Analysis of 2018-2023 changes to laws governing ballot measures

Laws governing ballot measures
State
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2024
• Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2024 » « 2022

Updated as of December 17, 2023

In 2023, state governments enacted 45 bills and resolutions concerning the three powers of direct democracy in the U.S.—the ballot initiative, referendum, and recall election. The average number of bills and resolutions enacted per year from 2018 to 2022 was 32.

The number of proposed and enacted bills in 2023 exceeded the five-year average; however, the number of bills passed to make the ballot initiative process more difficult was five—two below the five-year average of seven.

This report analyzes legislation related to ballot initiatives, referendums, and recall processes in 2023 and for the period from 2018 to 2023.

On this page, you will find information on proposed legislation, enacted legislation, and ballot measures in 2023 and the previous five years. You will also find an analysis of enacted legislation that made the initiative, referendum, or recall processes more difficult, as well as the analysis methodology and other related research that provides additional context.

Findings for 2023:

• In 2023, 385 bills and resolutions related to direct democracy were introduced nationwide, exceeding the average number (298) proposed per year from 2018 to 2022.

• Lawmakers passed five pieces of legislation in 2023 that would make the ballot initiative process more difficult. That's two bills less than the average number (7) enacted per year during the previous five years. You can review how we categorize policies as making the initiative process harder or easier here.

• In 2023, 24 (53.3%) of the 45 enacted pieces of legislation received bipartisan support from legislators, 13 (28.9%) passed with Republican majorities, and eight (17.8%) passed with Democratic majorities.

• The five bills and resolutions that would make the ballot initiative process more difficult were each passed with Republican majorities. Four bills and resolutions were passed that would make the ballot initiative process easier. Three of these bills received bipartisan support. One was passed with Democratic legislative majorities.

• Seven resolutions were constitutional amendments that require voter ratification, including Ohio Issue 1, which voters rejected on August 8, 2023.

Findings for 2018-2023:

• From 2018 to 2023, 1,813 pieces of legislation related to initiative, referendum, and recall were introduced in state legislatures. The average number per year was 302, and the number ranged from 218 in 2020 to 385 in 2023.

• Since 2018, state governments have enacted 206 pieces of legislation. The average number per year was 34, and the number ranged from 17 in 2020 to 45 in 2023.

• From 2018 to 2023, 43 pieces of legislation, or 20.9% of the total legislation enacted, made or would make citizen-initiated measure or recall processes more difficult to use. Fourteen changes made or would make citizen-initiated measure or recall processes easier to use.

• Republican majorities passed 38 (88.4%) of 43 bills that would make the ballot initiative process more difficult, Democratic majorities passed four (9.3%), and one (2.3%) received bipartisan support.

• There were 21 ballot measures related to initiative and referendum processes from 2018 to 2023. Twelve of these made or would have made the processes more difficult. Voters approved five (41.7%) and rejected seven (58.3%) of those ballot measures.

2023 legislation

See also: Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures

As of December 17, 2023, Ballotpedia had tracked 385 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, referendums, and recall elections in 46 states during 2023 legislative sessions. Legislatures passed 46 bills but one bill related to recall elections in Louisiana was vetoed. Thus, 45 bills and resolutions, or 11.7% of the total number proposed, were enacted.

Proposed legislation, 2023

Of the 385 legislative proposals introduced during the 2023 legislative sessions, 234 (60.8%) were introduced in the 26 states with a statewide citizen-initiated ballot measure process. Missouri, which has an initiative and referendum process, saw the most introduced bills at 42; however, none of these bills were passed and enacted. You can view the list of 2023 proposed bills and resolutions here.

The following map illustrates the number of bills and resolutions proposed in each state during 2023 legislative sessions:

Enacted legislation, 2023

The following is a selection of bills and resolutions enacted in 2023. You can review summaries of each of the 45 enacted bills here.

The state that enacted the most changes in 2023 was California, with seven pieces of legislation. Maine had the second most with six, and Arkansas and Montana each had five.

Legislation making the initiative process more difficult

Five of the 45 enacted pieces of legislation would make the initiative process more difficult. Three are constitutional amendments, which require voter approval. These five bills and resolutions are listed below:

State	Bill	Topic(s)	Description	Margin in Legislature
Arizona	SCR 1015	Signature requirements	Create a signature distribution requirement, with a percentage coming from each of the state's legislative districts, for citizen-initiated measures (Requires voter approval)	R+100.0%
Arkansas	HB 1419	Signature requirements	Increase the signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated measures from 15 counties to 50 (of 75) counties	R+96.2%
Montana	SB 93	Petition requirements; Initiative content	Establish a $3,700 fee to file an initiative and prohibit initiatives that are substantially the same as a measure defeated within the prior four years	R+97.8%
North Dakota	SCR 4013	Election requirements; Signature requirements; Initiative content	Establish a single-subject rule for initiatives; increase the signature requirement for initiated constitutional amendments from 4% to 5% of the state's population; and require voters approve initiated constitutional amendments at two elections (Requires voter approval)	R+72.7%
Ohio	SJR 2 (Issue 1)	Election requirements; Signature requirements; Circulation period	Require a 60% vote to approve constitutional amendments; eliminate the signature cure period for initiated amendments; and increase the signature distribution requirement from 44 (of 88) counties to each of the 88 counties (Rejected by voters)	R+94.6%

Legislation making the initiative process less difficult

Four of the 45 enacted pieces of legislation would make the initiative process less difficult. Two of the changes, in Maine and South Dakota, were in response to judicial rulings that struck down certain requirements as unconstitutional. These four bills are listed below:

State	Bill	Topic(s)	Description	Margin in Legislature
Arkansas	SB 377	Circulator requirements	Make certain interferences with initiative petitions and signature gatherers Class A misdemeanors and require paid petition blockers to undergo background checks	0.0%
California	ACA 1	Election requirements	Reduce the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55% for local special tax and bond ballot measures that fund public infrastructure, affordable housing, or supportive housing (Requires voter approval)	D+97.7%
Maine	LD 1477 (Question 7)	Circulator requirements	Repeal language requiring that petition circulators be residents and registered voters of Maine (Rejected by voters; Repeal inoperative language due to federal court ruling)	N/A
South Dakota	SB 113	Circulation period	Change the signature deadline to the first Tuesday in May of a general election year, rather than one year before the general election (Court-ordered change)	D+8.3%

Proposed legislation, 2018-2023

Proposed legislation by year

From 2018 to 2023, 1,813 pieces of legislation related to the initiative, referendum, and recall were introduced in state legislatures. More bills were introduced during odd-numbered years (365), such as 2023, than even-numbered years (239), such as 2022, on average. Of the 1,813 proposals, 1,179 (65.1%) were introduced in the 26 states with a statewide citizen-initiated ballot measure process.

Based on a state's trifecta status during a given year from 2018 to 2023, 910 (50.2%) bills were proposed in states with Republican trifectas, 588 (32.9%) were proposed in states with Democratic trifectas, and 298 (16.9%) were proposed in states with divided governments.

The following graph illustrates the number of bills and resolutions introduced each year and the state's trifecta status from 2018 to 2023:

Enacted legislation, 2018-2023

From 2018 to 2023, 206 pieces of legislation related to the initiative, referendum, and recall were introduced were enacted. That's 11.4% of the total number (1,813) proposed during this period.

Enacted legislation by state

Of the 206 pieces of legislation enacted from 2018 to 2023, 185 (89.8%) were in the 26 states with a statewide citizen-initiated ballot measure process.

• South Dakota enacted the most bills at 33.
• California and Utah tied for the second most enacted bills at 19.
• Maine enacted the third most at 17 bills.

The following map illustrates the number of bills enacted in each state from 2018 to 2023:

Enacted legislation by legislative vote margins

A legislative vote margin refers to the difference in the level of support between Democrats and Republicans in state legislatures. This is similar to an election vote margin in which a candidate is said to have received, for example, 5 percentage points more than another candidate. A bill that receives support from 100% of legislative Republicans and 20% of legislative Democrats has a legislative vote margin of R+80%, for example.

Ballotpedia classifies legislative vote margins on legislation related to the initiative, referendum, and recall as follows:

• Republican: R+50.1% to R+100%
• Lean Republican: R+25.1% to R+50%
• Bipartisan: R+25% to D+25%, including 0%
• Lean Democratic: D+25.1% to D+50%
• Democratic: D+50.1% to D+100%

Of the 206 pieces of legislation enacted from 2018 to 2023:

• 78 (37.9%) passed with Republican majorities, including 67 with Republican and 11 with lean Republican legislative vote margins.
• 27 (16.0%) passed with Democratic majorities, including 28 with Democratic and five with lean Democratic legislative vote margins.
• 95 (46.1%) passed with bipartisan legislative majorities.

The following chart illustrates the number of bills and resolutions enacted and legislative vote margins for each year from 2018 to 2023:

Ballot measures, 2018-2023

From 2018 to 2023, there were 21 ballot measures related to the citizen-initiated or other ballot measure processes. Voters approved 11 (52.4%) and rejected 10 (47.6%) measures. Legislatures referred 17 (81.0%) of the measures, and the other four (19.0%) were citizen-initiated.

• Twelve (57.1%) of the proposals made or would have made the initiative process more difficult. Voters approved five (41.7%) and rejected seven (58.3%) of these measures.

• Legislatures placed nine of these on the ballot. Voters approved three (33.3%) and rejected six (66.7%).

• Campaigns petitioned three of these onto the ballot. Voters approved two (66.7%) and rejected one (33.3%).

• Three (14.3%) of the proposals made or would have made the initiative process less difficult. Voters approved one (33.3%) and rejected two (66.7%) of these measures.

The following is a list of ballot measures that were designed to change ballot initiative processes and were certified for the ballot for elections in 2018 through 2024.

2024

State	Type	Title	Description
AZ	LRCA	Signature Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Amendment	Create a signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated ballot measures based on state legislative districts
CA	CICA	Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative	Require new state taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and require new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the local electorate
CA	LRCA	Vote Requirements for Initiatives Requiring Supermajority Votes Amendment	Require initiatives that change vote thresholds to supermajority votes to pass by the same vote requirement as is being proposed
ND	LRCA	Constitutional Measure 2	Establish a single-subject rule for initiatives; increase the signature requirement for constitutional initiatives; and require constitutional initiatives to be approved at two elections

2023

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
ME	IndISS	Question 1	Require voter approval for certain state entities, municipal electric districts, electrification cooperatives, or consumer-owned transmission utilities to incur an outstanding debt that exceeds $1 billion	a	260,670 (65%)	137,478 (35%)
ME	LRCA	Question 5	Change the judicial review period from within 100 days of a petition being filed to within 100 business days from the deadline for filing a petition	a	227,602 (58%)	166,876 (42%)
ME	LRCA	Question 7	Remove the requirement that an initiative petition signature gatherer must be a resident and registered voter of Maine		122,646 (31%)	269,699 (69%)
OH	LRCA	Issue 1	Require a 60% vote to approve a constitutional amendment; increase the signature distribution requirement; and eliminate the signature cure period		1,329,052 (43%)	1,769,482 (57%)

2022

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
AR	LRCA	Issue 2	Require a 60% vote to approve ballot initiatives		353,812 (41%)	511,580 (59%)
AZ	LRCA	Proposition 128	Allow the Legislature to amend or repeal voter-approved ballot measures that contain provisions ruled unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court		859,675 (36%)	1,502,368 (64%)
AZ	LRCA	Proposition 129	Require citizen-initiated ballot measures to embrace a single subject	a	1,311,046 (55%)	1,062,533 (45%)
AZ	LRCA	Proposition 132	Require a 60% vote to pass ballot measures to approve taxes	a	1,210,702 (51%)	1,176,327 (49%)
CO	LRSS	Proposition GG	Require a table showing changes in income tax owed for average taxpayers in certain brackets to be included in the ballot title for initiated measures	a	1,704,757 (72%)	665,476 (28%)
SD	LRCA	Constitutional Amendment C	Require a three-fifths vote of approval for ballot measures that increase taxes or fees or require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years		59,125 (33%)	122,417 (67%)

2020

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
AR	LRCA	Issue 3	Increase the signature distribution requirement for initiatives; eliminate the signature cure period; and move the signature submission deadline, among other changes		503,028 (44%)	638,319 (56%)
FL	CICA	Amendment 4	Require voter-approved constitutional amendments to be approved at a second general election		4,853,402 (48%)	5,356,792 (52%)
MT	LRCA	C-46	Change language in constitution to match existing initiated amendment distribution requirements in statute	a	426,279 (77%)	128,295 (23%)
MT	LRCA	C-47	Change language in constitution to match existing initiated statute and referendum distribution requirements in statute	a	411,153 (75%)	140,300 (25%)
ND	LRCA	Constitutional Measure 2	Require voter-approved initiated constitutional amendments to be submitted to the Legislature, which must also pass the amendment; or, when the Legislature does not, the initiative must receive voter approval for a second time		125,460 (38%)	201,343 (62%)

2019

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
ME	LRCA	Question 2	Allow for persons with physical disabilities that prevent them from signing their own names to use an alternative signature to sign ballot initiative petitions	a	141,162 (76%)	45,799 (24%)

2018

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
CA	LRCA	Proposition 71	Move the effective date of ballot propositions from the day after election day to the fifth day after election results are certified	a	4,527,073 (78%)	1,288,385 (22%)
SD	CICA	Amendment W	Require voter approval for substantive legislative changes to a voter-approved initiative or referendum and add the existing simple majority vote requirement for initiatives to the state constitution, among other changes		142,769 (45%)	174,081 (55%)
SD	LRCA	Constitutional Amendment X	Require a 55% vote to approve a constitutional amendment		140,730 (46%)	167,362 (54%)
SD	LRCA	Amendment Z	Enact a single-subject rule for constitutional amendments	a	195,790 (62%)	117,947 (38%)
SD	CISS	Initiated Measure 24	Prohibit out-of-state persons and entities from making contributions to ballot question committees in South Dakota	a	174,960 (56%)	140,172 (44%)

Difficulty analysis, 2018-2023

See also: Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures

The bills and resolutions analyzed are listed on the following page: Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures

Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by year

Of the 206 pieces of legislation enacted from 2018 to 2023, 43 (20.9%) bills or resolutions made the initiative, referendum, or recall processes more difficult, as defined in the methodology section below. Fourteen (6.8%) made or would make these processes easier or less difficult to use.

The year with the most enacted bills or resolutions that made the initiative, referendum, and recall processes more difficult was 2021, when 14 pieces of legislation were passed. Those bills accounted for 38.9% of the total enacted in 2021.

The following chart illustrates the number of bills or resolutions enacted each year, including those that made the processes more or less difficult:

Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by state

From 2018 to 2023, each of the 43 bills or resolutions that made initiative, referendum, or recall processes more difficult was passed in the 26 states with a statewide initiative or referendum process. The states with the most enacted pieces of legislation were:

• South Dakota, with 10 bills or resolutions;
• Arizona, with six bills or resolutions;
• Florida, with six bills or resolutions; and
• Arkansas, with five bills or resolutions.

The other states with enacted bills or resolutions making the process more difficult had two or fewer between 2018 and 2023.

The states that passed the most bills or resolutions making the process less difficult were Maine and Oregon, each with two pieces of legislation.

The following map illustrates the number of enacted bills or resolutions that made initiative, referendum, or recall processes more difficult in each state from 2018 to 2023:

Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by topic

Of the 43 bills or resolutions that made direct democratic processes more difficult, 16 (37.2%) addressed petition circulator, also known as signature gatherer, requirements. Examples include requiring signature gatherers to register with the state government; banning paying circulators based on the number of signatures gathered, which is known as pay-per-signature; and requiring signature gatherers to be state residents.

Of the 14 bills or resolutions that made direct democratic processes less difficult, the most common topic was also circulator requirements, with five (35.7%) addressing this topic. Examples include repealing pay-per-signature bans, removing a circulator's personal information from petitions, and enacting laws to regulate petition blocking.

The following chart illustrates the number of bills related to each topic area:

Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by legislative vote margins

A legislative vote margin refers to the difference in the level of support between Democrats and Republicans in state legislatures. This is similar to an election vote margin in which a candidate is said to have received, for example, 5 percentage points more than another candidate. A bill that receives support from 100% of legislative Republicans and 20% of legislative Democrats has a legislative vote margin of R+80%, for example.

Ballotpedia classifies legislative vote margins on legislation related to the initiative, referendum, and recall as follows:

• Republican: R+50.1% to R+100%
• Lean Republican: R+25.1% to R+50%
• Bipartisan: R+25% to D+25%, including 0%
• Lean Democratic: D+25.1% to D+50%
• Democratic: D+50.1% to D+100%

Of the 43 bills or resolutions that made direct democracy processes more difficult, 38 (88.4%) had Republican legislative vote margins, and four (9.3%) had Democratic majorities, including three with Democratic vote margins and one with a lean Democratic vote margin. One (2.3%) passed with bipartisan support.

Of the 14 bills or resolutions that made direct democracy processes less difficult, nine (64.3%) had bipartisan support, four (28.6%) had Democratic majorities, including two with Democratic vote margins and one with a lean Democratic vote margin. One (7.1%) had a Republican legislative vote margin.

The following chart illustrates the legislative vote margins for the pieces of legislation that made processes harder or easier:

Outliers:

• The one bill that made the initiative process easier and had a Republican legislative vote margin was Kentucky House Bill 133 (2021), which decreased the number of signatures required for veto referendums against school district tax levies.

• Three bills that made direct democratic processes more difficult had a Democratic legislative vote margin. These were California Assembly Bill 2584 (2022), which increased the number of signatures required for recall petitions in certain jurisdictions; Colorado Senate Bill 250, which eliminated the signature cure period for initiative petitions; and Oregon Senate Bill 1510, which limited the number of signatures that could be included on a state initiative petition to 2,000.

Difficulty analysis methodology

Ballotpedia has identified the following legislative changes as making the ballot initiative process more difficult in a given state.

The legislative changes examined in this analysis are based on general concepts found in proposed and approved bills concerning ballot measures. These changes do not always make the initiative process harder or easier to use. The effect of these changes depends on the specific details of each change, how the various policies in a state interact, and the particular ballot initiatives being considered.

There are often competing ideas about a bill's intent. While a bill's sponsor could view a change as intended to increase rural representation or reduce out-of-state organizations from being involved in state politics, a bill's opponent could view a change as undermining the ballot initiative process or designed to impede certain initiative campaigns. Ballotpedia does not endorse a position or argument regarding the policies listed below.

The following list was designed to evaluate policies based on their likelihood of making signature drives or campaigns more resource-intensive, including requiring more spending or travel; increasing the likelihood of signatures being rejected; limiting the potential pool of signature gatherers; limiting the potential pool of campaign donors; making an initiative or petition more susceptible to litigation; and decreasing the odds of a measure being approved due to specific election requirements.

Topic	Policy change	Example
Signature requirements	Increase the number of signatures required for a citizen-initiated measure	Increase a signature requirement from 5% of registered voters to 8% of registered voters
	Increase the number of political subdivisions, such as legislative districts or counties, that signatures must be gathered from	Increase the signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated measures from 15 counties to 50 counties
	Increase the number of signatures that must be collected from each political subdivision	Increase the number of signatures needed in each legislative district from 3% of qualified voters to 6% of qualified voters
Circulation period	Decrease the number of days that campaigns have to collect signatures	Decrease the number of days that a campaign has to collect signatures from 180 days to 120 days
	Provide that signatures expire at the end of an election cycle	Provide that a campaign's signatures cannot be collected during one election cycle and submitted during the next one
	Decrease the cure period length for signatures	Repeal a law allowing campaigns to submit additional signatures when their initial submission falls short of the requirement
	Tighten the qualifications to have a signature cure period	Increase the number of valid signatures needed with an initial signature submission to be allowed to have a signature cure period
Initiative content	Create or make stricter a single-subject rule	Provide that a citizen-initiated ballot measure must address a single subject
	Create or make stricter subject restrictions	Provide that citizen-initiated ballot measures cannot address certain subjects
	Prohibit initiatives that allocate funds without a funding source	Provide that citizen-initiated ballot measures cannot allocate funds without providing a specific funding source, like a tax
	Create or make stricter a separate-vote requirement	Provide that a constitutional amendment cannot amend different parts of a state constitution
Circulator requirements	Prohibit or otherwise restrict out-of-state or out-of-jurisdiction signature gatherers	Prohibit volunteer or paid signature gatherers who reside outside the state
	Prohibit people from collecting signatures for previous criminal convictions	Prohibit persons with criminal convictions or specific criminal convictions from collecting signatures
	Prohibit or otherwise restrict paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected (pay-per-signature)	Prohibit paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected, which is an efficient method of payment for campaigns
	Create circulator registration and training requirements	Require potential signature gatherers to register with the state and/or take a training course
	Create or make stricter circulator in-the-filed requirements	Require signature gatherers to read petitions out loud; require them to give an initiative text to each signer; and require them to swear that a signer read and understood the text
	Require circulators to sign an affidavit or obtain notarization for a petition sheet	Require the person who collects the signatures for a given petition sheet to sign an affidavit or have the sheet notarized
Signer requirements	Require that petition signers be disclosed on a government-sponsored website	Require that the state or local jurisdiction publish the names of persons who signed a petition
	Require additional information to be provided or disclosed for petition signers	Require that additional information about petition signers be provided or disclosed, such as a signer's birth date, voter ID number, address, or other information
Petition requirements	Increase the number of official proponents required to initiate a petition	Increase the number of official proponents or sponsors needed from three to 10 persons to initiate a petition
	Require or increase a filing fee for proposed initiatives before signature gathering can begin	Increase a filing fee for proposed initiative petitions from $500 to $2,000
	Reduce the number of signatures allowed per petition sheet	Require that no more than a certain number, such as 25, signatures can be added to a petition sheet
	Require that petition sheets must be used within specific jurisdictions and not others	Provide that signatures cannot be collected from, for example, two counties using the same petition sheet
	Create or make stricter requirements regarding the detailed appearance or format of petitions	Require petition format to follow specific detailed guidelines and void signatures when the format is incorrect
Ballot language	Provide that officials write the ballot language for a measure after signatures are collected	Change when the ballot language, such as the question or title, is published, from before to after signature gathering is completed
Election requirements	Increase the size of the vote required for a ballot measure to pass	Require a supermajority vote, rather than a simple majority, for voters to pass a ballot measure
	Require that a ballot measure be passed at more than one election to be approved	Require that a ballot measure be approved in two sequential elections, as is the case for initiated amendments in Nevada, before the measure is enacted
	Add a double majority requirement for ballot measures	Require that a ballot measure receive a majority vote and that a certain percentage of registered voters cast ballots or vote on the measure
Campaign finance requirements	Establish or make stricter restrictions on contributions to ballot measure campaigns	Provide that donors to ballot initiative committees cannot give above a certain amount
	Establish or make stricter restrictions on out-of-state donors to ballot measure campaigns	Provide that potential donors who do not live or are not incorporated in the state cannot contribute to ballot initiative committees
	Establish or make stricter restrictions on contributions to ballot measure campaigns during the signature-gathering phase	Provide that a single donor cannot give more than a certain amount to a ballot initiative committee until the measure is certified for the ballot

Disclosure of information and other changes

The disclosure of campaign finance or other information, such as fiscal impact statements, can have variable effects on ballot initiative campaigns depending on how voters respond to the disclosed information. Other changes that could affect initiative outcomes are the criminalization of fraudulent signature-gathering and election date requirements. These types of policies are not included in this analysis on legislative changes that make the ballot initiative process more difficult due to their variable effects.

Topic	Policy change	Example
Signature withdrawal	Provide that information on how to withdraw a signature from a petition	Publish information on the steps that a person would need to take to get their signature removed from a petition
Impact statements	Require a financial or economic impact statement for a ballot measure to be provided on a petition or on the ballot	Require that a petition for an initiative include information on possible fiscal or economic effects of a proposal
	Require a government spending or revenue impact statement for a ballot measure to be provided on a petition or on the ballot	Require that a petition for an initiative increasing or decreasing taxes include information on how government revenue and programs could be affected
	Provide that officials write the fiscal impact statement for a measure after signatures are collected	Change when the fiscal impact statement is published, from before signature gathering to after circulation
Legislative hearing requirements	Require legislative hearings to be held on a proposed ballot initiative	Require that a legislative committee or other government body hold public hearings on a proposed ballot initiative
	Require that a legislative committee or other officials vote to support or oppose a measure and have that information published	Require that petitions include information on the stances of certain public officials
Criminal penalties	Establish specific crimes, charges, and penalties related to the initiative process	Making the willful submission of fraudulent petition signatures a specific crime with a specific punishment
Campaign finance disclosure	Require that the names of some donors be included on or with petitions for potential signers to see	Require that a sheet listing the top three donors to a ballot initiative committee be given to potential signers
Election requirements	Provide that measures proposing supermajority requirements for other measures must pass by the same vote requirement being proposed	Provide that a measure proposing a two-thirds vote on certain initiatives must itself receive a two-thirds vote
	Provide that ballot measures can only be decided on certain election dates	Require that ballot measures must be decided on special election dates, rather than general election dates

Academic research

Matsusaka (2023)

Title: "Direct Democracy Backsliding? Quantifying the Prevalence and Investigating Causes 1960-2022"

Author: John Matsusaka, Director of the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California

Publication: Social Science Research Network - August 1, 2023

Matsusaka examined proposed legislative constitutional amendments related to ballot initiative processes from 1960 to 2022. He classified the constitutional amendments as "either increasing or decreasing the cost of proposing and approving" ballot initiatives. He stated, "Rather than wade into the waters of defining the essential nature of democracy, I focus instead on whether a law would have increased the cost of using direct democracy." Matsusaka found the following:

• From 1960 to 2022, the number of proposed constitutional amendments has been consistent across the decades, with a spike between 1995 and 2004. "Contrary to media speculation, the amount of such activity is not unusually high recently," wrote Matsusaka. He elaborated, "[P]roposals to restrict initiative and referendum rights were common throughout the period."

• From 1960 to 2022, 62% of the proposed amendments originated in Republican-controlled state legislatures, 17% in Democratic-controlled state legislatures, and 21% in divided legislatures.

• There was a shift around 2000. Before 2000, about 50% of the amendments originated in Republican-controlled state legislatures, while about 25% originated in Democratic-controlled state legislatures and 25% originated in divided legislatures. After 2000, Republicans continued proposing constitutional amendments but the numbers fell for Democratic-controlled state legislatures and divided legislatures.

• There was no apparent difference between the political parties regarding amendments that would make the initiative process less difficult.

Matsusaka noted three theories regarding the proposal of constitutional amendments to increase the cost of proposing and approving ballot initiatives:

• Power maximization: "[L]egislators prefer processes in which power remains in their hands, and not in the hands of the people."

• Political philosophy: "[E]lected officials have philosophical beliefs about what form of democracy is best, and believe that democracy is harmed by initiatives and referendums." Matsusaka cited former Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R), who said, "Referendum is pure democracy, and it has not worked for 15,000 years."

• Strategic motives: "[P]roposed changes are strategically or instrumental motivated to influence policy outcomes." Matsusaka adds, "The strategic theory implies that legislatures adjust direct democratic institutions to achieve policy ends, but this does not lead to a general tendency to support or oppose citizen lawmaking." He cited Arkansas Sen. Bryan King (R-28), who said, "I don’t think this is a party issue. This is a control issue. It’s trying to fence off challenges to whatever decisions a government makes."

Matsusaka said, "The evidence here lends some support to the political philosophy and strategic theories but does not support the simple power monopolization theory."

He concluded, "We can conclude objectively that Republicans were more likely to propose amendments that raised the cost of using direct democracy, and in that sense contributed to direct democratic backsliding, but whether that is good or bad for democracy depends on one’s opinion about the competence of voters to make public decisions or the power of special interests, an issue that is contested even among strong advocates of democracy."

Dinan (2022)

Title: "Changing the Rules for Direct Democracy in the Twenty-First Century in Response to Animal Welfare, Marijuana, Minimum Wage, Medicaid, Elections, and Gambling Initiatives"

Author: John Dinan, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Wake Forest University

Publication: Nebraska Law Review 101 (1)

Dinan produced a synopsis of three time periods related to initiative and referendum use and analyzed certain changes during the current period. He wrote that "the debate has largely moved away from whether to adopt or eliminate initiative processes and now focuses on how to structure the rules governing these processes."

Dinan identified the following periods in initiative and referendum use:

• Period 1 (the early twentieth century): The initiative and referendum in the U.S. developed during the Progressive Era. Dinan wrote, "In the first few decades of the Twentieth Century, the initiative process was, in nearly all cases, a vehicle for securing progressive policies and championed by progressives and opposed by conservatives."

• Period 2 (the late twentieth century): The number of initiatives and referendums decreased between the 1940s and 1960s; the century's "final quarter saw a surge in the number of initiative measures and a change in the groups benefiting from these measures. Beginning in the late 1970s, conservative groups and Republican officials were in many instances the primary beneficiaries and champions of the initiative process," wrote Dinan. He cited California Proposition 13 and a "wave of tax-and-expenditure limitation measures from the late 1970s through the early 1990s."

• Period 3 (the early twenty-first century): Dinan wrote, "During the first two decades of the Twenty-First Century, Democratic officials and liberal groups are, on balance, more likely to benefit from initiatives, and Republican officials and conservative groups are more likely to support restricting the process." He said that one possible reason is that more of the 24 states that provide for initiatives were Republican-controlled, which offered "the most opportunities for liberal groups to take their case to the initiative process."

Dinan, focusing on the third period, said that changes in the initiative process often occur when there is a disconnect or mismatch between the policy goals of the public and those of elected officials. He stated, "When the initiative process is used on a routine basis to bypass the dominant party and its allied groups, the majority party and its allies try to limit its use."

Dinan examined several ballot initiative topics during the third period that legislators responded to with enacted changes to make the initiative process more difficult. The topics were: animal welfare (hunting and farm animal-related), minimum wage, marijuana, Medicaid, voting and elections, and gambling.

He concluded, "At present, however, liberal groups are most likely to benefit from initiatives, and Republican officials are most likely to try to limit them. Republicans currently control the legislature in two-thirds of the states allowing for the initiative process, and are more likely than Democratic officials to be bypassed via initiatives. Moreover, liberal groups of various kinds have identified a range of policies where the preferences of Republican officials are out of step with the public’s views, thereby generating numerous successful initiatives and prompting pushback in the form of initiative process rules changes."

See also

• Changes to laws governing ballot measures
• Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures