Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Subject restrictions for ballot initiatives
A subject restriction is a law that limits the scope or content of citizen-initiated ballot measures. These laws prohibit citizen initiatives from addressing certain topics.
Seven of the 24 states that allow initiated statutes or constitutional amendments have subject restrictions—constitutional provisions that prohibit initiatives from addressing certain topics.
A subject restriction is different from the single-subject rule, which requires ballot initiatives to address a single subject, topic, or issue.
Requirements by state
Seven of the 24 states that allow initiated statutes or constitutional amendments have constitutional provisions prohibiting initiatives on certain subjects.
States with subject restrictions
The following table outlines subject restrictions for citizen-initiated ballot measures by state:
| State | Restrictions | Law |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska | Dedicate revenues; make or repeal appropriations; create courts; define the jurisdiction of courts; prescribe court rules; or enact local or special legislation | Article XI, Section 7 of Alaska Constitution |
| Illinois | Cannot address subjects except for structural and procedural matters contained in Article IV of the Illinois Constitution, which governs the legislature | Article XIV, Section 3 of Illinois Constitution |
| Massachusetts | Religion or religious institutions; judicial qualifications, tenure, compensation, or removal; reversal of court decisions; the structure or powers of courts; laws applying to specific localities; specific state appropriations; the Eighteenth Amendment; subjects inconsistent with the Declaration of Rights; or the section outlining these subject restrictions | Article XLVIII, Part II, Section 2 of Massachusetts Constitution |
| Mississippi | State's Bill of Rights; the Public Employees' Retirement System; right-to-work provision; or the initiative process | Article XV, Section 273 (4)(5) of Mississippi Constitution |
| Montana | Appropriations; local laws; or special laws | Article III, Section 4(1) of Montana Constitution, |
| Ohio | Differential property tax classifications; creation of monopolies, oligopolies, or cartels; or exclusive commercial rights or licenses | Article II, Section 1e of Ohio Constitution |
| Wyoming | Dedication of revenue; appropriations; creation of courts; court jurisdiction or rules; local legislation, or special legislation | Article 3, Section 52(g) of Wyoming Constitution |
Lawsuits
The following is a selection of case law and litigation about subject restrictions for ballot initiatives.
- Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections (1976):
Initiated measures in Illinois may only amend Article IV of the Illinois Constitution. In addition, they may only address "structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV." In Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections (1976), the Illinois Supreme Court clarified this provision: [1]
- As commonly understood, the word "and" would thus limit initiatives to amendments whose subjects would be both structural and procedural, such as a proposal for the conversion from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature or for the conversion from multiple- to single-member legislative districts. Giving effect to the language of section 3 would produce no absurdity or unreasonable result. This court is without authority to substitute "or" for the "and" the constitutional convention used in stating "structural and procedural" unless a contrary intention is clearly manifested. We judge a contrary intention is not clearly manifested.
Multiple subsequent decisions have relied on the interpretation in Coalition to block proposed amendments—Lousin v. State Board of Elections (1982) and Chicago Bar Association v. Illinois State Board of Elections (1994).[1]
In 2016, an initiated constitutional amendment designed to establish an independent redistricting commission was struck from the ballot after proponents had submitted enough signatures to qualify it to go before voters. The initiative altered the duties and powers of the attorney general—as well as other officials—and prescribed a new way for challenging redistricting maps. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that, while these issues are contained in Article IV of the state constitution, they did not constitute "structural and procedural subjects" and that, therefore, the initiative did not comply with the state's subject restriction.[1]
- Boyette v. Galvin (1998) and Wirzburger v. Galvin (1998): Both cases, filed in 1998, challenged provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution that prohibits initiatives concerning religion. The Federal Court upheld the state's constitutional prohibition on prohibiting initiatives that pertain to religion and, by extension, private school funding. The basic assertion in the lawsuit was that the two provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution that impose subject-matter restrictions on the initiative process in Massachusetts are unconstitutional because they infringe on the rights of the plaintiffs on free speech, free exercise and equal protection grounds. The district court ruled against the plaintiffs and they appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, which also ruled against them. An appeal by attorneys for the Becket Fund to have the case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.[2][3]
See also
- Changes in 2025 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
- Single-subject rule for ballot initiatives
Footnotes
