Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Legislative alteration
The term legislative alteration refers to when lawmakers repeal or amend citizen initiatives after voters have approved them. At the statewide level, it applies only to initiated state statutes since legislatures cannot change initiated constitutional amendments without voter approval. There are 21 states with a process for initiated state statutes. Eleven states have no restrictions on legislative alteration, two states—Arizona and California—require voter approval of substantive alteration, and the remaining eight states have either time restrictions, supermajority vote requirements, or a combination of the two.
The phrases legislative tampering or legislative intervention have also been used to describe this practice.[1][2][3]
Requirements by state
Of the 21 states that provide for initiated state statutes:
- Eleven states have no restrictions on when or how legislators can amend or repeal voter-approved initiated statutes.
- Ten states have restrictions on how and when the legislature can amend or repeal voter-approved initiatives.
- Eight states have a supermajority vote requirement or a time requirement.
- Two states require voter approval to amend voter-approved initiatives.
Hover over a state in the map below to read about its requirements and restrictions for altering approved citizen initiatives:
States with no restrictions
The following 11 states have no restrictions on legislative alteration of approved initiatives:
| State | Restriction/requirement |
|---|---|
| Colorado | None |
| Idaho | None |
| Maine | None |
| Massachusetts | None |
| Missouri | None |
| Montana | None |
| Ohio | None |
| Oklahoma | None |
| Oregon | None |
| South Dakota | None |
| Utah | None |
In Washington, D.C., the city council is allowed to repeal or alter the city code passed through citizen initiatives.
States with restrictions
The following 10 states have restrictions on how and when the legislature can amend or repeal voter-approved initiatives.
- Eight states have a supermajority vote requirement or a time requirement.
- Two states require voter approval to amend voter-approved initiatives.
| State | Restriction/requirement | Details |
|---|---|---|
| California | Voter approval | Legislators can't make any changes to laws enacted through the initiative process without voter approval through a legislatively referred state statute. |
| Arizona | Voter approval or supermajority | The Arizona State Legislature can make changes that are in line with the purpose of the initiative through a three-fourths supermajority vote, though any substantive changes must be submitted to the voters through a legislatively referred state statute. |
| Alaska | Supermajority and/or time | 2 years must elapse before repeal can amend immediately |
| Washington | Supermajority and/or time | 2 years must elapse before repeal or amendment, except with 2/3rds vote in the legislature |
| Wyoming | Supermajority and/or time | 2 years must elapse before repeal; amending an initiative is possible with a simple majority at any time |
| Arkansas | Supermajority and/or time | 2/3 majority vote to amend or repeal |
| Nebraska | Supermajority and/or time | 2/3 majority vote to amend or repeal |
| Nevada | Supermajority and/or time | 3 years must elapse before repeal or amend |
| Michigan | Supermajority and/or time | 3/4 majority vote to repeal or amend |
| North Dakota | Supermajority and/or time | 7 years must elapse before repeal or amendment, except with 2/3rds vote in the legislature |
California requires voter approval for legislative changes to approved citizen initiatives. Arizona, like California, requires voter approval for substantial legislative changes to approved citizen initiatives or for changes that go against the initiative's purpose; otherwise, the legislature can make changes that are in line with the purpose of the initiative through a three-fourths supermajority vote.
Michigan requires a three-fourths supermajority vote to amend or repeal approved citizen initiatives. North Dakota, Washington, Nebraska, and Arkansas require two-thirds supermajority votes to repeal or amend approved citizen initiatives. Additionally, in North Dakota and Washington, the state legislature may amend or repeal an approved citizen initiative with a simple majority vote after a period of time has passed. For Washington, the time period is two years, while, for North Dakota, it is seven years. Other states also have time requirements: In Alaska and Wyoming, two years must elapse before repeal, though the legislature can amend an initiative at any time. In Nevada, three years must pass before an amendment or repeal can be done.
Laws by state
The laws governing legislative alteration in each state are listed below:
AlaskaThe Alaska State Legislature may not repeal a measure for two years following its passage. However, lawmakers can amend the initiated law at any time by a simple majority vote.
ArizonaThe Arizona State Legislature may not repeal a successful initiative or referendum without voter approval. Lawmakers can amend the law, but only if the amendment "furthers the purposes" of the measure and passes with a 3/4 supermajority. The legislature can submit changes to previous initiatives to the voters through a legislatively referred state statute. According to a bill passed in 2021, notice of these legislative alteration restrictions must be included on the official ballot for any initiative as well as on the secretary of state's website.
ArkansasThe Arkansas State Legislature may not repeal or amend a successful initiative or referendum, except by a two-thirds supermajority vote.
CaliforniaThe California State Legislature may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters. However, a ballot measure may include a clause waiving this protection either entirely or conditionally. Once ballot initiatives have been declared eligible for the ballot (which means it has been determined that enough valid signatures were submitted) they are submitted to the legislature. The legislature has no control over the initiatives or whether they appear on the ballot. However, California law requires the legislature to hold a public hearing on the initiatives at least 30 days prior to the election. Moreover, proponents are allowed to withdraw an initiative even after it has been declared eligible for the ballot up to when the initiative is certified as qualified for the ballot" 131 days before the election. This means the legislature can offer alternative legislation as a compromise in an effort to convince petitioners to withdraw certified initiatives.
ColoradoThe Colorado General Assembly may change or repeal initiated measures. In the case of initiated statutes, this only requires a simple majority. In the case of amendments, the Assembly must pass the amendment by a two-thirds majority and place it on the ballot. (The same process required for ordinary legislatively referred constitutional amendments.)
FloridaSince initiated constitutional amendments are the only kind of ballot initiative permitted under Florida law, lawmakers must use the ordinary amendment process to overturn successful ballot measures. In order to place an amendment on the ballot, lawmakers in each chamber must pass a resolution with a three-fifths majority vote. The repeal/revision amendment must receive the usual 60 percent supermajority for passage.
IdahoIdaho does not limit how soon, or with what majority, the legislature can repeal a measure.[4]
IllinoisThe Illinois General Assembly may only repeal an initiated amendment by placing a repeal measure on the ballot, following the ordinary process for legislatively referred constitutional amendments. Each chamber of the General Assembly must pass the amendment by a 3/5 majority. Voters must approve the measure by either (1) a majority of those voting in the election or (2) 3/5 of those voting on the amendment itself.
MaineMaine does not limit how soon, or with what majority, the legislature can repeal a measure.[5]
MassachusettsMassachusetts does not limit how soon, or with what majority, the legislature can repeal an initiated statute. Legislators can only overturn an amendment through the ordinary amendment process.[6] However, if a statute is not repealed the legislature must fund it. When a proposed amendment is placed before the legislature, lawmakers may amend the proposed amendment but only by a three-fourths supermajority vote called in the joint session. They may not amend proposed statutes. (Note: The majority of an initiative's sponsors can amend a proposed statute after the legislature fails to act and without re-collecting signatures. These amendments may not "materially change the substance of the measure.")
MichiganThe Michigan State Legislature may only change or repeal initiated statutes by a three-fourths supermajority vote in each house. In the case of amendments, the Legislature must pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority and place it on the ballot -- the same process that is required for ordinary legislatively referred constitutional amendments.
MississippiSince only initiated constitutional amendments are permitted in Mississippi, lawmakers must follow the ordinary amendment process to overturn or amend successful ballot measures. In order to place an amendment on the ballot, lawmakers in each chamber must pass a resolution by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote. The state's requirement that an initiated constitutional amendment requires approval from at least 40 percent of all votes cast in the election does not apply to legislatively referred constitutional amendments.
MissouriThe Missouri State Legislature may repeal or amend any statute approved by voters. To repeal or alter an amendment, they must follow the ordinary legislative referral process. In order to place an amendment on the ballot, lawmakers in each chamber must pass the resolution with a majority vote. The amendment is then presented to voters.
MontanaThe Montana State Legislature may repeal or amend any statute approved by voters. To repeal or alter an amendment, they must follow the ordinary legislative referral process. In order to place an amendment on the ballot, lawmakers must adopt the proposal by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of all members.[7]
NebraskaThe Nebraska Legislature may not "amend, repeal, modify, or impair" any initiative without a two-thirds (66.67%) vote.
NevadaFor three years after an initiated statute is approved, it may not be "amended, annulled, repealed, set aside or suspended" by the Nevada State Legislature. Changes to initiated amendments must follow the ordinary legislative process, which consists of majority votes in two consecutive regular legislative sessions and majority approval at a statewide election. Statutes affirmed according to a veto referendum process and election may not be repealed or amended without a vote of the people.
North DakotaThe North Dakota Legislative Assembly may not repeal or amend an initiative for seven years without a 2/3 majority votes.
OhioThe Ohio General Assembly may repeal or amend an initiated statute by a simple majority vote. Changes to initiated amendments must follow the ordinary legislative process, which requires a three-fifths vote in both chambers of the state legislature and majority approval at a statewide election.[8]
OklahomaThe Oklahoma State Legislature may repeal an initiated statute with a simple majority vote. In order to change or repeal a constitutional amendment, lawmakers must place an amendment on the ballot via the ordinary referral process, which consists of a simple majority vote of each chamber.
OregonThe Oregon State Legislature may repeal or amend an initiated statute by a simple majority vote. Changes to initiated amendments must follow the ordinary legislative process, which consists of a majority vote in both chambers.[9]
South DakotaThe South Dakota State Legislature may repeal an initiated statute with a simple majority vote. In order to change or repeal a constitutional amendment, lawmakers must place an amendment on the ballot via the ordinary referral process, which consists of a simple majority vote in each chamber.
UtahThe Utah State Legislature may amend any initiated statute by a simple majority vote. When presented with an indirect initiative, the Legislature may make technical corrections to the proposed law.
WashingtonIn Washington, no initiated statute may be amended or repealed for two years without a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in both chambers. Any initiated law, so amended, is not subject to veto referendum. After two years, the law may be repealed or amended by a simple majority vote of the legislature.[10]
WyomingThe Wyoming State Legislature may not repeal an approved measure for two years after it takes effect. It may be amended at any time by a simple majority vote.
Washington, D.C.The city council can repeal or alter city code passed through citizen initiatives. The city council has done so four times over the last three decades, including in 2001 when the city council reversed a term limits initiative.[11] |
Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives
From 2010 through 2022, 143 initiated state statutes and three initiated ordinances in D.C. were approved by voters. Of these 146 total initiatives from 2010 through 2022, 29 were legislatively altered as of January 2023. To read about legislative alterations of ballot initiatives from 2010 through 2022, click here.
Noteworthy events
This section features events and legislation that were not examples legislative alteration but were related to the concept. Legislative alteration is when (a) a citizen-initiated state statute is put on the ballot and approved by voters and (b), after it is approved, the state legislature passes a bill to amend or repeal the text within state statute that was enacted by the initiative. Examples below include, but are not limited to, the following:
- actions by the state legislature to preclude an election in the first place and to change or block initiative proposals that were never put on the ballot;
- bills to implement initiated constitutional amendments in ways that, according to initiative proponents, went against the purpose of the initiatives; and
- deals made between state legislators and initiative proponents that result in initiatives that had qualified for the ballot or nearly qualified for the ballot being withdrawn and, in some cases, replaced by substantively different legislation.
- Click here to read about examples of legislation that falls under the precise definition of legislative alteration, which requires that the citizen initiative in question is approved by voters and then directly amended or repealed by state legislators after the election.
2022Arizona
The Arizona State Legislature referred a constitutional amendment to the 2022 ballot that would have allowed the Arizona State Legislature to amend or repeal voter-approved ballot initiatives if any portion has been declared unconstitutional or illegal by the Arizona Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court. The amendment was rejected with 64% of voters opposed and 36% in favor. 2021Missouri
In August 2020, Missouri voters approved Amendment 2 by a margin of 53.27 percent to 46.73 percent. The initiative expanded Medicaid eligibility in Missouri to adults that are 19 years old or older and younger than 65 whose income is 133% of the federal poverty level or below, which would effectively expand Medicaid to those with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level under the Affordable Care Act.
Nevada
On May 31, 2021, the final day of the 2021 Nevada legislative session, the state legislature passed a bill to increase the mining tax and dedicate revenue to education striking a compromise between legislators, the mining industry, and the largest teachers' union in the state—Clark County Education Association. Assembly Bill 495 (AB 495) reached the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement needed to pass the tax with a 28-14 vote in the Nevada State Assembly and a 16-5 vote in the Nevada State Senate. AB 495 maintains the state's net proceeds on minerals tax structure and dedicates the revenue to a new fund for education. In 2019, the net proceeds tax generated $61 million in revenue. Clark County Education Association Executive Director John Vellardita said, "This is the first time that dedicated revenue goes directly into K-12."[13] Clark County Education Association led two initiative campaigns to increase the state's sales tax and gaming tax to generate revenue for public schools. The initiatives qualified for the ballot on March 12, 2021, when the deadline for the state legislature to pass the initiatives passed without any action by the legislature. On May 31, the state legislature also amended and passed a bill related to election laws, Assembly Bill 321 (AB 321), to allow initiative campaigns to remove ballot measures from the ballot 90 days before the election at which voters would have decided on the petition.[14] On July 28, 2021, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford (D) issued an opinion in response to a request by Governor Steve Sisolak (D) regarding the constitutionality of AB 321. Ford determined that the law was constitutional and that initiatives may be withdrawn prior to the election.[15] In October 2021, Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) announced that the Nevada Constitution did not permit her to remove the certified petitions from the ballot despite the 2021 law authorizing petition withdrawal. In a letter explaining her decision, Cegavske wrote, "The use of the word ‘shall’ in ordinary language imposes a mandatory, not discretionary, obligation. Although the Nevada Legislature can adopt statutes ‘for procedures to facilitate the operation’ of the initiative process as provided in [the Nevada Constitution], the affirmative duty imposed by the Nevada Constitution on the Secretary supersedes any statutory enactments by the Nevada Legislature that contradict the affirmative duty."[16] LawsuitOn December 29, 2021, Fund Our Schools and Nevadans for Fair Gaming Taxes, the PACs sponsored by the Clark County Education Association, filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) asking the court to allow the initiatives to be removed from the 2022 ballot. The PACs argue that the law passed in 2021 allows them to remove their initiatives from the ballot. The union said in a statement, "CCEA expects that the law will prevail and the Secretary of State will be required to withdraw both initiative petitions."[17] On March 9, 2022, District Court Judge James Wilson ordered Cegavske to withdraw the initiatives and not put them on the 2022 ballot. Wilson wrote, "Nothing in Article 19 appears to contravene the Legislature’s ability to enact a provision permitting proponents such as Petitioners from deciding to withdraw their initiative measures.”[18] On March 15, 2022, Jennifer Russell, a spokesperson for Cegavske, said regarding Wilson's ruling, "We’re moving forward with the appeal.”[19] On June 28, 2022, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled for the petition to be withdrawn from the ballot. The majority ruled that the Constitution allows the Legislature to facilitate the operation of citizen initiatives. 2019Florida
In November 2018, Florida voters approved Amendment 4 64.5 percent to 35.5 percent. The initiative amended the state constitution to restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. On May 3, 2019, the Florida Legislature gave final approval to Senate Bill 7066, which makes changes to the state's election code and provided additional rules for the implementation of Amendment 4. The bill was written to require convicted felons to complete "all terms of sentence" including full payment of restitution, or any fines, fees, or costs resulting from the conviction. Approval in the legislature sent the bill to the desk of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for his signature.[20] The full text and other information on HB 7066 may be found here.
2018Michigan
In Michigan, a three-fourths supermajority vote is required in both chambers of the state legislature to repeal or amend a citizen initiative through legislative alteration. If the state legislature approves an initiative themselves, precluding an election on it through Michigan's indirect initiative process, a simple majority is required to repeal or amend the measure.
2017Florida
The Florida legislature passed a bill—Senate Bill 8A—as implementing legislation for Amendment 2, which legalized medical marijuana. Senate Bill 8A banned smoking medical marijuana, determined qualifying conditions, required doctors to take a two-hour $500 course before prescribing marijuana, and banned doctors with a financial interest in marijuana growing or testing facilities from prescribing marijuana. On July 5, 2017, John Morgan, the chairperson of People United for Medical Marijuana (PUMM), filed litigation in the Florida 2nd Circuit Court. He said that Senate Bill 8A's ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. The lawsuit argued the amendment was designed to leave the administration of marijuana to the judgment of a licensed physician and was intended to allow for medical marijuana to be smoked.[23][24] South Dakota task force on initiative and referendum processesThe South Dakota State Legislature approved House Bill 1141 during its 2017 legislative session. The bill established a task force to investigate the state's initiative and veto referendum processes and suggest changes to the legislature for consideration in the 2018 legislative session. Any changes suggested that require a constitutional amendment would require the legislature to refer the proposal to the voters. Statute changes could be passed directly by the legislature. The task force voted 7-6 against recommending a restriction requiring a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the state legislature to amend or repeal citizen initiatives. South Dakota is one of 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature can repeal or amend initiated state statutes. [25] Arkansas
The Arkansas General Assembly made several changes to Issue 6—the medical marijuana legalization initiative. These amendments were explicitly allowed by the language of the initiative and, thus, did not require voter approval. |
See also
- Changes in 2025 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
- Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives
- Laws governing the initiative process
Footnotes
- ↑ Argus Leader, "My Voice: Legislative tampering needs to stop," December 13, 2017
- ↑ The Council of State Governments, "Legislative intervention," accessed December 8, 2021
- ↑ Citizens in Charge Foundation, "Legislative tampering," accessed December 8, 2021
- ↑ NCSL, "Limiting the Legislature's Power to Amend and Repeal Initiated Statutes," June 28, 2011
- ↑ NCSL, "Limiting the Legislature's Power to Amend and Repeal Initiated Statutes," June 28, 2011
- ↑ NCSL, "Limiting the Legislature's Power to Amend and Repeal Initiated Statutes," June 28, 2011
- ↑ NCSL, "Limiting the Legislature's Power to Amend and Repeal Initiated Statutes," updated June 28, 2011
- ↑ NCSL, "Limiting the Legislature's Power to Amend and Repeal Initiated Statutes," June 28, 2011
- ↑ NCSL, "Limiting the Legislature's Power to Amend and Repeal Initiated Statutes," June 28, 2011
- ↑ NCSL, "Limiting the Legislature's Power to Amend and Repeal Initiated Statutes," December 2, 2021
- ↑ The Washington Post, "D.C. Council members move to overturn ballot initiative affecting tipped workers," July 10, 2018
- ↑ ABC News, "Missouri governor drops voter-approved Medicaid expansion," May 13, 2021
- ↑ AP News, "After decades-long fight, Nevada lawmakers raise mining tax," June 1, 2021
- ↑ Nevada State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 321," accessed June 1, 2021
- ↑ PV Times, "Petitions can be withdrawn before vote, Nevada AG says," July 31, 2021
- ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Cegavske won’t allow tax petitions off 2022 ballot," October 11, 2021
- ↑ News 3, "Clark County teachers' union files suit to get tax hikes removed from 2022 ballot," December 29, 2021
- ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Judge says teachers union can withdraw tax petitions," March 9, 2022
- ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Cegavske will appeal ruling on withdrawal of tax-hike initiatives," March 15, 2022
- ↑ Florida Senate, "Senator Brandes' Amendment 704217 to Senate Bill 7066," accessed May 4, 2019
- ↑ CNN Politics, "Florida House passes bill that makes it harder for ex-felons to vote," May 3, 2019
- ↑ Florida ACLU, "ACLU OF FLORIDA STATEMENT ON STATE LEGISLATURE’S ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE AMENDMENT 4," accessed May 4, 2019
- ↑ Washington Times, "Attorney plans lawsuit to allow for smoking of medical pot," June 11, 2017
- ↑ Sunshine State News, "John Morgan: I'll Sue for Smokeable Marijuana, and I'll Win," June 21, 2017
- ↑ South Dakota Legislature, "Resolution Draft #114," accessed September 5, 2017
