State Ballot Measure Monthly: February 2020
| 2020 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2021 »
« 2019
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Deadlines | |
| Requirements | |
| Lawsuits | |
| Readability | |
| Voter guides | |
| Election results | |
| Year-end analysis | |
| Campaigns | |
| Polls | |
| Media editorials | |
| Filed initiatives | |
| Finances | |
| Contributions | |
| Signature costs | |
| Ballot Measure Monthly | |
| Signature requirements | |
Have you subscribed yet?
Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
| |
By Ballot Measures Project staff
This edition of the State Ballot Measure Monthly covers certifications and a selection of notable ballot measure news from January 15 through February 17. So far, 55 statewide measures in 24 states have been certified for 2020. Three statewide measures were certified for the ballot since the last edition of the State Ballot Measure Monthly.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of certifications in past years:
- 2018: By the second week of February, 42 measures had been certified for the 2018 ballot.
- Ultimately, 167 measures were on the ballot in 2018.
- 2016: By the second week of February, 55 measures had been certified for the 2016 ballot.
- Ultimately, 162 measures were on the ballot in 2016.
- 2014: By the second week of February, 64 measures had been certified for the 2014 ballot.
- Ultimately, 158 measures were on the ballot in 2014.
- 2012: By the second week of February, 63 measures had been certified for the 2012 ballot.
- Ultimately, 188 measures were on the ballot in 2012.
2020 certifications
From January 15 to February 16, three statewide measures were certified for the ballot:
January 31:
- Arkansas Issue 6, Practice of Optometry Referendum (2020) - This veto referendum asks voters whether to maintain or repeal House Bill 1251, which would allow optometrists with the certain licenses to perform specific surgical procedures. The bill would allow the following procedures:
- injections, excluding intravenous or intraocular injections;
- incision and curettage of a chalazion;
- removal and biopsy of skin lesions with low risk of malignancy, excluding lesions involving the lid margin or nasal to the puncta;
- laser capsulotomy; and
- laser trabeculoplasty.
- Arkansans for Healthy Eyes is leading the campaign in support of a yes vote on the measure. Arkansans for Healthy Eyes supports Act 579 to allow optometrists to perform some eye surgeries. The group said, "Act 579 gives Arkansas patients better access to quality care by allowing optometrists to perform more of the procedures we are absolutely qualified to safely perform."
- Safe Surgery Arkansas sponsored the veto referendum and is leading the campaign in support of a no vote. The campaign opposes allowing optometrists to perform certain eye surgeries. Safe Surgery Arkansas said, "[Act 579] jeopardizes patient safety and lowers the quality of surgical eye care in the state of Arkansas. This new law would allow optometrists— who are not medical doctors or trained surgeons— to perform delicate surgery on the eye."
- Florida Amendment 4, Require Constitutional Amendments to be Passed Twice Initiative (2020) - This citizen initiative would require voters to approve constitutional amendments twice before they took effect. It would apply to citizen-initiated amendments, legislatively referred amendments, and amendments referred by one of Florida's commissions or a constitutional convention. Florida's existing 60% supermajority requirement for constitutional amendments would apply to both elections.
- Eighteen states, including Florida, allow constitutional amendments via citizen initiative. Additionally, in every U.S. state except Delaware, constitutional amendments passed by the state's legislature must be referred to and approved by voters to become effective. Typically, if voters approve a constitutional amendment at one election, it becomes a part of the state's constitution.
- Nevada is the only state where initiated constitutional amendments must be approved at two consecutive elections. This does not apply to legislatively referred constitutional amendments, which must be approved twice by the legislature (with a majority vote) and once by the state’s voters.
- A similar amendment is on the 2020 ballot for voters in North Dakota. It would require initiated constitutional amendments passed by voters to be submitted to the legislature for approval and, in the case of rejection, require the measure to be placed on the ballot again at the next statewide election to become effective if approved by the voters a second time.
February 3:
- California Proposition 21, Local Rent Control Initiative (2020) - This citizen initiative would replace the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), which was passed in 1995. Before the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided landlords received just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. Costa-Hawkins continued to allow local governments to use rent control, except on (a) housing that was first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units with distinct titles, such as condos, townhouses, and single-family homes. The ballot measure would allow local governments to adopt rent control on housing units, except on (a) housing that was first occupied within the last 15 years and (b) units owned by natural persons who own no more than two housing units with separate titles, such as single-family homes, condos, and some duplexes, or subdivided interests, such as stock cooperatives and community apartment projects.
- In 2018, 59 percent of voters rejected Proposition 10, which would have allowed local governments to adopt rent control on any type of rental housing. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) co-sponsored Proposition 10, and an AHF division called Housing Is A Human Right is sponsoring the campaign behind the 2020 ballot initiative.
Petitioners of opposing forest initiatives in Oregon sign agreement
- See also: Oregon 2020 ballot measures
On February 10, petitioners of opposing ballot initiatives designed to change forest regulations in Oregon announced that they had signed an agreement to work together through the legislature rather than the initiative process.
Twenty-six groups signed the cooperative memorandum. One side of the debate included groups like Oregon Wild, the Audubon Society of Portland, and the Oregon League of Conservation Voters. The other side included timber companies like Stimson Lumber, Roseburg Forest Products, and Weyerhaeuser. Both groups had filed citizen initiatives targeting the 2020 ballot.
Oregon Governor Kate Brown’s office facilitated the meetings over the past month between the two sides. The agreement focuses on passing changes to the Oregon Forest Practices Act of 1971 with the goal of enacting new legislation by the February 2022 legislative session.
The agreement sets up an 18-month process to establish a federally approved habitat conservation plan, which would take into account the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts and the interests of the timber industry. Additionally, the two sides agreed to support a bill that would limit aerial pesticide treatments and allow regulations that would restrict logging near streams in southern Oregon’s Siskiyou region.
At the press conference announcing the agreement, Bob Van Dyk, Oregon and California policy director for the Wild Salmon Center, said, “Today we're starting a new approach ... It's a path of collaboration toward stronger conservation measures and more certainty for the timber industry.”
Conservation proponents were behind an initiative to regulate the use of aerial pesticide treatments and logging near forest water bodies.
Proponents of an initiative designed to establish a review process to determine if forest regulation complies with current science, an initiative concerning oversight of the Oregon Board of Forestry, and an initiative requiring compensation to property owners for property value lost through state regulation (Initiatives #53-56) filed the petitions on November 5, 2019.
Utah Legislature votes to repeal tax bill as referendum effort qualifies for the ballot
On January 28, 2020, the Utah State Legislature repealed Utah Senate Bill 2001 on the same day a veto referendum petition effort targeting the bill qualified for the ballot. The measure will not appear on the ballot due to the legislative repeal.
SB 2001, titled Tax Restructuring Revisions, would have made changes to the state tax code including a decrease to the individual and corporate income tax rates and an increase to the sales tax on food. The Legislature approved the bill in a special session and it was signed into law Dec. 18. The state House and state Senate voted 43-27 and 19-7, respectively, in favor of the bill.
Sponsors of the referendum effort submitted 152,000 signatures on January 21 seeking to suspend the law and put it up for a vote. As of January 28, county clerks had verified 117,154 signatures. Petitioners needed 115,869 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. On January 28, the legislature passed a bill to repeal SB 2001. The repeal legislation passed unanimously in the Senate and with one dissenter in the House. County clerks were told they could stop verifying signatures since the bill had been repealed. Sponsors of the veto referendum petition included former state Representative Fred Cox (R), Darcy Van Orden of Utah Justice Coalition, Gina Cornia of Utahns Against Hunger, Jeffrey C. White, and Judy Rohner. The Utah Parent Teacher Association also supported the veto referendum effort.
Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) and legislative leaders said, “Once the repeal is signed into law, the legislature will begin work under the reinstated tax code to prepare the fiscal year 2021 state budget. Repealing SB 2001 will enable the legislature to draft the budget without the uncertainty of a referendum potentially changing the tax code midway through the budget year.”[4]
A veto referendum is a type of citizen-initiated ballot measure that asks voters whether to uphold or repeal a law passed by the state legislature. Twenty-three states allow statewide veto referendums. There have been 522 statewide veto referendums since the first such measure in 1906. There have been four statewide veto referendums on the ballot in Utah, with the most recent in 2007. Utah voters repealed all four bills put on the ballot through veto referendums.
See also
- 2020 ballot measures
- List of ballot measures by state
- List of ballot measures by year
- Ballot Measure Scorecard, 2020
- Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2020
Related articles
Footnotes
- ↑ The numbers in the second column indicate how many ballot measures were certified for the ballot in the last month; for example a "+3" means that three measures were certified in the last month.
- ↑ This number includes citizen-initiated measures, legislative referrals, and an automatically referred measure.
- ↑ This was current as of February 1, 2020.
- ↑ Fox 13 Now, "Utah legislature will repeal tax bill in the face of referendum," accessed January 23, 2020
| |||||
