Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures

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

In 2024, Ballotpedia had tracked 336 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall elections in 41 states during 2024 legislative sessions. Forty-one (41) bills had been enacted into law. Four additional bills were vetoed. Of the 41 bills, five were proposed constitutional amendments passed by state legislatures in 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions required voter approval in 2024 to take effect. Four were defeated by voters and one was removed from the ballot by the state supreme court and thus were not enacted despite being passed by the states' legislatures.

On this page, you will find:

State ballot measures on initiative and referral processes

November 5

State Type Title Description Result Yes Votes No Votes
AZ

LRCA

Proposition 134 Create a signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated ballot measures based on state legislative districts

Defeated

1,279,574 (42%)

1,768,613 (58%)

AZ

LRCA

Proposition 136 Provide for challenges to an initiative measure or constitutional amendment after the filing of the measure with the secretary of state

Defeated

1,151,823 (38%)

1,871,364 (62%)

CO

LRCA

Amendment K Change deadlines for filing initiative and referendum petition signatures and judicial retention notice deadlines to remove one week in order to allow one extra week for the secretary of state to certify ballot order and content and election officials' deadline to transmit ballots

Defeated

1,293,879 (45%)

1,591,312 (55%)

ND

LRCA

Constitutional Measure 2 Establish a single-subject rule for initiatives; increase the signature requirement for constitutional initiatives; and require constitutional initiatives to be approved at two elections

Defeated

150,362 (44%)

194,570 (56%)


Legislation approved in 2024

Are you aware of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was enacted during a 2024 legislative session that is not listed here, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

By legislative vote

The table below presents a list of bills passed in 2024, along with the percentages of Democrats and Republicans who voted in favor of these bills:

Note: Bills with red-colored margins indicate a margin of 50 percentage points or more where Republican support for the legislation exceeds Democratic support. Bills with blue-colored margins indicate a margin of 50 percentage points or more where Democratic support for the legislation exceeds Republican support.


State Bill D Support (%) R Support (%) Margin Description
Arizona SCR 1041 0.0% 100.0% R+100.0% Provides for challenges to an initiative measure or constitutional amendment after the filing of the measure with the secretary of state
California AB 3197 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Authorizes county elections officials to create a standardized petition form for distribution within and submission to the county on petitions for county, city, school district, or special district initiative petitions
California SB 1441 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Provides a timeline and process for re-examination of petition signatures in the case that proponents of an initiative request an examination of signatures submitted for an initiative (due to disqualified signatures, for example); requires proponents to reimburse counties for examinations that continue beyond five business days
California SB 1337 (Vetoed) 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% The bill would have required proponents to list the top five campaign contributors on petition sheets and would have required the petitions to be reprinted within five days if there was a change in top contributors.
California SCA 1 98.9% 4.0% D+94.9% Eliminate the successor election when a state officer is recalled, thereby leaving the office vacant until it is filled according to state law; thereby changing current law which requires that a simultaneous election to fill the statewide office vacancy be held at the time of the recall election; and repeal the prohibition against the recalled state officer from being a candidate to fill the office at a special election
Colorado SCR 2 100.0% 96.4% D+3.6% Change deadlines for filing initiative and referendum petition signatures and judicial retention notice deadlines to remove one week in order to allow one extra week for the secretary of state to certify ballot order and content and election officials' deadline to transmit ballots
Florida HB 5101 97.6% 100.0% R+2.4% Required the Department of Education to create and maintain and continually update a database of school bond referendums, school district debt, bonds in effect, and future referendums to be considered including bond referendum ballot language and project lists
Florida SB 1828 30.2% 99.0% R+68.8% Required bond issues greater than $500 million to be voted on at a general election
Kentucky HB 147 25.9% 100.0% R+74.1% Changed the definition of "next regular election" to mean the regular election in the same or the subsequent calendar year as the levy of the property tax rate; frame property tax rate ballot questions to ask voters if they are for the levy (rather than if they are for or against)
Kentucky HB 829 100.0% 72.2% D+27.8% Changed ballot question language for petitions to overturn local governments' ordinances prohibiting marijuana businesses and increased the number of required signatures from 5 to 10% of registered voters
Kentucky SB 58 8.7% 98.0% R+89.3% Reduced the number of voters needed to form a petition committee seeking to overturn a tax levy from five to three; allowed petition sheets to include signatures of voters from more than one precinct; remove requirement for signers to include their social security number; require signers to include their birth date; changed signature requirement from 10% of votes in last presidential election to either 10% of votes in last presidential election or 5,000 registered voters, whichever is less
Louisiana SB 221 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Specifies that recall petition signatures must include the month, day, and year of the signature date (rather than just the 'date'); removes the requirement that signers include their ward and precinct information; requires recall petitions to have pre-printed line numbers; makes recall petition signatures (or removals) public records
Idaho HB 574 0.0% 86.7% R+86.7% Required bond measure ballot questions, when including information about guaranteed state tax relief funds, to include a specific dollar amount and expiration date; prohibits a specific dollar amount of state tax relief funds from being referenced in such a ballot question unless the amount is guaranteed to the taxing district
Idaho HB 521 47.1% 90.5% R+43.4% Removed the ability for school districts to hold August elections on property tax bond questions
Idaho SB 1376 11.1% 98.8% R+87.7% Allows an Idaho Legislator to use public property and resources to communicate with the public advocating for or against an initiative or referendum
Idaho SB 1377 0.0% 93.0% R+93.0% Require paid signature gatherers to wear a badge and verbally inform signatories that they are paid signature gatherers; require petitions to include a disclosure that it is being circulated by paid signature gatherers
Illinois SB 0464 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Exempt certain school districts from the referendum requirement for building or purchasing a school building
Michigan HB 5571 (Vetoed) 100.0% 0.0% D+100% Allow initiative sponsors to submit proposed ballot language to Board of State Canvassers prior to circulation and prohibit challenges to ballot language after board approval; require specific textual requirements for petition forms; require the full text to be included on petitions; require petition forms to include a petition circulator certification; allow the board to use statistical random sampling methods for signature verification; provide for specific requirements for amending the state constitution
Michigan HB 5573 (Vetoed) 100.0% 0.0% D+100% Allow the Board of State Canvassers to use a random sampling method to verify initiative petition signatures; require the board to post information about the progress and status of signature verification on its website; require the board to refer fraudulent signatures to the attorney general
Michigan HB 5574 100.0% 0.0% D+100% Require the secretary of state to update its website on the first of each month with an update on the status of a initiative petition and the number of filed signatures; change ballot numbering requirements; repeal the requirement that the secretary of state must provide copies of a constitutional amendment to county clerks
Michigan HB 5575 (Vetoed) 100.0% 0.0% D+100% Remove the provision limiting the number of signatures that count towards a valid petition to 15% originiating from a single congressional district; repeal the requirement for initiated state statutes to be filed 10 days before the legislative session begins
Nebraska LB 287 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Allows initiative petitions to be publicized on a state website instead of in a newspaper; allows sponsors to be added or removed with unanimous written consent of original sponsors; allows a person to remove their signature by sending a signed written letter to the Secretary of State (rather than a notarized affidavit)
New Jersey SB 4209 100.0% 13.9% D+86.1% Eliminated the vote on school budgets for Type II school districts during April elections except for separate proposals to spend additional funds
New Jersey SB 2837 93.8% 79.5% D+14.3% Allow school districts without a board of school estimate to submit proposals to the district's voters asking permission to raise additional funds for the subsequent school budget year beyond the district’s authorized tax levy for that year
New York SB 09673 100.0% 100.0%% 0.00% Amend village law relating to village referendum election timing to comply with a state law passed in 2019 requiring petitions to be submitted to the village election board at least 3 months prior to an election
Ohio HB 1 0.0% 100.0% R+100.0% Prohibited foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures directly or indirectly to support or oppose a candidate for elective office or statewide ballot measures
Ohio SB 98 100.0% 97.8% D+2.2% Provided for ballot measures to be numbered consecutively, beginning at 1 on November 5, 2024, through 500, at which point the numbers will reset to 1.
Oklahoma SB 518 0.0% 95.7% R+95.7% Authorized the Secretary of State to charge a filing fee up to $750 to cover the cost of publishing the petition notice and extends the timeframe for contesting a petition (a) after it is first published and (b) after signatures are submitted from 10 days to 20 days
Oklahoma HB 1105 0.0% 98.1% R+98.1% Allows constitutional challenges to filed initiatives to be submitted within 90 days after the initiative is published (rather than within 10 days after publication) and allows challenges to signature validity or ballot language to be filed within 90 days after a notice of signed petitions is published (rather than within 10 days after publication)
Oregon HB 4026 92.3% 86.7% D+5.6% Prohibited veto referendums on local government determinations relating to urban growth boundaries
Oregon SB 1538 100.0% 59.40% D+40.6% Established a creates a joint legislative committee to prepare the ballot titles and explanatory statements for legislative referrals placed on the ballot by the legislature during the 2024 legislative session (that are not subject to word limits provided for in state law for other measures); allows any elector to petition the Oregon Supreme Court to challenge the title or statement
Rhode Island HB 7476 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Require ballot questions to be written to be understood by a person with an eighth-grade reading level
Rhode Island SB 2447 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Require ballot questions to be written to be understood by a person with an eighth-grade reading level
South Dakota HB 1244 20.0% 92.5% R+72.5% Provided a process for individuals who signed an initiative petition to submit a written request to the secretary of state's office to remove their signature from the petition
South Dakota SB 182 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Repealed sections of state law, which created a residency requirement and a badge requirement for petition circulators, that were overturned by a court ruling
Utah SJR 401 0.0% 89.2% R+89.2% Provide in the constitution that the state legislature has the power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative; prohibit foreign individuals, governments, or entities from influencing a ballot initiative
Utah HB 79 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Provided a process for disabled individuals to sign initiative petitions and an alternative verification process for elections officials to verify such signatures
Utah SB 100 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Provided that local government decisions to issue bonds are subject to veto referendums, provided that a veto referendum must be filed within five days (instead of seven) after the local legislation was passed
Utah SB 217 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Required the local school board to update financial information and project status for general obligation bonds before the beginning of each new fiscal year and at least 30 days before a vote on a bond issue
Utah SB 221 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Provided for the creation of new school districts through initiative petition
Utah HB 3003 72.2% 94.9% R+22.7% Provided for the creation of new school districts through initiative petition
Utah SB 107 100.0% 96.4% D+3.6%% Repealed the requirement that signature gatherers be residents of the state
Utah SB 4003 0.0% 97.5% R+97.5%% (Contingent on voter approval of 2024 constitutional amendment): Expressly provide in state law for legislature's ability to amend voter-approved citizen initiatives; increase the amount of time for sponsors to gather VR signatures by 20 days (40 days to 60 days)
Washington SB 5825 100.0% 83.1% D+16.9% Provide that a library district can be dissolved through petition process only (rather than by the legislative body that created it or a petition process) with signatures from 25% of voters (rather than 10% under previous law) within the district
West Virginia SB 872 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Provided an initiative process for creating and amending county fire fees

By state

Arizona

  • Proposition 136: The amendment would provide for challenges to an initiative measure or constitutional amendment after the filing of the measure with the secretary of state.[1]
Proposition 136 (SCR 1041) Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 16 12 2 31 29 0
Democratic (D) 0 12 2 0 29 0
Republican (R) 16 0 0 31 0 0

California

  • Eliminate Successor Election at a State Officer Recall Election Amendment: The amendment, which requires voter approval in 2026 to take effect, was designed to eliminate the successor election when a state officer is recalled, thereby changing current law which requires that a simultaneous election to fill the statewide office vacancy be held at the time of the recall election; and repeal the prohibition against the recalled state officer from being a candidate to fill the office at a special election.[2][3]
SCA 1 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 32 8 0 59 17 3
Democratic (D) 21 1 0 59 0 3
Republican (R) 1 7 0 0 17 0
  • California AB 3197: The bill authorized county elections officials to create a standardized petition form for distribution within and submission to the county on petitions for county, city, school district, or special district initiative petitions.[4]
AB 3197 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 39 8 1 75 0 4
Democratic (D) 31 8 1 59 0 3
Republican (R) 8 0 0 16 0 1
  • California SB 1441: In the case that proponents of an initiative request an examination of signatures submitted for an initiative (due to disqualified signatures, for example), the bill provided a process and timeline for such such examination and requires the examination to be completed within five business days; and requires proponents to reimburse counties for examination beyond five business days.[5]
SB 1441 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 31 8 1 60 17 2
Democratic (D) 31 0 1 60 0 2
Republican (R) 0 8 0 0 17 0
  • California SB 1337 (Vetoed): The bill would have required proponents to list the top five campaign contributors on petition sheets and would have required the petitions to be reprinted within five days if there was a change in top contributors. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wrote in his veto message that, "While I share the author's goal of increasing transparency in our elections system, these changes are overly burdensome and may have the unintended consequence of making our state referendum process less accessible."[6]
SB 1337 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 28 11 1 55 17 7
Democratic (D) 28 3 1 55 0 7
Republican (R) 0 8 0 0 17 0

Colorado

  • Initiative and Referendum Filing and Judicial Retention Filing Deadlines Amendment: The amendment would change the signature deadline for initiative and referendum signature gathering, thereby shorting the collection period by one week, as well as moving the deadline for justices and judges to file declarations of intent to run for another term by one week, in order to allow one extra week for the secretary of state to certify ballot order and content and election officials' deadline to transmit ballots.[7]
SCR 2 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 34 0 1 61 1 3
Democratic (D) 23 0 0 45 0 1
Republican (R) 11 0 1 16 1 2

Florida

  • House Bill 5101: The bill required the Department of Education to create and maintain and continually update a database of school bond referendums, school district debt, bonds in effect, and future referendums to be considered including bond referendum ballot language and project lists.[8]
HB 5101 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 39 0 1 108 1 11
Democratic (D) 11 0 1 30 1 5
Republican (R) 28 0 0 78 0 6
  • Senate Bill 1628: The bill requires bond issues greater than $500 million to be voted on at a general election.[9]
SB 1628 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 30 9 9 84 30 6
Democratic (D) 9 1 2 4 29 3
Republican (R) 21 0 27 80 1 3

Idaho

  • House Bill 574: The bill requires bond measure ballot questions, when including information about guaranteed state tax relief funds, to include a specific dollar amount and expiration date. The bill prohibits a specific dollar amount of state tax relief funds from being referenced in such a ballot question unless the amount is guaranteed to the taxing district.[10]
HB 574 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 25 8 2 57 19 4
Democratic (D) 0 7 0 0 9 2
Republican (R) 25 1 2 47 10 2
  • House Bill 521: The bill removed the ability for school districts to hold August elections on property tax bond questions.[11]
HB 521 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 23 11 1 61 6 3
Democratic (D) 4 3 0 4 6 1
Republican (R) 19 8 1 57 0 2
  • Senate Bill 1376: The bill allowed for an Idaho Legislator to use public property and resources to communicate with the public advocating for or against an initiative or referendum.[12]
SB 1376 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 30 5 0 55 12 3
Democratic (D) 2 5 0 0 11 0
Republican (R) 28 0 0 55 1 3
  • Senate Bill 1377: The bill required paid signature gatherers to wear a badge, verbally inform signatories that they are paid signature gatherers, and require petitions to include a disclosure that it is being circulated by paid signature gatherers.[13]
SB 1377 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 26 8 1 54 16 0
Democratic (D) 0 7 0 0 11 0
Republican (R) 26 1 1 54 5 0

Illinois

  • Senate Bill 0464: The bill exempted certain school districts from the referendum requirement for building or purchasing a school building (Tier 1 or Tier 2 school districts under the evidence-based funding provisions, districts with at least one school located on federal property, districts with a student population between 2,500 and 4,500, and districts that receive a federal Public Schools on Military Installations grant until June 30, 2030, if at least 75% of the construction cost is paid with those grant funds.[14]
SB 0464 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 58 0 1 111 0 0
Democratic (D) 40 0 0 73 0 0
Republican (R) 18 0 1 38 0 0

Kentucky

  • House Bill 147: The bill changed the definition of "next regular election" to mean the regular election in the same or the subsequent calendar year as the levy of the property tax rate; frame property tax rate ballot questions to ask voters if they are for the levy (rather than if they are for or against) [15]
HB 147 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 30 7 1 83 13 2
Democratic (D) 0 7 0 7 13 0
Republican (R) 30 0 1 76 0 2
  • House Bill 829: The bill changed ballot question language for petitions to overturn local governments' ordinances prohibiting marijuana businesses and increased the number of required signatures from 5 to 10% of registered voters.[16]
HB 829 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 26 12 0 69 15 16
Democratic (D) 7 0 0 18 0 2
Republican (R) 19 12 0 51 15 14
  • Senate Bill 58: The bill reduced the number of voters needed to form a petition committee seeking to overturn a tax levy from five to three; allowed petition sheets to include signatures of voters from more than one precinct; remove requirement for signers to include their social security number; require signers to include their birth date; changed signature requirement from 10% of votes in last presidential election to either 10% of votes in last presidential election or 5,000 registered voters, whichever is less[17]
SB 58 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 26 12 0 76 15 9
Democratic (D) 7 0 0 2 15 3
Republican (R) 19 12 0 74 0 6

Louisiana

  • House Bill 221: The bill specifies that recall petition signatures must include the month, day, and year of the signature date (rather than just the 'date'); removes the requirement that signers include their ward and precinct information; requires recall petitions to have pre-printed line numbers; makes recall petition signatures (or removals) public records[18]
HB 221 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 33 0 6 99 0 6
Democratic (D) 8 0 3 29 0 3
Republican (R) 25 0 3 69 0 3

Michigan

HB 5571 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 20 18 0 56 54 0
Democratic (D) 20 0 0 56 0 0
Republican (R) 0 18 0 0 54 0
  • Michigan HB 5571 (Vetoed): The bill would have allowed initiative sponsors to submit proposed ballot language to Board of State Canvassers prior to circulation and prohibited challenges to ballot language after board approval; required specific textual requirements for petition forms; required the full text to be included on petitions; require petition forms to include a petition circulator certification; allowed the board to use statistical random sampling methods for signature verification; and provided for specific requirements for amending the state constitution.[19]
HB 5573 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 20 18 0 56 54 0
Democratic (D) 20 0 0 56 0 0
Republican (R) 0 18 0 0 54 0
  • Michigan HB 5573 (Vetoed): The bill would have allowed allowed the Board of State Canvassers to use a random sampling method to verify initiative petition signatures; required the board to post information about the progress and status of signature verification on its website; and required the board to refer fraudulent signatures to the attorney general.[20]
HB 5574 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 20 18 0 56 54 0
Democratic (D) 20 0 0 56 0 0
Republican (R) 0 18 0 0 54 0
  • Michigan HB 5574 : The bill required the secretary of state to update its website on the first of each month with an update on the status of an initiative petition and the number of filed signatures; change ballot numbering requirements; and repeal the requirement that the secretary of state must provide copies of a constitutional amendment to county clerks.[21]
HB 5575 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 20 18 0 56 54 0
Democratic (D) 20 0 0 56 0 0
Republican (R) 0 18 0 0 54 0
  • Michigan HB 5575 (Vetoed): The bill would have removed the provision limiting the number of signatures that count towards a valid petition to 15% originating from a single congressional district and repealed the requirement for initiated state statutes to be filed 10 days before the legislative session begins.[22]

Nebraska

  • Legislative Bill 287: The bill authorized the Secretary of State to charge a filing fee up to $750 to cover the cost of publishing the petition notice and extends the timeframe for contesting a petition (a) after it is first published and (b) after signatures are submitted from 10 days to 20 days.[23]
LB 287 Vote Unicameral Senate
Yes No NV
Total 46 0 3
Democratic 14 0 1
Republican 31 0 2

New Jersey

  • Senate Bill 4209: The bill removed the requirement for a district-wide vote on school budgets for Type II school districts in April elections except for separate proposals to spend additional funds.[24]
SB 4209 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 21 13 6 57 18 5
Democratic (D) 21 0 5 52 0 0
Republican (R) 0 13 1 5 18 5
  • Senate Bill 2387: The bill allowed school districts without a board of school estimate to submit a separate proposal or proposals to district voters at a special school election for permission to raise additional funds for the subsequent school budget year beyond the district’s authorized tax levy for that year[25]
SB 2387 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 37 1 2 70 7 3
Democratic (D) 24 0 1 52 0 0
Republican (R) 13 1 1 18 7 3

New York

  • Senate Bill 9763: The bill amended village law relating to village referendum election timing to comply with a state law passed in 2019 requiring petitions to be submitted to the village election board at least 3 months prior to an election.[26]
SB 9763 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 61 0 1 140 0 10
Democratic (D) 41 0 0 94 0 9
Republican (R) 20 0 1 46 0 1

Ohio

  • House Bill 1: The bill prohibited foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures directly or indirectly to support or oppose a candidate for elective office or statewide ballot measures.[27]
HB 1 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 24 7 0 64 31 0
Democratic (D) 0 7 0 0 31 0
Republican (R) 24 0 0 64 0 0
  • Senate Bill 98: The bill provided for ballot measures to be numbered consecutively, beginning at 1 on November 5, 2024, through 500, at which point the numbers will reset to 1.[27]
SB 98 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 24 0 0 95 2 0
Democratic (D) 7 0 0 31 0 0
Republican (R) 24 0 0 64 2 0

Oklahoma

  • Senate Bill 518: The bill, signed by the governor on April 23, authorized the Secretary of State to charge a filing fee up to $750 to cover the cost of publishing the petition notice and extends the timeframe for contesting a petition (a) after it is first published and (b) after signatures are submitted from 10 days to 20 days. This bill was replaced by House Bill 1105, signed by the governor on May 31.[28]
SB 518 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 38 8 2 72 25 4
Democratic (D) 0 8 0 0 20 0
Republican (R) 38 0 2 72 5 64
  • House Bill 1105: The bill changed the timeframe for filing challenges to initiative petitions from 10 days to 90 days. Specifically, the bill allows constitutional challenges to filed initiatives to be submitted within 90 days after the initiative is published (rather than within 10 days after publication) and allows challenges to signature validity or ballot language to be filed within 90 days after a notice of signed petitions is published (rather than within 10 days after publication).[29]
HB 1105 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 34 7 2 72 21 8
Democratic (D) 0 7 1 0 19 1
Republican (R) 34 0 6 72 2 7

Oregon

  • House Bill 4026: Defeatedd The bill was designed to prohibit veto referendums on local government determinations relating to urban growth boundaries.[30]
HB 4026 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 25 3 2 49 5 6
Democratic (D) 17 0 0 31 4 0
Republican (R) 8 3 2 18 1 6
    • On September 9, 2024, a judge overturned HB 4026.[31]
  • Senate Bill 1538: The bill established a joint legislative committee to prepare the ballot titles and explanatory statements for legislative referrals placed on the ballot by the legislature during the 2024 legislative session (that are not subject to word limits provided for in state law for other measures). The bill allows any elector to petition the Oregon Supreme Court to challenge the title or statement.[32]
SB 1538 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 22 7 1 49 5 6
Democratic (D) 17 0 0 31 4 0
Republican (R) 5 7 1 18 1 6

Rhode Island

  • House Bill 7476: The bill required ballot questions to be written to be understood by a person with an eighth-grade reading level.[33]
HB 7476 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total N/A N/A N/A 75 0 0
Democratic (D) N/A N/A N/A 66 0 0
Republican (R) N/A N/A N/A 9 0 0
  • Senate Bill 2447: The bill required ballot questions to be written to be understood by a person with an eighth-grade reading level.[34]
SB 2447 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 35 0 3 66 0 9
Democratic (D) 30 0 3 58 0 8
Republican (R) 5 0 0 8 0 1

South Dakota

  • House Bill 1244: The bill provided for a process for individuals who signed an initiative petition to submit a written request to the secretary of state's office to remove their signature from the petition. Under the bill, removed signatures cannot be not counted as valid in any legal challenge to the validity of a petition.[35]
HB 1244 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 28 5 2 60 10 0
Democratic (D) 0 3 1 2 5 0
Republican (R) 28 2 1 58 5 0
  • Senate Bill 182: Repealed sections of state law, which created a residency requirement and a badge requirement for petition circulators, that were overturned by a court ruling.[36]
SB 182 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 32 0 2 70 0 0
Democratic (D) 4 0 0 7 0 0
Republican (R) 28 0 2 63 0 0

Utah

  • Utah Amendment D: Defeatedd The measure was found to be unconstitutional by the Utah Supreme Court. Though the measure was printed on ballots, the court ruled that votes on the measure would not be tallied. The measure would have provided in the constitution that the state legislature has the power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative. The amendment contained a provision stating that the power would apply retroactively. The amendment would have also prohibited foreign individuals, entities, and governments from influencing, supporting, or opposing a ballot initiative. The amendment would have given the state legislature authority to further provide for the scope and enforcement of the prohibition in state law.[37]
SJR 401 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 20 8 1 54 21 0
Democratic (D) 0 6 0 0 14 0
Republican (R) 20 2 1 54 7 0
SB 107 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 23 1 0 67 0 0
Democratic (D) 5 0 0 11 0 0
Republican (R) 18 1 0 56 0 0
  • Senate Bill 4003: This bill was contingent on approval of a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 2024 ballot, Amendment D. Amendment D was ruled invalid, therefore the bill will not take effect. Sb 4003 would have allowed the state legislature to amend a voter-approved initiative by amending the law that, "in the Legislature's determination, leaves intact the general purpose of the initiative" and woudl have allowed the legislature to "amend the law in any manner determined necessary by the Legislature to mitigate an adverse fiscal impact of the initiative". The bill would have also increased the amount of time for sponsors to gather VR signatures by 20 days (40 days to 60 days).[38]
SB 4003 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 21 7 1 58 15 2
Democratic (D) 0 6 0 0 14 0
Republican (R) 21 1 1 58 1 2
  • House Bill 79: Provided a process for disabled individuals to sign initiative petitions and an alternative verification process for elections officials to verify such signatures.[39]
HB 79 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 28 0 1 68 0 7
Democratic (D) 6 0 0 12 0 2
Republican (R) 22 0 1 56 0 5
  • Senate Bill 100: Provided that local government decisions to issue bonds are subject to veto referendums, provided that a veto referendum must be filed within five days (instead of seven) after the local legislation was passed.[40]
SB 100 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 29 0 0 70 0 5
Democratic (D) 6 0 0 14 0 0
Republican (R) 23 0 0 56 0 5
  • Senate Bill 217: Required the local school board to update financial information and project status for general obligation bonds before the beginning of each new fiscal year and at least 30 days before a vote on a bond issue.[41]
SB 217 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 28 0 1 70 0 5
Democratic (D) 6 0 0 14 0 0
Republican (R) 22 0 1 56 0 5
  • Senate Bill 221: Provided for creation of new school districts through initiative petition.[42]
SB 221 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 27 0 2 75 0 0
Democratic (D) 6 0 0 14 0 0
Republican (R) 21 0 2 61 0 0
  • House Bill 3003: Provided for creation of new school districts through initiative petition.[43]
hb 3003 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 23 1 5 65 7 3
Democratic (D) 4 0 2 9 5 0
Republican (R) 19 1 3 56 2 3

West Virginia

SB 872 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 31 0 3 97 0 3
Democratic (D) 5 0 0 12 0 0
Republican (R) 26 0 3 85 0 3

Washington

  • Senate Bill 5824: Provide that a library district can be dissolved through petition process only (rather than by the legislative body that created it or a petition process) with signatures from 25% of voters within the district, an increase from the 10% requirement.[45]
SB 5824 Vote Senate House
Yes No NV Yes No NV
Total 44 5 0 90 5 3
Democratic (D) 29 0 0 56 0 2
Republican (R) 15 5 0 34 5 1

Legislation proposed in 2024

The following map shows the number of bills related to ballot measures or recall elections in each state. Click on a state to see a list of bills in that state. Click Back in the upper left-hand corner to return to the map.

Rulings in 2024

The following is a list of court rulings issued in 2024 that affected the ballot measure process.

Arkansas

Reynolds v. Thurston

See also: Reynolds v. Thurston, May 30, 2024

On May 30, 2024, the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Arkansas Voter Integrity Initiative Inc and Restore Election Integrity Arkansas, two ballot question committees seeking to qualify initiatives for the 2024 ballot in Arkansas and wrote that the state supreme court could not rule on the sufficiency of ballot titles before the Arkansas Secretary of State issues a statement of sufficiency proclaiming that enough valid signatures were submitted for an initiative.[46]

The committees filed the lawsuit seeking to compel the court to rule on the legality of the initiatives' ballot titles before submitting signatures. The lawsuit also sought to overturn a state law requiring sponsors to meet a distribution requirement in 50 counties rather than in 15 counties.[46]

Colorado

Advance Colorado; et. al. v Secretary of State Jena Griswold

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Advance Colorado; et. al. v Secretary of State Jena Griswold, April 26, 2024

On April 26, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Colorado House Bill 1321 (2021) is constitutional and because it is government speech, it does not violate the First Amendment. HB 1321 required certain language, including a list of public programs that could be affected, to be used for the ballot titles of ballot initiatives increasing or reducing tax revenue.[47]

Advance Colorado, which had proposed two initiatives targeting the 2024 ballot in Colorado, challenged the constitutionality of HB 1321 alleging that the bill "unconstitutionally compelled its political speech in violation of the First Amendment."[48]

Michigan

Mothering Justice et al. v. Michigan

See also: Michigan Supreme Court, Mothering Justice et al. v. Michigan, July 31, 2024

On July 31, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that legislators adopting a citizen-initiated statute, and then amending the initiative during the same legislative session, violated the Michigan Constitution. The decision was along partisan lines, with the court's four Democrats ruling against adopt-and-amend. The court's three Republicans dissented.[49]

Justice Elizabeth Welch (D) wrote the court's opinion, which said, "[W]e hold that Article 2, § 9 provides the Legislature with three—and only three—options upon receiving a valid initiative petition. Any legislative response to a valid initiative petition that falls outside those three discrete options is unconstitutional and impermissibly infringes upon the people’s reserved power." The three options are: (1) enact the law “without change or amendment” within 40 days; (2) “reject the proposed law, in which case the proposed law will appear on the ballot;” or (3) propose a competing measure to appear on the ballot alongside the initiative.

Justice Elizabeth Clement (R), in her dissent, wrote, "There is certainly reason to be frustrated by the Legislature’s actions here... But nothing in Article 2, § 9 restricts the Legislature from doing so. And as tempting as it might be to step into the breach, this Court lacks the power to create restrictions out of whole cloth."

In 2018, two indirect initiated state statutes — one to increase the minimum wage, and the other to require paid sick leave — received enough signatures to appear on the ballot in Michigan. These proposed ballot measures were indirect initiated state statutes. In Michigan, citizen-initiated statutes that receive enough valid signatures are sent to the Legislature, which then has 40 days to pass the initiative into law. Otherwise, the initiative appears on the next general election ballot.

On September 5, 2018, the House and Senate voted to pass the indirect initiatives, enacting them into law. On December 4, 2018, the Legislature voted to amend the enacted initiatives, and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the bills on December 13.

Michigan One Fair Wage and Michigan Time to Care — the campaigns behind the two initiatives — sued the state of Michigan. Plaintiffs described the legislative amendments as an adopt-and-amend tactic that violated Section 9 of Article 2 of the Michigan Constitution. Defendants argued that nothing prohibited the Legislature from amending enacted indirect initiatives.[50]

On July 19, 2022, Court of Claims Judge Douglas Shapiro ruled against the state, holding that the legislature's amendments to the enacted initiatives were unconstitutional. Judge Shapiro wrote, "Both the letter and spirit of Article 2, § 9 support the conclusion that the Legislature has only three options to address voter-initiated legislation within the same legislative session—adopt it, reject it, or propose an alternative. Once the Legislature adopted the Earned Sick Time Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Act, it could not amend the laws within the same legislative session. To hold otherwise would effectively thwart the power of the People to initiate laws and then vote on those same laws—a power expressly reserved to the people in the Michigan Constitution."[50] Judge Shapiro stayed the court's order until February 19, 2023.[51]

On January 26, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling, upholding the legislative action as constitutional. Judge Christopher Murray said, "The constitutional convention record squarely supports the conclusion that there was no intention to place a temporal limit on when the Legislature could amend initiated laws enacted by the Legislature."[52][53] Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), as well as the campaigns behind two affected initiatives, appealed the ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on June 21, 2023.[54][55][56] On December 7, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the adopt-and-amend legislative action.[57]

On July 31, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that adopt-and-amend was unconstitutional. As the legislature's actions were ruled unconstitutional, the court ordered that the ballot initiatives go into effect on Feb. 21, 2025, with amended timelines for implementation. On February 21, 2025, House Bill 4002, which amended the expanded paid sick leave requirement, and Senate Bill 8, which adjusted the state's minimum and tipped wages, were signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.[58]

Montana

Mae Nan Ellingson; et al. v. Montana

See also: Montana Lewis and Clark County First Judicial District Court, Mae Nan Ellingson; et al. v. Montana, June 21, 2023

On February 5, Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Mike Menahan overturned the filing fee requirement in Senate Bill 93, ruling that the legislature "may not create arbitrary hurdles to discourage participation. Imposing a fee simply restricts access based on a person’s ability or willingness to pay," and that "the filing fee is an impairment on the exercise of the powers of initiative and referendum." The court also overturned the attorney general's power to perform substantive reviews of ballot measures and noted that Montana has prior case law prohibiting the attorney general from performing substantive reviews of proposed initiatives. [59]

Senate Bill 93 made multiple changes to the ballot initiative process, including establishing a $3,700 fee to file an initiative and prohibiting initiatives that are substantially the same as a measure that was rejected by voters in the past four years. The bill also required the attorney general to review a proposed constitutional initiative and determine whether or not the initiative is likely to cause significant material harm to one or more business interests in the state if approved and determine the substantive legality of the initiative. SB 93 also prohibited the use of electronic signatures for petitions.

Ten individuals filed three initiatives with the Montana Secretary of State's office targeting the 2024 ballot and all three were rejected because proponents did not include the filing fee. Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit alleging that the filing fee prevents individuals from participating in the ballot initiative process and also alleged that the attorney general's power to review the substantive legality of filed ballot initiatives is unconstitutional.[60]

Montanans Securing Reproductive Freedom and Montanans for Election Reform Action Fund; et al. v. Montana

See also: Montanans Securing Reproductive Freedom and Montanans for Election Reform Action Fund; et al. v. Montana," July 26, 2024

On July 26, 2024, the Montana First Judicial District Court ruled that voters who are classified as inactive voters are still qualified electors under state law for the pruposes of signing and counting signatures on proposed ballot initiative petitions. The court ordered county elections offices to count the signatures of inactive voters. The preliminary injunction applied only to the three measures at issue.[61]

Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform, sponsors of three ballot initiatives targeting the 2024 ballot (the abortion initiative, top-four primary initiative, and majority vote requirement for elections initiative), filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) in Lewis and Clark County District Court. The campaigns alleged that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions. The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted.[62]

Ohio

State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost

See also: Ohio Supreme Court, State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost, October 30, 2024

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the attorney general's role was limited to reviewing a proposed constitutional amendment's summary rather than its title and that the attorney general cannot reject an initiative based on its title. The litigation was brought by proponents of an initiative targeting the 2025 ballot after attorney general Dave Yost rejected the language of the initiative after rejecting its title. The proposed title of the initiative was "Ohio Voters Bill of Rights."[63]

Utah

League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature

See also: Utah Supreme Court, League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature, July 11, 2024

The litigation challenged the legislature's repeal and replacement of Proposition 4, a 2018 voter-approved initiative that sought to establish an independent advisory redistricting commission to recommend redistricting maps to the state legislature, which would have been required to enact them or reject them, though, upon rejecting a commission-recommended map, the legislature would have been required under Proposition 4 to create its own map using the same criteria. One provision of Proposition 4 was designed to explicitly prohibit the practice of "divid[ing] districts in a manner that purposefully or unduly favors or disfavors any incumbent elected official, candidate or prospective candidate for elective office, or any political party."[64]

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the state legislature, in enacting Senate Bill 200, "rescinded critical Proposition 4 reforms and enacted watered-down versions of others," and alleged that the legislative redistricting committee violated Utahns' right to vote and right to free speech by dividing Salt Lake County, a county with the state's largest concentration of voters for minority parties, into four congressional districts.[64]

Washington

Defend Washington v. Hobbs

See also: Washington Supreme Court, Defend Washington v. Hobbs, October 17, 2024

The Washington Supreme Court ruled on October 17, 2024, that the state constitution only requires initiative petition signatures to be validated against voter rolls, not addresses. The group Defend Washington had filed the lawsuit challenging the state's signature validation laws in an attempt to invalidate three initiatives on the 2024 ballot. Chief Justice González, writing for the majority, said, "There is no statutory basis for requiring the secretary to verify addresses and such an additional requirement would risk disenfranchising voters."[65]

Noteworthy events

FEC opinion allowing federal candidates to raise unlimited funds for ballot measure committees

On May 1, 2024, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) released an opinion in which it decided that federal officeholders and candidates are allowed to solicit funds for ballot measure committees without regard for amount limitations and source restrictions in the Federal Election Campaign Act. Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, sponsors of an initiative that would create a state constitutional right to abortion targeting the 2024 ballot, requested the opinion from the FEC. The FEC is a regulatory agency with three Republican and three Democratic commissioners. Four of the commissioners (three Republicans and one Democrat) voted to approve the decision.[66]

In opposition to the FEC's decision, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) wrote that under the decision, "federal candidates will be permitted to solicit funds in unlimited amounts that will be spent to influence those candidates’ own elections, including funds from foreign national sources," and that “the risk of corruption inherent in direct foreign national contributions to candidates would simply metastasize to the ballot initiative context, with the same deleterious effect.”[66]

Hans Von Spakovsky, former FEC member and manager of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative said the commission's decision aligns with precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has previously ruled that the Federal Election Campaign Act only applies to candidate elections and not ballot measure elections.

Preventing Foreign Interference in American Elections Act introduced by U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN)

U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Budd (R-NC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced a bill in the United States Senate, titled the Preventing Foreign Interference in American Elections Act. The bill was designed to ban foreign nationals donating in connection with state ballot initiatives. Jason Snead, Executive Director of Honest Elections Project, said, "Foreign billionaire Hansjörg Wyss has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to liberal groups like Sixteen Thirty Fund, which in turn has spent nearly $100 million on extremely consequential ballot measures in states across the country. We should protect election integrity by keeping foreign money out of American elections, which is why the Senate should take up and pass this critical legislation."[67]

A similar bill, the Preventing Foreign Interference in Elections Act, was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on May 15, 2024, by Bryan Steil (R-WI) and Stephanie Bice (R-OK). Steil said, "American elections must be free from foreign influence. By closing loopholes that allow foreign nationals from funding elections operations, we are one step closer in preventing foreign involvement in American elections. I’m committed to stopping foreign influence in U.S. elections and protecting U.S. donor privacy.”[68]

Update to Washington Administrative Code

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) filed a change to the state's initiative filing fee on January 11, 2024. The filing fee increased from $5.00 to $156.00. Hobbs also indexed the filing fee to the federal inflation benchmark. The change to the filing fee was the first since 1913. Hobbs said, "The participatory democracy of filing ballot measures is an important facet of our state government’s structure, but keeping the fee artificially low has problematic ripple effects. Many more ballot measures are filed now and never seriously pursued. The outdated fee structure may have made that a low-cost exercise for the filers. At the same time, receiving hundreds of filings that don’t cover their own costs has driven government expenses upward."[69]

An additional change required that the numbers assigned to each initiative be assigned through rolling a 10-sided dice, rather than numbering them based on when an initiative was filed.[69]

Evaluating the effect of legislative changes on ballot initiatives

See also: Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures

Ballotpedia has identified the following legislative changes as making the ballot initiative process more difficult in a given state.

The legislative changes examined in this analysis are based on general concepts found in proposed and approved bills concerning ballot measures. These changes do not always make the initiative process harder or easier to use. The effect of these changes depends on the specific details of each change, how the various policies in a state interact, and the particular ballot initiatives being considered.

There are often competing ideas about a bill's intent. While a bill's sponsor could view a change as intended to increase rural representation or reduce out-of-state organizations from being involved in state politics, a bill's opponent could view a change as undermining the ballot initiative process or designed to impede certain initiative campaigns. Ballotpedia does not endorse a position or argument regarding the policies listed below.

The following list was designed to evaluate policies based on their likelihood of making signature drives or campaigns more resource-intensive, including requiring more spending or travel; increasing the likelihood of signatures being rejected; limiting the potential pool of signature gatherers; limiting the potential pool of campaign donors; making an initiative or petition more susceptible to litigation; and decreasing the odds of a measure being approved due to specific election requirements.

Topic Policy change Example
Signature requirements Increase the number of signatures required for a citizen-initiated measure Increase a signature requirement from 5% of registered voters to 8% of registered voters
Increase the number of political subdivisions, such as legislative districts or counties, that signatures must be gathered from Increase the signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated measures from 15 counties to 50 counties
Increase the number of signatures that must be collected from each political subdivision Increase the number of signatures needed in each legislative district from 3% of qualified voters to 6% of qualified voters
Circulation period Decrease the number of days that campaigns have to collect signatures Decrease the number of days that a campaign has to collect signatures from 180 days to 120 days
Provide that signatures expire at the end of an election cycle Provide that a campaign's signatures cannot be collected during one election cycle and submitted during the next one
Decrease the cure period length for signatures Repeal a law allowing campaigns to submit additional signatures when their initial submission falls short of the requirement
Tighten the qualifications to have a signature cure period Increase the number of valid signatures needed with an initial signature submission to be allowed to have a signature cure period
Initiative content Create or make stricter a single-subject rule Provide that a citizen-initiated ballot measure must address a single subject
Create or make stricter subject restrictions Provide that citizen-initiated ballot measures cannot address certain subjects
Prohibit initiatives that allocate funds without a funding source Provide that citizen-initiated ballot measures cannot allocate funds without providing a specific funding source, like a tax
Create or make stricter a separate-vote requirement Provide that a constitutional amendment cannot amend different parts of a state constitution
Circulator requirements Prohibit or otherwise restrict out-of-state or out-of-jurisdiction signature gatherers Prohibit volunteer or paid signature gatherers who reside outside the state
Prohibit people from collecting signatures for previous criminal convictions Prohibit persons with criminal convictions or specific criminal convictions from collecting signatures
Prohibit or otherwise restrict paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected (pay-per-signature) Prohibit paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected, which is an efficient method of payment for campaigns
Create circulator registration and training requirements Require potential signature gatherers to register with the state and/or take a training course
Create or make stricter circulator in-the-filed requirements Require signature gatherers to read petitions out loud; require them to give an initiative text to each signer; and require them to swear that a signer read and understood the text
Require circulators to sign an affidavit or obtain notarization for a petition sheet Require the person who collects the signatures for a given petition sheet to sign an affidavit or have the sheet notarized
Signer requirements Require that petition signers be disclosed on a government-sponsored website Require that the state or local jurisdiction publish the names of persons who signed a petition
Require additional information to be provided or disclosed for petition signers Require that additional information about petition signers be provided or disclosed, such as a signer's birth date, voter ID number, address, or other information
Petition requirements Increase the number of official proponents required to initiate a petition Increase the number of official proponents or sponsors needed from three to 10 persons to initiate a petition
Require or increase a filing fee for proposed initiatives before signature gathering can begin Increase a filing fee for proposed initiative petitions from $500 to $2,000
Reduce the number of signatures allowed per petition sheet Require that no more than a certain number, such as 25, signatures can be added to a petition sheet
Require that petition sheets must be used within specific jurisdictions and not others Provide that signatures cannot be collected from, for example, two counties using the same petition sheet
Create or make stricter requirements regarding the detailed appearance or format of petitions Require petition format to follow specific detailed guidelines and void signatures when the format is incorrect
Ballot language Provide that officials write the ballot language for a measure after signatures are collected Change when the ballot language, such as the question or title, is published, from before to after signature gathering is completed
Litigation requirements Increase the susceptibility of initiative petitions to litigation Increase the length of periods during which challenges to initiatives may be filed
Election requirements Increase the size of the vote required for a ballot measure to pass Require a supermajority vote, rather than a simple majority, for voters to pass a ballot measure
Require that a ballot measure be passed at more than one election to be approved Require that a ballot measure be approved in two sequential elections, as is the case for initiated amendments in Nevada, before the measure is enacted
Add a double majority requirement for ballot measures Require that a ballot measure receive a majority vote and that a certain percentage of registered voters cast ballots or vote on the measure
Campaign finance requirements Establish or make stricter restrictions on contributions to ballot measure campaigns Provide that donors to ballot initiative committees cannot give above a certain amount
Establish or make stricter restrictions on out-of-state donors to ballot measure campaigns Provide that potential donors who do not live or are not incorporated in the state cannot contribute to ballot initiative committees
Establish or make stricter restrictions on contributions to ballot measure campaigns during the signature-gathering phase Provide that a single donor cannot give more than a certain amount to a ballot initiative committee until the measure is certified for the ballot

Disclosure of information and other changes

The disclosure of campaign finance or other information, such as fiscal impact statements, can have variable effects on ballot initiative campaigns depending on how voters respond to the disclosed information. Other changes that could affect initiative outcomes are the criminalization of fraudulent signature-gathering and election date requirements. These types of policies are not included in this analysis on legislative changes that make the ballot initiative process more difficult due to their variable effects.

Topic Policy change Example
Signature withdrawal Provide that information on how to withdraw a signature from a petition Publish information on the steps that a person would need to take to get their signature removed from a petition
Impact statements Require a financial or economic impact statement for a ballot measure to be provided on a petition or on the ballot Require that a petition for an initiative include information on possible fiscal or economic effects of a proposal
Require a government spending or revenue impact statement for a ballot measure to be provided on a petition or on the ballot Require that a petition for an initiative increasing or decreasing taxes include information on how government revenue and programs could be affected
Provide that officials write the fiscal impact statement for a measure after signatures are collected Change when the fiscal impact statement is published, from before signature gathering to after circulation
Legislative hearing requirements Require legislative hearings to be held on a proposed ballot initiative Require that a legislative committee or other government body hold public hearings on a proposed ballot initiative
Require that a legislative committee or other officials vote to support or oppose a measure and have that information published Require that petitions include information on the stances of certain public officials
Criminal penalties Establish specific crimes, charges, and penalties related to the initiative process Making the willful submission of fraudulent petition signatures a specific crime with a specific punishment
Campaign finance disclosure Require that the names of some donors be included on or with petitions for potential signers to see Require that a sheet listing the top three donors to a ballot initiative committee be given to potential signers
Election requirements Provide that measures proposing supermajority requirements for other measures must pass by the same vote requirement being proposed Provide that a measure proposing a two-thirds vote on certain initiatives must itself receive a two-thirds vote
Provide that ballot measures can only be decided on certain election dates Require that ballot measures must be decided on special election dates, rather than general election dates

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Arizona Legislature, "AZ SCR1041," accessed March 2, 2024
  2. ↑ California State Legislature, "SCA 1 Overview," accessed February 2, 2024
  3. ↑ California State Legislature, "SCA 1 Text," accessed February 2, 2024
  4. ↑ California State Legislature, "AB 3197," accessed September 5, 2024
  5. ↑ California State Legislature, "SB 1441," accessed October 2, 2024
  6. ↑ California State Legislature, "SB 1441," accessed October 2, 2024
  7. ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "Senate Concurrent Resolution 24-002," accessed May 7, 2024
  8. ↑ Florida State Legislature, "HB 5101," accessed July 7, 2024
  9. ↑ Florida State Legislature, "SB 1628," accessed May 11, 2024
  10. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "HB 574," accessed March 22, 2024
  11. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "HB 521," accessed April 16, 2024
  12. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "SB 1376," accessed April 16, 2024
  13. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "SB 1377," accessed April 16, 2024
  14. ↑ Illinois State Legislature, "SB 0464," accessed August 31, 2024
  15. ↑ Kentucky State Legislature, "HB 147," accessed June 17, 2024
  16. ↑ Kentucky State Legislature, "HB 829," accessed April 17, 2024
  17. ↑ Kentucky State Legislature, "SB 58," accessed April 17, 2024
  18. ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "HB 221," accessed July 18, 2024
  19. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "HB 5571," accessed January 22, 2025
  20. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "HB 5573," accessed January 22, 2025
  21. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "HB 5574," accessed January 22, 2025
  22. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "HB 5575," accessed January 22, 2025
  23. ↑ Nebraska State Legislature, "Legislative Bill 287," accessed April 30, 2024
  24. ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "SB 4209," accessed January 23, 2024
  25. ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "SB 2387," accessed September 10, 2024
  26. ↑ New York State Legislature, "SB 9763," accessed August 31, 2024
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Ohio State Legislature, "House Bill 1," accessed June 4, 2024 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "legbill" defined multiple times with different content
  28. ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "Senate Bill 518," accessed April 30, 2024
  29. ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "House Bill 1105," accessed June 5, 2024
  30. ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "House Bill 4026," accessed March 22, 2024
  31. ↑ Capital Press, "Judge voids Oregon law that banned urban growth boundary ballot initiatives," accessed September 10, 2024
  32. ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1538," accessed April 3, 2024
  33. ↑ Rhose Island State Legislature, "HB 7476," accessed June 17, 2024
  34. ↑ Rhode Island State Legislature, "SB 2447," accessed June 17, 2024
  35. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "HB 1244," accessed March 18, 2024
  36. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "SB 182," accessed March 19, 2024
  37. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "S.J.R. 401 Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution - Voter Legislative Power," accessed August 22, 2024
  38. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 4003," accessed August 31, 2024
  39. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB 79," accessed April 2, 2024
  40. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 100," accessed March 22, 2024
  41. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 217," accessed April 2, 2024
  42. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 221," accessed April 2, 2024
  43. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB 3003," accessed July 8, 2024
  44. ↑ West Virginia State Legislature, "SB 872," accessed April 2, 2024
  45. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB 79," accessed April 2, 2024
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Arkansas Advocate, "Arkansas Supreme Court rejects request to certify paper ballot initiative," accessed June 6, 2024
  47. ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 1321," accessed June 20, 2023
  48. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, "Case No. 23-1282," accessed April 26, 2024
  49. ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "Mothering Justice et al. v. Michigan, July 31, 2024
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 Michigan Court of Claims, "Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel," July 19, 2022
  51. ↑ JDSUPRA, "Michigan Court Reinstates Minimum Wage and Sick Leave Initiative Unconstitutionally Amended by State Legislature," August 2, 2022
  52. ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel, January 26, 2023
  53. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Michigan minimum wage increase, paid sick leave wiped out after appeals panel ruling," January 26, 2023
  54. ↑ Michigan Attorney General, "AG Nessel asks Michigan Supreme Court to Weigh in on Adopt and Amend," March 10, 2023
  55. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Group appeals minimum wage, sick time ruling to Michigan Supreme Court," February 10, 2023
  56. ↑ The Center Square, "Michigan Supreme Court will hear minimum wage appeal," June 21, 2023
  57. ↑ NPR, "Michigan Supreme Court to hear arguments on 'adopt-and-amend'," December 7, 2023
  58. ↑ Fox 17, "Governor Whitmer signs bills to modify minimum wage increases, paid sick leave'," February 21, 2025
  59. ↑ Daily Montanan, "Cause No. ADV-2023-388," accessed February 8, 2024
  60. ↑ News from the States, "Judge finds parts of bill adding new hurdles for Montana ballot initiatives unconstitutional," accessed February 8, 2024
  61. ↑ News Times, "Montana judge: Signatures of inactive voters count for initiatives, including 1 to protect abortion," accessed July 16, 2024
  62. ↑ NBC Montana, "Montana Secretary of State served lawsuit for illegal removal of voter signatures," accessed July 11, 2024
  63. ↑ Ohio Supreme Court, "State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost", October 30, 2024
  64. ↑ 64.0 64.1 Justia Law, "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature," accessed August 23, 2024
  65. ↑ Salt Lake Tribune, "Lawmakers ignoring ballot initiatives violates Utahns’ constitutional rights, Utah Supreme Court rules in redistricting case," accessed July 11, 2024
  66. ↑ 66.0 66.1 NY Times, "Candidates for Federal Office Can Raise Unlimited Funds for Ballot Measures," accessed May 6, 2024
  67. ↑ Hagerty, "Bill would close loopholes being exploited by foreign nationals to quietly spend hundreds of millions to exert partisan influence on American elections, including through ballot harvesting, GOTV efforts, and state ballot measures," accessed April 25, 2024
  68. ↑ Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil, "Chairman Steil, Bice Introduce Legislation to Prevent Foreign Interference, Protect Donor Privacy, and Promote Election Security," accessed May 29, 2024
  69. ↑ 69.0 69.1 Washington Secretary of State, "Initiative filing fee change to take effect March 9," March 8, 2024
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Changes_in_2024_to_laws_governing_ballot_measures&oldid=10457801"