Residency requirements for ballot initiative signature gatherers
From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Residency requirements)
A residency requirement is a law that requires signature gatherers for a ballot initiative petition to be residents of the jurisdiction, such as the state, where the initiative would change the law.
Of the 26 states that provide for statewide citizen-initiated ballot measures, five states have residency requirements for signature gatherers.
HIGHLIGHTS
States with residency requirements
As of July 2026, five of the 26 states with statewide initiative or veto referendum processes had residency requirements for petition circulators. These states were Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma. The map below illustrates which states have residency requirements for ballot initiative and veto referendum petition circulators:
States with residency requirements
The following table outlines the laws providing for petition circulator residency requirements in the states with such requirements:
| State | Year Adopted | Law |
|---|---|---|
| Arkansas | 2021 | Arkansas Code § 7-9-103(a)(6) |
| Florida | 2025 | Florida Statutes Title IX, § 100.371 |
| Idaho | Idaho Statutes § 34-1807 | |
| North Dakota | 1978 | North Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 3 |
| Ohio | Ohio Revised Code § 3503.06(C)(1)(a) | |
| Oklahoma | 2025 | Oklahoma Statutes § 34-6 |
Legislation
The following is a list of bills passed, beginning in 2016, related to residency requirements for ballot initiative signature gatherers.
2025
- Florida House Bill 1205: The legislation prohibited a person from collecting signatures for initiative petitions if they have been convicted of a felony and have not had their voting rights restored, are not a U.S. citizen, or are not a resident of the state.
- Oklahoma Senate Bill 1027: The legislation required a person who circulates initiative petitions to be a registered voter of the state, among other changes.
2024
- Utah Senate Bill 107: The legislation repealed the requirement that signature gatherers be residents of the state.
2023
- Maine Legislative Document 1477 (Question 7): The constitutional amendment required voter approval on November 7, 2023. LD 1477 was designed to repeal language requiring that petition circulators be residents of Maine.[1] This amendment was designed to align the Maine Constitution with a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the We the People PAC et al. v. Bellows decision, which affirmed a decision by a U.S. District Court that requiring a circulator for an initiative petition in Maine to be a Maine resident is a violation of the First Amendment.[2]
2021
- Arkansas Senate Bill 614: The legislation enacted several changes to signature gathering requirements. SB 614 banned paying circulators based on the number of signatures gathered and required circulators to be state residents and citizens. The legislation also expanded the criteria for disqualifying individuals from serving as signature gatherers to include certain criminal offenses, such as sexual offenses, trespassing, vandalism, and theft.[3]
2020
- South Dakota Senate Bill 180: The legislation required paid circulators to provide their residential address, phone number, driver's license state, voter registration information, sex offender status, and other information, and SB 180 classified this information as public record. Under SB 180, signatures were considered void when a signature gatherer did not meet the registration requirements. SB 180 also required signature gatherers — paid or volunteer — to be residents of South Dakota for at least 30 days.[4]
Lawsuits
The following is a selection of court rulings addressing residency requirements for petition circulators.
- Florida Decides Healthcare, Inc., et al. v. Cord Byrd, et al. (2025): On July 8, 2025, Judge Mark E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Florida ordered an injunction on provisions of House Bill 1205, which enacted a residency requirement for signature gatherers, among other changes. Judge Walker wrote, "This Court concludes that Florida’s provisions prohibiting any non-residents and non-citizens, paid or unpaid, from circulating petitions for citizen initiatives in Florida impose a severe burden on political expression that the State has failed to justify, and thus Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their claims that these provisions violate the First Amendment."[7] The state appealed the ruling.[8]
- Dakotans for Health v. Noem (2023): In January 2023, the U.S. District Court for South Dakota ruled that SB 180 was unconstitutional. The legislation, passed in 2020, required paid circulators to provide their residential address, phone number, driver's license state, voter registration information, sex offender status, and other information, and SB 180 classified this information as public record. Under SB 180, signatures were considered void when a signature gatherer did not meet the registration requirements. SB 180 also required signature gatherers — paid or volunteer — to be residents of South Dakota for at least 30 days.[9][10]
- Pierce et al. v. Jacobsen et al. (2022): On August 10, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Montana is allowed to ban paying circulators based on the number of signatures collected but cannot restrict circulators from out-of-state. Judge John Tunheim wrote, "[T]he residency requirement imposes an outright ban on a form of core political speech for all non-residents and necessarily diminishes the pool of (petition) circulators. We thus hold that the residency requirement here imposes a severe burden on the First Amendment rights of both out-of-state residents and instate proponents."[11] [12]
- We the People Pac v. Bellows (2022): On July 7, 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the state from enforcing a law requiring petition circulators to be registered voters, and, therefore, state residents. "[T]he burden on core political speech that the residency- and voter-registration requirements each imposes arises from the drastic limitation on the pool of out-of-state circulators that each inherently imposes," wrote the Court.[13]
- Yes on Term Limits v. Savage (2008): On December 18, 2008, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Oklahoma's residency restriction was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment free speech rights.[14][15]
- Bogaert v. Land (2008): In September 2008, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Michigan's residency requirements in recall petition drives.
- Nader v. Brewer (2008): On July 7, 2008, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Arizona's residency requirement. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal of the case.[16][17][18]
- Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente (2008): In 2008, the California Court of Appeals overturned a California requirement related to residency.[19]
- Frami v Ponto (2003): In 2003, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin overturned Wisconsin's requirement that petition circulators be residents of the state.[20]
- Chandler v. City of Arvada (2002): In 2002, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a residency requirement in Arvada, Colorado.[21]
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999): In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Colorado's laws requiring initiative signature gatherers to be registered voters and wear identification tags with their names and addresses.[22]
- Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger (1998): In 1998, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld North Dakota's residency requirement. The Eighth Circuit upheld the original ruling, saying that, "As the state has a compelling interest in preventing fraud and the regulation does not unduly restrict speech, we conclude that the residency requirement is constitutional."[23]
Arguments
The following is a list of claims and arguments about residency requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Support
Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made in support of residency requirements for ballot initiatives.
Claim: Residency requirements maintain the integrity of states' initiative processes
- South Dakota Sen. Jim Stalzer (R-11), who sponsored a bill to create residency requirements in South Dakota, said, "I hope the law stands to maintain the integrity of the initiated measure process, as there have been out-of-state collector violations of the law in the past."[24]
- Arkansas Sen. Breanne Davis (R-25) said, "We have a path that allows Arkansas citizens to get something on the ballot. That is supposed to be grassroots led, something that the citizens truly want but what we're finding is that people are coming in from out of state with out-of-state money and spending millions on advertising to promote something the citizens don't necessarily want. ... [Rather than banning out-of-state campaign donations], it seemed important to be specific with collecting signatures to actually change our state constitution. That's what I wanted to focus on."[25]
Oppose
Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made opposing residency requirements for ballot initiatives.
Claim: Residency requirements restrict access and participation in the initiative process
- Celina Stewart, League of Women Voters of the US chief counsel and senior director of advocacy and litigation, said, "We applaud this outcome because it protects the right of individuals and organizations to engage in political speech. State governments must be accountable to their people, and when they enact laws which limit or otherwise restrict access and participation to the franchise, it undermines the ability to achieve an inclusive and representative democracy."[26]
See also
- Changes in 2025 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
- Laws governing ballot measures
- Laws governing ballot initiative signature gatherers
- History of restrictions on paid circulators
Footnotes
- ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1477," accessed July 30, 2023
- ↑ Case Text, "We The People PAC v. Bellows," accessed August 9, 2023
- ↑ Arkansas State Legislature, "Senate Bill 614," accessed June 15, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 180," accessed June 20, 2023
- ↑ U.S. District Court of South Dakota, "Dakotans for Health v. Noem, January 10, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "SB 182," accessed March 19, 2024
- ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, "Florida Decides Healthcare, Inc., et al. v. Cord Byrd, et al.," July 8, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "July 8, 2025," accessed July 23, 2025
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 180," accessed June 20, 2023
- ↑ U.S. District Court of South Dakota, "Dakotans for Health v. Noem, January 10, 2023
- ↑ Helena Independent Record, "Appeals court allows out-of-state signature gathers in Montana," August 10, 2022
- ↑ Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Pierce et al. v. Jacobsen et al., August 10, 2022
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, "We the People PAC et al. v. Bellows," July 7, 2022
- ↑ Citizens In Charge, "Text of the 10th Circuit's decision in "Yes on Term Limits v. Savage"," accessed April 30, 2018
- ↑ Edmond Sun, "Court reverses initiative petition ruling, December 18, 2008
- ↑ "U.S. Supreme Court Wants Nader to Respond to Arizona," January 8, 2009
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "13 States Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Arizona’s Appeal in Nader Case," December 23, 2008
- ↑ Text of the amicus brief in Nader v. Brewer
- ↑ CaseText, "Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente," accessed September 20, 2023
- ↑ CaseText, "Frami v. Ponto," accessed September 20, 2023
- ↑ CaseText, "Chandler v. City of Arvada, Colorado," accessed September 20, 2023
- ↑ Oyez, "Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation Inc.," accessed September 20, 2023
- ↑ CaseLaw, "INITIATIVE REFERENDUM INSTITUTE US v. JAEGER (2001)," accessed September 20, 2023
- ↑ Dakota News Now, "League of Woman Voters files lawsuit over South Dakota petition circulation law," accessed September 20, 2023
- ↑ Arkansas Online, "Suit filed over petition-limiting law," accessed September 20, 2023
- ↑ League of Women Voters, "South Dakota Federal Court Strikes Down Residency Requirement for Ballot Initiatives," accessed September 20, 2023
