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

Changes to ballot measure campaigns, procedures, and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2022

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Scroll here for more articles
Documenting America's Path.png
Current coverage
Active COVID-19 emergency orders • Changes to emergency power laws • Federal government responses • Mask requirements • School policies in the 2021-2022 academic year • State vaccine requirement (vaccine passport) policies • State employee vaccine requirements • State plans to end federal unemployment • State unemployment filings • Travel restrictions • Vaccine distribution plans
Vaccines
School policies
Mask requirements
Federal pandemic responses
Travel restrictions
Elections
Economy and society
State policies
Debate about government responses
Click here to see our complete coronavirus coverage
Responses by state


This article was created to cover changes to ballot measure campaign activities, elections, procedures, and policies made in response to the coronavirus pandemic. It no longer receives regular updates, and is preserved here for archival purposes.

In this article, you will find:


Changes to signature drives

The following map provides information on the states where at least one ballot initiative campaign suspended signature gathering as a response to the coronavirus pandemic as of October 2020.

Campaigns targeting a future election

The campaigns behind the following citizen-initiated ballot measures announced that they would target the ballot for a future election, instead of the one they had originally filed for, due to the coronavirus pandemic:

  • December 31, 2021 — Maine Publicly Funded Health Coverage Legislation Initiative (2023): Maine Healthcare Action, the campaign behind the initiative, announced that they would target the 2023 ballot instead of the 2022 ballot. The campaign said, "With Covid-19 cases surging in the state, we’ve decided we need a little more time to gather the remaining signatures we need to put this important issue of Universal Healthcare to Maine voters." The campaign reported they had collected more than 40,000 signatures.[1]
  • June 28, 2020 — Massachusetts Beer and Wine in Food Stores Initiative (2020): Cumberland Farms announced that it was suspending its efforts to place the initiative on the 2020 ballot. Matt Durand, chairman of the ballot question committee and the head of public policy at Cumberland Farms, said, "It’s become clear that leading an eight-figure ballot measure campaign is not a prudent course of action at this particular moment in history. Make no mistake: the issue of safe and fair competition in the beverage alcohol marketplace remains a top legislative priority for Cumberland Farms and other food stores, just as it remains an important question of public policy for this Commonwealth." Cumberland Farms said it would try to put the initiative on the 2022 ballot.[2]
  • June 1, 2020 — Arkansas Recreational Marijuana Initiative: Arkansas True Grass said on May 26 that it was ending its petition drive to qualify a recreational marijuana initiative for the 2020 ballot due to coronavirus concerns, but resumed the efforts as of June 1, 2020, after U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes issued a preliminary injunction waiving the requirement that petition circulators physically witness signatures. The group stated that if the group fell short on required signatures for the 2020 ballot, they would instead focus on qualifying the measure for the 2022 ballot.[3][4]
  • April 30, 2020 — California Changes to Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Cap Initiative: On April 30, 2020, Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, announced that the campaign had collected 988,000 signatures but chose not to file them before the recommended deadline on April 21, 2020, due to the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, the campaign decided to file the signatures to place the ballot initiative on the ballot for November 8, 2022.[5] Court commented, "This has been a really tough decision, but it’s really foggy out there now, with all the concern about the coronavirus. No one really knows how that will affect the November elections. … The medical negligence cap hasn’t changed in 45 years. We didn’t want to blow our chance."[6]
  • April 23, 2020 — California Packaging Waste Reduction Regulations Initiative: Eric Potashner, vice president of Recology, said the campaign had collected more than 800,000 signatures for the ballot initiative before the suggested deadline of April 21, 2020, but wanted to collect between 900,000 to 950,000. Potashner, citing the coronavirus pandemic, said, "Even if I had a million signatures, I don't know if we'd be submitting this thing till after June anyway. I don't know if this is the right climate for this measure right now. People care about plastics a whole lot, but it's going to be tough out there for a little bit." Potashner also noted that the ballot initiative's provisions would not take effect until 2030, "so pushing this issue... to 2022 doesn't have any practical implications in what we're trying to do."[7][8]

Suspension of signature drives

The campaigns behind the following citizen-initiated ballot measures announced that their signature drives were suspended:

  • July 1, 2020 — Massachusetts Nursing Homes Medicaid Ratemaking Initiative (2020): The Massachusetts Senior Coalition did not submit enough signatures for the second round of collection for this initiative by the July 1 deadline. The Coalition said, "Our thoughts over the past month have been focused on our loved ones and the thousands of dedicated individuals that provide care to them around the clock while at risk to their own personal safety. There is no doubt that this outcome was affected by the unique and difficult circumstances under which we were forced to collect signatures."[10]
  • June 24, 2020 — Nebraska Redistricting Commission Initiative: Nebraskans for Independent Redistricting, the sponsor of the initiative, announced that it was ending its effort to put the initiative on the November ballot citing the coronavirus restrictions. Nebraskans for Independent Redistricting said, "Our team worked tirelessly to explore every option to move the effort forward but we were not able to run a traditional signature drive due to public health concerns."[11]
  • June 18, 2020 — Ohio Voting Requirements Initiative: Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections, the sponsor of the initiative, announced that they were ending their signature-gathering campaign. Toni Webb, campaign manager for Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections, said, "The bottom line is that the COVID-19 pandemic hit right at the beginning of Ohio’s precious signature-gathering months, making it impossible to gather the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot."[12]
  • June 3, 2020 — Arkansas Coin-Operated Amusement Machines Initiative: Arcade Arkansas, sponsors of the Arkansas Coin-Operated Amusement Machines Initiative, announced that they were ending their signature-gathering campaign. Jason Cline, spokesperson for Arcade Arkansas, said, "When the COVID-19 pandemic reached Arkansas, the committee decided to take a cautious approach and suspended signature gathering in response to public health concerns. With a second wave of cases in Arkansas seemingly larger than the initial wave, the committee has decided there is a moral duty to stop signature gathering for the remainder of the 2020 cycle so as not to contribute to the spread of this virus."[13]
  • May 28, 2020 — San Francisco Community Housing Act: The San Francisco Community Housing Act Committee announced that it was suspending its campaign to get the local initiative on the November ballot. The campaign said that it would not be able to collect enough signatures by the July 6 deadline.[14]
  • May 13, 2020 — Arizona Limits on Private Education Vouchers Initiative: The campaign Save Our Schools Arizona (SOS Arizona) suspended its signature drive for a ballot initiative to limit the number of students that can receive private education vouchers. SOS Arizona asked the Arizona Supreme Court to allow ballot initiative campaigns to gather signatures through an electronic system, but the court rejected the petition on May 13.[15]
  • April 15, 2020 — Missouri Marijuana Legalization Initiative: On April 15, 2020, New Approach Missouri announced that it was suspending its campaign. Dan Viets, chairman of New Approach Missouri, said that the campaign would target 2022 because there was no "practical way" to collect enough signatures before the May 3 deadline. The campaign needed to collect 160,199 valid signatures by the deadline.[16]
  • April 13, 2020 — Nebraska Income Tax Credit for Paid Property Taxes Initiative: On April 13, 2020, TRUE Nebraskans announced that it was suspending its signature gathering efforts. TRUE Nebraskans said, "With public gatherings and even personal contact limited, there is no reasonable expectation that we can finish the task, without needless risk to the health and safety of our circulator network and to Nebraskans, in general."[17]
  • April 3, 2020 — North Dakota Marijuana Legalization Initiative: On April 3, 2020, LegalizeND said, "If something major doesn't change, we will not be able to make the 2020 ballot. ... If Coronavirus continues through May, we will continue collecting signatures, but this will end up placing us on the July 2022 primary ballot."[18]
  • April 3, 2020 — Missouri Prohibit Taxes on Personal Property Initiative: On April 3, 2020, STOPP (Stop Taxing Our Personal Property), the campaign sponsoring the initiative, reported to Ballotpedia that it had suspended its signature drive. The campaign needed to collect 160,199 valid signatures by the May 3 deadline.[19]
  • April 2, 2020 — Idaho Medical Marijuana Initiative: On April 2, 2020, the Idaho Cannabis Coalition announced it had suspended its in-person signature drive. In an email to supporters, the campaign explained that it would try to collect signatures online. The campaign wrote, "We are now focusing on distributing petitions through online download at IdahoCann.co and encouraging every volunteer who has downloaded a petition to get them turned in to their county clerk’s office by mail, regardless of how many signatures they have collected." The required number of signatures was 55,057 for the May 1 deadline.[20]
  • March 26, 2020 — Oregon Drug Decriminalization and Addiction Treatment Initiative: Yes on IP 44, the campaign sponsoring the initiative, announced that it was suspending in-person signature gathering efforts. In the announcement, the campaign said, "It has been part of our campaign strategy all along to move to digital signature gathering at some point. COVID just accelerated that transition." At the time of the announcement, the campaign had announced collecting 125,000 signatures but still needed 8,000 more signatures to meet their goal of raw signatures. A total of 112,020 valid signatures are required. Sponsors requested that supporters download the petition to sign and mail it to their campaign.[22]
  • March 26, 2020 — Oregon Firearm Storage and Transfer Initiative: Henry Wessinger, who filed the petition on behalf of State of Safety Action, announced that the campaign would not begin circulating the initiative petition after receiving a ballot title on March 20. Wessinger said, "We’ve made what is a disappointing, but I think correct, decision to not proceed with signature gathering on IP 40."[23]
  • March 25, 2020 — Montana I-187, Renewable Energy Initiative: On March 25, Montana Cares, the campaign sponsoring I-187, suspended its in-person signature drive. The campaign will continue collecting signatures through the mail as supporters download and sign the petition. The campaign has also requested that the governor enact an emergency rule to waive the notarization requirement for petitions that are mailed in. The campaign needed 25,468 valid signatures by July 17, 2020.[24]
  • March 25, 2020 — Michigan Graduated Income Tax Initiative: Eli Isaguirre, campaign manager of Fair Tax Michigan, announced that the campaign was suspending efforts to place the initiative on the ballot for November 3, 2020. Instead, Fair Tax Michigan would aim to place the initiative on the ballot for 2022. Isaguirre wrote, “This decision was made due to the need to follow the advice of public health officials and the order of Governor Gretchen Whitmer to practice social distancing. The campaign also recognizes the immediate need of many of our members to assist frontline communities in dealing with the effects of the crisis.”[25]
  • March 23, 2020 — California Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative: The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the campaign behind a ballot initiative to legalize sports betting suspended paid signature gathering.[26] Jacob Mejia, a spokesperson for the campaign, said, "Because the health and well being of Californians is foremost, we paused paid signature-gathering efforts for the time being." Meija added, "We are just shy of one million signatures and would have reached our goal well ahead of the deadline before the unprecedented orders around Covid-19."[27] At least 997,139 signatures needed to be verified by June 25, 2020.
  • March 21, 2020 — California Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative: Sarah Melbostad, a spokeswoman for Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments, and Cures, reported that the campaign's signature drive was suspended due to coronavirus. Melbostad said, "In keeping with the governor’s statewide order for non-essential businesses to close and residents to remain at home, we’ve suspended all signature gathering for the time being. ... We’re confident that we still have time to qualify and plan to proceed accordingly."[28] At least 623,212 signatures needed to be verified by June 25, 2020.
  • March 20, 2020 — Michigan Lobbying Limits and Disclosure Initiative: The campaign Close Lansing Loopholes suspended efforts to place a citizen-initiated measure on the ballot. The campaign's statement said, "We set out to change the culture of Lansing, but we never imagined that overnight the entire world would change. COVID-19 has disrupted lives across the country and world and has significantly altered face to face interaction. This has made the already difficult task of collecting more than 425,000 signatures to put lobby reform on the ballot in 2020 a relatively impossible one."[29]
  • March 19, 2020 — Nebraska Medical Marijuana Initiative: Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, the campaign behind the ballot initiative to allow the use of medical marijuana, suspended signature gathering efforts. In the announcement, the campaign said, "Out of an abundance of caution and following the wider recommendations from public health officials, we are going to pause our volunteer and paid signature-gathering efforts within local community gathering places until the state indicates it is responsible to continue."[30]
  • March 19, 2020 — Arkansas Redistricting Commission Initiative: Arkansas Voters First, the campaign behind the ballot initiative to establish an independent redistricting commission, suspended signature-gathering efforts. George Shelton of Arkansas Voters First said, "Obviously, this is a completely unheard of circumstance, so we're working to adjust our strategy. We'll use the next few weeks to make sure our signature gathering operation is completely fine-tuned. Once everything is lifted, we want to hit the ground running."[31] At least 89,151 signatures were due on July 3, 2020.
  • March 17, 2020 — Arizona Voting and Campaign Finance Policies Initiative: Anabel Maldonado, campaign manager of Arizonans for Fair Elections, said the campaign was suspending signature gathering. Maldonado said, "In order to keep from risking the health of our circulators and Arizona residents, we suspended both paid and volunteer signature collection late last Tuesday [March 17]. ... Our teams are on standby, just in case. Additionally, we are working with our partners to figure out what is the safest way we can organize digitally to help identify our supporters."[32]
  • March 17, 2020 — San Francisco Bay Area, California, FASTER Sales Tax Measure: On March 17, FASTER Bay Area announced in a statement that it was no longer aiming to put a sales tax increase to support public transportation before San Francisco Bay Area voters in November. The statement read, "With the global threat of COVID-19 hitting our community hard, we have had to re-evaluate our plans. Considering the uncertainty of the legislative season, the urgent need to focus all our attention on immediate challenge of COVID-19 and the complexity of what we are trying to accomplish with FASTER, it has been determined that we need to push out beyond the 2020 election cycle and continue our efforts on a different time frame."[33]
  • March 16, 2020 — Idaho Income Tax Increases for Education Funding Initiative: On March 16, Boise State Public Radio reported that Rebecca Schroeder, executive director of Reclaim Idaho, told volunteers to cease collecting signatures and follow CDC guidelines.[34] Reclaim Idaho asked the state for permission to collect electronic signatures.[35] Marissa Morrison Hyer, a spokesperson for Gov. Brad Little, responded, "Idaho statute does not allow for the suspension of rules regarding the physical collection of signatures, even in times of emergency."[34] Signatures could be collected through April 30, 2020. On March 18, Reclaim Idaho ended the campaign, stating, "The very nature of the ballot initiative process requires one-on-one contact with thousands of voters, which is contrary to the advice and guidance being given by scientists and health officials all over the country."[36]
  • March 16, 2020 — Oklahoma State Question 805: Criminal History in Sentencing and Sentence Modification Initiative: Sarah Edwards, president of Oklahomans for Sentencing Reform, announced, "Effective immediately, Yes on 805 will suspend all of its public activities, including signature gathering. The health and safety of our signature collectors and the public at large is our number one priority. We are doing our part to protect and support our communities by taking steps to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. We’re confident in the status of the campaign and the strength of our movement, and look forward to fulfilling the will of Oklahoma voters by filing the signatures needed to put State Question 805 on the 2020 ballot."[37] The deadline to file signatures for ballot initiatives was September 4, 2020.
    • The Oklahoma Secretary of State announced on March 18 that the signature collection window for State Question 805 and the other measure that had been cleared for circulation (State Question 808) would be paused until the state lifted its declaration of emergency.[38]
  • March 15, 2020 — Arizona Hospital Worker Minimum Wage and Insurance Regulations Initiative: The campaign Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare (Healthcare Rising AZ) announced on March 21, 2020, that signature gathering was suspended on March 15 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Citing an article written by Dr. Christopher Salvino, the campaign tweeted, "Dr. Salvino is correct that it's not safe to gather signatures for ballot measures while we try to slow the spread of COVID19. That's why [Healthcare Rising AZ] pulled our petition circulators off the street last Sunday. Public health is our top priority."[39] On May 15, 2020, the campaign resumed in-person signature gathering.[40]

Use of electronic signatures

The following ballot measures had begun gathering signatures electronically due to coronavirus concerns:

  • April 13, 2020 — Michigan LGBTQ Nondiscrimination in State Civil Rights Law Initiative: Steven Liedel, legal counsel for Fair and Equal Michigan, said the campaign was transitioning to gathering electronic signatures due to the coronavirus pandemic. He said, "There's no requirement that it be a manual signature. (Or) that it be in ink or that a pen be used or that it be personally affixed to the petition paper. ... I've not had any indication that said it can't be done, from anyone in government."[42]

Delays to circulation periods

The following ballot measures had the start of their circulation periods delayed due to coronavirus concerns:

  • March 12, 2020 — Washington, D.C., Entheogenic Plants and Fungus Initiative: On March 12, the D.C. Board of Elections voted to postpone the start of signature gathering for the Entheogenic Plants and Fungus Initiative. In Washington, D.C., proponents have 180 days from the start of the circulation period to gather a number of signatures equal to at least 5 percent of the voters registered citywide. The campaign supporting the ballot initiative, Decriminalize Nature D.C., requested a delayed start to the circulation period. Seth Rosenberg, a campaign spokesperson, said, "The combination of public fear, lack of testing, and an expanding shutdown of 2020 election activities has made it obvious this isn’t the time to be knocking on doors and engaging DC voters. Now is the time for our campaigners to focus on themselves and their families’ well-being."[43]

Changes to campaign activity

The following ballot measures changed the activity of their campaigns due to coronavirus concerns:

  • March 23, 2020 — Missouri Medicaid Expansion Initiative: On March 23, Healthcare for Missouri announced in an email to supporters that the campaign was suspending public events until further notice but would be holding virtual events to engage supporters. Healthcare for Missouri wrote, "Thanks to a strong and early start to voter signature collections, we will be able to submit the required number of valid signatures by the early May deadline. ... We’ll look to hold virtual events to keep our grassroots supporters like you involved in our campaign."[46]

Changes to ballot measure procedures and policies

This section covers changes to ballot measure procedures made by executive order or legislative action in response to the coronavirus pandemic. For coverage of lawsuits and court rulings regarding ballot measure procedures, click here.

  • August 26, 2020 - California 2020 ballot measures: California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) issued Executive Order N-76-20, which extended the deadline for counties to count signatures submitted for 2022 ballot initiatives between August 1 and December 31, 2020, until January 22, 2021. It also extended the deadline for counties to count signatures submitted for 2022 ballot initiatives between August 1 and December 31, 2020, until March 9, 2021.[47]
  • May 17, 2020 — Colorado 2020 ballot measures: Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) signed Executive Order D 2020 065, which authorized the Colorado Secretary of State to establish temporary rules allowing for ballot initiative petitions to be signed through mail and email. The rules were finalized by the Secretary of State in early June. Prior to the order, petition circulators were required to witness each act of signing in person. The order removed individual initiative signature deadlines of six months after ballot language finalization and instead required that signatures for all initiatives were due by August 3, 2020.[48]
    • Colorado Concern, a nonprofit organization, filed a legal complaint in Denver District Court against Governor Jared Polis (D) and Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D), alleging that the executive order is unconstitutional and that Polis did not have authority to issue such an order.[49] Due Date Too Late, proponents of the 22-week abortion ban initiative, also filed litigation against Polis' order, alleging that the order discriminates against their campaign and initiative.[50] Click here to read more about the legal challenges to Polis' order and the court rulings about it.
    • On July 1, 2020, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously rejected Polis' order and instead ruled that initiative proponents must gather signatures in person.[51]
  • May 7, 2020 — Montana 2020 ballot measures: The Montana Secretary of State issued a declaratory order enabling campaigns to circulate petitions online so that supporters could print, sign, and return it to a county elections office (including through the mail) without notarization. Prior to the order, petitioners had to take the signed petition to a notary for verification.[52]
  • May 5, 2020 — Washington, D.C., 2020 ballot measures: The Washington, D.C. Council passed a bill that made changes to the petition process for 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic. The legislation allowed petitions to be electronically distributed to circulators and scanned and electronically returned to proponents. Voters still needed to physically sign printed petitions. The bill also allowed circulators to sign petitions that they themselves were circulating.[53] Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) said, "These changes will allow eligible District residents to download petition sheets from campaigns at home, print them out, circulate them for physical signatures within their small social networks or families, and return them electronically to the campaigns."[54]
  • April 29, 2020 — New Jersey 2020 local ballot measures: Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed an executive order to allow local initiative and referendum campaigns to collect signatures electronically. He said, "Now is not the time for anyone to be going door-to-door to campaign or collect signatures for any purpose. By allowing this process to move forward electronically, we can ensure that initiative and referendum campaigns proceed in a manner that protects public health."[55]
  • April 1, 2020 — Utah 2020 local ballot measures: Gov. Gary Herbert (R) suspended some laws governing local ballot measures in Utah including the law requiring referendum signature gatherers to physically witness the signing of petitions. The executive order allowed petition gatherers to distribute and gather physically signed petitions through fax and email.[57]
  • April 1, 2020 — San Diego 2020 local ballot measures: The San Diego City Clerk delayed the deadline for ballot measure submissions from April 8 to May 1. In San Diego, local ballot initiatives are indirect. The San Diego City Council must review and vote on whether to send the initiative to the ballot. The deadline delay shortened the period that the city council had to review submitted ballot measures.[58][59]
  • March 18, 2020 — Oklahoma 2020 ballot measures: The Oklahoma Secretary of State officially tolled the signature gathering deadline for initiative petitions until the governor lifted the state's emergency declaration, which meant the window for signature gathering for each initiative was pushed forward instead of continuing to run during the state's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Petitioners in Oklahoma had 90 days to collect the required signatures. The Oklahoma Supreme Court also issued a ruling referencing the secretary of state's action stating that a request by proponents of State Question 805 regarding signature deadlines was moot in light of their deadline being delayed. Moreover, the secretary of state announced that the state would also pause the approval of any new initiatives for signatures gathering and, therefore, delay starting petitioners' 90-day window.[38]
    • Two initiative campaigns—Oklahoma State Question 805 and Oklahoma State Question 808—were approved for signature gathering and had their signature deadline delayed. State Question 805 would prohibit a convicted person's former felony convictions from being used to "enhance the statutorily allowable base range of punishment, including but not limited to minimum and maximum terms." State Question 808 would create a constitutional right to consume cannabis and would require those convicted of marijuana offenses to be exonerated and/or released from incarceration.[38][61]
  • March 17, 2020 — Colorado Title Board: The Colorado Title Board's meeting for March 18, 2020, was canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic. The meeting was rescheduled for March 25, 2020.[62] The Colorado Title Board is responsible for determining whether a proposed citizen-initiated measure complies with the state's single-subject rule and developing a ballot title for the measure. Campaigns cannot begin collecting signatures for ballot initiatives without a ballot title.

Lawsuits and court rulings over ballot measure deadlines and requirements

  • September 10, 2020 — Nevada Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion Initiative: Protect Our Girls, the committee sponsoring the 2022 initiative, filed a lawsuit asking a federal District Court to extend the November 18 deadline to submit signatures. The initiative would require that parents or guardians of minors seeking an abortion to be notified 48 hours before the procedure.[63]
    • On October 21, 2020, Federal District Court Judge Miranda Du dismissed the lawsuit saying, "Plaintiffs filed this case on September 10, and did not seek any emergency relief at that time. In addition, Plaintiffs state their initial request to the Secretary was denied back in April, and they include a vague reference to a settlement agreement in their Motion that must have fallen apart, because they have since filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, but do not explain when or why that agreement fell apart, or indeed why this case now requires the Court's expedited review considering that Plaintiffs have been aware of the November 18, 2020 deadline they now point to in support of their request for expedited review since they filed this case over a month ago."[64]
  • July 2, 2020 — California Packaging Waste Reduction Regulations Initiative: Michael J. Sangiacomo, the CEO of Recology, sued Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D), seeking to extend the deadline to file signatures beyond July 6, 2020. Recology was one of the sponsors of the ballot initiative. In California, campaigns had 180 days to collect signatures for their ballot initiative. The lawsuit asked the court to extend the deadline until all California counties moved into the third reopening stage following the coronavirus stay-at-home order or by at least 90 days. Judge James P. Arguelles ordered that the deadline be extended to September 28, 2020, to account for the shelter-in-place order and coronavirus-related government restrictions.[65]
  • July 1, 2020 — California Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative: The campaign Coalition to Authorize Regulated Sports Wagering sued Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D), seeking to extend the deadline to file signatures beyond July 20, 2020. In California, campaigns had 180 days to collect signatures for their ballot initiative. The lawsuit asked the court to extend the deadline until all California counties moved into the third (of four) reopening stage following the coronavirus stay-at-home order or by at least 90 days. Kenneth Kahn, chairman of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, said, "This is about seeking to preserve the people’s democratic right to pursue an initiative during the pandemic. Tribal leaders temporarily suspended signature gathering as a sacrifice to protect everyone’s public health."[66] Judge James P. Arguelles ordered that the deadline be extended to October 12, 2020, saying, "Despite Petitioners’ diligence, the 180-day deadline coupled with Executive Branch orders responding to the COVID-19 pandemic significantly inhibits Petitioners’ ability to place their initiative on the November 2022 ballot."[67]
  • July 1, 2020: The Colorado Supreme Court unanimously rejected an executive order by Gov. Jared Polis (D) allowing for ballot initiative petitions to be signed through mail and email and instead ruled that initiative proponents must gather signatures in person.[68] Click here to read more about the executive order. Colorado Concern was among the plaintiffs to challenge the order in court. The ruling reversed a lower court ruling from May 2020.
  • June 30, 2020 — Oregon Independent State and Congressional Redistricting Commission Initiative: People Not Politicians filed a lawsuit against Oregon Secretary of State Bev Clarno (R) seeking relief from the July 2 signature deadline and requirements. The lawsuit said, "Oregon's pre-Pandemic signature count requirement and submission deadline as applied to People Not Politicians during the Pandemic and related public health orders, impose a severe burden on the Plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by making it nearly impossible to place the initiative on the ballot." The campaign had previously requested that the secretary of state extend the deadline to August 17 and reduce the number of required signatures to the 2018 minimum of 58,789.[69]
  • June 15, 2020 — North Dakota Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting, Redistricting, and Election Process Changes Initiative: North Dakota Voters First filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota Eastern Division on May 6, 2020. Plaintiffs argued that North Dakota's requirement that petitioners physically witness each signature was unrealistic, difficult, and dangerous amid the coronavirus pandemic and sought a ruling that would allow signatures to be gathered electronically online. The lawsuit can be found here. On June 15, 2020, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte said he would not allow electronic signature gathering. North Dakota Voters First spokeswoman Carol Sawicki said, "While we are disappointed in the ruling, our campaign will do all it can to safely and effectively collect the required signatures to qualify for placement on the November ballot. We will operate under strict social distancing and safety protocols to protect the health of both community members and staff as we work to gather the signatures needed."[76]
  • June 6, 2020 — Idaho Income Tax Increases for Education Funding Initiative: Reclaim Idaho, the campaign sponsoring the initiative, filed a lawsuit against Governor Brad Little (R) arguing that the restrictions put in place to slow the spread of the coronavirus made it impossible for the campaign to collect signatures, and therefore the state violated the petitioners' First Amendment rights. The petitioners sought a preliminary injunction to grant the campaign 48 more days to gather signatures and temporary permission to use electronic signatures. The 48-day extension equaled the number of days from the date the campaign suspended its signature gathering efforts to the original May 1 signature deadline. In announcing the lawsuit, Reclaim Idaho said, "We don’t object to the Governor’s actions to protect public health. But the Governor and Secretary of State have a responsibility to provide alternative, safe means for collecting signatures during a deadly pandemic. We should not be forced to choose between public safety and our First Amendment rights to petition our government."[77]
    • On June 23, 2020, United States District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ruled that Idaho officials must do one of two things: (a) allow the campaign to gather signatures electronically or (b) place the ballot initiative on the November ballot themselves. Judge Winmill concluded that the state restrictions in place to slow the spread of the coronavirus infringed on petitioners' First Amendment rights to place an initiative on the ballot. The judge gave state officials until Friday, June 26, to decide how the state would proceed. Governor Brad Little (R) and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) responded to the ruling in a statement saying, "This decision is a surprising exercise of judicial activism. We plan to appeal this decision immediately.”[78]
    • On June 26, 2020, state officials said they were appealing Winmill's ruling.[79]
    • On June 29, 2020, Judge Winmill denied the state's motion seeking a stay on the judge's previous ruling. Judge Winmill wrote, "There is a narrow window of opportunity to provide Reclaim Idaho and the State the time necessary to establish the process and protocol for gathering signatures on-line and then provide (the group) ... with the requested 48-days to complete the on-line solicitation and gathering of signatures. Granting a stay of the Court’s decision would effectively prevent Reclaim Idaho from having its initiative placed on the 2020 general ballot, and thereby deny it the remedy required by the First Amendment." The question of the emergency stay did not affect the state's appeal of the Court's decision that allowed Reclaim Idaho to collect electronic signatures and extend the signature deadline.[80]
    • On July 1, 2020, Idaho officials filed an emergency motion asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay a lower court's ruling that allowed Reclaim Idaho to collect electronic signatures. The motion filed by the Idaho Attorney General said, "Unless the district court's Order is stayed on or before July 9, Idaho will be forced to abandon statutory requirements that ensure the integrity of its initiative process, attempt to comply with the Order's unrealistic demands, and significantly change its election schedule."[81]
    • On July 9, 2020, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the state's motion to stay a district court's order that allowed Reclaim Idaho to begin gathering signatures on July 9. Gov. Brad Little (R) said the state would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.[82]
    • On July 14, 2020, Gov. Brad Little (R) and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) filed an emergency application for a stay to the U.S. Supreme Court.[83]
    • On July 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gov. Little and Secretary of State Denney and granted an emergency stay on Judge Winmill's ruling that allowed Reclaim Idaho to gather electronic signatures and extended the signature deadline. Following the ruling, the campaign announced that it was suspending its signature drive.[84][85]
  • May 27, 2020 — Colorado 2020 ballot measures: Denver District Court Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. upheld Gov. Jared Polis' (D) May 17 order that authorized the Colorado Secretary of State to establish temporary rules allowing for ballot initiative petitions to be signed through mail and email. Prior to the order, petition circulators were required to witness each act of signing in person. The order also removed individual initiative signature deadlines of six months after ballot language finalization and instead required that signatures for all initiatives be submitted by August 3, 2020. Colorado Concern, among other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit over Polis' order. Responding to Judge McGahey's ruling, Mike Kopp—president and CEO of Colorado Concern—appealed the case to the Colorado Supreme Court.[86]
  • May 26, 2020 — Oklahoma State Question 805, Criminal History in Sentencing and Sentence Modification Initiative: Yes on 805 filed a lawsuit on May 7, 2020, with the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking for Oklahoma Secretary of State Michael Rogers to accept the more than 260,000 signatures the group had already turned in. Sarah Edwards, president of Yes on 805 said, "It’s imperative we place State Question 805 on a 2020 ballot. People who are serving excessive sentences can’t wait another year. Their families can’t wait. We hope this legal move will prompt quick action from the Secretary of State to ensure the thousands of Oklahomans who signed our petition to place SQ 805 on the ballot have their voices heard." Secretary of State Michael Rogers said he would not accept the signatures until the state's emergency declaration ended, which was set to end at the start of June.[88] On May 26, 2020, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Oklahoma Secretary of State must accept petition signatures for State Question 805 within 10 business days. The secretary of state had been refusing to accept the signatures until the state's emergency declaration ended.[89]
  • May 7, 2020 — Nevada Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative: Fair Maps Nevada, the campaign sponsoring the redistricting commission initiative, filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) to allow the campaign to gather signatures electronically and to extend the deadline by at least six weeks. The campaign needed 97,616 valid signatures by June 24, 2020. Petitioners argued, "The Governor’s actions make it extremely difficult to collect signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot in a traditional in-person manner. ... The challenged requirements impose a severe burden on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights by impeding their ability earn a place on the ballot. What’s more, they prevent Plaintiff sand other Nevada voters from voting on the Initiative in the November election."[92]
    • On May 29, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Miranda Du ruled in favor of the petitioners, granting them more time to gather signatures. In her decision, she argued that Governor Steve Sisolak's (D) stay-at-home order made it impossible for the campaign to gather signatures and that not changing the statutory deadline was "unreasonable and unfair." Judge Du ruled that the new deadline could be August 5. Judge Du did not grant the petitioners' request to use electronic signatures citing concerns of fraud and legal precedent on courts changing election rules.[93]
    • On June 9, 2020, the League of Women Voters Of Nevada, one of the organizations supporting the initiative, announced that the campaign and the Nevada Secretary of State agreed to move the deadline to August 3, 2020.[94]
  • April 26, 2020 — Massachusetts "Right to Repair" Initiative, Massachusetts Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative, Massachusetts Nursing Homes Medicaid Ratemaking Initiative, and Massachusetts Beer and Wine in Food Stores Initiative: All four 2020 initiative petition campaigns filed a suit jointly against Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin seeking permission to gather the 13,347 signatures needed by July 1 electronically. Petitioners argued, "Without immediate relief from this Court, Petitioners and all other ballot proponents similarly situated will face an unduly burdensome Catch-22: either risk their health and the health of voters to satisfy unjustifiable and unachievable ballot restrictions and participate in democracy or protect their health and give up their fundamental right to access the ballot."[95]
    • On April 29, 2020, all four campaigns and Secretary Galvin agreed to a resolution that allowed the campaigns to gather the second round of 13,347 signatures by distributing the petitions online to be electronically signed or printed and mailed or emailed back to the respective campaign.[96]
  • April 22, 2020 — Arkansas Issue 4, Redistricting Commission Amendment (2020): Arkansas Voters First, proponents of the redistricting commission initiative, filed a lawsuit on April 22 seeking relief from certain signature petition requirements, such as in-person signature, witness, and notary requirements. The group suspended signature gathering on March 19 due to the pandemic. The initiative was designed to take effect for 2021 redistricting if passed by voters in 2020. Arkansas Voters First Director Bonnie Miller said, “We have a right to petition our government to amend our constitution. We don’t have the luxury of waiting until next year. If we are denied access to the ballot this year, Arkansas could be stuck with unfair and unrepresentative districts for another ten years.” The Arkansas signature deadline for the November 2020 ballot was July 3.[97][98] On May 25, 2020, U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes issued a preliminary injunction waiving the requirement that petition circulators physically witness signatures, thereby allowing sponsors of the Arkansas Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative to collect remote petition signatures. The judge declined to allow electronic signatures and declined to push back the signature deadline.[99] The state appealed the ruling on June 2, 2020.[100] The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Holmes' ruling while considering the state's appeal.[101]
    • On July 23, 2020, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction granted by Holmes', thereby requiring petition signers to sign initiative petitions in the presence of a petition circulator and requiring the petition circulators to sign an affidavit in the presence of a notary stating that signatures were collected according to the law. The court found that neither of those requirements violated First Amendment rights.[102]
  • April 17, 2020 — Arizona 2020 ballot measures: Two ballot initiative campaigns filed a legal complaint asking the U.S. District Court for Arizona to allow the campaigns to gather signatures through E-Qual, which was the state’s online signature collection platform, or a similar system during the coronavirus pandemic. On April 17, 2020, Judge Dominic Lanza rejected the legal complaint, saying the Arizona Constitution required signatures to be collected in-person.[103] The two ballot initiative campaigns that filed the petition were as follows:[104]
  • April 6, 2020 — Montana CI-118, Allow for a Legal Age for Marijuana Amendment and Montana I-190, Marijuana Legalization and Tax Initiative: New Approach Montana filed a lawsuit arguing that the state was violating the right to amend the Montana Constitution and enact laws by prohibiting electronic signature gathering. The plaintiffs also argued that under the Montana Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, which permitted an electronic signature if state law required a signature, petitioners were allowed to collect electronic signatures for initiatives through companies like DocuSign. Ted Dick, campaign manager for New Approach Montana, said, "[B]allot initiatives are a constitutional right for the people of Montana and we believe it is imperative that democratic processes are maintained even as we combat the spread of the coronavirus. Therefore we are taking legal action that proposes a pragmatic solution to a problem that we should not ignore."[105]
    • On April 21, Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton (R) and Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R) asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit by New Approach Montana. The response argued that the lawsuit contained invalid requests for the court to legislate in violation of the separation-of-powers principle and that New Approach Montana put themselves in the position to fail to qualify their measure for the ballot by delaying signature-gathering efforts. The response also argued that the lawsuit filed by New Approach Montana made no claims about the constitutionality or fairness of the state's laws but only invalid claims about the unpredictable circumstances brought about by the coronavirus pandemic and the hardships caused by executive orders that were authorized by the state constitution.[106]
    • On April 30, Missoula District Judge John Larson ruled against the petitioners arguing that the State's "compelling interest in maintaining the integrity and security of its election process outweighs any burden on [the] Plaintiffs' constitutional rights."[107]
  • April 2, 2020 — Colorado Proposition 115, 22-Week Abortion Ban Initiative (2020): Denver District Court Judge Martin Egelhoff granted an emergency stay to allow Due Date Too Late to collect additional signatures during a cure period of 15 days after the state's emergency stay-at-home order expired. The state's stay-at-home order was set to be effective through April 11, 2020. In Colorado, if the number of valid signatures for an initiative was deemed insufficient, initiative proponents could collect additional signatures during a 15-day cure period after the insufficiency is declared. Due Date Too Late sued the Colorado Secretary of State's office to give the group more time collect additional signatures in case they did not submit enough valid signatures, citing coronavirus concerns. Due Date Too Late said, "The stay approved by Judge Martin Egelhoff is significant since it gives Due Date Too Late and its volunteers a fair opportunity to collect more signatures in public, which would be impossible during a potential cure period amid a statewide stay-at-home order."[108]
    • Due Date Too Late, sponsors of the 22-Week Abortion Ban Initiative, reported submitting more than 137,000 signatures on the March 4 signature deadline. On March 18, 2020, the Colorado Secretary of State's office announced that, based on a random sample of 5% of the submitted signatures, the projected validity rate was 97.5%. Since the projected total was between 90% and 110%, a complete count was performed by the Secretary of State with a statement of sufficiency or insufficiency due by April 3, 2020. If the number of valid signatures for an initiative was deemed insufficient, initiative proponents in Colorado could collect signatures during a 15-day cure period after the insufficiency was declared.[108]
  • March 30, 2020 — Ohio Minimum Wage Increase Initiative (2020), Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020), and Ohio Voting Requirements Initiative (2020): Sponsors of the Ohio Minimum Wage Increase Initiative, Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative, and Ohio Voting Requirements Initiative filed a lawsuit in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas asking for the signature deadline to be extended, the number of signatures required to be reduced, and permission to gather signatures online. James Hayes, a spokesperson for the campaign, said, "It might be a long shot that the court will side with us, but we thought it was a shot worth taking. ... And we think that this would be a good decision, a worthwhile decision, in line with protecting the First Amendment rights of Ohioans across the state."[109]
    • On April 28, Judge David C. Young dismissed the case arguing that since the petition requirements for initiatives were in the Ohio Constitution "the ability to change those requirements is reserved only to the people." He added that there is no exception for public health emergencies.[110]
    • On May 19, U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus ordered Ohio to accept electronic signatures from the ballot measure campaigns and extended the signature deadline from July 1 to July 31. Judge Sargus argued in his opinion that "these unique historical circumstances of a global pandemic and the impact of Ohio's Stay-at-Home Orders, the State's strict enforcement of the signature requirements for local initiatives and constitutional amendments severely burden Plaintiff's First Amendment rights." The judge's order applied only to the plaintiffs in the case.[111]
    • On May 21, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost appealed the court's order.[112]
    • On May 26, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals put a hold on the lower court's order that granted the campaign permission to gather signatures electronically and extended the deadline. The judges wrote, "There’s no reason that Plaintiffs can’t advertise their initiatives within the bounds of our current situation, such as through social or traditional media inviting interested electors to contact them and bring the petitions to the electors’ homes to sign."[112]
    • On June 25, Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court of the United States declined to allow proponents of ballot initiatives in Ohio to gather signatures remotely.[113]
    • On May 5, 2021, plaintiffs filed a brief in District Court that argued that the signature requirements were still infringing on petitioners' First Amendment rights in 2021 as the pandemic continued.[114]
    • On June 3, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Edmund Sargus denied relief to petitioners saying, "The Sixth Circuit—in both its opinion granting a stay and its opinion reversing this Court—concluded that 'Ohio’s ballot-access restrictions impose, at most, only an intermediate burden on plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, even during COVID-19.' ... In weighing the burdens Ohio’s ballot-initiative laws impose on Plaintiffs during the COVID-19 pandemic against Ohio justifications for those laws, Ohio’s justifications come out on top."[115]
    • On June 7, 2021, petitioners appealed the ruling to the Sixth Circuit.[116]
    • On July 28, 2021, the Sixth Circuit decided the lawsuit was moot saying, "The Covid-19 pandemic is unlikely to pose a serious threat during the next election cycle."[117]
  • March 18, 2020 — Oklahoma 2020 ballot measures: The Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case brought by proponents of Oklahoma State Question 805 requesting relief regarding the signature deadline for their Criminal History in Sentencing and Sentence Modification Initiative. Previously, the Oklahoma Secretary of State officially tolled the signature gathering deadline for initiative petitions until the governor lifted the state's emergency declaration, which meant the window for signature gathering for each initiative would be pushed forward instead of continuing to run during the state's response to the coronavirus pandemic. The state Supreme Court stated that the request by State Question 805 sponsors was no longer relevant in light of the secretary of state's action. Petitioners in Oklahoma had 90 days to collect the required signatures.[38][61]

General resources

The chart below shows coronavirus statistics from countries across the world. The information is provided by Real Clear Politics.

Click the links below to explore official resources related to the coronavirus outbreak.


See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Facebook, "Maine Healthcare Action post on December 30, 2021
  2. ↑ Boston Herald, "Cumberland Farms dropping push for beer and wine sales," June 28, 2020
  3. ↑ Arkansas Online, "Group ends its ballot push; backers of 2nd recreational-pot proposal keep up efforts," accessed May 27, 2020
  4. ↑ Cannabis Dispensary Mag, "Campaign to Legalize Adult-Use Cannabis in Arkansas Renews Efforts to Place Initiative on 2020 Ballot," accessed June 2, 2020
  5. ↑ Consumer Watchdog, "Survivors of Medical Negligence Push CA Ballot Initiative Vote from 2020 to 2022," April 30, 2020
  6. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Coronavirus forces California initiative backers to hold off until 2022," April 30, 2020
  7. ↑ Facebook, "Pacific Water Quality Association," April 23, 2020
  8. ↑ The Press Democrat, "Coronavirus pandemic prompts backslide of environmental protection work," May 16, 2020
  9. ↑ The Nevada Independent, "Governor ignores voters' state constitutional right of initiative," July 24, 2020
  10. ↑ Mass Live, "Massachusetts voters may face questions on ranked-choice voting, telematics access for car shops in November," July 1, 2020
  11. ↑ Facebook, "Nebraskans for Independent Redistricting," June 24, 2020
  12. ↑ ACLU of Ohio, "Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections Suspends Campaign," June 18, 2020
  13. ↑ Talk Business, "Arcade Arkansas to suspend campaign, won’t submit signatures due to COVID-19," accessed June 3, 2020
  14. ↑ Facebook, "SF Community Housing Act, May 28, 2020
  15. ↑ Facebook, "Save Our Schools Arizona," May 13, 2020
  16. ↑ Marijuana Moment, "Missouri Activists Officially End 2020 Marijuana Legalization Campaign Due To Coronavirus," April 15, 2020
  17. ↑ Facebook, "TRUE Nebraskans status on April 13, 2020," accessed April 14, 2020
  18. ↑ Marijuana Moment, "North Dakota Activists Say Marijuana Legalization Initiative Unlikely In 2020 Due To Coronavirus," accessed April 6, 2020
  19. ↑ Ballotpedia staff writer,, "Email from Stop Taxing Our Personal Property," April 3, 2020
  20. ↑ Marijuana Moment, "Idaho Activists Suspend Campaign To Legalize Medical Marijuana Due To Coronavirus," April 2, 2020
  21. ↑ Tucson.com, "Several Arizona initiative campaigns suspend signature gathering due to coronavirus," March 27, 2020
  22. ↑ Marijuana Moment, "Oregon Drug Decriminalization And Treatment Campaign Impacted By Coronavirus," March 26, 2020
  23. ↑ Oregon Public Broadcast, "Safe Gun Storage Initiative Petition Unlikely To Make Oregon Ballot," March 26, 2020
  24. ↑ Montana Cares, "I-187 COVID-19 Advisory," March 25, 2020
  25. ↑ Facebook, "Fair Tax Michigan," March 25, 2020
  26. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Coronavirus halts California ballot measure signature-gathering in its tracks," March 23, 2020
  27. ↑ Legal Sports Report, "California Sports Betting Initiative In Jeopardy Because Of Coronavirus Lockdown," March 31, 2020
  28. ↑ California Stem Cell Report, "California's $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Initiative: Signature Gathering Suspended Due to Coronavirus," March 21, 2020
  29. ↑ Twitter, "Close Lansing Loopholes," March 20, 2020
  30. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Nebraska
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Texarkana Gazette,,"Signature gatherers forced to take hiatus; ballot proposals, candidates on hold," March 20, 2020
  32. ↑ Arizona Capitol Times, "Coronavirus puts brakes on signature gathering for ballot measures," March 26, 2020
  33. ↑ FASTER Bay Area, "Statement from FASTER Bay Area," March 17, 2020
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Boise State Public Radio, "Idaho Ballot Initiatives Could Be The Next Victim Of Coronavirus," March 16, 2020
  35. ↑ Reclaim Idaho, "COVID-19 update," accessed March 17, 2020
  36. ↑ U.S. News, "Petition Drive for Idaho Ballot Initiative Called Off," March 18, 2020
  37. ↑ KFOR, "Oklahoma group pushing for state question will stop collecting signatures amid COVID-19 outbreak," March 17, 2020
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 Oklahoma Secretary of State, "State Questions," accessed October 29, 2019
  39. ↑ Twitter, "Healthcare Rising AZ," March 21, 2020
  40. ↑ Arizona Mirror, "Ballot initiatives scale up for post-lockdown push to gather signatures," May 15, 2020
  41. ↑ Lowell Sun, "Accord clears way for e-sigs on ballot questions," April 30, 2020
  42. ↑ MLive, "Group trying to put LGBT initiative on Michigan ballots turns to electronic signatures," April 13, 2020
  43. ↑ Decriminalize Nature D.C., "Press Release: the Campaign to Decriminalize Nature DC Postpones Adoption of Circulating Petition Citing Public Safety," accessed March 15, 2020
  44. ↑ People Not Politicians, "People Not Politicians launches safe statewide signature gathering effort on ballot measure to reform Oregon’s redistricting process," May 13, 2020
  45. ↑ KTVH, "Committee to launch signature drive for Montana marijuana legalization measures," May 7, 2020
  46. ↑ KBIA, "As Coronavirus Stifles Ballot Initiatives, Missouri Medicaid Expansion Effort Presses On," March 23, 2020
  47. ↑ California Governor, "Executive Order N-76-20," August 26, 2020
  48. ↑ Colorado Governor Jared Polis, "Gov. Polis Signs Executive Orders to Protect Access to Ballot & Ensure Elections Can Proceed Safely," accessed May 18, 2020
  49. ↑ Colorado Concern, "Lawsuit against Polis' executive order," accessed May 19, 2020
  50. ↑ Denver Post, "Colorado group seeking to ban late-term abortions sues over governor’s order," accessed May 22, 2020
  51. ↑ Fort Morgan Times, "Colorado Supreme Court rules against Polis on signatures for ballot measures," accessed July 1, 2020
  52. ↑ Montana Free Press, "Declaratory Ruling," March 7, 2020
  53. ↑ Washington, D.C. Council, "Coronavirus Omnibus Temporary Amendment Act of 2020," accessed May 6, 2020
  54. ↑ Marijuana Moment, "DC Council Approves Bill That Will Help Psychedelics Decriminalization Initiative Qualify For Ballot Despite Coronavirus," May 5, 2020
  55. ↑ New Jersey Governor, "Governor Murphy Signs Executive Order Allowing Electronic Petition Submission and Signature Collection for Initiatives and Referenda," April 29, 2020
  56. ↑ Due Date Too Late, "April 2 Press Release," accessed April 3, 2020
  57. ↑ Deseret News, "Referendum to stop Olympia Hills gets new life as governor expands signature gathering options amid coronavirus outbreak," accessed April 3, 2020
  58. ↑ San Diego Tribune, "Virus pandemic prompts San Diego to delay deadline to submit November ballot measures," April 1, 2020
  59. ↑ San Diego, "Submission of Ballot Proposals," accessed April 1, 2020
  60. ↑ Washington Secretary of State Elections, "Initiatives and Referenda Filed in 2020," accessed March 25, 2020
  61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 Oklahoma Secretary of State, "Letter from the secretary of state to the public," March 18, 2020
  62. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Meeting Notice - March 18, 2020," March 17, 2020
  63. ↑ The Nevada Independent, "Lawsuit seeks signature extension for ballot question requiring parental notification for under-18 abortions," September 22, 2020
  64. ↑ The Nevada Independent, "Judge denies anti-abortion group’s request for more signature-gathering time for parental notification ballot question," October 27, 2020
  65. ↑ Superior Court of Sacramento County, California, "Sangiacomo v. Padilla," July 2, 2020
  66. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Tribal casinos sue California for more time to qualify legal sports betting measure amid coronavirus," June 9, 2020
  67. ↑ Legal Sports Report, "California Sports Betting Could Make 2022 Ballot as Tribes Get Extension," July 1, 2020
  68. ↑ Fort Morgan Times, "Colorado Supreme Court rules against Polis on signatures for ballot measures," accessed July 1, 2020
  69. ↑ Willamette Week, "Redistricting Measure Aimed at November Ballot Falls Short. Backers File Federal Lawsuit Asking for Lower Bar." July 3, 2020
  70. ↑ Oregon Public Radio, "Oregon Redistricting Measure May Go To Voters After Judge's Ruling," July 10, 2020
  71. ↑ Willamette Week, "Under Federal Judge’s Order, Secretary of State Bev Clarno Extends Deadline for Redistricting Measure," July 14, 2020
  72. ↑ Seattle Times, "Oregon AG appeals federal judge’s order on redistricting bid," July 15, 2020
  73. ↑ Portland Tribune, "Advocates get more time to qualify redistricting initiative at lower threshold," July 23, 2020
  74. ↑ Oregon Public Radio, "Oregon attorney general takes fight against redistricting initiative to US Supreme Court," July 29, 2020
  75. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Clarno v. People Not Politicians, August 11, 2020
  76. ↑ AP News, "Judge nixes North Dakota group’s call for online signatures," accessed June 17, 2020
  77. ↑ Facebook, "Reclaim Idaho," June 8, 2020
  78. ↑ Boise Public Radio, "Judge To Idaho: Put Education Funding Initiative On The Ballot Or OK Online Signatures," June 23, 2020
  79. ↑ Idaho Ed News, "State Pushes Toward Appeal in Reclaim Idaho Lawsuit," June 26, 2020
  80. ↑ Idaho Press, "Judge denies state's motion to stay in Reclaim Idaho case," June 29, 2020
  81. ↑ Idaho News, "Idaho AG files emergency motion against Reclaim Idaho's ballot initiative lawsuit," July 1, 2020
  82. ↑ The Neighbor, "Appeals court sides with Reclaim Idaho on K-12 funding initiative," July 9, 2020
  83. ↑ Post Register, "Idaho asks US Supreme Court to block online signature drive for school funding initiative," July 15, 2020
  84. ↑ Idaho Ed News, "Supreme Court Halts Reclaim Idaho's K-12 Petition Drive," July 30, 2020
  85. ↑ Facebook, "Post by Reclaim Idaho," July 31, 2020
  86. ↑ The Gazette, "Judge upholds Polis order allowing virtual petition signatures for ballot initiatives," May 27, 2020
  87. ↑ Michigan Court of Claims, "Fair and Equal Michigan v. Benson," May 26, 2020
  88. ↑ The Oklahoman, "State Question 805 campaign asks Supreme Court to require signatures be accepted," accessed May 8, 2020
  89. ↑ KFOR-TV, "Oklahoma Supreme Court rules that criminal justice reform group can turn in signatures for state question," accessed May 26, 2020
  90. ↑ SF Chronicle, "Arizona court rejects online initiative signature gathering," accessed May 13, 2020
  91. ↑ Arizona Supreme Court, "Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehabilitation, and Public Safety et al. v. Hobbs," April 2, 2020
  92. ↑ The Nevada Independent, "Group backing independent redistricting commission files lawsuit seeking e-signatures, extended deadline," May 7, 2020
  93. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Ballot petition for redistricting commission gets more signature-gathering time," May 29, 2020
  94. ↑ League of Women Voters Of Nevada, "Fair Maps Nevada Press Release: Agreement Reached & Executive Order Needed," June 9, 2020
  95. ↑ WWLP, "Ballot campaigns seek e-signature relief from SJC," April 27, 2020
  96. ↑ Lowell Sun, "Accord clears way for e-sigs on ballot questions," April 30, 2020
  97. ↑ Arkansas Times, "Lawsuit filed by proponents of redistricting amendment to ease petition requirements for November ballot," April 22, 2020
  98. ↑ ABC News, "As coronavirus upends elections, ballot access becomes next point of concern," April 22, 2020
  99. ↑ My Journal Courier, "Judge eases Arkansas petition rules for redistricting group," accessed May 26, 2020
  100. ↑ Arkansas Online, "State appeals petition lawsuit," accessed June 3, 2020
  101. ↑ Times Record, "Appeals court stays ruling easing Arkansas petition rules," accessed June 16, 2020
  102. ↑ Bloomberg Law, "Arkansas May Enforce Ballot Petition Signature Rules: 8th Cir.," accessed July 24, 2020
  103. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Arizona, "Arizonans for Fair Elections and Arizonans Fed Up with Failing Healthcare (Healthcare Rising AZ) v. Hobbs," April 17, 2020
  104. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Arizona, "Arizonans for Fair Elections and Arizonans Fed Up with Failing Healthcare (Healthcare Rising AZ) v. Hobbs," April 2, 2020
  105. ↑ Marijuana Moment, "Montana Marijuana Activists File Lawsuit For Electronic Ballot Signature Gathering During COVID," April 15, 2020
  106. ↑ Montana Free Press, "New Approach Montana v. State of Montana: Defendants' Brief in opposition to emergency motion for relief," April 21, 2020
  107. ↑ Montana Free Press, "Judge Larson's ruling," accessed May 11, 2020
  108. ↑ 108.0 108.1 Due Date Too Late, "April 2 Press Release," accessed April 3, 2020
  109. ↑ Idea Stream, "As Ohio Stays Home, Minimum Wage Ballot Organizers Sue To Extend Signature Deadline," March 31, 2020
  110. ↑ Court of Common Pleas Franklin County, Ohioans for Raising the Wage v. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, accessed April 28, 2020
  111. ↑ Cleveland.com, "Federal judge orders Ohio to allow state issue campaigns to collect electronic petition signatures," May 20, 2020
  112. ↑ 112.0 112.1 Toledo Blade, "Appeals court blocks order giving ballot issues more time," May 26, 2020
  113. ↑ Courthouse News, "No High Court Detour for Ballot Initiative Signature Rules," accessed June 25, 2020
  114. ↑ Ballot Access, Thompson v. DeWine, accessed May 7, 2021
  115. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. District Court Denies Relief for Ohio Initiative Proponents," June 5, 2021
  116. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Ohio Initiative Proponents Appeal to the Sixth Circuit," June 8, 2021
  117. ↑ Ballot-Access, "Sixth Circuit Says Initiative Lawsuit Over Ballot Access Relief Due to Pandemic is Moot," July 29, 2021
v • e
Political responses to the coronavirus pandemic, 2020-2021
OverviewsCOVID-19.jpg
Articles by Type
Federal policy responses • State government responses • Local government responses • Diagnosed or quarantined incumbents, candidates, and officials • State legislative session changes • State legislative responses • State executive orders • Eviction and foreclosure policies • Travel restrictions • School responses (2021-2022) • School responses (2020-2021) • School responses (2019-2020) • State court closures • Stay-at-home order status • States that issued stay-at-home orders • States that did not issue stay-at-home orders • Changes to ballot measure campaigns and policies • Changes to vote-by-mail and absentee voting procedures • Initial key federal official responses • Arguments in support of and opposition to government responses • Lawsuits • Multistate agreements • Non-governmental plans to reopen • Unemployment filings • Analysis articles • Paycheck Protection Program • Mask requirements • School budget changes • State budgets • Federal definitions of essential and nonessential businesses • Federal aid to states • Lost Wages Assistance (LWA) program • State emergency power authority • Changes to state emergency power authority • Municipal emergency power authority • Halloween guidelines • Vaccine distribution plans • State plans to end federal unemployment • Changes to emergency power laws • Active COVID-19 emergency orders • State vaccine requirement (vaccine passport) policies • Recalls related to the pandemic • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance on school responses to the coronavirus • State employee vaccine requirements • Healthcare worker vaccine requirements
State responses to coronavirus
State paths to recovery
State school responses
Coronavirus debate topics
Coronavirus debate by state
v • e
2020 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
 • Alabama • Georgia • Iowa • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Jersey • Rhode Island • Virginia • Wisconsin
Political topics
Other
v • e
Statewide ballot measures
State
A • Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • C • California • Colorado • Connecticut • F • Florida • G • Georgia • H • Hawaii • I • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • K • Kansas • Kentucky • L • Louisiana • M • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • N • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • O • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • P • Pennsylvania • R • Rhode Island • S • South Carolina • South Dakota • T • Tennessee • Texas • U • Utah • V • Vermont • Virginia • W • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Ballot Measures overview
By topic
A • Abortion • Admin of gov't • Affirmative action • Alcohol • Animal rights • Assisted death • B • Bonds • Budgets • Business regulation • C • Campaigns • Civil rights • Constitutional conventions • Constitutional language • County government • D • Daylight Saving Time • Death penalty • Direct democracy • E • Earthquakes • Education • Elections • Eminent domain • English • Environment • Executives • F • Federal constitutional issues • Firearms • G • Gambling • Government accountability • H • Healthcare • Housing • Hunting • I • Immigration • Insurance • J • State judiciary • L • LGBT • Labor • Law enforcement • Legislatures • M • Marijuana • Marriage • Minimum wage • Mottos • Municipal government • N • Natural resources • P • Pensions • Property • Public finance • R • Recall • Redistricting • Race and ethnicity • Religion • Rules about Sunday • S • Salaries of elected officials • Smoking bans • State budgets • State executives • State judiciary • State legislatures • Stem cells • Supermajority requirements • Sundays • T • Taxes • Tobacco • Transportation • U • Unions • Utilities • V • Veterans • W • Wages • War and peace • Water • Welfare
By type
By year
2026 • 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002 • 2001 • 2000 • 1999 • 1998 • 1997 • 1996 • 1995 • 1994 • 1993 • 1992 • 1991 • 1990 • 1989 • 1988 • 1987 • 1986 • 1985 • 1984 • 1983 • 1982 • 1981 • 1980 • 1979 • 1978 • 1977 • 1976 • 1975 • 1974 • 1973 • 1972 • 1971 • 1970 • 1969 • 1968 • 1967 • 1966 • 1965 • 1964 • 1963 • 1962 • 1961 • 1960 • 1959 • 1958 • 1957 • 1956 • 1955 • 1954 • 1953 • 1952 • 1951 • 1950 • 1949 • 1948 • 1947 • 1946 • 1945 • 1944 • 1943 • 1942 • 1941 • 1940 • 1939 • 1938 • 1937 • 1936 • 1935 • 1934 • 1933 • 1932 • 1931 • 1930 • 1929 • 1928 • 1927 • 1926 • 1925 • 1924 • 1923 • 1922 • 1921 • 1920 • 1919 • 1918 • 1917 • 1916 • 1915 • 1914 • 1913 • 1912 • 1911 • 1910 • 1909 • 1908 • 1907 • 1906 • 1905 • 1904 • 1903 • 1902 • 1901 • 1900
Other
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Changes_to_ballot_measure_campaigns,_procedures,_and_policies_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020-2022&oldid=9443873"