Superseding initiative
From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Poison pill (ballot measures))
A superseding initiative is the initiative that prevails when two or more conflicting initiatives are approved at the same election. There are two common approaches to resolving the outcome when two conflicting initiatives are both approved. In some states, the measure with the most affirmative votes takes effect and the other measures do not. In other states, the measure with the most affirmative votes prevails only on points of conflict.
HIGHLIGHTS
Requirements by state
Seventeen (17) states have statutory or constitutional provisions addressing superseding initiatives, including:
- Eight states provide that the entire ballot initiative that received the most affirmative votes supersedes the competing initiative;
- Seven states provide that the initiative with the most affirmative votes supersedes the competing initiative on any points of conflict; and
- Two states—Maine and Washington provide that the ballot be organized so voters must choose between the two or neither.
Eight states do not provide any provisions addressing superseding initiatives.
The following map provides information on superseding initiative provisions:
States with superseding initiative provisions
The following table outlines the provisions governing superseding initiatives in states that address them:
| Comparison of state superseding initiatives provisions | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | Type | Details | Legal citation |
| Arizona | Points of conflict | The Arizona Constitution provides that in the event that two measures conflict, the measure with the most "yes" votes supersedes the other on any points of conflict. However, the other measure is not wholly superseded. | Arizona Constitution, Article XXI, Section 1, ¶ 12 |
| Arkansas | Entire initiative | The Arkansas Constitution provides that in the event that two measures conflict, the measure with the most "yes" votes will become law. | Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, Section 1 |
| California | Entire initiative | The California Constitution provides that if two or more measures conflict, the measure receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes supersedes the other. | California Constitution, Article II, Section 10 (b) and Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Commission |
| Colorado | Points of conflict | Colorado law provides that in the event that two conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other on any points of conflict. However, the other measure is not wholly superseded. | Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 1, Article 40, Section 123 |
| Idaho | Points of conflict | Idaho law provides that in the event that two conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other on any points of conflict. However, the other measure is not wholly superseded. | Idaho Statutes, Title 34, Chapter 18, Section 34-1811 |
| Maine | No superseding initiatives | The Maine Constitution provides that in the event that two measures conflict, the ballot will be organized so that voters may select one of the measures or reject both, eliminating the possibility of both being approved by a majority. If no measure is approved by a majority of the voters casting a vote on both measures, then the measure that receives the most votes will be placed on the next statewide ballot within 60 days, provided it received approval from at least one-third of all the votes cast for or against the measures. | Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 |
| Massachusetts | Points of conflict | The Massachusetts Constitution provides that in the event that two conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other on any points of conflict—the other measure is not wholly superseded. | Massachusetts Constitution, Article XLVIII, Parts III and VI |
| Michigan | Entire initiative | The Michigan Constitution provides that when two ballot measures approved at the same election are in conflict, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other | Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and Article XII, Section 2 |
| Missouri | Entire initiative | The Missouri Constitution and state law provides that in the event that two conflicting state statute measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other. | Missouri Constitution, Article III, Section 51 and Missouri Revised Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 116, Section 116.320 |
| Nebraska | Points of conflict | The Nebraska Constitution provides that in the event that two conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other on all points of conflict. The other measure is not wholly superseded. | Nebraska Constitution, Article III, Section 2 |
| Nevada | Entire initiative | The Nevada Constitution provides that in the event that two conflicting state statute measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other. | Nevada Constitution, Article 19, Section 2 (6-5) and Article 16, Section 1 (2-3) |
| North Dakota | Entire initiative | The North Dakota Constitution provides that in the event that two conflicting state statute measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other. | North Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 8 |
| Ohio | Entire initiative | The Ohio Constitution provides that in the event that two conflicting state statute measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other. | Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1b |
| Oklahoma | Points of conflict | Oklahoma law provides that in the event that two conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other on all points of conflict. The other measure is not wholly superseded. | Oklahoma Statutes, Title 34, Section 34-21 |
| South Dakota | Points of conflict | The South Dakota Constitution and state law provides that if two initiatives with conflicting provisions or contrary intent are approved, the one that receives more "yes" vote supersedes in all areas of conflict. | South Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 1, Article XXIII, Sections 1-3 and South Dakota Codified Laws, Title 2, Chapter 1 |
| Utah | Entire initiative | Utah law provides that in the event that two conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other. The governor of Utah is responsible for determining whether two measures conflict; the decision can be appealed to the courts. | Utah Code, Title 20A, Chapter 7, Section 211 |
| Washington | No superseding initiatives | In Washington, competing measures are arranged on the ballot so voters can express two separate preferences. First, voters choose between either measure or neither measure. Second, voters choose between one measure and the other. If a majority prefer neither, both measures fail. If a majority prefers either, then the second vote determines which measure will be approved. | Washington Constitution, Article II, Section 1 |
States without superseding initiative provisions
The following states authorize ballot initiatives but do not have provisions in state law addressing superseding initiatives:
Legislation
The following is a list of bills passed, beginning in 2019, related to superseding initiatives.
2019
- Utah House Bill 133: The legislation modified the effective dates for voter-approved ballot initiatives. HB 133 provided that the effective date is at 60 days following the last day of the legislative session immediately after the election in which the initiative is approved, except for certain tax-related initiatives. Under HB 133, a tax increase initiative goes into effect on January 1 of the year following the next general legislative session after the election. A tax decrease goes into effect five days after the governor issues the proclamation of election results for the initiative. HB 133 also allowed courts, in addition to the Utah Supreme Court, to consider challenges regarding conflicts between two measures.[1]
2018
- South Dakota Senate Bill 10: The legislation provided that when initiated measures or constitutional amendments passed at the same election conflict with one another, the measure receiving the highest number of votes becomes enacted.
Lawsuits
The following is a selection of case law and litigation about superseding initiatives.
Whether an initiative supersedes another in its entirety or at points of conflict
- Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Commission (1990): The California Supreme Court ruled that when two conflicting initiatives are passed the one receiving the most affirmative votes supercedes the other in its entirety. The court argued that combining initiatives piecemeal could lead to outcomes unintended by voters. The case concerned California Proposition 68 (1988) and California Proposition 73 (1988). Both initiatives were about regulating political campaign contributions. They both passed, but Proposition 73 received more votes than 68. [2]
See also
Footnotes
