Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
Updated as of January 15, 2025
From 2018 to 2024, state governments enacted 246 pieces of legislation related to the three powers of direct democracy in the U.S.—the ballot initiative, referendum, and recall election.
This page provides information on the bills that made or would make the initiative, referendum, and recall processes more or less difficult. Of the 246 bills and resolutions passed between 2018 and 2024:
- 57 pieces of legislation, or 23.17% of the total legislation enacted, made or would make citizen-initiated measure or recall processes more difficult for campaigns to use.
- 18 pieces of legislation, or 7.35% of the total legislation enacted, made or would make citizen-initiated measure or recall processes less difficult for campaigns to use.
On this page, you will find analyses about the legislation, a list of bills and resolutions that made the processes more or less difficult, an explanation of the difficulty analysis methodology, and other related research that provides additional context.
Analyses, 2018-2024
Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by year
Of the 246 pieces of legislation enacted from 2018 to 2024, 57 (23.17%) bills or resolutions made the initiative, referendum, or recall processes more difficult, as defined in the methodology section below. Eighteen (7.35%) made or would make these processes easier or less difficult to use.
The years with the most enacted bills or resolutions that made the initiative, referendum, and recall processes more difficult were 2021 and 2024, when 14 pieces of legislation were passed during each year. Those bills accounted for 38.9% of the total enacted in 2021 and 35% of the total enacted in 2024.
The following chart illustrates the number of bills or resolutions enacted each year, including those that made the processes more or less difficult:
Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by state
From 2018 to 2024, each of the 57 bills or resolutions that made initiative, referendum, or recall processes more difficult was passed in the 26 states with a statewide initiative or referendum process. The states with the most enacted pieces of legislation increasing difficulty were:
- South Dakota, with 11 bills or resolutions;
- Arizona, with seven bills or resolutions;
- Florida, with six bills or resolutions;
- Arkansas, with five bills or resolutions; and
- Utah, with five bills or resolutions
The following map illustrates the number of enacted bills or resolutions that made initiative, referendum, or recall processes more difficult in each state from 2018 to 2024:
Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by topic
Of the 57 bills or resolutions that made direct democratic processes more difficult, 16 (28.07%) addressed petition circulator, also known as signature gatherer, requirements. Examples include requiring signature gatherers to register with the state government; banning paying circulators based on the number of signatures gathered, which is known as pay-per-signature; and requiring signature gatherers to be state residents.
Of the 18 bills or resolutions that made direct democratic processes less difficult, the most common topic was also circulator requirements, with six (33.33%) addressing this topic. Examples include repealing pay-per-signature bans, removing a circulator's personal information from petitions, and enacting laws to regulate petition blocking.
The following chart illustrates the number of bills related to each topic area:
Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by legislative vote margins
A legislative vote margin refers to the difference in the level of support between Democrats and Republicans in state legislatures. This is similar to an election vote margin in which a candidate is said to have received, for example, 5 percentage points more than another candidate. A bill that receives support from 100% of legislative Republicans and 20% of legislative Democrats has a legislative vote margin of R+80%, for example.
Ballotpedia classifies legislative vote margins on legislation related to the initiative, referendum, and recall as follows:
- Republican: R+50.1% to R+100%
- Lean Republican: R+25.1% to R+50%
- Bipartisan: R+25% to D+25%, including 0%
- Lean Democratic: D+25.1% to D+50%
- Democratic: D+50.1% to D+100%
Of the 57 bills or resolutions that made direct democracy processes more difficult, 46 (80.70%) had Republican legislative vote margins, and six (10.52%) had Democratic majorities, including four with Democratic vote margins and two with a lean Democratic vote margin. Five (8.77%) passed with bipartisan support.
Of the 18 bills or resolutions that made direct democracy processes less difficult, 11 (61.11%) had bipartisan support, four (22.22%) had Democratic majorities, including three with Democratic vote margins and one with a lean Democratic vote margin. Three (16.67%) had a Republican legislative vote margin.
The following chart illustrates the legislative vote margins for the pieces of legislation that made processes harder or easier:
Outliers:
- The two bills that made the initiative process easier and had a Republican legislative vote margin were in Kentucky. Kentucky House Bill 133 (2021) decreased the number of signatures required for veto referendums against school district tax levies. Kentucky Senate Bill 58 (2024) reduced the number of voters needed to form a petition committee seeking to overturn a tax levy from 5 to 3; allowed petition sheets to include signatures of voters from more than one precinct; removed the requirement for signers to include their social security number; and changed the 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.
- Three bills that made direct demcracy processes more difficult had a Democratic legislative vote margin. These were California Assembly Bill 2584 (2022), which increased the number of signatures required for recall petitions in certain jurisdictions; Colorado Senate Bill 250, which eliminated the signature cure period for initiative petitions; and Oregon Senate Bill 1510, which limited the number of signatures that could be included on a state initiative petition to 2,000.
- The Utah State Legislature passed a bill, contingent on voter approval of a 2024 constitutional amendment, that would allow 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 allows 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 also increase the amount of time for sponsors to gather VR signatures by 20 days (40 days to 60 days). This bill is counted once under harder bills due to the provision allowing for legislative alteration of ballot initiatives and once under easier bills due to the provision increasing time to gather veto referendum signatures.
List of bills and resolutions
Harder
The following is a list of bills or resolutions, including constitutional amendments, that state governments enacted between 2018 and 2024 and that made or would make the initiative, referendum, or recall processes more difficult.
| Year | State | Bill | Topic(s) | Description | Margin in Legislature |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Arizona | SCR 1041 | Litigation requirements | Provide for challenges to an initiative measure or constitutional amendment after the filing of the measure with the secretary of state | R+100% |
| 2024 | California | SB 1441 | Signature requirements | 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 provides a process and timeline for such such examination and requires the examination to be completed within five business days; requires proponents to reimburse counties for examination beyond five business days | D+100% |
| 2024 | California | AB 3197 | Petition requirements | 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 | 0.00% |
| 2024 | Colorado | SCR 2 | Circulation period | 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 | D+3.6% |
| 2024 | Idaho | SB 1377 | Circulator requirements | Require paid signature gatherers to verbally inform signatories that they are paid signature gatherers; require petitions to include a disclosure that it is being circulated by paid signature gatherers; and require paid signature gatherers to wear a "paid petition circulator" badge | R+93.0% |
| 2024 | Kentucky | HB 829 | Ballot language; signature requirements | 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 | D+27.8% |
| 2024 | Oklahoma | HB 1105 | Litigation requirements | 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) | R+98.1% |
| 2024 | Washington | SB 5824 | Signature requirements | 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); signatures increase from 10% to 25% of voters within the district | D+16.9% |
| 2024 | Ohio | HB 1 | Campaign finance requirements | Prohibited foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures directly or indirectly to support or oppose a candidate for elective office or statewide ballot measures | R+100% |
| 2024 | Oklahoma | SB 518 | Petition requirements | 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. | R+95.7% |
| 2024 | South Dakota | HB 1244 | Signer requirements | 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. | R+72.5% |
| 2024 | Utah | SB 100 | Signature requirements | Provided that local government decisions to issue bonds are subject to veto referendums, provides that a veto referendum must be filed within five days (instead of seven) after the local legislation was passed | 0.00% |
| 2024 | Utah | SB 4003 | Legislative alteration | Contingent on approval of a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 2024 ballot, the bill would allow 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 allows the legislature to "amend the law in any manner determined necessary by the Legislature to mitigate an adverse fiscal impact of the initiative". | R+97.5% |
| 2024 | Utah | SJR 401 | Legislative alteration | Provide in the constitution that the state legislature has the power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative; prohibit foreign individuals from influencing a ballot initiative | R+89.2% |
| 2023 | Arizona | SCR 1015 | Signature requirements | Create a signature distribution requirement, with a percentage coming from each of the state's legislative districts, for citizen-initiated measures (Constitutional amendment - voter approval required) |
R+100.0% |
| 2023 | Arkansas | HB 1419 | Signature requirements | Increase the signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated measures from 15 counties to 50 (of 75) counties | R+96.2% |
| 2023 | Montana | SB 93 | Petition requirements; Initiative content | Establish a $3,700 fee to file an initiative and prohibit initiatives that are substantially the same as a measure defeated within the prior four years | R+97.8% |
| 2023 | North Dakota | SCR 4013 | Election requirements; Signature requirements; Initiative content | Establish a single-subject rule for initiatives; increase the signature requirement for initiated constitutional amendments from 4% to 5% of the state's population; and require voters approve initiated constitutional amendments at two elections (Constitutional amendment - voter approval required) |
R+72.7% |
| 2023 | Ohio | SJR 2 | Election requirements; Signature requirements; Circulation period | Require a 60% vote to approve constitutional amendments; eliminate the signature cure period for initiated amendments; and increase the signature distribution requirement from 44 (of 88) counties to each of the 88 counties (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters) |
R+94.6% |
| 2022 | Arizona | HCR 2015 | Election requirements | Require a 60% vote for voters to pass ballot measures to approve taxes (Constitutional amendment - approved by voters) |
R+100.0% |
| 2022 | California | AB 2584 | Petition requirements | Increase the number of proponents needed to initiate a recall petition depending on a jurisdiction's number of registered voters | D+100.0% |
| 2022 | Florida | SB 524 | Circulation period; Circulator requirements | Require officials to discontinue reviewing an initiative should signatures expire during the review process and prohibit paying a circulator based on the number of signatures gathered | R+97.2% |
| 2022 | Florida | HB 921 | Circulator requirements | Prohibit an out-of-state donor from giving more than $3,000 to support or oppose an initiative during signature gathering | R+95.5% |
| 2021 | Arizona | HB 2308 | Circulator requirements | Require paid circulators and out-of-state circulators to register with the state | R+100.0% |
| 2021 | Arizona | HCR 2001 | Initiative content | Require that citizen-initiated ballot measures embrace a single subject (Constitutional amendment - approved by voters) |
R+100.0% |
| 2021 | Arkansas | HJR 1005 | Election requirements | Require a 60% vote from voters to adopt constitutional amendments and citizen-initiated state statutes (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters) |
R+99.0% |
| 2021 | Arkansas | SB 614 | Circulator requirements | Ban paying circulators based on the number of signatures gathered and require circulators to be state residents and citizens | R+94.4% |
| 2021 | Colorado | SB 250 | Circulation period | Require circulators of recall petitions to have identification badges that state either "Volunteer Circulator" or "Paid Circulator"; Eliminate cure period | D+97.2% |
| 2021 | Florida | SB 1890 | Campaign finance requirements | Create a $3,000 limit on campaign contributions to ballot initiative committees until the state certifies the measure for the ballot | R+99.0% |
| 2021 | Florida | SB 1194 | Initiative content | Prohibit the use of local ballot measures to restrict maritime commerce at ports, such as cruise ships | R+87.3% |
| 2021 | Idaho | SB 1110 | Signature requirements | Change the signature distribution requirement for ballot initiatives from 6% of voters in 18 (of 35) state legislative districts to 6% of voters in all 35 legislative districts | R+90.6% |
| 2021 | Montana | HB 651 | Circulator requirements | Provide for several changes, including requiring the employers of paid signature gatherers to register with the state; requiring a legislative committee to hear and vote on an initiative and publishing the vote on petitions; and requiring a statement on potential affects on businesses | R+99.0% |
| 2021 | South Dakota | SB 86 | Initiative content | Provide that the secretary of state cannot approve an initiative for circulation if the initiative violates the single-subject rule | R+97.8% |
| 2021 | South Dakota | SB 77 | Petition requirements | Require a 14-point font for the text of citizen-initiated ballot measures | R+75.4% |
| 2021 | South Dakota | HJR 5003 | Election requirements | Require a 60% vote on citizen-initiated ballot measures or legislative referrals that would increase taxes or fees or require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters) |
R+74.2% |
| 2021 | Utah | HB 136 | Circulator requirements | Provide for several changes, including banning pay-per-signature; enacting a badge requirement for paid petition circulators; and requiring signature gatherers to present the entire text of initiatives to signers | R+82.7% |
| 2021 | Wyoming | HB 148 | Petition requirements | Change the filing fees for political office candidates and citizen-initiated ballot measures, including from $500 to $1,000 for an initiative or referendum | D+28.2% |
| 2020 | Florida | SB 1794 | Circulation period | Provide for several changes, including making signatures invalid after February 1 of even-numbered years each cycle; increasing the signature threshold to trigger a court review; and requiring petitioners to reimburse counties for the actual cost of verifying signatures | R+100.0% |
| 2020 | Idaho | HB 548 | Initiative content; Circulator requirements | Require that initiatives be limited to a single subject and require entities that pay signature gatherers to report such activity to the state | R+94.4% |
| 2020 | Oklahoma | HB 3826 | Signer requirements | Require a signer's first and last names, zip code, house number, and month and day of the person's birth date on initiative petition sheets and require petition sheets to include the names, addresses, and signatures of three primary initiative sponsors | R+87.5% |
| 2020 | South Dakota | SB 180 | Circulator requirements | Require circulators to be residents and require paid circulators to provide their residential address, phone number, driver's license state, voter registration information, sex offender status, and other information | R+89.5% |
| 2019 | Arizona | SB 1451 | Circulator requirements; Petition requirements | Change several policies regarding initiative petitions and circulators, including requiring that petition sheets be rejected for not meeting proper formatting and requiring non-resident circulators and paid circulators to register with the state | R+100.0% |
| 2019 | Arkansas | HJR 1008 | Signature requirements; Circulation period | Provide for several changes, including increasing the signature distribution requirement for initiatives; eliminating the cure period for initiative signature submissions; and changing the signature submission deadline from four months before the general election to January 15 of the election year (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters) |
R+80.9% |
| 2019 | Arkansas | SB 346 | Ballot language | Change the timeline for certifying a ballot title and popular name until after the required number of signatures have been submitted and transferring the power to approve a filed initiative from the attorney general to the Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners | R+67.5% |
| 2019 | Florida | HB 5 | Circulator requirements | Provide for several changes, including banning pay-per-signature and requiring paid petition circulators to register with the state | R+100.0% |
| 2019 | Maine | LD 499 | Circulator requirements | Require signature gatherers to provide certain personal information and proof of voter registration with the state and file an affidavit that says the circulator has an understanding of the initiative process | N/A[1] |
| 2019 | North Dakota | SCR 4001 | Election requirements | Require voter-approved initiated constitutional amendments to also receive approval from the Legislature or be placed on the ballot for a second election requiring voter approval (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters) |
R+82.5% |
| 2019 | South Dakota | HB 1094 | Circulator requirements | Require paid signature gatherers to register with the state; create a $20 registration fee for paid petition circulators; and require signature gatherers to wear a badge | R+84.3% |
| 2019 | Utah | HB 145 | Signer requirements | Require county clerks to display the names of registered voters who sign initiative and referendum petitions on the county website | R+92.0% |
| 2018 | Arizona | HB 2648 | Circulator requirements | Change the definition of paid circulator to include any circulator who receives monetary or other compensation for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, rather than circulators who are paid based on the number of signatures collected | R+64.9% |
| 2018 | Michigan | HB 6595 | Signature requirements; Circulator requirements | Create a signature distribution requirement requiring that no more than 15 percent of required signatures come from a given congressional district; provide that petitions must say whether the circulator is a paid or volunteer signature gatherer; and require paid circulators to submit a signed affidavit, among other changes | R+94.3% |
| 2018 | Oregon | SB 1510 | Petition requirements | Require that the certified ballot title be included on the initiative petition signature sheets and limit the number of signatures that could be included on a state initiative petition to 2,000 | D+83.8% |
| 2018 | South Dakota | HJR 1006 | Initiative content | Create a single-subject rule for constitutional amendments, whether initiated or referred (Constitutional amendment - approved by voters) |
R+96.6% |
| 2018 | South Dakota | SJR 1 | Election requirements | Require a 55% vote to approve constitutional amendments (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters) |
R+95.3% |
| 2018 | South Dakota | HB 1007 | Initiative content | Establish a single-subject rule for citizen-initiated state statutes | R+89.6% |
| 2018 | South Dakota | HB 1177 | Circulator requirements | Require initiative petition sheets to include the name, phone number, email address, and the paid or volunteer status of the signature gatherer | R+86.0% |
| 2018 | South Dakota | HB 1196 | Circulator requirements | Require a signature gatherer to provide a sworn statement attesting to residency, as well as the circulator's vehicle license state, voter registration state, current address, addresses of two previous residences, and a statement expressing the circulator's intention to remain in the state following the petition effort | R+72.1% |
Easier
The following is a list of bills or resolutions, including constitutional amendments, that state governments enacted between 2018 and 2024 and that made or would make the initiative, referendum, or recall processes less difficult.
| Year | State | Bill | Topic(s) | Description | Margin in Legislature |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Utah | SB 4003 | Signature requirements | Contingent on approval of a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 2024 ballot, the bill would allow 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 allows 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 also increase the amount of time for sponsors to gather VR signatures by 20 days (40 days to 60 days) | R-97.5% |
| 2024 | Kentucky | SB 58 | Signature requirements; petition requirements; circulator requirements | Reduced the number of voters needed to form a petition committee seeking to overturn a tax levy from 5 to 3; 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 | R-89.3% |
| 2024 | South Dakota | SB 182 | Circulator requirements | Removes residency requirements and badge requirements for petition circulators, aligning state law with court rulings. | 0.00% |
| 2024 | Utah | HB 79 | Signer requirements | Provide a process for disabled individuals to sign initiative petitions and an alternative verification process for elections officials to verify such signatures | 0.00% |
| 2023 | Arkansas | SB 377 | Circulator requirements | Make certain interferences with initiative petitions and signature gatherers Class A misdemeanors and require paid petition blockers to undergo background checks | 0.00% |
| 2023 | California | ACA 1 | Election requirements | Reduce the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55% for local special tax and bond ballot measures that fund public infrastructure, affordable housing, or supportive housing (Constitutional amendment - voter approval required) |
D+97.7% |
| 2023 | Maine | LD 1477 | Circulator requirements | Repeal inoperative language requiring that petition circulators be residents and registered voters (Constitutional amendment - voter approval required) |
N/A[1] |
| 2023 | South Dakota | SB 113 | Circulation period | Change the signature deadline to the first Tuesday in May of a general election year, rather than one year before the general election | D+8.3% |
| 2021 | Kentucky | HB 133 | Signature requirements | Decrease the number of signatures for veto referendums against school district tax levies | R+88.1% |
| 2021 | Oregon | SB 27 | Circulator requirements | Replace the requirement that a petitioners' residence address be listed on an initiative with the petitioners' city and state | D+54.4% |
| 2020 | Oklahoma | HB 2871 | Signer requirements | Allow participants in the Address Confidentiality Program to use the address given to them by the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office to sign an initiative or referendum petition | D+11.1% |
| 2020 | New Jersey | AB 4037 | Petition requirements | Permit the use of electronic signatures and submission methods during a declared COVID-19 emergency order | D+32.5% |
| 2019 | California | AB 698 | Signer requirements | Provide that a signature on a ballot initiative petition cannot be deemed invalid because the person signing the petition used initials instead of their full first or middle name, or both | 0.0% |
| 2019 | Oregon | SB 761 | Petition requirements | Allow people to print an official electronic petition, sign the petition, and deliver the petition to sponsors | D+90.9% |
| 2019 | Maine | LD 1437 | Signer requirements | Allow for persons with physical disabilities that prevent them from signing their own names to use an alternative signature to sign petitions for citizen-initiated ballot measures (Constitutional amendment - approved by voters) |
N/A[1] |
| 2018 | Louisiana | HB 54 | Signature requirements | Reduce the percentage of registered voters required for a recall petition for cities with larger populations | R+9.3% |
| 2018 | Michigan | SB 809 | Circulator requirements | Provide that a person collecting signatures for a recall petition needs to be at least 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, rather than a registered voter in the electoral district of the official being recalled, among other changes | R+3.6% |
| 2018 | Colorado | HB 1145 | Circulator requirements | Repeal inoperative laws restricting payment of signature gatherers based on the number of signatures | 0.0% |
Difficulty analysis methodology
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 |
Academic research
Democracy Docket (2023)
Title: "The Ballot Measure Wars"
Author: Kentiya Orange, Carrie Olson-Manning, Professor of Biology at Augustana University, and Emma Olson Sharkey, Counsel at Elias Law Group
Publication: Democracy Docket - August 2023
Orange, Olson-Manning, and Sharkey analyzed legislation between 2010 and 2022 related to the ballot measure process and categorized bills according to whether they would make the ballot initiative process more restricted or more accessible. The study was published by Democracy Docket, a progressive news and analysis platform. The study examined relationships between political parties, state government partisan control, and laws affecting the initiative process.
Democracy Docket identified 724 bills related to the ballot measure process and found that 381 bills (52.62%) "attacked the ballot measure process" and 343 bills (47.38%) "strengthened the ballot measure process." Bills restricting the process included increased signature requirements, additional rules surrounding circulators, agency processes, and election processes. Bills expanding access to the process included bills that created a new ballot measure process, established more accessible signature requirements, and other agency processes. Democracy Docket analyzed the partisanship of the bills and found that "Democrats initially attempted to restrict the ballot measure process when Republicans used the process to pass measures that restricted individual rights. However, as progressives had more success with passing progressive ballot measures, Republicans–especially when holding a trifecta in state government–attempted to restrict the ballot measure process far more extensively than any attempts to restrict the process by Democrats prior to 2017." Specifically, Democracy Docket made the following conclusions:[2]
- Democrats are willing to restrict the ballot measure process in some circumstances;
- Republican attempts to restrict the ballot measure process far outpace any initial attempts by Democrats especially when Republicans have a trifecta in the state government; and
- as progressives continue to see success with ballot measures, Republican efforts to restrict the ballot measure process are expected to continue.
In their analysis, the authors found the following:[2]
- There was a switch in ballot measure legislation sponsored by Democrats beginning around 2016, with Democrats sponsoring more restrictive bills prior to 2016 and bills increasing access after 2016
- In Democratic trifecta states, Democrats propose roughly equal numbers of bills that restrict or increase access to the initiative process while Republicans propose more bills to make the initiative process more accessible.
- In states with split state government control, there was no difference in the number of bills making the process more restricted or more accessible based on sponsoring parties.
- Republicans proposed many more bills to restrict the ballot measure process, especially when in a Republican state government trifecta. When they did not hold complete control, they proposed legislation to make the ballot initiative process more accessible. In this same time period, Democrats sponsored roughly equal numbers of bills to restrict and facilitate the ballot measure process, except when Republicans held unified control and Democrats proposed legislation to make the process more accessible.
Among all bills from 2010 to 2022, the study found that the odds of observing a bill restricting the process was 1.4 times higher if sponsored by a Republican compared to bills sponsored by Democrats.
Matsusaka (2023)
Title: "Direct Democracy Backsliding? Quantifying the Prevalence and Investigating Causes 1960-2022"
Author: John Matsusaka, Director of the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California
Publication: Social Science Research Network - August 1, 2023
Matsusaka examined proposed legislative constitutional amendments related to ballot initiative processes from 1960 to 2022. He classified the constitutional amendments as "either increasing or decreasing the cost of proposing and approving" ballot initiatives. He stated, "Rather than wade into the waters of defining the essential nature of democracy, I focus instead on whether a law would have increased the cost of using direct democracy." Matsusaka found the following:[3]
- From 1960 to 2022, the number of proposed constitutional amendments has been consistent across the decades, with a spike between 1995 and 2004. "Contrary to media speculation, the amount of such activity is not unusually high recently," wrote Matsusaka. He elaborated, "[P]roposals to restrict initiative and referendum rights were common throughout the period."
- From 1960 to 2022, 62% of the proposed amendments originated in Republican-controlled state legislatures, 17% in Democratic-controlled state legislatures, and 21% in divided legislatures.
- There was a shift around 2000. Before 2000, about 50% of the amendments originated in Republican-controlled state legislatures, while about 25% originated in Democratic-controlled state legislatures and 25% originated in divided legislatures. After 2000, Republicans continued proposing constitutional amendments but the numbers fell for Democratic-controlled state legislatures and divided legislatures.
- There was no apparent difference between the political parties regarding amendments that would make the initiative process less difficult.
Matsusaka noted three theories regarding the proposal of constitutional amendments to increase the cost of proposing and approving ballot initiatives:[3]
- Power maximization: "[L]egislators prefer processes in which power remains in their hands, and not in the hands of the people."
- Political philosophy: "[E]lected officials have philosophical beliefs about what form of democracy is best, and believe that democracy is harmed by initiatives and referendums." Matsusaka cited former Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R), who said, "Referendum is pure democracy, and it has not worked for 15,000 years."
- Strategic motives: "[P]roposed changes are strategically or instrumental motivated to influence policy outcomes." Matsusaka adds, "The strategic theory implies that legislatures adjust direct democratic institutions to achieve policy ends, but this does not lead to a general tendency to support or oppose citizen lawmaking." He cited Arkansas Sen. Bryan King (R-28), who said, "I don’t think this is a party issue. This is a control issue. It’s trying to fence off challenges to whatever decisions a government makes."
Matsusaka said, "The evidence here lends some support to the political philosophy and strategic theories but does not support the simple power monopolization theory."[3]
He concluded, "We can conclude objectively that Republicans were more likely to propose amendments that raised the cost of using direct democracy, and in that sense contributed to direct democratic backsliding, but whether that is good or bad for democracy depends on one’s opinion about the competence of voters to make public decisions or the power of special interests, an issue that is contested even among strong advocates of democracy."[3]
Dinan (2022)
Title: "Changing the Rules for Direct Democracy in the Twenty-First Century in Response to Animal Welfare, Marijuana, Minimum Wage, Medicaid, Elections, and Gambling Initiatives"
Author: John Dinan, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Wake Forest University
Publication: Nebraska Law Review 101 (1)
Dinan produced a synopsis of three time periods related to initiative and referendum use and analyzed certain changes during the current period. He wrote that "the debate has largely moved away from whether to adopt or eliminate initiative processes and now focuses on how to structure the rules governing these processes."[4]
Dinan identified the following periods in initiative and referendum use:[4]
- Period 1 (the early twentieth century): The initiative and referendum in the U.S. developed during the Progressive Era. Dinan wrote, "In the first few decades of the Twentieth Century, the initiative process was, in nearly all cases, a vehicle for securing progressive policies and championed by progressives and opposed by conservatives."
- Period 2 (the late twentieth century): The number of initiatives and referendums decreased between the 1940s and 1960s; the century's "final quarter saw a surge in the number of initiative measures and a change in the groups benefiting from these measures. Beginning in the late 1970s, conservative groups and Republican officials were in many instances the primary beneficiaries and champions of the initiative process," wrote Dinan. He cited California Proposition 13 and a "wave of tax-and-expenditure limitation measures from the late 1970s through the early 1990s."
- Period 3 (the early twenty-first century): Dinan wrote, "During the first two decades of the Twenty-First Century, Democratic officials and liberal groups are, on balance, more likely to benefit from initiatives, and Republican officials and conservative groups are more likely to support restricting the process." He said that one possible reason is that more of the 24 states that provide for initiatives were Republican-controlled, which offered "the most opportunities for liberal groups to take their case to the initiative process."
Dinan, focusing on the third period, said that changes in the initiative process often occur when there is a disconnect or mismatch between the policy goals of the public and those of elected officials. He stated, "When the initiative process is used on a routine basis to bypass the dominant party and its allied groups, the majority party and its allies try to limit its use."[4]
Dinan examined several ballot initiative topics during the third period that legislators responded to with enacted changes to make the initiative process more difficult. The topics were: animal welfare (hunting and farm animal-related), minimum wage, marijuana, Medicaid, voting and elections, and gambling.[4]
He concluded, "At present, however, liberal groups are most likely to benefit from initiatives, and Republican officials are most likely to try to limit them. Republicans currently control the legislature in two-thirds of the states allowing for the initiative process, and are more likely than Democratic officials to be bypassed via initiatives. Moreover, liberal groups of various kinds have identified a range of policies where the preferences of Republican officials are out of step with the public’s views, thereby generating numerous successful initiatives and prompting pushback in the form of initiative process rules changes."[4]
See also
- Changes to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2025 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Note: There were no vote roll-calls recorded for this bill.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Democracy Docket, "The Ballot Measure Wars," August 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Matsusaka, John. (2023). "Direct Democracy Backsliding? Quantifying the Prevalence and Investigating Causes 1960-2022." SSRN. Posted: August 1, 2023.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Dinan, John. (2022). "Changing the Rules for Direct Democracy in the Twenty-First Century in Response to Animal Welfare, Marijuana, Minimum Wage, Medicaid, Elections, and Gambling Initiatives." Nebraska Law Review 101 (1).
