Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
State Ballot Measure Monthly: May 2019
| 2019 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2020 »
« 2018
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Scorecard | |
| 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.
| |
- Updated on May 16 at 3:45pm for Alabama certification
By Ballot Measures Project staff
This edition of the State Ballot Measure Monthly covers certifications and notable ballot measure news from April 16, 2019, through May 15, 2019.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of certifications in past years:
- 2017: By the second Tuesday in May, seven measures had been certified for the 2017 ballot.
- Ultimately, 27 statewide measures were on the ballot in 2017.
- 2015: By the second Tuesday in May, six measures had been certified for the 2015 ballot.
- Ultimately, 28 statewide measures were on the ballot in 2015.
- 2013: By the second Tuesday in May, three measures had been certified for the 2013 ballot.
- Ultimately, 31 statewide measures were on the ballot in 2013.
- 2011: By the second Tuesday in May, eight measures had been certified for the 2011 ballot.
- Ultimately, 34 statewide measures were on the ballot in 2011.
The graph below shows the number of certifications in each week of 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017, as well as the average for each week. The graph also shows 2019 certifications and will be updated each week until ballots are finalized for all states, and the last measure is certified for the ballot.
Even-numbered years:
- At this point in the election cycles from 2012 through 2018, an average of 25 measures were certified for the next even-year election cycle. From 2012 through 2018, an average of 169 measures were ultimately certified to appear on the general election ballot.
2019 certifications
From April 16, 2019, to May 15, 2019, the following measures were certified for the 2019 ballot:
April 17:
- Washington Senate Joint Resolution 8200, Government Continuation Legislation for Catastrophic Incidents Amendment (2019) - This amendment would authorize the Washington State Legislature to pass bills addressing the succession of powers and duties of public offices during periods of catastrophic incidents that are considered emergencies. The Washington State Legislature referred the amendment to the ballot. The amendment's primary sponsor, Democratic Senator Dean Takko, said he sponsored the amendment to ensure governmental continuity in the case of damage resulting from natural disasters— specifically, a potential earthquake and tsunami at the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). The CSZ is a 700-mile long fault, mostly offshore, stretching from Northern Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada, to Cape Mendocino in Northern California.
April 25:
- Texas Proposition 10, Transfer of Care of Law Enforcement Animals Amendment (2019) - This amendment would allow for the transfer of a law enforcement animal, such as a dog or horse, to the animal's handler or another qualified caretaker if the transfer is in the animal's best interest. Under the state's Local Government Code, a retiring police dog or working animal is classified as salvage or surplus property. According to the code, surplus or salvage property can be auctioned, donated to a civic or charitable organization, or destroyed. According to the Texas Senate Research Center, the existing Local Government Code makes transferring a retiring animal to its handler difficult. The Texas State Legislature referred the amendment to the 2019 ballot through a unanimous vote in each chamber.
April 28:
- Washington Initiative 976, Limits on Motor Vehicle Taxes and Fees Measure (2019) - This citizen initiative would do the following:
- limit annual license fees for most vehicles to $30 unless voters approve other charges;
- base vehicle taxes on the Kelley Blue Book value rather than the manufacturer's suggested retail price; and
- repeal authorization for certain regional transit authorities, such as Sound Transit, to impose motor vehicle excise taxes.
- Click here to read about current vehicle registration fees in Washington.
- Tim Eyman sponsored this initiative. Eyman reported submitting 352,111 signatures on January 3, 2019. On January 15, Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman declared that more than the required 259,622 signatures submitted were valid. As an Initiative to the Legislature, this meant that the measure was certified to the legislature, which could either approve it or allow it to go to the ballot. The Washington State Legislature adjourned on April 28, 2019, without acting on I-976, thereby certifying it for the ballot. Eyman has proposed, sponsored, or was otherwise involved with initiatives relating to transportation and taxes every year since at least 1999.
May 10:
- Texas Proposition 6, Cancer Prevention and Research Institute Bonds Amendment (2019) - This amendment would allow the legislature to increase the maximum amount of bonds issued for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) from $3 billion to $6 billion. The state would continue to be limited to issuing $300 million for CPRIT per year under the amendment. CPRIT was created in 2009 after voters approved Proposition 15 in 2007. Proposition 15 authorized the state to issue $3 billion in bonds. The bond issue revenue was earmarked for the institute's operations and grants for researching the causes, cures, mitigation, and prevention of cancer and related services. As of May 1, 2019, the institute had issued $2.26 billion in grants. According to the Texas House Research Organization, the state is projected to run out of bonds for CPRIT between 2020 and 2022. The state Senate voted unanimously to refer this amendment to the ballot. The state House voted 130-15 to refer the amendment. Fifteen Republicans voted against it in the House.
2020 certifications
From April 16, 2019, to May 15, 2019, the following measures were certified for the 2020 ballot:
April 18:
- Nebraska Amendment 2, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Repayment Amendment (2020) - This amendment would increase the repayment period for tax increment financing (TIF) from 15 to 20 years for areas where more than one-half of properties are designed as extremely blighted. TIF is designed to finance economic development in an area. In Nebraska, cities and villages have the power to declare an area as substandard, blighted, and in need of redevelopment and to create a TIF to revitalize the area. The local government can then issue bonds to finance improvements associated with redevelopment projects in the district. The Nebraska State Legislature referred this amendment to the ballot in a vote of 43-2.
May 15:
- Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (April 2020) - The measure would add a version of Marsy's Law, which is a bill of rights for crime victims, to the state's constitution. In Wisconsin, the state legislature is required to approve an amendment by majority vote in two successive sessions for the amendment to appear on the ballot. The legislature passed this amendment in 2017 and in May 2019, putting it on the April 2020 election ballot. In the 2019 vote, one Republican voted against the amendment, and 58 voted in favor of the amendment. Among Democrats, 10 voted against the amendment, and 24 voted for the amendment. Eleven states currently feature a Marsy's Law bill of rights. In addition, Montana voters approved a Marsy's Law measure, but it was overturned by a court ruling. Six states approved Marsy's Law measures in 2018.
- Alabama Judicial System Restructuring Amendment (2020) - This amendment would make changes to the state's judicial system concerning court systems and procedures. Some of the changes include the following: (a) increasing the membership of the Judicial Inquiry Commission; (b) repealing provisions that provide for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices and appellate judges and the removal of various state and local judges; and (c) giving the authority to appoint an administrative director of courts to the Supreme Court rather than the Chief Justice. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of referring the amendment to the 2020 ballot; the House voted 92-6 in favor of it.
Ballot measure certifications and election date changes pending governor's signature
- Two legislatively referred state statutes were approved by the Colorado State Legislature for the 2019 ballot but require the governor's signature for certification.
- One measure would allow the state to retain excess revenue it is currently required to refund under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) and would direct retained funds to be used for education and transportation purposes.
- The other would authorize sports betting in Colorado and authorize the legislature to levy a tax of 10 percent on the net proceeds of those conducting sports betting operations.
- One transportation bond issue measure was first certified for the 2019 ballot in Colorado, but the legislature approved a bill moving the measure to the 2020 ballot and only the governor's signature is required to make the move official.
- Concerning the election date change, Democratic Senator Rachel Zenzinger said, "If we were to move forward this year (with the bonding measure), the same thing we saw last fall — with two competing ballot measures on transportation — would sink them both."[1]
Ballotpedia's analysis of distribution requirements
- See also: Distribution requirement and Comparing distribution requirements
Distribution requirements are legal provisions requiring candidates or ballot measure sponsors to gather petition signatures from various parts of a state in order to qualify for the ballot.
Seventeen of the 26 states with an initiative process, veto referendums, or both, also have distribution requirements. The other nine do not. The distribution requirements vary in initiative states.
In seven states, the distribution requirement is spread out over a state's counties (Arkansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, and Wyoming). In five states, it is calculated based on state legislative districts (Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Utah). In the other five states with a distribution requirement, it is based on U.S. congressional districts (Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, and Nevada). Washington, D.C., also has a distribution requirement based on city wards.
In 2020, at least two states—Arkansas and Montana—will vote on distribution requirements for citizen initiative and veto referendum petition drives.
In April, Ballotpedia took a deep dive into current distribution requirements for initiatives and veto referendums. Our aim was to give readers a way to objectively compare the various state requirements.
Two quantifiable factors that help determine the relative ease or difficulty of a signature distribution requirement are (1) from what percentage of the jurisdictions must signatures be collected (i.e. from how much of the state must at least some signatures be collected) and (2) how many signatures must be collected in each required jurisdiction (i.e. how evenly must the signature gathering be spread out across the state).
For an example of the first factor, Michigan’s distribution requirement passed in 2018 has 50 percent distribution because it requires signatures to be collected from a minimum of seven out of 14 congressional districts.
For an example of the second factor, to qualify for the Alaska 2020 ballot, a minimum of 14,963 signatures are required to just meet the distribution requirement in the state. This total is 52.5 percent of the total 2020 signature requirement of 28,501.
Using these two factors, each state received a value from 0 to 100, with a higher value correlating to a more difficult distribution requirement.
According to this scale, the following states had the most difficult distribution requirements:
- Mississippi (100)
- Nevada (100)
- Utah (90)
The following states had the easiest distribution requirements according to the scale:
- Ohio (38)
- Montana (34)
- Arkansas (15)
To see the full analysis, click here.
These two factors don't account for all that goes into meeting various state distribution requirements. For example, a 100 percent Factor 2 score in a state with a distribution requirement based on congressional districts guarantees less evenly spread distribution than the same Factor 2 score in a state with a county-based distribution requirement. This is because of the larger jurisdiction upon which the requirement is based. County-based distribution requirements, however, can sometimes be easier to meet than requirements based on other jurisdictions. This is because registered voters generally know in which county they live, while many do not know in which congressional or state legislative district they live. In general, the more a requirement limits the amount of signature collection that can occur in more densely populated areas the harder the requirement is to meet. The two quantifiable factors addressed in this section play a large role in measuring this difficulty but do not account for all of the variables. Moreover, a state's distribution requirement is only one factor out of dozens that determine how easy or hard the initiative process is in that state.
Context from past years
States that are likely to feature statewide measures in 2019
Out of the 26 states with a process for citizen-initiated measures, Colorado, Maine, Ohio, and Washington allow ballot initiatives or veto referendums to appear on the ballot in odd-numbered years. Citizen-initiated measures could have gone on the Mississippi ballot in 2019 because of the gubernatorial election. No citizen initiative qualified for the Mississippi ballot. Legislatively referred measures can also go on the ballot in these states and others in 2019.
Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, and Texas legislatures frequently refer statewide measures to the ballot odd-numbered years.
See also
- 2019 ballot measures
- 2020 ballot measures
- List of ballot measures by state
- List of ballot measures by year
- Ballot initiatives filed for the 2019 ballot
- Ballot Measure Scorecard, 2019
- Ballot Measure Scorecard, 2020
- Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2019
- Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2020
Related articles
Footnotes
| |||||
