit CBS, "Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Law To Make Petition Drives Harder," January 24, 2022
- ↑ Idaho Statesman, "Missouri referendum petition laws ruled unconstitutional," December 7, 2020
