Changes in 2021 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 |
As of May 30, 2021, Ballotpedia had tracked 198 legislative proposals concerning ballot initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall in 40 states in 2021 legislative sessions. At least 28 had been approved, and 20 had been defeated or had died. One of the approved bills was blocked from enforcement by a court ruling.
This page contains:
- a list of approved legislation about ballot measures and recall
- lawsuits and news in 2021 related to laws governing ballot measures and recall
- a list of proposed 2021 legislation governing ballot measures and recall by state
Approved legislation
If you know of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was approved during a 2021 legislative session, email editor@ballotpedia.org.
Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1034 was designed to edit the state's laws governing legislative alteration by allowing the Arizona State Legislature to amend or repeal a ballot initiative without voter approval if any portion of the initiative has been declared unconstitutional or invalid by the Arizona Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court.
- Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, voters must approve this measure in November 2022 for it to be enacted.
Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2001 was designed to amend the Arizona Constitution to require that initiative measures only cover one topic, and require that the topic be expressed in the initiative's title.
- Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, voters must approve this measure in November 2022 for it to be enacted.
Arkansas House Joint Resolution 1005 was designed to enact a 60% supermajority vote requirement at the ballot to adopt constitutional amendments (legislatively referred and citizen-initiated) and citizen-initiated state statutes.
- Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, voters must approve this measure in November 2022 for it to be enacted.
Arkansas Senate Bill 614 was designed to do the following:
- ban paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures gathered, a payment method called pay-per-signature;
- require circulators to be state residents and citizens;
- add certain offenses in addition to any felony, election law violations, fraud, forgery, and identity theft that disqualify a person from being a signature gatherer, including assault, battery, intimidation, threatening, sexual offenses, trespassing, vandalism, and theft;
- require initiative sponsors to certify that signature gatherers do not have any disqualifying conviction and put the burden of proof on initiative sponsors with regard to lawsuits and administrative proceedings;
- make it a felony for petition sponsors or their representatives to knowingly pay a circulator for or submits petitions for which the circulator did not personally witness all signatures; and
- make it a felony for a circulator to not report another circulator that provides a false affidavit that they personally witnessed all signatures.
- Provisions in Senate Bill 614 about disqualifying offenses for signature gatherers and initiative sponsors bearing the burden of proof regarding those offenses would replace the state's previous background check requirements that were overturned by a court ruling earlier in 2021.
- On May 27, 2021, several initiative proponents—including Liberty Initiative Fund, U.S. Term Limits, and Arkansas Term Limits—filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking to overturn Senate Bill 614.[2]
Arizona Senate Bill 1497 was designed to require that the official ballot and Secretary of State's website include a notice of Proposition 105, which requires voter approval for any substantive changes to previously approved ballot initiatives.
Arizona House Bill 2308 was designed to make changes to laws governing recall, including to allow signature removal from recall petitions and to set formatting, affidavit, paid circulator and out-of-state circulator registration requirements for recall petitions.
Arizona House Bill 2364 was designed to require persons or organizations submitting arguments for informational election pamphlets to include a sworn statement and identifying information, including name, telephone number and residential address; with only the name and city, town or state printed in the pamphlet.
Arizona Senate Bill 1105 was designed to increase the word length of initiative or referendum descriptions included with initiative and referendum petitions from 100 to 200 words.
California Senate Bill 152 was designed to allow the secretary of state to certify a recall petition before, rather than after, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee has submitted an election cost estimate, thereby allowing recall elections to be called more quickly. The bill was also designed to make other changes to election law and to appropriate funds for the 2021 gubernatorial recall election.
Colorado House Bill 1321 was designed to require specific language, including a list of services that could be affected, to be used for the ballot summaries and fiscal impact statements of ballot initiatives increasing or reducing tax revenue.
Florida Senate Joint Resolution 204 was designed to abolish the Florida Constitution Revision Commission.
- Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, voters must approve this measure in November 2022 for it to be enacted.
/
Florida Senate Bill 1890 was designed to set $3,000 limits on campaign contributions to ballot initiative support or opposition committees until the secretary of state certifies the measure for the ballot and assigns it a ballot position and number designation.
- On May 8, 2021, the Florida ACLU filed a lawsuit to overturn the bill that argues it violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.[3]
- On July 1, 2021, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of SB 1890. Winsor wrote that the state “bears the burden of justifying restrictions on political expression by advancing at least ‘a significantly important interest’ that is ‘closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.' [...] Binding decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the 5th Circuit (Court of Appeals) applied those principles and concluded that the First Amendment forbids limitations like those SB 1890 imposes"[4] Attorney General Ashley B. Moody did not appeal the court's decision.[5]
Georgia House Bill 273 was designed to "provide an additional method of initiating a referendum election for the authorization of the issuance of licenses for the package sale of distilled spirits" and "change certain provisions relating to the procedures for calling and conducting certain referendum elections and the nullifications thereof."
Idaho Senate Bill 1067 was designed to make county clerks, rather than city clerks, the recipients of all recall petitions besides statewide recalls.
/ Idaho Senate Bill 1110 was designed to change the state's distribution requirement to require signatures from 6% of voters from all 35 legislative districts for ballot initiatives and veto referendums instead of the existing requirement of 6% of voters from 18 of the state's legislative districts.
- In 2019, the Idaho Legislature passed but Gov. Little vetoed a pair of bills that were designed to increase the state's initiative signature requirement and its distribution requirement, among other changes. In 2021, both chambers of the legislature passed SB 1110 by more than the two-thirds majority required to override a veto: 26-9 in the Senate and 51-18 in the House.
- Rep. Sage Dixon (R) supported SB 1110. Dixon said, “Every district in Idaho should be represented in that process [the initiative petition process]. This is an effort to protect the voice of everybody in Idaho in the lawmaking process, very similar to what we do here as representatives, and what the senators do as well.”[6]
- Gov. Little's statement on SB 1110 wrote, "whether senate bill 1110 amounts to an impermissible restriction in violation of our constitution is highly fact-dependent and, ultimately, a question for the Idaho judiciary to decide. I also expect the federal courts may be called to determine whether senate bill 1110 violates the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution."[7]
- On May 7, 2021, Reclaim Idaho, the sponsors of a 2020 initiative that did not make the ballot, filed a lawsuit against the state asking the Idaho Supreme Court to invalidate the law. Luke Mayville, co-founder of Reclaim Idaho, said, "This makes citizen initiatives virtually impossible in Idaho. Under this legislation, we're not likely to see another initiative like Medicaid expansion from 2018 or like the term limits initiative from the 1990's. So we are very disappointed with Governor Little. [...] This fight is not over because this legislation is clearly unconstitutional, and our organization, Reclaim Idaho, has decided to file a lawsuit and to ask the courts to strike down this legislation and to protect the citizen initiative rights of all the people of Idaho."[7][8]
- On August 23, 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because the state had no compelling interest to increase the distribution requirement. The court said the law "would result in a scheme that squarely conflicts with the democratic ideals that form the bedrock of the constitutional republic created by the Idaho Constitution, and seriously undermines the people’s initiative and referendum powers enshrined therein."[1]
Maryland House Bill 0738 was designed to alter the deadline for certain statements regarding certain statewide ballot measures to be submitted to the State Board of Elections; and alters the deadlines by which a certificate of candidacy for a successor candidate for Governor or Lieutenant Governor must be filed under certain circumstances.
Montana House Bill 651 was designed to make multiple changes to laws governing the initiative process, including:
- to require the employees of paid signature gatherers to register with the state and pay a fee;
- to require the relevant legislative committee or the legislative council to review and vote whether to support or oppose adding the measure to the ballot and to require the results of that vote to be published on the initiative petition;
- to require the attorney general to determine whether a proposed initiative would "cause significant material harm to one or more business interests in Montana" and to require a statement on petition sheets if the attorney general finds that it would; and
- to define appropriations, which the state constitution prohibits initiatives from making, to include directly or indirectly creating a financial obligation or expanding the eligibility for a government program.
Montana Senate Bill 113 was designed to not count statute section numbers in the 100-word limit for the ballot titles of legislatively referred ballot measures.
Nevada Assembly Bill 321 was designed to make multiple changes to election law and to allow withdrawal of an initiative or veto referendum by sponsors up to 90 days before the election on the measure.
Oklahoma Senate Bill 947 was designed to require initiative petition circulators to indicate if the proposal will have a fiscal impact on the state, and if so, the potential source of funding.
Oklahoma House Bill 2564 was designed to establish vote recount processes for state questions through a request by the governor or attorney general and through an automatic recount requirement based on margins of victory or defeat.
Pennsylvania House Resolution 91 was designed to establish "the Select Committee on Publication of Constitutional Amendments to examine, investigate and make a complete study of the publication of constitutional amendments under Section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania."
Rhode Island Senate Bill 50 and House Bill 5101 were designed to ratify the town of Jamestown Home Rule Charter amendment concerning the process and procedures by which a voter initiative can be activated.
South Dakota House Joint Resolution 5003 was designed to amend the state constitution to require a three-fifths (60%) supermajority vote to enact any ballot measures (whether citizen-initiated or legislatively referred) that imposes or increases taxes or fees or appropriates $10 million or more in any of the first five fiscal years after enactment.
- The legislature referred the amendment to the June 2022 ballot, and voters must approve it in 2022 for it to be enacted.
- Proponents of a Medicaid expansion initiative opposed and filed legal challenges regarding the inclusion of HJR 5003 on the June ballot saying it was unfair to apply new supermajority requirement rules for an initiative with an ongoing petition drive campaign.
South Dakota Senate Bill 86 was designed to require a statement to initiative sponsors on whether a submitted initiative violates the state's single-subject rule, to prohibit the secretary of state from clearing an initiative for circulation if it does violate the state's single-subject rule, and establishing a process for challenging the secretary of state's determination regarding the single-subject rule to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
South Dakota Senate Bill 123 was designed to "require a comment period for the attorney general's statement regarding initiated measures and initiated amendments."
South Dakota Senate Bill 77 was designed to "require certain font size for initiated measure petitions."
Utah House Bill 136 was designed to amend provisions of the Election Code relating to statewide and local initiatives and referendums to do the following:
- ban pay-per-signature and requires payment of petition circulators by the hour;
- require initiative or referendum petition sponsors to send an email to every petition signer that adds an email to the petition sheet informing him or her how to remove their signature from the petition;
- enact a badge requirement for paid petition circulators;
- require petition circulators to present the full text of initiatives and referendums to potential signers;
- require the attorney general to post the initiative text, the petition text, the fiscal impact statement, and information on the signature removal process on the office's website after receiving the fiscal impact statement for an initiative;
- include a statement on the petition if a proposed initiative increases taxes;
- require county clerks to publish certain information, including instructions on removing a signature from an initiative or referendum petition;
- set format and numbering requirements for petitions; and
- make other changes.
Utah House Bill 211 was designed to amend provisions relating to statewide and local initiatives and referendums to do the following:
- set format and numbering requirements for petitions;
- set rules for county clerks to follow when verifying a signature removal request;
- change the state's distribution requirement for veto referendum petitions from 8% of voters in 15 of 29 counties to 8% of voters in 15 of the 29 state Senate districts;
- require county clerks to post the names and voter identification numbers of those who have signed an initiative or referendum petition on the attorney general's website rather than the county's website; and
- change signature submission deadlines.
Utah House Bill 23 was designed to clarify the definition of a land use law; and modify the elections at which a referendum relating to legislative action taken after April 15 may appear on the ballot.
What else happened in 2021?
Mississippi Supreme Court overturns 2020 medical marijuana initiative and rules the state's initiative process can't be used
On May 14, 2021, the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned Initiative 65, the 2020 medical marijuana initiative. The ruling stated that the initiative petition did not comply with the signature distribution requirements in the Mississippi Constitution and that it is impossible for any petition to meet the requirements and has been impossible since congressional reapportionment in 2001.
The six justices wrote, "... Whether with intent, by oversight, or for some other reason, the drafters of [the constitutional signature distribution requirement] wrote a ballot initiative process that cannot work in a world where Mississippi has fewer than five representatives in Congress. To work in today’s reality, it will need amending—something that lies beyond the power of the Supreme Court."[9]
The 1992 constitutional amendment that granted the power of citizen initiative in Mississippi required signatures to be collected evenly from all five congressional districts that existed at the time. It mandated no more than one-fifth of the required signatures could be collected from any single congressional district. During 2001 redistricting after the 2000 census, however, the number of congressional districts in the state was reduced to four.
Click here for more information on the lawsuit, the ruling, and responses to the ruling.
Federal court blocks enforcement of Maine's residency requirement
On Feb. 16, U.S. District Court Judge John Woodcock enjoined the state from enforcing provisions of the Maine Constitution and a 2015 law requiring petition circulators to be registered voters, and, therefore, state residents. Woodcock ruled that "the First Amendment’s free speech protections trump the state’s regulatory authority." Secretary of State Shenna Bellows could appeal the ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling also said, "The Court framed its opinion as a prelude to a challenge to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for a more authoritative ruling."[10][11][12][13][14]
The ruling was appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.[15]
- Click here to read more about the lawsuit and court ruling.
As of February 2021, seven states had residency requirements for ballot initiative petition circulators. An additional three states—Colorado, Maine, and Mississippi—had requirements in their laws, but federal courts had invalidated or blocked the enforcement of the laws.
Arkansas Supreme Court upholds lower court ruling blocking the state's circulator background check requirement
- See also: Arkansas 2020 ballot measures
On March 11, 2021, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that blocked the enforcement of the state's background check requirements for paid circulators. The lower court ruled that the sections of state law requiring that information from a federal background check be included was impossible for sponsors to comply with since there was no way to obtain a federal background check. During appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, Secretary of State John Thurston argued that requirements for state police background checks could be left in place while blocking federal background check requirements. The supreme court ruled that the federal and state background check provisions could not be separated.[16]
The full ruling can be read here.
Partially in response to this court ruling, the legislature passed Senate Bill 614, with the final floor vote occurring on April 22. The bill was sent to the governor's desk after the Senate approved it 27-5 and the House approved it 72-18. Both chambers passed the bill largely along party lines with most Republicans in favor and most Democrats opposed. The bill was designed to do the following:[17]
- ban paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures gathered, a payment method called pay-per-signature;
- require circulators to be state residents and citizens;
- add certain offenses in addition to any felony, election law violations, fraud, forgery, and identity theft that disqualify a person from being a signature gatherer, including assault, battery, intimidation, threatening, sexual offenses, trespassing, vandalism, and theft;
- require initiative sponsors to certify that signature gatherers do not have any disqualifying conviction and put the burden of proof on initiative sponsors with regard to lawsuits and administrative proceedings;
- make it a felony for petition sponsors or their representatives to knowingly pay a circulator for or submits petitions for which the circulator did not personally witness all signatures; and
- make it a felony for a circulator to not report another circulator that provides a false affidavit that they personally witnessed all signatures.
The provisions concerning disqualifying offenses and requiring petition sponsors to certify and bear the burden of proof for the background of paid signature gatherers were designed, in part, to replace background requirements overturned by the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling.[17]
Nevada legislature passes law allowing initiative campaigns to remove ballot measures after certification
- See also: Nevada 2022 ballot measures
On May 31, 2021, the final day of the 2021 Nevada legislative session, the state legislature amended and passed a bill related to election laws, Assembly Bill 321, to allow initiative campaigns to remove ballot measures from the ballot 90 days before the election at which voters would have decided on the petition.[18]
The state legislature also passed a bill to increase the mining tax and dedicate revenue to education striking a compromise between legislators, the mining industry, and the largest teachers' union in the state—Clark County Education Association. Assembly Bill 495 (AB 495) reached the two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote requirement needed to pass the tax with a 28-14 vote in the Nevada State Assembly and a 16-5 vote in the Nevada State Senate. AB 495 maintains the state's net proceeds on minerals tax structure and dedicates the revenue to a new fund for education. In 2019, the net proceeds tax generated $61 million in revenue. Clark County Education Association Executive Director John Vellardita said, "This is the first time that dedicated revenue goes directly into K-12."[19]
Clark County Education Association led two initiative campaigns to increase the state's sales tax and gaming tax to generate revenue for public schools. The initiatives qualified for the ballot on March 12, 2021, when the deadline for the state legislature to pass the initiatives passed without any action by the legislature. The association is expected to withdraw its initiatives under Assembly Bill 321.[19]
Federal court blocks enforcement of paid circulator registration requirements in South Dakota
On June 15, 2021, Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Piersol overturned Senate Bill 180, which the South Dakota Legislature passed in 2020 to require paid circulators to register with the secretary of state.[20]
Senate Bill 180 was designed to require paid circulators to register with the secretary of state and provide personal information, including their residential address, email address, phone number, driver license state, voter registration information, sex offender status, and petition sponsor name. It also required the secretary of state to provide the information upon request and classified the information as part of the public record. The bill required paid circulators to update any of the personal information submitted to the secretary of state within seven days of any change. SB 180 states that all of the signatures collected by a circulator that does not meet all the registration requirements are invalid.[20]
Dakotans for Health, the group sponsoring an initiative to expand Medicaid, filed the lawsuit against Senate Bill 180 seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing Senate Bill 180.[20]
Judge Piersol granted the request for a preliminary injunction. Peirsol wrote, "The Court finds that the State did not meet its burden of showing that the burdensome requirements of SB 180 challenged by Plaintiff as violating the First Amendment are substantially related to the State's interests in election integrity and avoiding fraud."[20]
The state appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[21]
Background and context:
Senate Bill 180 repealed, revised, and reenacted certain registration requirements that the South Dakota legislature passed in 2019 and that were overturned by a court ruling in 2020.
In January 2020, U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann ruled that South Dakota House Bill 1094 (2019) violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The bill was designed to do the following:[22]
- require a 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 with an ID number 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.[23]
Federal court blocks enforcement of $3,000 limit on contributions to Florida initiative campaigns during signature gathering
On July 1, 2021, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Florida Senate Bill 1890. SB 1890 was designed to set $3,000 limits on campaign contributions to ballot initiative support or opposition committees until the secretary of state certifies the initiative for the ballot.[24] Attorney General Ashley B. Moody did not appeal the court's decision.[25]
Winsor wrote that the state “bears the burden of justifying restrictions on political expression by advancing at least ‘a significantly important interest’ that is ‘closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.' [...] Binding decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the 5th Circuit (Court of Appeals) applied those principles and concluded that the First Amendment forbids limitations like those SB 1890 imposes."[26][27]
Florida House Speaker Chris Sprowls (R) responded to the ruling, “The citizen initiative system was designed to be a mechanism for grassroots expression not a shortcut for billionaires to bypass the political process. SB 1890 contained limited and narrowly tailored measures to protect the integrity of the signature-gathering process."[26]
The Senate passed the bill 23-17 on April 14. Twenty-three Republicans were in favor, and 16 Democrats and one Republican were opposed. The House passed the bill 75-40 on April 26. All 75 voting Republicans were in favor, and all 40 voting Democrats were opposed. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed the bill on May 7.
On May 8, the ACLU of Florida along with three initiative petition campaigns filed the lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction. The lawsuit cited previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings that overturned limitations on campaign contributions for ballot measure committees, including Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981), First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), and Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that political contributions constitute freedom of speech and cannot be limited without a compelling state interest, such as to prevent corruption and bribery. The court has also ruled that “referenda are held on issues, not candidates for public office. The risk of corruption perceived in cases involving candidate elections simply is not present in a popular vote on a public issue.”
Federal judge rules South Dakota initiative signature deadline unconstitutional
On Aug. 30, the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota Northern Division ruled that South Dakota's signature deadline of one year before the election created an unconstitutional burden unjustified by the state's interests for initiated state statutes. The ruling set the signature submission deadline for initiated state statutes to be the first Tuesday in May of an election year, which is May 3, 2022, for 2022 ballot measures.[28]
Before the ruling, the state's signature submission deadline for both 2022 initiated constitutional amendments and initiated state statutes was Nov. 8, 2021. Sponsors of initiated state statutes now have until May 3, 2022, unless the ruling is overturned upon appeal. The ruling left in place the deadline of one year before the election for initiated constitutional amendments.
Since initiative petitioners are allowed to file initiatives two years before an election, this ruling effectively increased the amount of time petitioners can collect signatures for initiated state statutes from one year to 18 months. However, the ruling said that the legislature could change the language in state law to reduce the circulation window back to one year.[28]
Federal Election Commission rules that the federal ban on foreign political contributions concerns candidate elections but not ballot measure campaigns
In July 2021, the Federal Election Commission, in a 4-2 decision, affirmed that foreign nationals, including individuals, corporations, and governments, could contribute to ballot measure campaigns. The decision was the result of a complaint filed against a Canadian subsidiary of Australian firm Sandfire Resources, which contributed to the opposition campaign of Montana I-186. The ruling concluded that the contribution was not "inextricably linked to any federal, state, or local candidate for election" and therefore dismissed the complaint.[29]
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.
|
Information on proposed changes to 2021 laws governing direct democracy is being researched and updated by Ballotpedia staff and updated information will be listed as soon as possible. The list below is incomplete. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org to provide information.
Alabama
Alabama House Bill 397 was designed to "provide that the description of a proposed constitutional amendment on a ballot must not intentionally misrepresent the content of the proposed amendment."
Alaska
Alaska Senate Joint Resolution 7 was designed to amend the Alaska Constitution to require the state to get approval from voters before enacting a statewide tax in the first statewide election held more than 120 days after the law's enactment. It also required that initiatives approved by voters also be approved by the legislature through a resolution before taking effect.
Alaska House Bill 131 was designed to set a 365-day circulation window for recall petitions.
Alaska House Bill 174 and Alaska Senate Bill 23 were designed to prohibit severability clauses in ballot initiatives and to require a court ruling on an initiative petition to invalidate the entire initiative if the ruling finds a portion of it invalid.
Alaska House Bill 190 was designed to make changes to the state's recall processes and requirements, including the following:
- allow recalls starting on an officer's first day of office instead of their 120th day;
- set restrictions on the timing and reporting of campaign contributions for recall campaigns;
- change and remove circulation window restrictions; and
- add a second option for recalls of no confidence requiring signatures from a majority of registered voters and not requiring a statement of grounds or approval of the petition application.
Alaska Senate Bill 43 was designed to set campaign contribution reporting requirements for ballot measure committees.
Alaska House Bill 157 was designed to set campaign contribution reporting requirements for referendum and recall support or opposition committees.
Arizona
Arizona Senate Bill 1497 was designed to require that the official ballot and Secretary of State's website include a notice of Proposition 105.
Arizona House Bill 2364 was designed to require persons or organizations submitting arguments for informational election pamphlets to include a sworn statement and identifying information, including name, telephone number and residential address; with only the name and city, town or state printed in the pamphlet.
Arizona House Bill 2308 was designed to make changes to laws governing recall, including to allow signature removal from recall petitions and to set formatting, affidavit, paid circulator and out-of-state circulator registration requirements for recall petitions.
Arizona Senate Bill 1105 was designed to increase the word length of initiative or referendum descriptions included with initiative and referendum petitions from 100 to 200 words.
Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1034 was designed to edit the state's laws governing legislative alteration by allowing the Arizona State Legislature to amend or repeal a ballot initiative without voter approval if any portion of the initiative has been declared unconstitutional or invalid by the Arizona Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court.
- Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, voters must approve this measure in November 2022 for it to be enacted.
Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2001 was designed to amend the Arizona Constitution to require that initiative measures only cover one topic, and require that the topic be expressed in the initiative's title.
- Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, voters must approve this measure in November 2022 for it to be enacted.
Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2016 was designed to change the vote requirement for initiatives and referendums to become law to 55%, from the existing simple majority requirement.
Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1024 was designed to require a two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote for the approval of a ballot initiative that increases tax revenue at either the state or local level.
Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1028 was designed to require a statewide vote every five years on all statewide initiative measures that would increase taxes, to be applied retroactively to all ballot measures that increase taxes enacted on or after November 3, 2020.
Arizona Senate Bill 1531 was designed to void signatures of initiative or referendum petition signers who have not heard or read the initiative's description.
Arizona House Bill 2613 was designed to repeal, revise and add a new section to statutes relating to descriptions of ballot initiatives and referendums. The proposed changes would give the person or organization submitting the proposal application 10 days to submit a description of the proposal to the attorney general after submitting the proposal; it would give courts power to enforce subpoenas on petition circulators who fail to appear or produce documents; and require prominent circulation of a measure's impartial analysis by the Attorney General and Secretary of State.
Arizona House Bill 2735 was designed to require that the Arizona Secretary of State provide a secure internet portal for electors to sign initiative and referendum petitions.
Arizona House Bill 2430 was designed to contain an emergency clause and change the filing deadline for: the person filing arguments for / against measures to the Secretary of State to no later than 27 days before the regular primary election, replacing the existing 48 day limit; and the legislative council filing an impartial analysis of measures to the Secretary of State to no later than 30 days before the regular primary election, replacing the existing 60 day limit.
Arizona Senate Bill 1811 was designed to allow a political committee intending to support a proposed law to file an action with a superior court before a person or organization submits an application for the initiative or referendum petition, to determine whether the description of the principal provisions of the measure is sufficient.
Arizona Senate Bill 1499 was designed to make a technical correction to the law governing how long the incumbent continues duties after being recalled.
Arizona House Bill 2342 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."
Arkansas
Arkansas House Joint Resolution 1005 was designed to enact a 60% supermajority vote requirement at the ballot to adopt constitutional amendments (legislatively referred and citizen-initiated) and citizen-initiated state statutes.
- Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, voters must approve this measure in November 2022 for it to be enacted.
Arkansas Senate Bill 614 was designed to do the following:
- ban paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures gathered, a payment method called pay-per-signature;
- require circulators to be state residents and citizens;
- add certain offenses in addition to any felony, election law violations, fraud, forgery, and identity theft that disqualify a person from being a signature gatherer, including assault, battery, intimidation, threatening, sexual offenses, trespassing, vandalism, and theft;
- require initiative sponsors to certify that signature gatherers do not have any disqualifying conviction and put the burden of proof on initiative sponsors with regard to lawsuits and administrative proceedings;
- make it a felony for petition sponsors or their representatives to knowingly pay a circulator for or submits petitions for which the circulator did not personally witness all signatures; and
- make it a felony for a circulator to not report another circulator that provides a false affidavit that they personally witnessed all signatures.
- Provisions in Senate Bill 614 about disqualifying offenses for signature gatherers and initiative sponsors bearing the burden of proof regarding those offenses would replace the state's previous background check requirements that were overturned by a court ruling earlier in 2021.
- On May 27, 2021, several initiative proponents—including Liberty Initiative Fund, U.S. Term Limits, and Arkansas Term Limits—filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking to overturn Senate Bill 614.[30]
Arkansas House Bill 1447 was designed to amend the Arkansas Code §§ 26-74-501 and 26-74-502 to require counties wishing to impose tax levies under Arkansas Code § 26-74-501 to get majority voter approval at the next primary or general election no closer than 75 days away, and to make technical corrections.
Arkansas Senate Bill 516 was designed to set state and national background check requirements and establish disqualifying offenses for paid signature gatherers.
Arkansas House Bill 1925 was designed to establish a recall process for elected county officials.
Arkansas House Joint Resolution 1006 was designed to create a recall process for state constitutional officers, state legislators, and elected judges.
California
California Senate Bill 152 was designed to allow the secretary of state to certify a recall petition before, rather than after, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee has submitted an election cost estimate, thereby allowing recall elections to be called more quickly. The bill was also designed to make other changes to election law and to appropriate funds for the 2021 gubernatorial recall election.
Vetoed California Senate Bill 660 was designed to ban paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures they collect, a payment method called pay-per-signature.
- The California Legislature passed a bill in 2019 banning pay-per-signature and requiring 10% of signatures requiring for a ballot initiative to be collected by volunteer circulators. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed the bill, however. The California Legislature passed pay-per-signature bans in 2018 and 2011 as well, but both were vetoed.
California Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 was designed to require the ballot language for veto referendums to be written so that a "yes" vote opposes/repeals the targeted law and a "no" vote supports/upholds the targeted law, meaning veto referendum petitioners would be advocating for a "yes" vote rather than a "no" vote.
California Assembly Bill 152 was designed to limit what special local elections could be consolidated with the 2021 gubernatorial recall election.
California Assembly Bill 241 was designed to require both ballot initiatives and veto referendums to appear together on the ballot in the order in which they qualified for the ballot instead of listing ballot initiatives first and veto referendums last.
California Senate Bill 443 was designed to create a specific order for ballot measures to appear on the ballot:
- (a) bond measures, including those proposed by initiative, in the order in which they qualify;
- (b) constitutional amendments, including those proposed by initiative, in the order in which they qualify:
- (c) legislatively referred measures, other than those described in subdivision (a) or (b), in the order in which they are approved by the legislature; and
- (d) initiative and referendum measures, other than those described in subdivision (a) or (b), in the order in which they qualify.
California Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 was designed to change recall law in order to list recalled officers as a candidate on the recall election ballot unless the officer resigns following the certification of the recall petition and to make the office vacant if the officer does resign.
California Senate Bill 663 was designed to set rules for access to recall petition signatures for the purpose of asking registered voters to remove their signatures from the petition and make other changes to laws governing recall.
California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 was designed 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 752 was designed to require petition sheets to identify top contributors to initiative, referendum, and recall petition campaigns and instruct people to only sign the petition if they have reviewed the list of top contributors.
Colorado
Colorado House Bill 1321 was designed to require specific language, including a list of services that could be affected, to be used for the ballot summaries and fiscal impact statements of ballot initiatives increasing or reducing tax revenue.
Connecticut
Connecticut House Joint Resolution 33 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish a process for statewide ballot initiative and veto referendum.
Connecticut House Joint Resolution 46 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish a process for recalling elected officials.
District of Columbia
District of Columbia bill 23-0165 was designed to make changes to the initiative and referendum process, including requiring that initiatives be placed on a general election ballot and requiring the Board of Elections to "solicit an opinion from the Attorney General...and the General Counsel...on the proper subject determination [and legislative drafting] of an initiative or referendum measure."[31]
Florida
Florida Senate Joint Resolution 204 was designed to abolish the Florida Constitution Revision Commission.
- Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, voters must approve in November 2022 for it to be enacted.
/ Florida Senate Bill 1890 was designed to set $3,000 limits on campaign contributions to ballot initiative support or opposition committees until the secretary of state certifies the measure for the ballot and assigns it a ballot position and number designation.
Florida House Joint Resolution 61 and Florida Senate Joint Resolution 1238 were designed to change the percentage of votes required to approve an amendment or to revise the Florida Constitution to 66.6%, from the existing 60% requirement.
Florida House Joint Resolution 255 and Florida Senate Joint Resolution 1338 were designed to amend the Florida Constitution to create a process for initiated state statutes
Georgia
Georgia House Bill 273 was designed to "provide an additional method of initiating a referendum election for the authorization of the issuance of licenses for the package sale of distilled spirits" and "change certain provisions relating to the procedures for calling and conducting certain referendum elections and the nullifications thereof."
Hawaii
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Hawaii
Hawaii House Bill 855 was designed to add new sections to the Hawaii Constitution that "allows for amendments by initiative to prevail and reserves the powers of initiative and referendum to the people."
Idaho
Idaho Senate Bill 1067 was designed to make county clerks, rather than city clerks, the recipients of all recall petitions besides statewide recalls.
/ Idaho Senate Bill 1110 was designed to change the state's distribution requirement to require signatures from 6% of voters from all 35 legislative districts for ballot initiatives and veto referendums instead of the existing requirement of 6% of voters from 18 of the state's legislative districts.
- In 2019, the Idaho Legislature passed but Gov. Little vetoed a pair of bills that were designed to increase the state's initiative signature requirement and its distribution requirement, among other changes. The 2021 law was passed by more than the two-thirds majority required to override a veto in each chamber.
- When the Idaho Legislature approved SB 1110, Former Idaho Supreme Court Justice Jim Jones submitted a petition with about 16,000 signatures to Gov. Little asking him to veto the bill.
- On May 7, 2021, Reclaim Idaho, the sponsor of Idaho Proposition 2, Medicaid Expansion Initiative (2018) and Idaho Income Tax Increases for Education Funding Initiative (2020), filed a lawsuit against the state asking the Idaho Supreme Court to invalidate the law.[8]
- On August 23, 2021, the state Supreme Court overturned the law arguing that the state had no compelling interest to increase the distribution requirement. The court reinstated the existing requirement.[1]
Idaho Joint House Resolution 2 was designed to amend the Idaho Constitution to state the existing ballot measure petition signature requirements, thereby preventing the legislature from changing them without voter approval.
Vetoed Idaho Senate Bill 1150 was designed to require that initiative and referendum petitions must be circulated in Idaho and that petitions must be signed while the signer is physically located within the state.
- On May 18, 2021, Governor Brad Little (R) vetoed the bill citing constitutionality concerns.[32]
Idaho House Bill 8 was designed to amend existing law to revise provisions regarding bond and levy ballot disclosures.
Idaho House Bill 350 and Idaho House Bill 321 were designed to change the way vacancies created through recall petition efforts are filled.
Illinois
Illinois House Joint Resolution 0005 was designed to remove the subject restriction for initiated constitutional amendments and to add that initiated constitutional amendments cannot amend the state's bill of rights or modify the initiative process.
Illinois Senate Joint Resolution 0001 was designed to remove the subject restriction for initiated constitutional amendments and to add that initiated constitutional amendments cannot amend the state's bill of rights or modify the initiative process.
Illinois House Joint Resolution 0006 was designed to allow for a referendum to reject any Public Act by a petition signed by a number of electors.
Illinois Senate Joint Resolution 0002 was designed to allow for a referendum to reject any Public Act by a petition signed by a number of electors.
Illinois House Bill 0380 was designed to remove a requirement that the imposition of certain non-home rule use and occupation taxes be subject to referendum approval.
Kansas
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Kansas
Kansas House Concurrent Resolution 5007 was designed to amend the Kansas Constitution to establish the powers of ballot initiative and veto referendum.
Kansas Senate Concurrent Resolution 1605 was designed to amend the Kansas Constitution to establish the powers of ballot initiative and veto referendum.
Kansas House Bill 2232 was designed to enact provisions "limiting the maximum number of signatures required for certain municipal petitions for proposed ordinances and extending the effective period of such ordinances and providing for narrow construction of certain administrative ordinances."
Kentucky
Kentucky House Bill 498 was designed to amend the Kentucky Constitution to establish the initiative power of the people to propose laws and to enact or reject proposed initiatives at an election.
Kentucky House Bill 82 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish a recall process for all elected officials except judges.
Maine
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine
Vetoed Maine Legislative Document 194 was designed to prohibit contributions, expenditures, and participation by entities with 10% or more ownership by foreign governments to influence ballot measures.
- The legislature passed LD 194. On June 23, 2021, Gov. Janet Mills (D) vetoed the legislation, saying, "Even more troubling is this bill’s potential impact on Maine voters. Government is rarely justified in restricting the kind of information to which the citizenry should have access in the context of an election, and particularly a ballot initiative."[33][34]
Maine Legislative Document 641 was designed similarly to LD 194 to prohibit contributions, expenditures, and participation by entities with ownership by foreign governments to influence referendums.
Maine Legislative Document 1178 was designed to amend the state constitution to prohibit veto referendums from going on the ballot during presidential primary elections.
Maryland
Maryland House Bill 0738 was designed to alter the deadline for certain statements regarding certain statewide ballot measures to be submitted to the State Board of Elections; and alters the deadlines by which a certificate of candidacy for a successor candidate for Governor or Lieutenant Governor must be filed under certain circumstances.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts House Bill 826 was designed to grant citizens a process for recalling elected officials in the town of Otis.
Massachusetts House Bill 3746 was designed to grant citizens a process for recalling elected officials in the town of Wenham.
Massachusetts House Bill 3934 was designed to grant citizens a process for recalling elected officials in the town of Holyoke.
Massachusetts House Bill 839, Massachusetts Senate Bill 454, and Massachusetts Senate Bill 482 were designed to limit spending by foreign-influenced corporations on ballot questions and other political questions.
Massachusetts Senate Bill 463 was designed to regulate corporate liability for spending on ballot questions and other political questions.
Massachusetts Senate Docket No. 815 was designed to amend existing law regarding regional transportation ballot initiatives.
Michigan
Michigan House Bill 4995 was designed to change deadlines for filing initiative applications and signature petitions.
Michigan House Bill 4200 was designed clarify the timeframe to review initiative petitions.
Michigan Senate Bill 280 was designed to requiring initiative petition signatures to be submitted 200 instead of 160 days before the targeted election and requiring the board of state canvassers to make a determination regarding the sufficiency of the petition within 100 days.
Michigan House Bill 4360 was designed to prohibit an initiative, veto referendum, or recall petition circulator from making a false statement or misrepresentation to potential signers and to set penalties for the individual circulator who violates the provision and the entity that employes them.
Michigan House Bill 4193 was designed to prohibit combining millages into a single ballot proposal.
Michigan Senate Bill 0022 was designed to limit millage elections to November elections.
Michigan Senate Bill 0023 was designed to limit millage elections to November elections.
Minnesota
Minnesota House File 200 and Minnesota Senate File 653 were designed to make multiple changes to local elections and governance provisions, including "authorizing recall elections for certain city and school district officials."
Minnesota House File 541 was designed to allow owners of agricultural land, real property, or small business property to vote on levy or bond referendums in property location.
Mississippi
Mississippi Senate Concurrent Resolution 501 was designed to amend the Mississippi Constitution §273 by revising initiative signature requirements and limiting initiatives to one proposal of law.
Missouri
Missouri House Joint Resolution 20 was designed to change provisions governing initiative and referendum petitions to do the following:
- increase the signature requirement for initiated constitutional amendments from 8% of voters in two-thirds of congressional districts to 10% in each congressional district and
- require two-thirds supermajority voter approval for initiated constitutional amendments.
- The proposal was also amended to explicitly require citizenship to vote.
Missouri House Joint Resolution 14 was designed to amend the Missouri Constitution to require a 60% majority to amend the state Constitution.
Missouri House Joint Resolution 61 was designed to amend the state constitution to prevent the legislature from amending or repealing an initiated state statute without voter approval.
Missouri House Joint Resolution 22 was designed to amend the Missouri Constitution to require initiative petition sponsors to collect signatures from all congressional districts and submit approved petitions to the Missouri General Assembly. A version of the petition amended or passed by the General Assembly if placed on the ballot would require a majority of votes for approval; a version of the petition not passed by the General Assembly if placed on the ballot would require a two-thirds majority of votes for approval.
Missouri House Joint Resolution 26 was designed to change provisions governing initiative petitions by requiring "an amendment referred to the people by the General Assembly to achieve a majority vote for passage and an amendment referred to the people by initiative petition to achieve a two-thirds supermajority vote for passage."
Missouri House Joint Resolution 44 was designed to amend the Missouri Constitution to require initiative petitioners to collect signatures from every county and city not within a county and require a two-thirds majority vote to enact amendments proposed by initiative petition.
Missouri Senate Joint Resolution 13 was designed to require initiative petitions proposing constitutional amendments to be signed by 8% of voters in each state senate district, instead of the existing requirement of voters in two-thirds of congressional districts and require initiative petitions proposing constitutional amendments to be approved by a two-thirds majority, instead of the existing simple majority requirement.
Missouri House Joint Resolution 2 was designed to amend the Missouri Constitution to require signatures from 8% of voters in every congressional district in the state to propose a constitutional amendment, changed from the existing requirement of voters in two-thirds of congressional districts.
Missouri House Joint Resolution 15 was designed to change the signature distribution requirement for initiated constitutional amendments to 12% of voters in each of two-thirds of the Congressional districts in the state.
Missouri House Joint Resolution 21 was designed to require initiative petitions to be signed by a certain percentage of voters in every county, changed from the existing requirement of voters in two-thirds of congressional districts; and require initiative petitions to include the name of the person or group sponsoring them as well as financial disclosures from the sponsors.
Missouri Senate Joint Resolution 11 was designed to change the signature requirement of initiative petitions to be by a certain number of voters in all of the Congressional districts, from the existing requirement of 2/3 of districts; and changes the majority required for constitutional amendments to take effect to a majority of registered voters, from the existing requirement of a majority of votes cast on the amendment.
Missouri Senate Joint Resolution 19 was designed to amend the Missouri Constitution to change the signature requirement for initiative petitions to amend the constitution to 5.8% of voters in each congressional district instead of the existing requirement of 8% of voters in two-thirds of the congressional districts and to change the signature requirement for initiative petitions to amend a statute to 3.6% of voters in each congressional district instead of the existing requirement of 5% in two-thirds of districts.
Missouri House Bill 333 was designed to change provisions governing initiative and referendum petitions in the following ways:
- changing the format of initiative signature sheets and requiring an electronic format of the sheets to be available;
- requiring a filing fee for initiative and referendum petitions, which would be refunded upon approval of the petition;
- lengthening the official summary statement of petitions to 150 words from the existing 50-word limit;
- requiring the deadline for submitting sample petition sheets to be no earlier than 12 weeks after the previous general election; and
- specifying that a court order to change a ballot title would result in an invalidation of the signatures collected for the petition prior to the court order.
Missouri House Bill 850 was designed to prohibit court rulings from changing ballot language for a constitutional amendment referred to the ballot by the legislature.
Missouri House Joint Resolution 40 was designed to change provisions governing amendment and repeal of statutory provisions initially proposed by the people by requiring a three-fourths majority vote of members from both houses in the first regular session of the General Assembly after the statute's effective date, a two-thirds majority vote of members in both houses in the second regular session of the General Assembly after the statute's effective date, or a majority vote of members in both houses in or after the third regular session of the General Assembly after the statute's effective date.
Missouri Senate Bill 149 was designed to standardize signature sheets for initiative and referendum petitions by requiring the Missouri Secretary of State to prescribe the forms, requiring the sheets to be available electronically, and requiring signatures to be in black or blue ink.
Missouri Senate Joint Resolution 2 was designed to change the requirement of signatures for initiatives proposing constitutional amendments to 15% of voters in each of the Congressional districts from the existing 8% requirement.
Missouri House Bill 165 and Missouri House Bill 196 were designed to establish a recall process for county officials.
Missouri House Bill 229 was designed to establish a recall process for school board members.
Montana
Montana House Bill 651 was designed to make multiple changes to laws governing the initiative process, including:
- to require the employees of paid signature gatherers to register with the state and pay a fee;
- to require the relevant legislative committee or the legislative council to review and vote whether to support or oppose adding the measure to the ballot and to require the results of that vote to be published on the initiative petition;
- to require the attorney general to determine whether a proposed initiative would "cause significant material harm to one or more business interests in Montana" and to require a statement on petition sheets if the attorney general finds that it would; and
- to define appropriations, which the state constitution prohibits initiatives from making, to include directly or indirectly creating a financial obligation or expanding the eligibility for a government program.
Montana Senate Bill 113 was designed to not count statute section numbers in the 100-word limit for the ballot titles of legislatively referred ballot measures.
Montana House Bill 384 was designed to increase the signatures required for initiated state statutes from 5% of voters to 10% of voters and increase the distribution requirement from 5% of voters in one-third of legislative districts to 10% of voters in three-fifths of legislative districts.
Montana House Bill 385 was designed to increase the signatures required for initiated constitutional amendments from 10% of voters to 20% of voters and increase the distribution requirement from 10% of voters in two-fifths of legislative districts to 20% of voters in three-fifths of legislative districts.
Nebraska
Nebraska Legislative Bill 475 was designed to require the attorney general to provide initiative sponsors with an opinion on whether or not their initiative complies with the state's single-subject rule and, if not, provide suggestions about dividing the initiative properly into separate subjects. The bill was also designed to require reasonable doubts arising from challenges to the initiative based on the single-subject rule to be resolved according to the attorney general's opinion.
Nebraska Legislative Resolution 24CA was designed to amend the state constitution to change the provision setting the state's single-subject rule to clarify that initiatives must relate to one general subject which may include provisions that have a connection to the general subject of the measure.
Nebraska Legislative Bill 477 was designed to require the secretary of state to provide to initiative sponsors an advisory opinion on the legality of the initiative text and the object statement within 14 days of receiving the initiative petition filing.
Nevada
Nevada Assembly Bill 321 was designed to make multiple changes to election law and to allow withdrawal of an initiative or veto referendum by sponsors up to 90 days before the election on the measure.
Nevada Senate Bill 256 was designed to require the secretary of state to design a system for electronic signatures on initiative and veto referendum petitions.
Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution 15 was designed to make changes to legislative procedures, among them setting the deadline to file an initiative petition at one year before the session of Legislature to which the petition would be transmitted, instead of January 1 of the year when said session would begin.
New Hampshire
Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 11 was designed to grant the legislature the power to pose a referendum to the voters for the purpose of overturning the decision of a New Hampshire court.
New Jersey
New Jersey Assembly Bill 580 was designed to require public referendum prior to issuance of general obligation bonds by local units.
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 Bill 5776 was designed to allow for electronic signatures on recall, initiative, and referendum petitions, in addition to requiring that the forms for such petitions be made available by January 1 of each year.
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 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 170 was designed to amend the New Jersey Constitution to establish an initiative process for overturning New Jersey Supreme Court decisions and repealing statutes.
New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 198 was designed to amend the New Jersey Constitution to provide for enactment of laws concerning property tax reform, campaign finance, lobbying, government ethics, and elections procedure by Statewide initiative and referendum.
New Jersey Senate Bill 444 was designed to require a public referendum prior to issuance of general obligation bonds by local units.
New Jersey Senate Concurrent Resolution 28 was designed to create a process of statewide initiative and referendum.
New Jersey Senate Bill 2433 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 York
New York Senate Bill 1529 was designed to require "that any ballot proposition creating a state debt shall contain an estimate of the amortization period and the total expected debt service payable thereon until the bonds issued pursuant to such proposition are retired."
New York Assembly Bill 00056 was designed to require the state board of elections to publish a copy of the text of each amendment, proposition or question and a statement of the form in which it would be submitted on the state board of elections website.
New York Assembly Bill 01116 was designed to require the state board of elections to create and distribute a ballot pamphlet to each voter for each general election.
New York Assembly Bill 01969 and New York Senate Bill 5913 were designed to provide for initiative and give electors the ability to propose statutes and amendments to the constitution.
New York Assembly Bill 04674 and New York Senate Bill 5864 were designed to provide for initiatives and referendums in New York State to propose or reject laws and submit amendments to the state constitution.
New York Senate Bill 03777 was designed to provide for initiative, referendum and recall; and give electors the ability to propose statutes and amendments to the constitution, approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes, and remove elective officers.
North Carolina
North Carolina House Bill 3 was designed to provide voters of Beaufort County a right to petition for changes to the structure of the Beaufort County Board of Commissioners.
North Dakota
North Dakota Senate Concurrent Resolution 4005 was designed to require initiated measures for constitutional amendments and constitutional amendments proposed by the legislative assembly to be placed on the ballot at a general election; and changes the votes required to approve a constitutional amendment by the legislative assembly and the voters to 60%, from the existing simple majority requirement.
North Dakota House Bill 1173 was designed to provide electors the full text of constitutional amendments and initiated and referred measures.
North Dakota House Concurrent Resolution 3018 was designed to enact a single-subject rule for initiatives.
North Dakota House Concurrent Resolution 3003 was designed to amend the North Dakota Constitution to require initiated measures for constitutional amendments to concern only one subject.
North Dakota House Bill 1119 was designed to amend and reenact a section of the North Dakota Century Code on printing initiated measures and constitutional amendments on the ballot.
North Dakota House Bill 1200 was designed to create and enact a new section to the North Dakota Century Code on limitations for property taxes levied by taxing districts without voter approval, and the calculation of school district state aid payments.
North Dakota House Concurrent Resolution 3017 was designed to require a 55 percent supermajority vote at the ballot to approve constitutional amendments.
North Dakota House Bill 1331 was designed to "repeal section 40‑12‑01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to initiating and referring a municipal ordinance."
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Senate Bill 947 was designed to require initiative petition circulators to indicate if the proposal will have a fiscal impact on the state, and if so, the potential source of funding.
Oklahoma House Bill 2564 was designed to establish vote recount processes for state questions through a request by the governor or attorney general and through an automatic recount requirement based on margins of victory or defeat.
Oklahoma Senate bill 917 was designed to require that "each person responsible for the circulation of a petition for the collection of signatures shall have a criminal history investigation performed by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation filed with the Secretary of State."
Oklahoma House Joint Resolution 1002 was designed to enact a distribution requirement for initiatives.
Oklahoma House Joint Resolution 1039 was designed to amend the constitution to change the required percentage of voters to propose certain petitions from a certain percentage statewide, to the same percentage in each congressional district.
Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution 7 was designed to amend the constitution to change the required percentage of voters to propose petitions from 5% of voters statewide, to 5% of voters in each congressional district.
Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution 8 was designed to amend the constitution to change the required percentage of voters to propose certain petitions from a certain percentage statewide, to the same percentage in each congressional district.
Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution 10 was designed to amend the constitution to require initiative petitions receive 8% of voters' signatures in each congressional district for legislative initiatives, and 15% of voters' signatures in each congressional district for constitutional amendments.
Oklahoma House Joint Resolution 1004 was designed to amend the constitution to require two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote to pass constitutional amendments.
Oklahoma House Joint Resolution 1034 was designed to amend the constitution to require either a 55% majority of voters or a majority in at least 20 state counties to pass a constitutional amendment.
Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution 4 was designed to amend the constitution to change the number of votes required to approve an initiative or referendum petition from a simple majority to a 60% vote.
Oklahoma House Bill 1767 was designed to increase the word limit for proposed measures that would have a fiscal impact on the state to 300 words, from the existing 200 word limit; and require ballot questions which would increase the funding requirements of any department of state government to specify that if approved, the department would require additional funding.
Oklahoma House Bill 1208 was designed to create the Initiative and Referendum Policy Act of 2021.
Oklahoma House Bill 1209 was designed to create the Initiative and Referendum Policy Act of 2021.
Oklahoma House Bill 1210 was designed to create the Initiative and Referendum Policy Act of 2021.
Oklahoma House Bill 1211 was designed to create the Initiative and Referendum Policy Act of 2021.
Oklahoma House Bill 1212 was designed to create the Initiative and Referendum Policy Act of 2021.
Oklahoma House Joint Resolution 1042 was designed to amend the constitution to clarify language regarding the number of voters required for certain petitions.
Oklahoma House Joint Resolution 1043 was designed to amend the constitution to clarify language regarding the number of voters required for certain petitions.
Oklahoma House Joint Resolution 1044 was designed to amend the constitution to clarify language regarding the number of voters required for certain petitions.
Oklahoma Senate Bill 506 was designed to increase the time period in which a protest on the constitutionality of an initiative petition may be filed or the signatures on an initiative petition may be disputed from 10 days to 20 days after publication.
Oklahoma Senate Bill 1011 was designed to implement a $1,000 filing fee to circulate petitions, to be refunded if the measure qualifies to be placed on the ballot.
Oregon
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oregon
Oregon Senate Bill 27 was designed to clarify requirements regarding the notice of a ballot measure election and ballot title for district ballot measures and other election related topics.
Oregon House Bill 2022 was designed to make the district attorney, rather than the county clerk, responsible for determining whether a prospective petition for initiative ballot measure for a county complies with the requirements of the Oregon Constitution.
Oregon House Bill 2601 was designed to require the Oregon Secretary of State to conduct a study and develop recommendations regarding the most effective methods for improving the ballot measure process.
Oregon House Bill 2684 was designed to require the Secretary of State or county clerk, rather than a filer, to designate the argument filed for publication in the voters' pamphlet as either supporting or opposing a ballot measure.
Oregon House Bill 3235 was designed to prohibit foreign nationals from contributing to political committees aiming to influence ballot measure, initiative, referendum, or recall elections (in addition to candidate elections).
Oregon Senate Bill 374 was designed to require all material facts provided as part of a candidate's statement for the voters' pamphlet to be true; requires a Citizens' Initiative Review Commission to form a committee for each statewide ballot measure; and allows a person to pay $100 to be included in a list of persons supporting or opposing a statewide ballot measure, replacing the existing ability of a person supporting or opposing a statewide ballot measure to pay $1,200 to submit a statement or argument to the voters' pamphlet.
Oregon Senate Bill 543 was designed to change requirements for remote signature petitions.
Oregon Senate Joint Resolution 16 was designed to amend the Oregon Constitution to prohibit the Legislative Assembly from amending or repealing an initiative law for a period of two years after enactment, unless two-thirds of members in both houses of Legislative Assembly vote to amend or repeal the initiative law; and prohibits amendment or repeal of an initiative law by Legislative Assembly during the two-year period from being referred to electors.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania House Resolution 91 was designed to establish "the Select Committee on Publication of Constitutional Amendments to examine, investigate and make a complete study of the publication of constitutional amendments under Section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania."
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 246 was designed to establish a process for a recurring constitutional convention question.
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 538 was designed to establish statewide ballot initiative and veto referendum processes.
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 738 was designed to require that the Secretary of the Commonwealth publicly post information online about proposed constitutional amendments.
Pennsylvania House Bill 822 was designed to establish a recall election process for certain elected officials.
Pennsylvania House Bill 1010 was designed to make the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives, instead of the secretary of state, responsible for publishing constitutional amendment notices in newspapers.
Pennsylvania House Bill 1201 was designed to require the Legislative Reference Bureau to draft the ballot language for any statewide ballot question unless the state legislature does so.
Pennsylvania House Bill 1118 was designed to set procedures for fiscal impact summaries among other provisions.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island House Resolution 5595 was designed to establish processes for statewide ballot initiative and veto referendum.
Rhode Island Senate Bill 50 was designed to ratify the town of Jamestown Home Rule Charter amendment concerning the process and procedures by which a voter initiative can be activated.
Rhode Island House Bill 5101 was designed to ratify the town of Jamestown Home Rule Charter amendment concerning the process and procedures by which a voter initiative can be activated.
South Carolina
South Carolina Senate Joint Resolution 39 was designed to amend the South Carolina Constitution to establish a procedure for enacting or repealing laws and constitutional amendments by initiative petition and referendum, and provide exceptions.
South Dakota
South Dakota House Joint Resolution 5003 was designed to require a three-fifths (60%) supermajority vote to enact any ballot measures (whether citizen-initiated or legislatively referred) that imposes or increases taxes or fees or appropriates $10 million or more in any of the first five fiscal years after enactment.
- The legislature referred the amendment to the June 2022 ballot, and voters must approve it in 2022 for it to be enacted.
- Proponents of a Medicaid expansion initiative opposed and filed legal challenges regarding the inclusion of HJR 5003 on the June ballot saying it was unfair to apply new supermajority requirement rules for an initiative with an ongoing petition drive campaign.
South Dakota Senate Bill 86 was designed to require a statement to initiative sponsors on whether a submitted initiative violates the state's single-subject rule, to prohibit the secretary of state from clearing an initiative for circulation if it does violate the state's single-subject rule, and establishing a process for challenging the secretary of state's determination regarding the single-subject rule to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
South Dakota Senate Bill 123 was designed to "require a comment period for the attorney general's statement regarding initiated measures and initiated amendments."
South Dakota Senate Bill 77 was designed to "require certain font size for initiated measure petitions."
South Dakota Senate Bill 123 was designed to "require a comment period for the attorney general's statement regarding initiated measures and initiated amendments."
South Dakota House Bill 1054 was designed to "require a copy of any initiated measure or amendment on the ballot be provided to voters."
South Dakota House Bill 1249 was designed to require the fiscal note for initiatives to state whether the measure imposes a tax or fee.
South Dakota House Bill 1062 was designed to require initiative sponsors to pay for the cost of defending an approved initiated constitutional amendment if (a) the attorney general notified sponsors prior to circulation that the initiative may be unconstitutional and (b) the measure, after all appeals, is ruled unconstitutional.
Tennessee
Tennessee House Bill 0499 was designed to authorize the county election commission to notify individuals filing a petition for recall, referendum, or initiative of a defect in the petition that must be cured prior to certification for final approval.
Tennessee Senate Bill 0238 was designed to authorize the county election commission to notify individuals filing a petition for recall, referendum, or initiative of a defect in the petition that must be cured prior to certification for final approval.
Tennessee Senate Joint Resolution 0119 was designed to amend the Tennessee Constitution to allow the people to propose laws by initiative.
Tennessee House Bill 0051 was designed to direct a study to be conducted regarding the use of a voter referendum to approve significant tax increases on real property.
Texas
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Texas
Texas House Bill 782 was designed to amend requirements for certain petitions requesting an
election and ballot propositions.
Utah
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Utah
Utah House Bill 136 was designed to amend provisions of the Election Code relating to statewide and local initiatives and referendums to do the following:
- ban pay-per-signature and requires payment of petition circulators by the hour;
- require initiative or referendum petition sponsors to send an email to every petition signer that adds an email to the petition sheet informing him or her how to remove their signature from the petition;
- enact a badge requirement for paid petition circulators;
- require petition circulators to present the full text of initiatives and referendums to potential signers;
- require the attorney general to post the initiative text, the petition text, the fiscal impact statement, and information on the signature removal process on the office's website after receiving the fiscal impact statement for an initiative;
- include a statement on the petition if a proposed initiative increases taxes;
- require county clerks to publish certain information, including instructions on removing a signature from an initiative or referendum petition;
- set format and numbering requirements for petitions; and
- make other changes.
Utah House Bill 211 was designed to amend provisions relating to statewide and local initiatives and referendums to do the following:
- set format and numbering requirements for petitions;
- set rules for county clerks to follow when verifying a signature removal request;
- require county clerks to post the names and voter identification numbers of those who have signed an initiative or referendum petition on the attorney general's website rather than the county's website; and
- change signature submission deadlines.
Utah House Bill 23 was designed to clarify the definition of a land use law; and modify the elections at which a referendum relating to legislative action taken after April 15 may appear on the ballot.
Utah House Bill 246 was designed to provide for and require a ballot information statement for statewide initiatives, referendums or proposed constitutional amendments consisting of an impartial analysis of the measure and its effects.
Virginia
Virginia Senate Bill 1348 was designed to provide an exception to the rule that prohibits a referendum from being placed on the ballot unless specifically authorized by statute or by charter.
Washington
Washington House Bill 1453 was designed to add content-based restrictions to candidate statements and arguments for and against ballot measures in statewide and local voters' pamphlets, restrict who can write arguments for and against ballot measures in local voters' pamphlets, and increase the maximum fine for publishing or distributing campaign material that is deceptively similar to a voters' pamphlet.
Washington House Bill 1475 was designed to permit certain foreign nationals to participate in campaign finance decision making and campaigns for and against ballot measures and initiatives.
Washington Senate Bill 5250 was designed to establish a citizens' initiative review pilot program.
Washington Senate Bill 5393 was designed to change the format requirements for initiative petitions.
Wyoming
Wyoming Senate Joint Resolution 1 was designed to amend the Wyoming Constitution to require the consent of electors to impose taxes; and to provide a ballot statement.
Wyoming House Joint Resolution 4 was designed to amend the Wyoming Constitution to establish a recall process for elected officials except judges.
Analysis of changes that make initiative and referendum processes harder
The policy changes outlined in this analysis are generic concepts taken from proposed and approved laws that Ballotpedia has tracked since 2010. The changes do not necessarily make every initiative effort harder or easier and the effects of many of them are entirely determined by the details of the specific policy change or on specific initiative efforts. This analysis does not take into consideration the intention behind bills containing these provisions. The analysis does not consider any other effects beyond the difficulty or ease with which ballot initiative or veto referendum sponsors can place their measures on the ballot, pass them, and see them enforced. Bills proposing these changes are not necessarily designed with the purpose of making the initiative process harder or easier. For example, some policy changes may be designed to require rural representation in signature petitions or to prevent fraud, but also have the practical effect of making the initiative process more difficult.
Finally, Ballotpedia does not take a position on how easy or difficult the initiative process should be within a state or whether or not a state should have the process. Twenty-six states have a process for statewide ballot initiative, veto referendum, or both. Ballotpedia is not endorsing any position on the policy changes listed below.
See also
- Changes to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2020 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
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Boise State Public Radio, "Idaho Supreme Court Strikes Down New Ballot Initiative Restrictions," August 23, 2021
- ↑ Ballot-Access.org,"Liberty Initiative Fund v. Thurston," May 27, 2021
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 ACLU of Florida, "ACLU of Florida v. Laurel Lee," May 8, 2021
- ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Judge blocks Florida’s contribution cap limit on ballot initiatives," July 1, 2021
- ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Florida won’t appeal block of ‘John Morgan’ law; 2022 drives have already piled up cash," August 9, 2021
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, 'Bill to make Idaho ballot measures tougher heads to governor," April 7, 2021
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 ABC Local News 8, "Gov. Little signs ballot initiative bill," April 18, 2021
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Boise State Public Radio, "Reclaim Idaho Sues State Over New Ballot Initiative Law," May 7, 2021
- ↑ Mississippi Supreme Court, "IN RE INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 65: MAYOR MARY HAWKINS BUTLER v MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI," accessed May 14, 2021
- ↑ Bangor Daily News, "Federal judge puts key Maine referendum law on hold amid GOP lawsuit," February 17, 2021
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Citizens Initiatives & People's Veto," accessed September 3, 2019
- ↑ Bangor Daily News, "Maine conservatives suspend 2020 referendum drive to bar noncitizens from voting," October 16, 2019
- ↑ Facebook, "Maine Citizen Elections," October 12, 2019
- ↑ U.S. District Court of Maine, "We The People PAC v. Bellows," February 16, 2021
- ↑ Ballot-access.org, "We the People PAC v. Bellows," accessed June 1, 2021
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Thurston v. Safe Surgery Arkansas," March 11, 2021
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 Arkansas State Legislature, "Senate Bill 614," accessed April 21, 2021
- ↑ Nevada State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 321," accessed June 1, 2021
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 AP News, "After decades-long fight, Nevada lawmakers raise mining tax," June 1, 2021
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 Court House News, "Dakotans for Health v. Kristi L. Noem," June 14, 2021
- ↑ Dakota Free Press, "State Appealing SB 180, Trying to Reinstate Oppressive Registry and Badges for Paid Petition Circulators," July 1, 2021
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Florida Senate, "Senate Bill 1890," accessed July 1, 2021
- ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Florida won’t appeal block of ‘John Morgan’ law; 2022 drives have already piled up cash," August 9, 2021
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Tampa Bay Times, "Judge blocks Florida’s contribution cap limit on ballot initiatives," July 1, 2021
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 Ballot Access, "ACLU v. Florida Elections Commission," July 1, 2021
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 Dakota Free Press, "Another Win for Democracy: Judge Gives Citizens Six More Months to Circulate Petitions for Initiated Laws!" accessed August 31, 2021
- ↑ Business Insider, "The FEC affirmed that foreigners can fund US ballot measures because they're technically not elections," November 2, 2021
- ↑ Ballot-Access.org,"Liberty Initiative Fund v. Thurston," May 27, 2021
- ↑ Council of the District of Columbia, "B23-0165 - Initiative and Referendum Process Improvement Amendment Act of 2019," accessed July 16, 2021
- ↑ Idaho Press, "Governor vetoes final bill, on out-of-state initiative signature-gathering," May 18, 2021
- ↑ Maine Public, "Mills Vetoes Bill That Would Have Barred Foreign Government-Owned Entities From Electioneering In Ballot Campaigns," June 24, 2021
- ↑ Maine Government, "Veto statement for LD 194," Jun 23, 2021
