Legislative alteration

Ballotpedia uses the phrase legislative alteration to refer to when lawmakers at the local or state level amend or repeal citizen initiatives. In cases involving state law, the term only applies to initiated state statutes because constitutional amendments require voter ratification. Thus, initiated constitutional amendments cannot be amended directly by state legislatures and must be put before voters.

Other terms commonly used to describe legislative alteration:

The phrase legislative tampering is commonly used to refer to legislative alteration. The phrase legislative intervention is also used, including by the Council of State Governments, to describe legislative alteration.

Of the 21 states that provide for initiated state statutes:

• Eleven states have no restrictions on when or how legislators can amend or repeal voter-approved initiated statutes.

• Ten states have restrictions on how and when the legislature can amend or repeal voter-approved initiatives.
  • Eight states have a supermajority vote requirement or a time requirement.
  • Two states require voter approval to amend voter-approved initiatives.

Click here to read Ballotpedia's analysis of legislative alteration frequency from 2010 through 2018.

Hover over a state in the map below to read about its requirements and restrictions for altering approved citizen initiatives:

Restrictions on legislation alteration

States with no restrictions

States with no restrictions at all on legislative alteration include:

• Colorado
• Idaho
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Missouri
• Montana

• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• South Dakota
• Utah

In Washington, D.C., the city council is also allowed to repeal or alter city code passed through citizen initiatives.

States with restrictions

• One state, California, requires voter approval for legislative changes to approved citizen initiatives
• Arizona, like California, requires voter approval for substantial legislative changes to approved citizen initiatives or for changes that go against the initiative's purpose; otherwise, the legislature can make changes that are in line with the purpose of the initiative through a three-fourths supermajority vote.
• Michigan requires a three-fourths supermajority vote to amend or repeal approved citizen initiatives.
• North Dakota, Washington, Nebraska, and Arkansas require two-thirds supermajority votes to repeal or amend approved citizen initiatives.
  • Additionally in North Dakota and Washington, the state legislature may amend or repeal an approved citizen initiative with a simple majority vote after a period of time has passed. For Washington, the time period is two years, while, for North Dakota, it is seven years.
• Other states also have time requirements:
  • In Alaska and Wyoming, two years must elapse before repeal, though the legislature can amend an initiative at any time.
  • In Nevada, three years must pass before an amendment or repeal can be done.

Passage of time

Some states allow the legislature to amend or repeal initiated state statutes but only after a certain amount of time has elapsed. These states are:

State	Years that must elapse
Alaska	2 years must elapse before repeal; can amend immediately
Nevada	3 years must elapse before repeal or amend
North Dakota	7 years must elapse before repeal or amendment, except with 2/3rds vote in the legislature
Washington	2 years must elapse before repeal or amendment, except with 2/3rds vote in the legislature
Wyoming	2 years must elapse before repeal; amending an initiative is possible with a simple majority at any time

Supermajority requirements

Some states allow the legislature to amend or repeal initiated state statutes, but only by supermajority vote in both legislative chambers. These states are:

State	Vote requirements
Arizona	3/4th majority vote, but only changes in line with the purpose of the initiative
Arkansas	2/3rd majority vote to amend or repeal
Michigan	3/4th majority vote to repeal or amend
Nebraska	2/3rd majority vote
North Dakota	2/3rd majority vote required for seven years following measure approval
Washington	2/3rd majority vote required for two years following measure approval

Submitting changes to the voters

As of 2019, California and Arizona were the only states that prevent their state legislatures from amending or repealing initiated state statutes without the changes being submitted to the voters.

• In California, legislators can't make any changes to laws enacted through the initiative process without voter approval through a legislatively referred state statute unless a provision in the initiative explicitly allows for legislative alteration.

• The Arizona State Legislature can make changes that are in line with the purpose of the initiative through a three-fourths supermajority vote. Any substantive changes must be submitted to the voters through a legislatively referred state statute.

Laws by state

Alaska

Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska

The Alaska State Legislature may not repeal a measure for two years following its passage. However, lawmakers can amend the initiated law at any time by a simple majority vote.

See law: Alaska Constitution, Article XI, Section 6

Arizona

Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

The Arizona State Legislature may not repeal a successful initiative or referendum without voter approval. Lawmakers can amend the law, but only if the amendment "furthers the purposes" of the measure and passes with a 3/4 supermajority. The legislature can submit changes to previous initiatives to the voters through a legislatively referred state statute.

According to a bill passed in 2021, notice of these legislative alteration restrictions must be included on the official ballot for any initiative as well as on the secretary of state's website.

See law: Arizona Constitution, Article IV, Part 1, Section 1, ¶ 6 and Arizona Constitution, Article IV, Part 1, Section 1, ¶ 15

Arkansas

Laws governing the initiative process in Arkansas

The Arkansas State Legislature may not repeal or amend a successful initiative or referendum, except by a two-thirds supermajority vote.

See law: Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, Section 1

California

Laws governing the initiative process in California

The California State Legislature may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters. However, a ballot measure may include a clause waiving this protection either entirely or conditionally.

Once ballot initiatives have been declared eligible for the ballot (which means it has been determined that enough valid signatures were submitted) they are submitted to the legislature. The legislature has no control over the initiatives or whether they appear on the ballot. However, California law requires the legislature to hold a public hearing on the initiatives at least 30 days prior to the election. Moreover, proponents are allowed to withdraw an initiative even after it has been declared eligible for the ballot up to when the initiative is certified as qualified for the ballot" 131 days before the election. This means the legislature can offer alternative legislation as a compromise in an effort to convince petitioners to withdraw certified initiatives.

See law: California Constitution, Article II, Section 10 (c) and California Election Code, Sections 9034

Colorado

Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The Colorado General Assembly may change or repeal initiated measures. In the case of initiated statutes, this only requires a simple majority. In the case of amendments, the Assembly must pass the amendment by a two-thirds majority and place it on the ballot. (The same process required for ordinary legislatively referred constitutional amendments.)

See law: Colorado Constitution, Article V, Section 1, ¶ 4 and Article XIX, Section 2, ¶ 1

Florida

Laws governing the initiative process in Florida

Since initiated constitutional amendments are the only kind of ballot initiative permitted under Florida law, lawmakers must use the ordinary amendment process to overturn successful ballot measures. In order to place an amendment on the ballot, lawmakers in each chamber must pass a resolution with a three-fifths majority vote. The repeal/revision amendment must receive the usual 60 percent supermajority for passage.

See law: Florida Constitution, Article XI, Section 1 and Section 5

Idaho

Laws governing the initiative process in Idaho

Idaho does not limit how soon, or with what majority, the legislature can repeal a measure.

See law: Idaho Constitution, Article III, Section 1 and Idaho Statutes, Title 34, Chapter 18

Illinois

Laws governing the initiative process in Illinois

The Illinois General Assembly may only repeal an initiated amendment by placing a repeal measure on the ballot, following the ordinary process for legislatively referred constitutional amendments. Each chamber of the General Assembly must pass the amendment by a 3/5 majority. Voters must approve the measure by either (1) a majority of those voting in the election or (2) 3/5 of those voting on the amendment itself.

See law: Illinois Constitution, Article XIV, Section 3

Maine

Laws governing the initiative process in Maine

Maine does not limit how soon, or with what majority, the legislature can repeal a measure.

See law: Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part 3, Sections 17-22 and Maine Revised Statutes, Title 21-A, Chapter 11

Massachusetts

Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

Massachusetts does not limit how soon, or with what majority, the legislature can repeal an initiated statute. Legislators can only overturn an amendment through the ordinary amendment process. However, if a statute is not repealed the legislature must fund it.

When a proposed amendment is placed before the legislature, lawmakers may amend the proposed amendment but only by a three-fourths supermajority vote called in the joint session. They may not amend proposed statutes. (Note: The majority of an initiative's sponsors can amend a proposed statute after the legislature fails to act and without re-collecting signatures. These amendments may not "materially change the substance of the measure.")

See law: Massachusetts Constitution, Article XLVIII and Article LXXIV

Michigan

Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan

The Michigan State Legislature may only change or repeal initiated statutes by a three-fourths supermajority vote in each house. In the case of amendments, the Legislature must pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority and place it on the ballot -- the same process that is required for ordinary legislatively referred constitutional amendments.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and Article XII, Section 2

Mississippi

Laws governing the initiative process in Mississippi

Since only initiated constitutional amendments are permitted in Mississippi, lawmakers must follow the ordinary amendment process to overturn or amend successful ballot measures. In order to place an amendment on the ballot, lawmakers in each chamber must pass a resolution by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote. The state's requirement that an initiated constitutional amendment requires approval from at least 40 percent of all votes cast in the election does not apply to legislatively referred constitutional amendments.

See law: Mississippi Constitution, Article XV, Section 273 (2) and Mississippi Code, Title 23, Chapter 17 

Missouri

Laws governing the initiative process in Missouri

The Missouri State Legislature may repeal or amend any statute approved by voters. To repeal or alter an amendment, they must follow the ordinary legislative referral process. In order to place an amendment on the ballot, lawmakers in each chamber must pass the resolution with a majority vote. The amendment is then presented to voters.

See law: Missouri Constitution, Article III, Section 52(b) and Article XII, Section 2(a)

Montana

Laws governing the initiative process in Montana

The Montana State Legislature may repeal or amend any statute approved by voters. To repeal or alter an amendment, they must follow the ordinary legislative referral process. In order to place an amendment on the ballot, lawmakers must adopt the proposal by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of all members.

See law: Montana Constitution, Article XIV, Section 8

Nebraska

Laws governing the initiative process in Nebraska

The Nebraska Legislature may not "amend, repeal, modify, or impair" any initiative without a two-thirds (66.67%) vote.

See law: Nebraska Constitution, Article III, Section 2

Nevada

Laws governing the initiative process in Nevada

For three years after an initiated statute is approved, it may not be "amended, annulled, repealed, set aside or suspended" by the Nevada State Legislature. Changes to initiated amendments must follow the ordinary legislative process, which consists of majority votes in two consecutive regular legislative sessions and majority approval at a statewide election. Statutes affirmed according to a veto referendum process and election may not be repealed or amended without a vote of the people.

See law: Nevada Constitution, Article 19, Sections 1 and 2

North Dakota

Laws governing the initiative process in North Dakota

The North Dakota Legislative Assembly may not repeal or amend an initiative for seven years without a 2/3 majority votes.

See law: North Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 8

Ohio

Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio

The Ohio General Assembly may repeal or amend an initiated statute by a simple majority vote. Changes to initiated amendments must follow the ordinary legislative process, which requires a three-fifths vote in both chambers of the state legislature and majority approval at a statewide election.

See law: Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1g and Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1

Oklahoma

Laws governing the initiative process in Oklahoma

The Oklahoma State Legislature may repeal an initiated statute with a simple majority vote. In order to change or repeal a constitutional amendment, lawmakers must place an amendment on the ballot via the ordinary referral process, which consists of a simple majority vote of each chamber.

See law: Oklahoma Constitution, Article V, Section 7

Oregon

Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

The Oregon State Legislature may repeal or amend an initiated statute by a simple majority vote. Changes to initiated amendments must follow the ordinary legislative process, which consists of a majority vote in both chambers.

See law: Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section 1

South Dakota

Laws governing the initiative process in South Dakota

The South Dakota State Legislature may repeal an initiated statute with a simple majority vote. In order to change or repeal a constitutional amendment, lawmakers must place an amendment on the ballot via the ordinary referral process, which consists of a simple majority vote in each chamber.

See law: South Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 1 and Article XXIII, Section 1

Utah

Laws governing the initiative process in Utah

The Utah State Legislature may amend any initiated statute by a simple majority vote. When presented with an indirect initiative, the Legislature may make technical corrections to the proposed law.

See law: Utah Code, Title 20A, Chapter 7, Section 208 and Section 212

Washington

Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

In Washington, no initiated statute may be amended or repealed for two years without a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in both chambers. Any initiated law, so amended, is not subject to veto referendum. After two years, the law may be repealed or amended by a simple majority vote of the legislature.

See law: Washington Constitution, Article II, Section 1

Wyoming

Laws governing the initiative process in Wyoming

The Wyoming State Legislature may not repeal an approved measure for two years after it takes effect. It may be amended at any time by a simple majority vote.

See law: Wyoming Constitution, Article 3, Section 52(f)

Washington, D.C.

The city council can repeal or alter city code passed through citizen initiatives. The city council has done so four times over the last three decades, including in 2001 when the city council reversed a term limits initiative.

Examples

Below are notable recent instances in which initiatives that were approved by voters were later amended or repealed by state legislators. Certain instances in which bills to repeal or amend initiatives were introduced but not necessarily approved are also included.

Click here to see a full list of legislation alterations for initiatives approved from 2010 through 2018, as well as some additional instances of legislative alteration of pre-2010 initiatives in certain states.

Click here to read about events and legislation that were related to legislative alteration but did not fall under the definition of legislative alteration, which requires that the citizen initiative in question is approved by voters and then directly amended or repealed by state legislators after the election.

2021

Massachusetts

As of 2021, Massachusetts did not have restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature could repeal or amend initiated state statutes.

• Massachusetts Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment, Question 3 (2016) was approved by 77.64% of voters in 2016. On December 20, 2021, the Massachusetts General Court passed Senate Bill 2603 (SB 2603), which amends Question 3 to update the standards for housing egg-laying hens and delay by seven and half months the start of a ban on the sale of pork products that do not meet the state's production standards. The bill was awaiting the governor's signature and took effect on January 1, 2022.

2019

Arkansas

In Arkansas, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required in each chamber of the state legislature to amend or repeal a voter-approved initiative.

• Arkansas Issue 5 was approved by 68 percent of voters in November 2018. Three bills were introduced in the 2019 session to amend Issue 5, but none were approved:
  • Sen. Bob Ballinger (R) introduced a bill—Senate Bill 115—on January 16, 2019, to provided exceptions to the minimum wage established by Issue 5. The latest version of the bill as amended on March 6, 2019, was designed to prevent the minimum wage requirements from applying to any employee under the age of 18, convicted of a felony, or with a developmental disability. It would also have exempted employers with fewer than 25 employees (up from four) from the minimum wage requirements. The original version of the bill was designed to exempt employees under the age of 18, employees of schools, and employees of nonprofits. The bill did not pass before the 2019 legislative session adjourned.
  • House Bill 1752 was designed to exempt employers with fewer than 25 employees (up from four), nonprofits with operating budgets of less than $1 million, and nonprofits that provide developmental disabilities services and "are primarily funded by state or federal reimbursement, or both, on a fee-for-service schedule." This bill was introduced by Rep. Robin Lundstrum (R). House Bill 1752 failed.
  • House Bill 1753 was designed to exempt employees that are younger than 21 and enrolled as full-time students. Going into 2019, state law allowed the wage of students to be 80 percent of the state's standard minimum wage. This bill was introduced by Rep. Robin Lundstrum (R). House Bill 1753 failed.

In 2019, Arkansas had a Republican state government trifecta. Republicans controlled 26 (74 percent) of 35 Senate seats and 76 (76 percent) of 100 House seats.

Idaho

Idaho is one of 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature can amend or repeal an initiated state statute.

• Proposition 2 was approved by 60.6 percent of voters in November 2018. It was designed to expand Medicaid coverage according to the Affordable Care Act. On April 5, 2019, Senate Bill 1204 was passed in the state legislature amending Proposition 2. Governor Brad Little (R) signed the bill into law on April 9, 2019. SB 1204 was designed to require Medicaid recipients to do the following:
  • Work at least 20 hours per week or earn wages equal to or greater than the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour as of 2019) for 20 hours per week or participate;
  • Participate in a work training program for 20 hours per week;
  • Be enrolled at least half-time in postsecondary education or other education program;
  • Satisfy the work requirements with a combination of working, volunteering, or participating in a work program for 20 hours per week; or
  • Comply with the requirements of the work programs under the temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) or supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP).

SB 1204 includes some exemptions for the work requirement. Click here to read SB 1204.

Legislation introduced by representatives Julianne Young (R) and John Green (R) to repeal Proposition 2 Medicaid expansion or set an automatic sunset date for it were rejected in the House Health and Welfare Committee in a 7-5 vote in February 2019.

Nevada

See also: Nevada 2018 ballot measures

In Nevada, three years must elapse before the legislature can amend or repeal a citizen initiative.

• Nevada Question 1 was approved in 2016 in a vote of 50.45 percent to 49.55 percent. The initiative was designed to require firearm transfers between unlicensed persons to go through a licensed dealer. Under Question 1, the licensed dealer would contact the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICBCS) to run a background check. According to then-Attorney General Adam Laxalt (R), Question 1 was never enforced because the FBI refused to participate in the background checks. Senate Bill 143 was introduced into the Nevada State Legislature on February 11, 2019, and was written to require the state, rather than the FBI, to run background checks on persons who receive a firearm from an unlicensed individual. The Nevada State Senate approved SB 143 on February 13, 2019. The vote was 13 to eight, with the chamber's 13 Democrats voting to support SB 143 and eight Republicans voting to oppose the bill. The Nevada State Assembly voted on February 15, 2019, passing the bill in a vote of 28 to 13. The chamber's Republicans, along with one Democrat, opposed SB 143, while the remaining 28 Democrats supported the bill. Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) signed SB 143 on February 15, 2019, saying, “In November 2016, the majority of Nevadans made it clear they wanted us to do more to address gun violence–but for the 829 days since, they’ve been ignored. That finally changes today.” Sisolak was elected on November 6, 2018, succeeding Brian Sandoval (R) as governor, and giving Democrats trifecta control of Nevada.

In Nevada, three years must pass before a ballot initiative can be amended or repealed. Question 1 was added to state code on November 22, 2016; therefore, SB 143 included a provision that made the bill take effect on January 2, 2020, which was after the three-year period.

Michael Bloomberg, who founded Everytown for Gun Safety—the nonprofit that provided 76 percent of the funding for the Question 1 support campaign—said that state legislators "have sided with the people over the gun lobby, and the common sense law they adopted today will save lives."

Utah

See also: Utah 2018 ballot measures

Utah is one of 11 states that have no restrictions on legislative alterations, which means the legislature can amend or repeal initiated state statutes with a simple majority vote at any time.

• Utah Proposition 3, the Medicaid expansion initiative, was approved by 53 percent of voters on November 6, 2018. Utah Sen. Allen Christensen (R) introduced a bill, Senate Bill 96, that would repeal and replace Proposition 3; it was ultimately approved and signed into law. Changes proposed by the bill include limits on eligibility for Medicaid coverage, such as a work requirement; restrictions on the total number of people who could enroll; and changes to the provisions of Proposition 3 concerning the sales tax increase and funding for expanded coverage. It would require special approval of waivers from the Federal government for certain provisions and contains contingency provisions that take effect if the waivers aren't approved. Click here to read Senate Bill 96.

The bill passed in the Senate on February 4, 2019. The bill passed with amendments in the House on February 8, 2019. The Senate concurred with the House's amendments, and the governor signed the bill on February 11, 2019. All six Senate Democrats and all 16 House Democrats voted against the bill. One Republican Senator, Todd Weiler of District 23, and three House Republicans—Craig Hall (33), Eric Hutchings (38) and Steven Eliason (45)—also voted against the bill. The remaining legislative Republicans voted in favor of SB 96. Utah has a Republican state government trifecta, meaning Republicans control both houses in the state legislature and the governorship.

• Utah Proposition 2, the medical marijuana initiative, was approved by 52.75 percent of voters in November 2018. It was then altered by the legislature in a special session after the election in 2018. The initiative was repealed and replaced in accordance with a compromise made between initiative proponents, the legislature, and opponents of the initiative. In September 2019, state legislators again took up the state's medical marijuana laws and made changes to the law approved to replace Proposition 2 in 2018. Click here to read about the most recent alterations to Utah's medical marijuana laws.

Washington

See also: Washington Initiative 940, Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force Measure (2018)

In Washington, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in both chambers of the legislature is required for legislation alteration until after two years has passed since the approval of a citizen initiative, after which a simple majority is required.

• Initiative 940 was approved by Washington voters in November 2018 in a vote of 60 percent to 40 percent. The initiative created a good faith test to determine when the use of deadly force by police is justifiable, required police to receive de-escalation and mental health training, and required law enforcement officers to provide first aid. Initiative 940 removed the requirement that police officers could not be charged or convicted for the use of deadly force "without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable." Legislation to amend Initiative 940—House Bill 1064—according to a compromise between initiative proponents, certain law enforcement interests, and legislators was approved in the state legislature in January 2019 and signed into law on February 4, 2019. Click here to read about changes made by the bill.

Initiative 940 was an Initiative to the Legislature, which means that once enough signatures were validated for the initiative petition it went before the state legislature. State law gives legislators three options when an Initiative to the Legislature is brought before them: (1) the legislature can approve the initiative unaltered, (2) the legislature can send the initiative to the voters, and (3) the legislature can send the initiative and an alternative proposal to the voters. In March 2018, state legislators approved the initiative and approved a bill to make alterations to it—House Bill 3003—to take effect one day following the approval of Initiative 940. Tim Eyman, a political activist who has sponsored or worked on a number of ballot initiative campaigns in Washington, filed a lawsuit against the state on March 12, 2018, arguing that the passage of HB 3003 altering Initiative 940 was unconstitutional and violated the state's process for Initiatives to the Legislature. Thurston County Superior Court and, upon appeal, the Washington Supreme Court agreed with Eyman and ordered that the initiative must be placed on the November 2018 ballot.

• Initiative 1639 was approved by 59 percent of voters in November 2018. Initiative 1639 was designed to implement restrictions on the purchase and ownership of firearms including raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21, adding background checks, increasing waiting periods, and enacting storage requirements. Republican Representative Matt Shea introduced House Bill 2103 to repeal I-1639. The bill was read for the first time on February 20, 2019, but failed to proceed in the legislative process before the legislature adjourned its 2019 session. Shea said "Initiative 1639 is unconstitutional in many respects [...] We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. A Republic is based on the rule of law which means every law that is passed must be constitutional. It is very clear this initiative is not, and thus the reason for the repeal."

2018

Ballotpedia tracked two initiatives in Utah and Washington, D.C., that were amended or repealed through legislative alteration in 2018. Ballotpedia also tracked three other proposed bills that would repeal or amend initiatives in three other states.

Utah

See also: Utah 2018 ballot measures

Utah is one of 11 states that have no restrictions on legislative alterations, which means the legislature can amend or repeal initiated state statutes with a simple majority vote at any time.

• Proposition 2, the Medical Marijuana Initiative, was approved by Utah voters 52.75 percent to 47.25 percent in November 2018. The Utah Medical Cannabis Act or House Bill 3001 (HB 3001) was passed by the legislature passed and signed by the governor on December 3, 2018. The bill repealed and replaced Proposition 2, altering provisions of the citizen initiative. Among other changes, HB 3001 removed the provision allowing patients to grow their own marijuana; reduced the number of privately-run dispensaries allowed; required dispensaries to employ pharmacists to recommend dosages; and altered provisions for qualifying conditions. To read more about the alterations, click here.

The bill passed in the House 60-13 with two not voting. Of the 13 Democrats in the Utah House of Representatives, 12 voted no and one (Elizabeth Weight) was absent or did not vote. All yes votes came from Republicans, except one, Marc Roberts, who was absent or did not vote. One Republican, Mike Kennedy, joined Democrats in voting no. The bill passed in the Senate 22-4 with 3 Republicans absent or not voting. All four no votes came from Democrats, excluding one Democrat, Gene Davis, who joined 21 Republicans in voting yes.

Before the election, proponents of the initiative agreed to the alteration of the initiative after the election. Negotiations between Utah legislators and Proposition 2 supporters (including the Utah Patients Coalition and Libertas Institute) and opponents (including Drug Safe Utah and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) resulted in an agreement concerning legislative alterations to Proposition 2 to be addressed by the legislature after the November election if the measure was approved, which it was. The alterations were initially presented and referred to as a "compromise deal." The Deputy Director of the Marijuana Policy Project, which supported Proposition 2, said, "This bill is undoubtedly inferior to the law enacted by voters in November. However, Proposition 2 would very likely have been defeated without the compromise deal, which prevented an onslaught of opposition spending. Advocates made the responsible decision to negotiate with opponents and ensure that patients were not left without any access to medical cannabis."

A lawsuit was filed, with the support of The People’s Right group, challenging the legislature's action to repeal and replace Proposition 2. One of the arguments made by the lawsuit was that the governor effectively vetoed Proposition 2 by calling a special session to vote on HB 3001. State statute does not allow the governor to veto legislation approved by voters. On August 6, 2019, the Utah Supreme Court ruled against plaintiffs stating that the governor's action was not equivalent to a veto. The ruling also rejected claims that HB 3001 should have been subject to a veto referendum petition effort, which was attempted but denied by the lieutenant governor because the bill was passed by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in each chamber of the legislature. The constitution does not allow veto referendums against legislation passed by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the legislature. Plaintiffs claimed that the two-thirds (66.67%) vote rule should not apply to any law that originated as a citizen initiative. The ruling stated that the two-thirds (66.67%) vote rule did apply to any bills passed by the legislature, including legislation amending or repealing a citizen initiative.

Washington, D.C.

See also: Washington, D.C., Initiative 77, Minimum Wage Increase for Tipped Workers (June 2018)

• Initiative 77, an initiative to increase the minimum wage for tipped workers was approved by D.C. voters approved in June 2018 in a vote of 56 percent to 44 percent. The initiative was designed to incrementally increase the minimum wage for tipped employees to match the city's standard minimum wage by 2026. As of May 2018, the minimum base wage for tipped workers was $3.33 an hour and was scheduled to increase to $5.00 per hour by July 2020. The cities standard minimum wage for workers that do not receive tips was $13.25 as of July 2018 and was scheduled to increase to $15.00 per hour in July 2020. After 2020, the minimum wage was scheduled for annual adjustment based on the cost of living.

On October 16, 2018, the Washington, D.C., Council cast the second of two votes needed to overturn Initiative 77. The council voted 8-5 in favor of repeal legislation introduced by Phil Mendelson (D-Chairman) and sponsored by six other council members. The legislation then went before Mayor Muriel Bowser (D), who signed the bill.

Following the council's repeal of Initiative 77, the Save Our Vote campaign committee proposed a veto referendum attempting to reverse the council's action and reenact Initiative 77. The effort was blocked by a court ruling.

2017

In 2017, Ballotpedia tracked seven initiatives in four states that were amended or repealed through legislative alteration. Moreover, proposals were introduced but ultimately failed for the legislative alteration of two additional initiatives.

Maine

See also: Maine 2016 ballot measures

As of 2017, Maine was one of the 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature could repeal or amend initiated state statutes. Maine voters approved four out of five initiatives on the ballot in 2016, and legislation designed to amend or repeal each of them was introduced in the 2017 legislative session. Ultimately, Question 1 was amended to delay implementation, Question 2 was repealed in its entirety, Question 4 was repealed in part, and Question 5 was delayed and conditionally set to be repealed:

• The Maine State Legislature made changes to Question 1—the marijuana legalization initiative—to delay the full implementation of the measure.

• Maine lawmakers—as part of a final budget agreement—repealed 2016 Question 2. Question 2 was designed to add a 3 percent income tax on income above $200,000 in order to fund education.

• The Maine State Legislature approved a bill to reinstate a tip wage credit, which was repealed by minimum wage initiative Question 4. The tip wage credit allows employers to apply tips as a credit to up to 50 percent of the minimum wage. In other words, it allows the minimum wage of tipped workers to be reduced by up to half of the prescribed wage, while Question 4 was designed to incrementally increase the minimum wage for tipped workers to be equal to the minimum wage for non-tipped workers—$12 per hour—by 2024.

• On February 2, 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court—as requested by the Maine State Senate—gave an advisory ruling on the constitutionality of Question 5, the initiative designed to establish a ranked-choice voting (RCV) system. The court said that ranked-choice voting was unconstitutional for the offices of governor and for state legislative elections because RCV requires a majority for approval, while the state constitution explicitly states that a plurality—more votes than other candidates but not necessarily a majority—dictates a winner. The legislature considered bills to both amend the constitution to make it compatible with RCV and to repeal Question 5 entirely. Neither bill was approved in the regular session, but, in a one-day special session on October 23, the legislature passed a bill—LD 1646—to delay implementation and automatically repeal the ranked-choice voting initiative in December 2021 if a constitutional amendment to address the legal concerns is not enacted. Proponents of Question 5, however, collected signatures for a veto referendum targeting the repeal of LD 1646 and, in June 2018, voters rejected LD 1646 and voted in favor of implementing ranked-choice voting under Question 5.

Massachusetts

See also: Massachusetts 2016 ballot measures

As of 2017, Massachusetts was one of the 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature could repeal or amend initiated state statutes.

• On December 28, 2016, the Massachusetts legislature voted to amend Question 4—the marijuana legalization initiative—to delay sales of recreational marijuana for six months. Under the measure, licensing for cannabis shops was originally set to begin on January 1, 2018, but the delay approved by legislators moved the date to July 1, 2018. Personal use, possession, and cultivation of marijuana became legal on December 15, 2016. On July 19, 2017, the state legislature approved a bill that increased the tax rate allowed for marijuana sales, allowed municipalities in which a majority of voters rejected Question 4 to ban marijuana stores without a referendum, and made other changes. Initiative proponents said that they understood the reason for the changes to the initiative and accepted them as a compromise. To read details, click here.

Montana

See also: Montana 2016 ballot measures

As of 2017, Montana was one of the 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature could repeal or amend initiated state statutes.

• The Montana State Legislature amended I-182—the medical marijuana initiative—to fix a clerical error and repeal the state’s law limiting the number of patients one medical marijuana provider could have to three immediately rather than on June 30, 2017. Unlike with other 2017 instances of state legislatures amending or repealing initiatives, this action by the legislature was in line with the stated intention of initiative proponents.

Oklahoma

See also: Oklahoma 2016 ballot measures

As of 2017, Oklahoma was one of the 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature could repeal or amend initiated state statutes.

• A bill to repeal sections of State Question 781—the initiative that reclassified certain property offenses and drug possession violations as misdemeanor crimes—was introduced in the Oklahoma State Legislature. The bill was ultimately not approved.

South Dakota

See also: South Dakota 2016 ballot measures

As of 2017, South Dakota was one of the 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature could repeal or amend initiated state statutes.

• The South Dakota State Legislature repealed Measure 22—a citizen initiative enacting campaign finance and lobbying restrictions and a publicly funded campaign finance system. This repeal motivated an initiative effort by Measure 22 proponents to restrict the legislature's ability to repeal or amend initiated state statutes.

Massachusetts (2002 English in Public Schools initiative)

See also: Massachusetts English in Public Schools Initiative, Question 2 (2002)

In 2002, Massachusetts voters approved Question 2—an initiated state statute requiring that, with limited exceptions, all public school children must be taught English by being taught all subjects in English and being placed in English language classrooms—a method referred to as sheltered English immersion. On November 15, 2017, the Massachusetts State Legislature approved a bill—House Bill 4032—to amend this citizen initiative and to give school districts the option of continuing under the English immersion method established by the 2002 initiative or to provide alternative standards and methods in compliance with federal and state laws, such as transitional bilingual education and dual-language education. The final version of the bill was approved 155-1 in state House and unanimously in the state Senate before it was sent to the desk of Gov. Charlie Baker (R) for his signature.

2016

Arizona benefits preemption case

See also: Arizona Minimum Wage, Proposition 202 (2006)

On May 11, 2016, Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed House Bill 2579 (HB 2579) into law. HB 2579 was designed to preempt local governments from requiring employers to provide non-wage compensation—including fringe benefits, welfare benefits, child care plans, paid sick leave, paid vacation time, severance, commissions, bonuses, retirement plans, and pensions—above the state requirement.

On August 30, 2017, Judge Roger Brodman of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that HB 2579 violated the Arizona Voter Protection Act (Proposition 105) in UFCW Local 99 v. Arizona. The ruling stated that HB 2579 conflicted with Proposition 202, which was approved by Arizona voters in 2006. Since Arizona's Voter Protection Act requires voter approval to substantively amend or repeal a citizen initiative, Judge Brodman overturned HB 2579 and said that such a law would need to go before voters.

The state appealed the case to the Arizona Court of Appeals. On February 5, 2019, the appeals court sided with the superior court, concluding, "H.B. 2579 explicitly prohibits what the Minimum Wage Act permits, and thus, the two statutes cannot be harmonized. Because H.B. 2579 impliedly amends and repeals a portion of the Minimum Wage Act, it violates the VPA’s express limitations on legislative changes to voter-approved laws."

California public campaign finance case

See also: California Proposition 73, Limits on Campaign Donations (June 1988)

In September 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed Senate Bill 1107 (SB 1107). The bill was designed to allow state and local governments to provide public campaign financing programs. SB 1107 repealed a provision in Proposition 73—an initiative approved by voters in 1988—that prohibited officials from accepting public funds to seek office. In August 2017, the Sacramento Superior Court ruled the bill invalid in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Brown. The ruling was based on California's laws prohibiting the legislature from substantively amending or repealing a citizen initiative without voter approval.

Related events

This section features events and legislation that were not examples legislative alteration but were related to the concept. Legislative alteration is when (a) a citizen-initiated state statute is put on the ballot and approved by voters and (b), after it is approved, the state legislature passes a bill to amend or repeal the text within state statute that was enacted by the initiative. Examples below include, but are not limited to, the following:

• actions by the state legislature to preclude an election in the first place and to change or block initiative proposals that were never put on the ballot;
• bills to implement initiated constitutional amendments in ways that, according to initiative proponents, went against the purpose of the initiatives; and
• deals made between state legislators and initiative proponents that result in initiatives that had qualified for the ballot or nearly qualified for the ballot being withdrawn and, in some cases, replaced by substantively different legislation.

Click here to read about examples of legislation that falls under the precise definition of legislative alteration, which requires that the citizen initiative in question is approved by voters and then directly amended or repealed by state legislators after the election.

2021

Missouri

See also: Missouri 2020 ballot measures

• In August 2020, Missouri voters approved Amendment 2 by a margin of 53.27 percent to 46.73 percent. The initiative expanded Medicaid eligibility in Missouri to adults that are 19 years old or older and younger than 65 whose income is 133% of the federal poverty level or below, which would effectively expand Medicaid to those with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level under the Affordable Care Act.
  • During the 2021 legislative session, the Missouri State Legislature did not approve funding for the Medicaid expansion authorized by Amendment 2. On May 13, 2021, Governor Mike Parson (R) announced that his administration had withdrawn its request to expand Medicaid in the state from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services because the state legislature had not appropriated funding in the state's budget.

Nevada

See also: Nevada 2022 ballot measures

On May 31, 2021, the final day of the 2021 Nevada legislative session, the state legislature passed a bill to increase the mining tax and dedicate revenue to education striking a compromise between legislators, the mining industry, and the largest teachers' union in the state—Clark County Education Association. Assembly Bill 495 (AB 495) reached the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement needed to pass the tax with a 28-14 vote in the Nevada State Assembly and a 16-5 vote in the Nevada State Senate. AB 495 maintains the state's net proceeds on minerals tax structure and dedicates the revenue to a new fund for education. In 2019, the net proceeds tax generated $61 million in revenue. Clark County Education Association Executive Director John Vellardita said, "This is the first time that dedicated revenue goes directly into K-12."

Clark County Education Association led two initiative campaigns to increase the state's sales tax and gaming tax to generate revenue for public schools. The initiatives qualified for the ballot on March 12, 2021, when the deadline for the state legislature to pass the initiatives passed without any action by the legislature.

On May 31, the state legislature also amended and passed a bill related to election laws, Assembly Bill 321 (AB 321), to allow initiative campaigns to remove ballot measures from the ballot 90 days before the election at which voters would have decided on the petition.

On July 28, 2021, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford (D) issued an opinion in response to a request by Governor Steve Sisolak (D) regarding the constitutionality of AB 321. Ford determined that the law was constitutional and that initiatives may be withdrawn prior to the election.

In October 2021, Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) announced that the Nevada Constitution did not permit her to remove the certified petitions from the ballot despite the 2021 law authorizing petition withdrawal. In a letter explaining her decision, Cegavske wrote, "The use of the word ‘shall’ in ordinary language imposes a mandatory, not discretionary, obligation. Although the Nevada Legislature can adopt statutes ‘for procedures to facilitate the operation’ of the initiative process as provided in [the Nevada Constitution], the affirmative duty imposed by the Nevada Constitution on the Secretary supersedes any statutory enactments by the Nevada Legislature that contradict the affirmative duty."

Lawsuit

On December 29, 2021, Fund Our Schools and Nevadans for Fair Gaming Taxes, the PACs sponsored by the Clark County Education Association, filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) asking the court to allow the initiatives to be removed from the 2022 ballot. The PACs argue that the law passed in 2021 allows them to remove their initiatives from the ballot. The union said in a statement, "CCEA expects that the law will prevail and the Secretary of State will be required to withdraw both initiative petitions."

On March 9, 2022, District Court Judge James Wilson ordered Cegavske to withdraw the initiatives and not put them on the 2022 ballot. Wilson wrote, "Nothing in Article 19 appears to contravene the Legislature’s ability to enact a provision permitting proponents such as Petitioners from deciding to withdraw their initiative measures.”

On March 15, 2022, Jennifer Russell, a spokesperson for Cegavske, said regarding Wilson's ruling, "We’re moving forward with the appeal.”

On June 28, 2022, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled for the petition to be withdrawn from the ballot. The majority ruled that the Constitution allows the Legislature to facilitate the operation of citizen initiatives.

2019

Florida

See also: Florida 2018 ballot measures

• In November 2018, Florida voters approved Amendment 4 64.5 percent to 35.5 percent. The initiative amended the state constitution to restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. On May 3, 2019, the Florida Legislature gave final approval to Senate Bill 7066, which makes changes to the state's election code and provided additional rules for the implementation of Amendment 4. The bill was written to require convicted felons to complete "all terms of sentence" including full payment of restitution, or any fines, fees, or costs resulting from the conviction. Approval in the legislature sent the bill to the desk of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for his signature. The full text and other information on HB 7066 may be found here.

Rep. James Grant (R), who sponsored the House version of the bill, said, "I think the governor understands that we should provide as much flexibility and opportunity for people to pay their debt to society, which this bill does. But it's not going to pretend that debt that exists is no longer existing."

Micah Kubic, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said, "The Florida legislature is thwarting the will of the people and restricting the eligibility to vote for thousands of Floridians who have earned their second chance. Both SB 7066/HB 7089 are overly broad and extend far beyond the plain language of Amendment 4 or what any reasonable person would conclude the voters intended when they passed Amendment 4. These bills are a blatant legislative overreach and an example of state legislators substituting their views for the those of the people of Florida. Floridians believe in second chances and the restorative justice granted by Amendment 4, which is why 5.1 million votes were cast in its favor."

2018

California

See also: California 2018 ballot measures

The campaigns behind the following ballot initiatives collected enough signatures for their measures to appear on the ballot. However, the initiatives were withdrawn following deals made between initiative proponents and the state legislature and the approval of compromise legislation. Click on each link for details.

Type	Title	Subject	Description	Result
CICA	Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative	Taxes	Require two-thirds vote of electorate to pass local taxes
CISS	Consumer Personal Information Disclosure and Sale Initiative	Business	Allow consumers to prohibit businesses from selling on disclosing their personal information
CISS	Home and School Remediation Bond and Remove Status of Lead Paint as Public Nuisance Initiative	Bonds	$2 billion in bonds for remediation and declare that lead paint is not a public nuisance

Massachusetts

See also: Massachusetts 2018 ballot measures

• The three initiatives in the chart below were not put on the ballot after the Democratic-controlled Massachusetts Legislature passed and Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed a compromise bill known as the grand bargain. The bill, House Bill 4640 (HB 4640), was passed in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on June 20, 2018, in a vote of 126 to 25.

Type	Title	Subject	Description
IndISS	$15 Minimum Wage Initiative	Min Wage	Increases minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022
IndISS	Paid Family and Medical Leave Initiative	Labor	Creates a fund to provide for paid family and medical leave
IndISS	Sales Tax Decrease and Tax-Free Weekend Initiative	Taxes	Decreases the sales tax and establishes a tax-free weekend

The bill was designed to allow workers to take 12 weeks of paid leave, incrementally raise the state's minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2023, and phase out over five years time-and-a-half pay for Sunday work. The bill also required the state to hold an annual sales-tax-free holiday in August; it did not reduce the state sales tax, as was proposed in the Sales Tax Decrease and Tax-Free Weekend initiative by the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. Raise Up Massachusetts' minimum wage measure proposed to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour over four years, while the bill increases it over five years.

Michigan

See also: Michigan 2018 ballot measures

In Michigan, a three-fourths supermajority vote is required in both chambers of the state legislature to repeal or amend a citizen initiative through legislative alteration. If the state legislature approves an initiative themselves, precluding an election on it through Michigan's indirect initiative process, a simple majority is required to repeal or amend the measure.

• On December 13, 2018, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed bills to amend indirect initiatives that the legislature first approved in September. Two PACs—One Fair Wage Michigan and MI Time to Care—collected signatures for the initiatives to increase the state’s minimum wage and require employers to provide paid sick leave. In Michigan, initiated statutes are indirect, meaning that before an initiative can go on the ballot for voter consideration, the state legislature has the option to adopt the initiative.

On September 5, 2018, the Michigan State Legislature adopted both of the indirect initiatives. Most legislative Republicans (90 percent) supported approving the initiatives, while Senate Democrats opposed and House Democrats were divided 21-22. Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof (R-30) said Republicans planned to amend the initiative at a future date.

Legislation was introduced to amend the indirect initiatives on November 8, 2018.

• The original initiative to increase the minimum wage was designed to increase the state's minimum wage between 60 and 75 cents each year until reaching $12.00 in 2022. The bill amending it was designed to increase the minimum wage each year until reaching $12.05 in 2030.

• The original initiative to require paid sick leave was designed to provide employees of small businesses, defined as having less than 10 employees, with 40 hours of annual paid sick leave and provide employees of businesses with 10 or more employees with 72 hours of annual paid sick leave. The amendment was designed to provide employees of businesses with 50 or more employees with 40 hours of annual paid sick leave. The bill amending the initiative did not require employees with less than 50 employees to provide paid sick leave.

On December 4, 2018, the legislature approved the amendments to the indirect initiatives. Democrats, along with four Republicans, voted against the changes, while the remaining Republicans voted in favor of the changes. House Minority Leader Jim Ananich (D) said Republicans "had these bills in the works all summer long, and they didn’t have the courage to show the voters what they were planning on doing.” Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the legislation on December 13, 2018, saying the amendments “strike a good balance between the initial proposals and the original legislation as drafted.” He added, “They address a number of difficulties for job providers while still ensuring paid medical leave benefits and increased minimum-wage incomes for many Michiganders.”

2017

Florida

See also: Florida 2016 ballot measures

The Florida legislature passed a bill—Senate Bill 8A—as implementing legislation for Amendment 2, which legalized medical marijuana. Senate Bill 8A banned smoking medical marijuana, determined qualifying conditions, required doctors to take a two-hour $500 course before prescribing marijuana, and banned doctors with a financial interest in marijuana growing or testing facilities from prescribing marijuana. On July 5, 2017, John Morgan, the chairperson of People United for Medical Marijuana (PUMM), filed litigation in the Florida 2nd Circuit Court. He said that Senate Bill 8A's ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. The lawsuit argued the amendment was designed to leave the administration of marijuana to the judgment of a licensed physician and was intended to allow for medical marijuana to be smoked.

Arkansas

See also: Arkansas 2016 ballot measures

• The Arkansas General Assembly made several changes to Issue 6—the medical marijuana legalization initiative. These amendments were explicitly allowed by the language of the initiative and, thus, did not require voter approval.

Related measures

• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018)
• Montana Legislative Power to Amend and Repeal Initiated Laws Initiative (2014)
• Colorado Citizen-Initiated State Laws, Referendum O (2008)
• Colorado Expansion of Initiative Rights, Initiative 38 (2006)
• Nebraska 2/3 Legislative Majority to Modify Initiatives Amendment, Measure 418 (2004)
• Arizona Initiative and Referendum, Proposition 104 (1998)
• Oregon Legislative Limits on Changing Voter Approved Statutes, Measure 33 (1996)
• South Dakota Legislator vs Initiative Measure (1980)
• Nevada Initiative and Referendum Measure (1962)
• California Proposition 12, Changing Laws Enacted by Initiative (1946)
• Arizona Initiative and Referendum Protection Amendment, Questions 108 and 109 (1914)

See also

• Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives
• Laws governing the initiative process
• State legislature
• Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives

Footnotes

Laws governing ballot measures in the United States

Laws governing ballot measures

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Changes to laws governing ballot measures

Types of ballot measures

Citizen-initiated ballot measures • Legislatively referred ballot measures • Automatically referred ballot measures • Commission-referred ballot measures • Convention-referred constitutional amendments

Ballot measure policy terms

Glossary of ballot measure policy terms