List of indirect initiated state statutes approved by state legislatures

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

Between 2018 and 2025, state legislatures approved 10 of the 33 (30.3%) indirect initiated state statutes that qualified for the ballot, with voters deciding the remaining 23.

An indirect initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are nine (9) states that allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes.

While a direct initiative is placed on the ballot once supporters file the required number of valid signatures, an indirect initiative is first presented to the state legislature. Legislators have a certain number of days, depending on the state, to adopt the initiative into law. Should legislators take no action or reject the initiative, the initiative is put on the ballot for voters to decide.

The following summarizes state legislative actions on indirect initiated state statutes between 2018 and 2025:

• Of the nine states that provide for indirect initiated state statutes, legislatures in three states approved at least one measure during this period. Michigan and Washington approved the most indirect initiatives, with each state legislature approving four. The Alaska State Legislature approved two.

• Michigan had the highest approval rate, with the legislature approving four out of five certified initiatives (80.0%). Washington saw the highest number of indirect initiatives submitted to the legislature—eight in total—with four approved (50.0%).

• In Maine, Massachusetts, and Ohio, indirect initiated state statutes qualified for the ballot, but the state legislatures did not approve them; therefore, the measures appeared on the ballot.

• In Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, no indirect initiated state statutes qualified for the ballot during this period.

• Legislatures approved the most indirect initiated state statutes in 2018. That year, the Michigan Legislature approved three measures, and the Alaska Legislature approved one.

This page includes:

• an overview of the number of indirect initiatives certified and approved in each state;
• a list of indirect initiated state statutes approved by state legislatures between 2018 and 2025;
• analysis of the political party support for the indirect initiated state statutes; and
• descriptions of each indirect initiated state statute that legislatures approved.

Number of indirect initiated state statutes

The table below lists the nine states that permit indirect initiated state statutes. The table shows the number of measures submitted to each state legislature, along with the number and percentage that legislatures approved.

Indirect initiated state statutes approved by legislatures

State	Certified to Legislature	Approved by Legislature	Percentage Approved
Alaska	6	2	33.3%
Maine	6	0	0.0%
Massachusetts	7	0	0.0%
Michigan	5	4	80.0%
Nevada	0	0	0.0%
Ohio	1	0	0.0%
Utah	0	0	0.0%
Washington	8	4	50.0%
Wyoming	0	0	0.0%
Total	33	10	30.3%

List of indirect initiated state statutes

Between 2018 and 2025, three state legislatures approved 10 indirect initiatives. The following table provides a list of these measures:

Indirect initiatives approved by state legislatures

State	Year	Measure	Subject	Description
Washington	2024	Initiative 2081, Parental Right to Review Education Materials, Receive Notifications, and Opt Out of Sexual-Health Education Initiative	Public education governance	Provide parents with a right to review educational materials, receive certain notifications, and opt out of sexual health education
Washington	2024	Initiative 2111, Prohibit Income Taxes Initiative	Income taxes	Prohibit taxes based on personal income
Washington	2024	Initiative 2113, Remove Certain Restrictions on Police Vehicular Pursuits Initiative	Law enforcement officers and departments	Remove certain restrictions on police officers' vehicular pursuits
Alaska	2022	State Recognition of American Indian Tribes Initiative	American Indian issues	Provide for formal state recognition of federally recognized American Indian tribes in Alaska
Michigan	2022	Repeal of Emergency Powers of Governor Act Initiative	State executive powers and duties	Repeal the Emergency Powers of Governor Act
Washington	2019	Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure	Affirmative action	Allow affirmative action without the use of quotas by the State of Washington
Alaska	2018	Legislator Conflicts of Interest and Per Diem Limits Initiative	Campaign finance and Ethics rules and commissions	Create provisions related to legislators conflict of interest, campaign finance, and per diem compensation
Michigan	2018	Minimum Wage Increase Initiative	Minimum wage laws	Increase the state's minimum wage between 60 and 75 cents each year until reaching $12.00 in 2022
Michigan	2018	Paid Sick Leave Initiative	Paid sick leave laws	Require employers to provide employees with paid sick time
Michigan	2018	Repeal Prevailing Wages and Fringe Benefits on State Projects Initiative	Public works labor and contracting	Repeal the law requiring that workers be paid prevailing wages and fringe benefits on state projects

Party support for approved indirect initiatives

Of the 10 indirect initiated state statutes that state legislatures approved between 2018 and 2025:

• Two (20%) were classified as Republican.
• Four (40%) were classified as Lean Republican.
• One (10%) was classified as Democratic.
• Three (30%) were classified as Bipartisan.

For more information about how partisanship is calculated, click here.

The table below shows the level of partisan support in state legislatures for each indirect initiated state statute approved between 2018 and 2025. The Election Year column is the year the measure would have appeared on the ballot. PDI Score and PDI Class refer to partisan support in the legislative vote on each initiative. Legislative Control refers to which party controlled the state legislature at the time of the vote.

Party support for approved indirect initiatives

Measure	Election Year	Dem. Yes (%)	Rep. Yes (%)	PDI Score	PDI Class	Legislative Control
Washington Initiative 2081, Parental Right to Review Education Materials, Receive Notifications, and Opt Out of Sexual-Health Education Initiative	2024	82.8%	100.0%	17.2%	Bipartisan	Democratic
Washington Initiative 2111, Prohibit Income Taxes Initiative	2024	63.2%	100.0%	36.8%	Lean Republican	Democratic
Washington Initiative 2113, Remove Certain Restrictions on Police Vehicular Pursuits Initiative	2024	62.1%	100.0%	37.9%	Lean Republican	Democratic
Alaska State Recognition of American Indian Tribes Initiative	2022	100.0%	93.3%	-6.7%	Bipartisan	Divided
Michigan Repeal of Emergency Powers of Governor Act Initiative	2022	6.0%	100.0%	94.0%	Republican	Republican
Washington Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure	2019	96.5%	0.0%	-96.5%	Democratic	Democratic
Alaska Legislator Conflicts of Interest and Per Diem Limits Initiative	2018	81.8%	91.2%	9.4%	Bipartisan	Divided
Michigan Minimum Wage Increase Initiative	2018	39.6%	90.0%	50.4%	Lean Republican	Republican
Michigan Paid Sick Leave Initiative	2018	39.6%	90.0%	50.4%	Lean Republican	Republican
Michigan Repeal Prevailing Wages and Fringe Benefits on State Projects Initiative	2018	0.0%	87.8%	87.8%	Republican	Republican

Descriptions of approved initiatives

Click a year tab below to view details about each indirect initiated state statute approved by state legislatures since 2018.

2024

2022

2019

2018

2024

Washington Initiative 2081, Parental Right to Review Education Materials, Receive Notifications, and Opt Out of Sexual-Health Education Initiative

See also: Washington Initiative 2081, Parental Right to Review Education Materials, Receive Notifications, and Opt Out of Sexual-Health Education Initiative (2024)

Initiative 2081 provided parents with the right to review their child's educational materials, opt out of sexual health education, and be notified of medical treatment, law enforcement interaction with their child, and other actions involving their child. Click here to see the full list of rights the initiative provided parents.

The state legislature approved the initiative on March 4, 2024.

Let's Go Washington sponsored the initiative. Brian Heywood, the organization's founder, said, "This initiative comes from the belief that we must do something to stop the erosion of the idea that parents are responsible for their kids...most people agree it is a basic right for parents to just be notified about what is going on with your child and what they are teaching them in public schools."

Northwest Progressive Institute opposed the initiative. They stated, "Some provisions in the initiative could have the potential to nix Human Rights Commission guidelines about student privacy — particularly in sensitive scenarios, which is reason alone in our view to reject this initiative. Suppose, for an example, that a student receives medical care that they do not want their parents to know about. Public schools should not be obligated by law to be inserted into the middle of disputes between young people and their parents about medical care."

The table below depicts how legislators voted on Initiative 2081.

Washington Initiative 2081 Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	49	0	0	82	15	1
Democratic (D)	29	0	0	43	15	0
Republican (R)	20	0	0	39	0	1

Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed House Bill 1296 (HB 1296) into law on May 20, 2025. HB 1296 eliminated the rights of parents to receive prior notification when medical services are offered to their child except for emergency medical treatment, when medical services of medications are given that could result in a financial impact to the parent or guardian, or when the school has arranged for medical treatment resulting in follow-up care after school hours.

As of July 2025, Brian Heywood of Let's Go Washington has filed multiple indirect initiatives that would reinstate Initiative 2081 as it was originally passed by the legislature.

Washington Initiative 2111, Prohibit Income Taxes Initiative

See also: Washington Initiative 2111, Prohibit Income Taxes Initiative (2024)

The ballot initiative prohibited both the state and local governments from enacting a personal income tax. The state of Washington did not levy a personal or corporate income tax before the initiative was passed. The state legislature approved the initiative on March 4, 2024.

State Rep. Ed Orcutt (R-20) supported the initiative. He stated, "The citizens of this state have continually said no to an income tax, and I think this is another way that they're making sure that the Legislature knows that they're opposed to an income tax.” Additionally, Steve Gordon, of Concerned Taxpayers of Washington, said, "Again and again, the response from Olympia has been, ‘If we just had more tax dollars this time, we can fix it,’ ... Taxpayers are waking up. This lack of trust is why this initiative is necessary."

Marcy Bowers, executive director of the Statewide Poverty Action Network, opposed the initiative. He said, "What we need is public investments to lift people up and to fund our basic safety net infrastructure. What we don’t need is to spend time debating proposals like this that are so vaguely worded that they don’t actually do anything."

The table below depicts how legislators voted on Initiative 2111.

Washington Initiative 2111 Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	38	11	0	76	21	1
Democratic (D)	18	11	0	37	21	0
Republican (R)	20	0	0	39	0	1

Washington Initiative 2113, Remove Certain Restrictions on Police Vehicular Pursuits Initiative

See also: Washington Initiative 2113, Remove Certain Restrictions on Police Vehicular Pursuits Initiative (2024)

This initiative removed certain restrictions on police officers' vehicular pursuits. Prior to the initiative, law enforcement officers could engage in a vehicle pursuit if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that a person in the vehicle is committing or has committed a violent offense, a sex offense, a vehicular assault offense, a domestic violence offense, an escape, or driving under the influence. After the initiative, law enforcement officers could engage in a vehicle pursuit if there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has violated the law.

The state legislature approved the initiative on March 4, 2024.

Let's Go Washington sponsored the initiative. Brian Heywood, the organization's founder, stated, "During the 2023 legislative session lawmakers removed a couple of the restrictions, but most remain in place and criminals are still able to flee police, even if the officer sees them committing a crime. We have handcuffed our police officers so much they can’t do their job...I-2113 would return the ability for police to pursue criminals if they have the “reasonable suspicion” that a crime had been committed and that public safety is at risk."

The Washington Coalition for Police Accountability opposed the initiative. They said, "Pursuits are appropriate in some circumstances, such as when they can effectively address or prevent violent crime. However, pursuits are not the right tactic for offenses such as shoplifting, broken tail lights, and theft. Why? Because high-speed vehicular pursuits put everyone – officers, uninvolved bystanders, drivers, and passengers – at risk of serious injury and death."

The table below depicts how legislators voted on Initiative 2113.

Washington Initiative 2113 Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	36	13	0	77	20	1
Democratic (D)	16	13	0	38	20	0
Republican (R)	20	0	0	39	0	1

2022

Alaska State Recognition of American Indian Tribes Initiative

See also: Alaska State Recognition of American Indian Tribes Initiative (2022)

The initiative provided for formal state recognition of federally recognized American Indian tribes in Alaska, by adding a section of law stating, "The state recognizes the special and unique relationship that the United States government has with federally recognized tribes and specifically recognizes the relationship between the United States government and federally recognized tribes in the state."

In Alaska, the state legislature can pass a bill, and if it is deemed similar enough to the initiative, they can dismiss the initiative. On May 17, 2021, the Alaska State Legislature approved House Bill 123 (HB 123). Alaskans for Better Government, the support campaign behind the initiative, described as "functionally identical and... written to serve the same purpose" as the ballot initiative.

Richard Chalyee Éesh Peterson, President of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, supported the measure. He said, "As we try to build communities, build a better Alaska, it’s about relationships. And so the fact that the state of Alaska doesn’t recognize us currently is kind of a barrier in the building blocks, right? So that’s what it really comes down to." No committees or organizations registered in opposition to the initiative.

The table below depicts how legislators voted on the initiative.

Alaska State Recognition of American Indian Tribes Initiative Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	15	0	5	37	2	1
Democratic (D)	5	0	2	15	0	0
Republican (R)	10	0	3	18	2	1
Independent (I)	0	0	0	4	0	0

Michigan Repeal of Emergency Powers of Governor Act Initiative

See also: Michigan Repeal of Emergency Powers of Governor Act Initiative (2022)

The initiative repealed the Emergency Powers of Governor Act, also known as Public Act 302 (PA 302) of 1945. PA 302 empowered the governor to proclaim a state of emergency and "promulgate reasonable orders, rules, and regulations as he or she considers necessary to protect life and property or to bring the emergency situation within the affected area under control." The state legislature approved the initiative on July 21, 2021.

The initiative was introduced in July 2020. For information about measures introduced in response to the coronavirus pandemic, click here.

Unlock Michigan led the campaign in support of the initiative. Fred Wszolek, a spokesperson for Unlock Michigan, stated, "We believe no governor should ever have the unilateral power to lock down the state, govern by decree, and micromanage every aspect of life and culture."

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) opposed the initiative. He stated, "Any attempt to strip away the powers of the governor during this crisis is irresponsible, dangerous and foolish. If we hadn't taken the actions that we had, thousands more would have died in this state."

The table below depicts how legislators voted on the initiative.

Michigan Repeal of Emergency Powers of Governor Act Initiative Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	20	15	1	60	48	2
Democratic (D)	0	15	1	4	48	0
Republican (R)	20	0	0	56	0	2

The day the initiative was approved by the legislature, Mark Fisk, a spokesperson for Keep Michigan Safe, a committee that opposed the measure, made a statement. He said, "From Day One, Unlock Michigan has been a brazen political power grab designed to hamper the abilities of those in government to act quickly and decisively during public health emergencies...Today, House Republicans voted to eradicate an important tool for elected leaders trying to save lives and stop the spread of deadly, infectious diseases like COVID-19, Legionnaire’s, tuberculosis and anthrax."

State Rep. Matt Hall (R-63) approved of the measure. He stated, "Repealing this emergency law tells the people of Michigan that they have been heard. And our action today helps reestablish needed balance between the executive and legislative branches during an emergency, something that has been so desperately missing during this pandemic."

2019

Washington Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure

See also: Washington Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure (2019)

Initiative 1000 allowed affirmative action without the use of quotas by the state of Washington. The initiative also banned preferential treatment, meaning those characteristics could not be the sole factor when considering a person for education or employment opportunities. The initiative created the Governor's Commission on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, responsible for ensuring compliance with the measure. The state legislature approved Initiative-1000 on April 28, 2019.

Washington Fairness, an organization supporting the initiative, stated the following would occur if the initiative were approved. "More economic opportunities would be afforded to veterans, small business owners, women, and people of color through public employment and contracting. We can take tangible, collective action to level the playing field for working families with the most urgent unmet needs, and we should strive to make Washington a place where someone’s race, ethnicity, gender, or other status isn’t a generational determinant of their ability to thrive or share equitably in the prosperity afforded to our region."

Washington Asians for Equality opposed the initiative. They said, "I-1000’s ballot title also claims that it doesn’t allow 'preferential treatment', but only because the measure changes the definition of preferential treatment. In short, it exists only when one applicant is chosen over another 'solely' because of race. That means discrimination can take place if race is used in addition to one other quality. This is the very definition of discrimination."

The table below depicts how legislators voted on Initiative 1000.

Washington Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	26	22	1	56	42	0
Democratic (D)	26	2	1	56	1	0
Republican (R)	0	20	0	0	41	0

Kan Qiu, president of the American Coalition for Equality, submitted a veto referendum petition to repeal Initiative-1000 on April 29, 2019. Proponents of the referendum petition effort submitted 213,268 signatures by the July 27 deadline. The secretary of state certified the measure for the ballot on August 7, 2019. It was referred to the ballot as Washington Referendum 88.

On November 5, 2019, Washington voters decided Referendum 88. Voters defeated the measure with 50.6% voting against the measure. As such, Initiative 1000 was repealed.

2018

Alaska Legislator Conflicts of Interest and Per Diem Limits Initiative

See also: Alaska Legislator Conflicts of Interest and Per Diem Limits Initiative (2018)

The initiative was designed to create provisions related to:

1. preventing legislator conflicts of interest;
2. making per diems for legislators contingent on passing a budget bill;
3. prohibiting lobbyists from buying meals and drinks for legislators;
4. justifying public expenses for travel to another country; and
5. restricting campaign spending and contributions of foreign-influenced corporations.

In Alaska, the state legislature can pass a bill and if it is deemed similar enough to the initiative, they can dismiss the initiative. The Alaska State Legislature passed House Bill 44 (HB 44) on May 11, 2018. On June 1, the lieutenant governor announced that the bill was similar enough to the proposed initiative and precluded an election on the initiative. Click here to read more about the differences between the proposed initiative and HB 44.

State Rep. Jason Grenn (I-22), one of the initiative's sponsors, said, "If we’re asking them to trust us, we need to be working to build that trust at all times. Really focusing on, this isn’t about me, this isn’t about how it benefits me, it’s about how I’m working on what’s best for Alaskans." State Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (D-35), discussing the initiative's changes to per diem allowances, stated, "I think it is absolutely unacceptable how the legislature has gone to basically the 59th minute of the 11th hour when it comes to legislative business, to the point of nearly bringing the state to the brink of a government shutdown. I think this initiative will help curb that." No committees registered to oppose the initiative or HB 44.

The table below depicts how legislators voted on the initiative.

Alaska Legislator Conflicts of Interest and Per Diem Limits Initiative Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	13	6	1	39	1	0
Democratic (D)	2	4	0	16	0	0
Republican (R)	11	2	1	20	1	0
Independent (I)	0	0	0	3	0	0

Michigan Minimum Wage Increase Initiative

See also: Michigan Minimum Wage Increase Initiative (2018)

The initiative increased the state minimum wage from $9.25 in 2018 to $10.00 in 2019; $10.65 in 2020; $11.35 in 2021; and $12.00 in 2022. Starting in 2023, the minimum wage was to be adjusted for increases in the consumer price index each year unless the unemployment rate is 8.5 percent or higher for the previous year.

The initiative also gradually increased the minimum wage each year for tipped employees, eventually equaling the minimum wage of all other employees in 2024. The initiative required overtime compensation of 150% for employees working in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. One exception allowed employers to pay 85% of the state minimum wage if their employees were under the age of 18.

The state legislature approved the initiative on September 5, 2018.

One Fair Wage Michigan led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Alicia Renee Farris, the campaign's chairperson, stated, "This campaign is about creating a pathway to economic freedom for everyone and doing away with the separate wage tiers we have in this state." Actresses Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin also voiced their support for the initiative.

Justin Winslow, president and CEO of the Michigan Restaurant Association, said the initiative was "irresponsible and dangerously out of touch... It is even more reckless to force Michigan into the distinct minority of states that have eliminated the tipped minimum wage, which will irrefutably harm Michigan's second-largest private employer and only serve to diminish opportunities for those that need them most."

The table below depicts how legislators voted on the initiative.

Michigan Minimum Wage Increase Initiative Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	24	13	0	78	28	3
Democratic (D)	0	10	0	21	22	3
Republican (R)	24	3	0	57	6	0

On December 13, 2018, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed Senate Bill 1171 (SB 1171), which amended the initiative. The bill increased the minimum wage to $12.05 by 2030 and reinstated a tip credit wage equal to 38% of the minimum wage.

State Rep. Laura Cox (R-19), who voted to pass the bill, said small businesses "will be forced out of business under the [indirect initiative] as written. That means people will land in the unemployment line." House Minority Leader Jim Ananich (D) opposed SB 1171. He said Republicans "had these bills in the works all summer long, and they didn’t have the courage to show the voters what they were planning on doing. There’s no need to rush unless you have a plan in place that is not necessarily in the best interest of the citizens of Michigan."

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

Michigan Paid Sick Leave Initiative

See also: Michigan Paid Sick Leave Initiative (2018)

The initiative required employers to provide employees with paid sick time. Under the initiative, employees of small businesses, defined as employers with fewer than 10 employees, were allowed to accrue and use 40 hours of paid sick time per year. Employees of businesses with 10 or more employees were allowed to accrue and use 72 hours of paid sick time per year. The state legislature approved the initiative on September 5, 2018.

MI Time to Care was the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. A statement on their website said, "Taking time off of work to ensure that we and our families are healthy should not require putting our jobs in jeopardy. But nearly 2 million Michiganders don’t have the right to earn paid time off and risk getting fired or losing income to pay their bills every time they need to see a doctor or stay home with a sick child. Paid sick time isn’t only good for workers and families; it’s good for the economy, and it boosts employment and income stability." MI Time to Care raised $1.8 million in support of the campaign.

Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich (D-27) opposed approving the law in the legislature, not because he opposed the law itself, but because he stated the Republican majority legislature would alter the law immediately after it was passed. He said, "There’s no question they plan on making dramatic changes, if not repealing it altogether. We have no idea what that’s going to be." All 10 democratic senators voted against the initiative.

The table below depicts how legislators voted on the initiative.

Michigan Paid Sick Leave Initiative Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	24	13	0	78	28	3
Democratic (D)	0	10	0	21	22	3
Republican (R)	24	3	0	57	6	0

On December 13, 2018, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed Senate Bill 1175 (SB 1175) into law. SB 1175 amended the indirect initiative so that businesses with 50 or more employees were required to provide paid sick leave while employers with fewer than 50 employees were not required to provide paid sick leave. SB 1175 also capped the requirement to provide paid sick leave at 40 hours per year instead of 72 hours per year.

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

Michigan Repeal Prevailing Wages and Fringe Benefits on State Projects Initiative

See also: Michigan Repeal Prevailing Wages and Fringe Benefits on State Projects Initiative (2018)

The initiative repealed Michigan state law 1965 PA 166. The law required that workers be paid prevailing wages and fringe benefits on state projects if the state pays for the project in part or in whole. As the initiative removed this requirement, contractors that provided wages and benefits below the prevailing wage and benefit levels were made eligible to bid on state projects. The state legislature approved the initiative on June 6, 2018.

According to AP News, the initiative was an attempt to circumvent the veto authority of the governor, as Gov. Rick Snyder (R) had publicly opposed repealing the law. In Michigan, governors cannot veto an indirect initiative if it is approved by either the legislature or the public. Additionally, the legislature had previously attempted to repeal the law. In 2015, the Michigan State Senate approved a bill which would have repealed the law. However, the Michigan House of Representatives did not approve the bill, and it was not enacted.

Arlan Meekhof (R-30), the Senate Majority Leader in Michigan, supported passing the legislation. He said, "It’s about providing relief for taxpayers, because when they buy a building, it makes no sense for them to pay extra just because of prevailing wage when other folks can build the same building to the same standard for less cost to the taxpayer."

According to AP News, union contractors and proponents of organized labor opposed the legislation because the 1965 PA 166 law ensured that workers were paid fairly and that quality work was done on public works projects. House Minority Leader Sam Singh (D-28) also opposed the legislation. He said, "It’s a big surprise to me that any Republican wants to be on public record that we should be gutting the wages of the skilled trades when we have a (worker) shortage at this point."

The table below depicts how legislators voted on the initiative.

Michigan Repeal Prevailing Wages and Fringe Benefits on State Projects Initiative Vote	Senate			House
	Yes	No	NV	Yes	No	NV
Total	23	14	0	56	53	0
Democratic (D)	0	10	0	0	46	0
Republican (R)	23	4	0	56	7	0

Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed into law House Bill 4007 (HB 4007) on March 24, 2023, which reinstated the prevailing wage law and repealed the initiative. Gov. Whitmer said, "Today, we are coming together to restore workers’ rights, protect Michiganders on the job, and grow Michigan's middle class. Michigan workers are the most talented and hard-working in the world and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect."

Michigan House Republican Leader Matt Hall (R) opposed HB 4007. After it was signed, he stated, "Gov. Whitmer and Democrats have hurt Michigan’s ability to compete to attract high-paying careers. Without right-to-work, businesses will find more competitive states for their manufacturing plants and research and development facilities, and workers and careers will drift away."

Indirect initiated state statute process in each state

See also: Indirect initiated state statute

List of states

The following table provides a list of what states provide for indirect initiated state statutes, as well as information on the signature requirements and legislative processes.

States that provide for indirect initiated state statutes

State	Adopted	Constitutional Provision	Signature Requirement	Legislative Process	Governor Veto
Alaska	1956	Article XI, Section 1 of Alaska Constitution	10% of votes cast in the last general election	• Legislature is not required to consider the initiative, and the initiative goes on the ballot after the legislative session adjourns	Cannot veto a legislatively approved indirect initiative.
Maine	1908	Article IV, Section 18 of Maine Constitution	10% of votes for governor at the last general election	• A simple majority vote is required for the Legislature to approve the initiative. • The Legislature can propose an alternative, competing measure.	Can veto a legislatively approved indirect initiative.
Massachusetts	1918	Article LXXIV of Massachusetts Constitution	3.5% of the votes cast for governor in the last election	• A simple majority vote is required for the Legislature to approve the initiative. • The Legislature can propose an alternative, competing measure.	Can veto a legislatively approved indirect initiative.
Michigan	1908	Article II, Section 9 of Michigan Constitution	8% of the votes cast for governor in the last election	• A simple majority vote is required for the Legislature to approve the initiative. • The Legislature can propose an alternative, competing measure.	Cannot veto a legislatively approved indirect initiative.
Nevada	1905	Article 19, Section 2 of Nevada Constitution	10% of the votes cast in the preceding general election	• A simple majority vote is required for the Legislature to approve the initiative. • The Legislature can propose an alternative, competing measure.	Can veto a legislatively approved indirect initiative.
Ohio	1912	Article II, Section 1b of Ohio Constitution	3% of the total number of active voters for the legislature and an additional 3% for the ballot	• A simple majority vote is required for the Legislature to approve the initiative.	Can veto a legislatively approved indirect initiative.
Utah	1900	Article VI, Section 1 of Utah Constitution	4% of the total number of active voters for the legislature and an additional 4% for the ballot	• A simple majority vote is required for the Legislature to approve the initiative.	Can veto a legislatively approved indirect initiative.
Washington	1912	Article II, Section 1 of Washington Constitution	8% of the votes cast for governor in the last election	• A simple majority vote is required for the Legislature to approve the initiative. • The Legislature can propose an alternative, competing measure.	Cannot veto a legislatively approved indirect initiative.
Wyoming	1968	Article 3 of Wyoming Constitution	15% of the total ballots cast in the previous general election	• Legislature is not required to consider the initiative, and the initiative goes on the ballot after the legislative session adjourns. • The attorney general may determine a legislative act is the same as the initiative and remove the initiative from the ballot.	Cannot veto a legislatively approved indirect initiative.

See also

• Indirect initiated state statute
• Types of ballot measures
• Ballot initiative

Footnotes

Laws governing ballot measures in the United States

Laws governing ballot measures

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Changes to laws governing ballot measures

Types of ballot measures

Citizen-initiated ballot measures • Legislatively referred ballot measures • Automatically referred ballot measures • Commission-referred ballot measures • Convention-referred constitutional amendments

Ballot measure policy terms

Glossary of ballot measure policy terms