Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures
From Ballotpedia
Ballotpedia tracked 250 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall elections in 39 states during 2018 legislative sessions.
Of the 250 introduced bills, state legislatures passed 42 bills (16.8%). Governors vetoed three of the bills, meaning 39 were enacted into law.
On this page, you will find:
- a list of bills enacted in 2018 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
- a map and list of bills proposed bills in 2018 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
- a list of court rulings that changed ballot measure processes
Legislation approved in 2018
Are you aware of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was enacted during a 2018 legislative session that is not listed here, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
By legislative vote
| State | Bill | D Support (%) | R Support (%) | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | HB 2121 (Vetoed) | 0.0% | 100.0% | R+100.0% |
| North Carolina | HB 3 | 1.9% | 100.0% | R+98.1% |
| Idaho | HB 568 | 0.0% | 97.7% | R+97.7% |
| South Dakota | HJR 1006 | 0.0% | 96.6% | R+96.6% |
| South Dakota | SJR 1 | 0.0% | 95.3% | R+95.3% |
| Michigan | HB 6595 | 0.0% | 94.3% | R+94.3% |
| South Dakota | SB 9 | 6.7% | 98.9% | R+92.2% |
| South Dakota | HB 1007 | 0.0% | 89.6% | R+89.6% |
| South Dakota | HB 1177 | 0.0% | 86.0% | R+86.0% |
| South Dakota | HB 1196 | 0.0% | 72.1% | R+72.1% |
| Arizona | HB 2648 | 35.1% | 100.0% | R+64.9% |
| Idaho | HB 620 | 43.8% | 100.0% | R+56.3% |
| South Dakota | HB 1006 | 42.9% | 94.0% | R+51.2% |
| South Dakota | SB 128 | 57.1% | 97.6% | R+40.5% |
| Oklahoma | HB 2827 | 58.6% | 97.8% | R+39.2% |
| Utah | SB 122 | 37.5% | 76.6% | R+39.1% |
| New Mexico | HB 49 | 66.1% | 100.0% | R+33.9% |
| South Dakota | HB 1304 | 66.7% | 98.9% | R+32.2% |
| Michigan | HB 6107 | 80.0% | 98.9% | R+18.9% |
| South Dakota | SB 13 | 86.7% | 100.0% | R+13.3% |
| Louisiana | HB 54 | 90.7% | 100.0% | R+9.3% |
| South Dakota | SB 11 | 93.3% | 97.6% | R+4.3% |
| Michigan | SB 809 | 96.4% | 100.0% | R+3.6% |
| Arizona | HB 2115 | 97.1% | 100.0% | R+2.9% |
| California | SB 1153 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Colorado | HB 1145 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Colorado | HB 1268 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Louisiana | SB 457 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Nebraska | LB 1000 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| South Dakota | SB 10 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| South Dakota | SB 7 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Maine | LD 1840 | 94.7% | 93.0% | D+1.7% |
| Utah | HB 491 | 100.0% | 93.8% | D+6.3% |
| South Dakota | HB 1002 | 100.0% | 93.1% | D+6.9% |
| South Dakota | HB 1004 | 100.0% | 92.9% | D+7.1% |
| South Dakota | HB 1005 | 100.0% | 91.7% | D+8.3% |
| New Mexico | HB 98 | 80.4% | 68.9% | D+11.5% |
| South Dakota | SB 77 | 100.0% | 88.0% | D+12.0% |
| Oregon | SB 1510 | 98.1% | 14.3% | D+83.8% |
| California | AB 890 (Vetoed) | 89.3% | 0.0% | D+89.3% |
| California | AB 1947 (Vetoed) | 96.2% | 0.0% | D+96.2% |
| Maine | LD 1865 | N/A[1] | N/A[1] | N/A[1] |
By state
Arizona
- House Bill 2115: The legislation was designed to conform requirements for school bond elections with general obligation bond elections and rename the bond measure informational report to the informational pamphlet.[2]
- House Bill 2121 (Vetoed): Gov. Doug Ducey (R) vetoed HB 2121 on April 20, 2018. The legislation would have changed the definition of paid circulator to include circulators who receive monetary or other compensation for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, rather than circulators who are paid based on the number of signatures collected.[3]
- House Bill 2648: The legislation changed the definition of paid circulator to include circulators who receive monetary or other compensation for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, rather than circulators who are paid based on the number of signatures collected.[4]
California
- Assembly Bill 890 (Vetoed): Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed AB 890 on October 15, 2018. The legislation would have prohibited citizen-initiated ballot measures to change a municipal general plan or amend zoning ordinances for the purposes of covering a land use approval for a project, changing the land use designation on parcels to more intensive land use, or allowing more intensive land uses within an existing land use designation.
- Assembly Bill 1947 (Vetoed): Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed AB 1947 on September 18, 2018. The legislation would have banned paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.[5]
- Senate Bill 1153: The legislation allowed proponents of a local ballot initiative to withdraw the initiative up to 88 days prior to an election.[6]
Colorado
- House Bill 1145: The legislation was designed to repeal state ballot initiative laws that courts ruled to be invalid. The repealed laws restricted payment of signature gatherers according to the number of signatures collected to 20 percent of their total compensation and required signature gatherers to be state residents.[7]
- House Bill 1268: The legislation established a process and procedures for recall elections against special district directors.[8]
Idaho
- House Bill 568: The legislation was designed to conform local initiative and referendum laws with a court ruling that prevented the use of citizen-initiated ballot measures regarding local zoning laws.[9]
- House Bill 620: The legislation prohibited a government or public entity, or their employees, from using public funds, resources, or property to advocate for or against a ballot measure.[10]
Louisiana
- House Bill 54: The legislation reduced the percentage of registered voters required for a recall petition for cities with larger populations.[11]
- Senate Bill 457: The legislation required the chairman and vice chairman of a recall campaign to file picture IDs that contain their names and signatures and an item, such as a paycheck, that contains their names and addresses. The legislation also required recall petitions to include the signatures of the chairman and the vice chairman.[12]
Maine
- Legislative Document 1840: The legislation required a ballot question to form a joint charter commission to draft a consolidation agreement between municipalities after enough signatures are collected.[13] Gov. Paul LePage (R) vetoed LD 1840 but the Legislature overrode his veto and enacted the bill.
- Legislative Document 1865: The legislation was designed to address ballot measure notaries and campaign finance, including:[14]
- providing that notaries or other persons authorized to administer oaths or affirmations cannot administer an oath or affirmation to a petition circulator when that person is providing other services to the initiative campaign or to promote the initiative;
- requiring major contributors, defined as contributors who donate $100,000 or more, to file reports providing certain financial information, including the contributor's five largest sources of funds during the six months prior; and
- requiring major contributors to file reports containing information on each contribution within five days or, during the last 13 days before the election, within 24 hours.
Michigan
- House Bill 6107: The legislation criminalized making a false signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition as a misdemeanor.[15]
- House Bill 6595: The legislation made changes to laws governing the initiative process in Michigan, including:[16]
- creating a distribution requirement requiring that no more than 15 percent of required signatures come from a given congressional district;
- requiring the Board of State Canvassers to officially determine whether an initiative petition is sufficient or insufficient no later than 100 days prior to the election;
- requiring initiative petitions to include a summary of the proposal that is no longer than 100 words;
- providing that petitions must say whether the circulator is a paid or volunteer signature gatherer; and
- requiring paid circulators to submit a signed affidavit, among other changes.
- Senate Bill 809: The legislation made several changes to election policies in Michigan, including requiring that a special election for a ballot measure must occur at a regular election date. The legislation also provided that a person collecting signatures for a recall petition needs to be at least 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, rather than a registered voter in the electoral district of the official being recalled, among other changes.[17]
Nebraska
- Legislative Bill 1000: The legislation required that bonds issued under the Public Facilities Construction and Finance Act require voter approval.[18]
New Mexico
- House Bill 49: The legislation established criteria for circulating recall petitions for elected municipal officeholders, including having a district court ruling that probable cause for the recall exists.[19]
- House Bill 98: The legislation made several changes to election policies in New Mexico, including requiring that special elections for statewide ballot questions be conducted exclusively through mail-in voting and prohibiting non-binding advisory questions.[20]
North Carolina
- House Bill 3: The legislation eliminated the Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission's caption for a constitutional amendment featured on the ballot. Under HB 3, the caption for a constitutional amendment is Constitutional Amendment.[21] Gov. Roy Cooper (D) vetoed HB 3 but the Legislature overrode the veto.
Oklahoma
- House Bill 2827: The legislation required that within 10 days after the attorney general reviews and files the ballot title for an initiative or referendum, the secretary of state must file the title with the State Election Board.[22]
Oregon
- Senate Bill 1510: The legislation made several changes to election policies in Oregon, including requiring that the final certified ballot title be included on the initiative petition signature sheets and limiting the number of signatures that could be included on a state initiative petition to 2,000.[23]
South Dakota
In 2017, a 13-member interim committee was established to investigate the state's initiative and referendum process and recommend changes for legislators to consider in 2018.[24]
- House Bill 1002: The legislation redefined ballot question committee to also include committees spending funds to oppose ballot measures before their certification.[25]
- House Bill 1004: The legislation gave the State Board of Elections the power to make rules related to initiative petition size and font size.[26]
- House Bill 1005: The legislation established precise wording for the ballot language for citizen-initiated ballot measures as follows:
- For initiated constitutional amendments: "Vote 'Yes' to adopt the amendment" and "Vote 'No' to leave the Constitution as it is."
- For initiated state statutes: "Vote 'Yes' to adopt the initiated measure" and "Vote 'No' to leave South Dakota law as it is."
- For veto referendums: "Vote 'Yes' to repeal the Act of the Legislature" and "Vote 'No' to allow the Act of the Legislature to become law."
- House Bill 1006: The legislation provided that the Legislative Research Council should offer written comments regarding the substantive content of proposed ballot initiatives for the purposes of minimizing conflicts with existing laws and ensuring the effective administration of the measure.[27]
- House Bill 1007: The legislation established a single-subject rule for citizen-initiated state statutes.[28]
- House Bill 1177: The legislation required initiative petition sheets to include the name, phone number, email address, and the paid or volunteer status of the signature gatherer. HB 1177 also required paid signature gatherers to include how much they're being paid.[29]
- House Bill 1196: The legislation required a signature gatherer to provide a sworn statement attesting to residency, as well as the circulator's vehicle license state, voter registration state, current address, addresses of two previous residences, a statement expressing the circulator's intention to remain in the state following the petition effort, other information to prove residency, and other information.[30]
- House Bill 1304: The legislation provided that the defendants in legal challenges to signature petitions or a circulator's attestation are the petition sponsors, rather than the attorney general, except in cases about the state's process of signature verification. HB 1304 also allowed challengers to reference the secretary of state’s signature verification results in court [31]
- House Joint Resolution 1006 (Constitutional Amendment Z): Voters approved the constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. Constitutional Amendment Z created a single-subject rule for constitutional amendments, whether initiated or referred. [32]
- Senate Bill 7: The legislation prohibited ballot question committees from making contributions to statewide candidates and political parties and specified that ballot question committees can receive unlimited contributions from various entities, such as individuals and political action committees.[33]
- Senate Bill 9: The legislation provided that the Legislative Research Council must provide a fiscal note — to be included on the ballot — when a measure would have a fiscal impact, according to the office's analysis.[34]
- Senate Bill 10: The legislation provided that when initiated measures or constitutional amendments passed at the same election conflict with one another, the measure receiving the highest number of votes becomes enacted.
- Senate Bill 11: The legislation required proponents of an initiative or referendum to submit the measure to the Legislative Research Council for review and comment at least six months prior to when the initiative can be circulated.[35]
- Senate Bill 13: The legislation required the Legislative Research Council to provide the sponsor of an initiative with a fiscal note when the office determines that the proposed initiative would impact revenues, expenditures, or fiscal liability of the state.[36]
- Senate Bill 77: The legislation provided that donors to a ballot question committee do not need to report certain information for donated goods or services.[37]
- Senate Bill 128: The legislation required a ballot question committee to be terminated following two successive reporting periods without any activity.[38]
- Senate Joint Resolution 1 (Constitutional Amendment X): Voters rejected the constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. Constitutional Amendment X would have required a 55% vote to approve constitutional amendments.[39]
Utah
- House Bill 491: The legislation provided that the Legislature can submit non-binding questions to voters by passing a joint resolution. The legislation provided that the official title for statewide non-binding advisory questions is Nonbinding Opinion Question #___, with a number assigned where the blank is.[40]
- Senate Bill 122: The legislation provided that a local political subdivision, such as a municipality or county, cannot receive an aggregate amount of funds from a bond that exceeds the maximum principal amount stated in the bond proposition by more than 2%.[41]
Legislation in 2018
The following map shows the number of bills related to ballot measures or recall elections in each state. Click on a state to see a list of bills in that state. Click Back in the upper left-hand corner to return to the map.
Noteworthy events
North Dakota Initiated and Referred Measures Study Commission
In 2017, the North Dakota State Legislature passed a bill authorizing an interim commission, called the Initiated and Referred Measures Study Commission, to investigate the state's initiative and referendum process and propose changes. The commission convened in 2017 and 2018.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
The interim commission considered 32 proposals and recommended four to the Legislature on May 22, 2018:[42]
- a proposal to require a measure's fiscal impact statement to be included in the ballot language;
- a proposal to allow initiative proponents to request assistance in drafting initiatives from the legislative council;
- a proposal to require fiscal impact statements for veto referendums, in addition to other initiatives; and
- a proposal to amend campaign finance reporting requirements for in-state contributors to match the existing requirements for out-of-state contributors.
The 19-member commission consisted of six members from the Legislature, Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger (R), and 11 civilian members. Judge William Neumann chaired the commission. The six legislators were Reps. Jim Kasper (R-46), Scott Louser (R-5), Vicky Steiner (R-37), and Sens. David Hogue (R-38), Gary A. Lee (R-22), Erin Oban (D-35). The 11 civilian members were Brent Bogar (Greater North Dakota Chamber), Pete Hanebutt (North Dakota Farm Bureau), Kayla Pulvermacher (North Dakota Farmers Union), Jack McDonald (North Dakota Newspaper Association), and seven gubernatorial appointees.[43]
Evaluating the effect of legislative changes on ballot initiatives
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 |
See also
- Changes 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
- Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Note: There were no vote roll-calls recorded for this bill.
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "House Bill 2115," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "House Bill 2121," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "House Bill 2648," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1947," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1153," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 1145," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 1268," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "House Bill 568," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "House Bill 620," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "House Bill 54," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "Senate Bill 457," accessed Senate Bill 457
- ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1840," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1865," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 6107," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 6595," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "Senate Bill 809," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Nebraska State Legislature, "Legislative Bill 1000," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ New Mexico State Legislature, "House Bill 49," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ New Mexico State Legislature, "House Bill 98," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ North Carolina State Legislature, "House Bill 3," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "House Bill 2827," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1510," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Capital Journal, "2018 legislators chip away at initiated measure process," March 28, 2018
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1002," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1004," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1006," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1007," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1177," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1196," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1304," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 1006," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 7," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 9," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 11," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 13," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 77," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 128," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 1," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 491," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 122," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ West Fargo Pioneer, "ND ballot measure commission wraps work, forwards four proposals," May 23, 2018
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedndcom
