Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures
Ballotpedia tracked 218 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall elections in 40 states during 2020 legislative sessions.
Of the 218 introduced bills, 17 bills (7.8%) were passed and enacted into law.
On this page, you will find:
- a list of bills enacted in 2020 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
- a map and list of bills proposed bills in 2020 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
- a list of court rulings that changed ballot measure processes
Legislation approved in 2020
Are you aware of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was enacted during a 2020 legislative session that is not listed here, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
By legislative vote
The table below presents a list of bills passed in 2021, along with the percentages of Democrats and Republicans who voted in favor of these bills:
| State | Bill | D Support (%) | R Support (%) | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | SB 1794 | 0.0% | 100.0% | R+100.0% |
| Idaho | SB 1350 | 0.0% | 100.0% | R+100.0% |
| Idaho | HB 548 | 5.6% | 100.0% | R+94.4% |
| South Dakota | SB 180 | 0.0% | 89.5% | R+89.5% |
| Oklahoma | HB 3826 | 12.5% | 100.0% | R+87.5% |
| Colorado | HB 1416 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.00% |
| Idaho | SB 1310 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.00% |
| South Dakota | HB 1053 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.00% |
| Utah | HB 75 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.00% |
| Utah | SB 143 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.00% |
| South Dakota | HB 1049 | 100.0% | 97.7% | D+2.3% |
| Colorado | SB 209 | 100.0% | 97.4% | D+2.6% |
| Utah | SB 47 | 100.0% | 92.2% | D+7.8% |
| Oklahoma | HB 2871 | 100.0% | 88.9% | D+11.1% |
| New York | SB 8763 / AB 10783 | 100.0% | 78.7% | D+21.3% |
| New Jersey | AB 4037 | 100.0% | 67.5% | D+32.5% |
| Wisconsin | AB 310 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
By state
Colorado
- House Bill 1416: The legislation required a fiscal impact statement, rather than a shorter abstract of this information, to be included on ballot initiative petitions.[1]
- Senate Bill 209: The legislation modified the effective dates for bills passed in 2020 that are subject to veto referendum petitions.[2] The Legislature was suspended on March 14, 2020, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. SB 209 modified veto referendum dates to account for session date changes in 2020.
Florida
- Senate Bill 1794: The legislation made several changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Florida, including:[3]
- making signatures invalid after February 1 of even-numbered years each cycle instead of allowing signatures to remain valid for a period of two years;
- increasing the signature threshold to trigger a court review of an initiative petition from 10% to 25% of the total required signatures and in half of the state's congressional districts;
- requiring the Florida Supreme Court to review whether a proposed amendment is "facially invalid under the United States Constitution" in addition to existing requirements for reviewing the ballot title and reviewing the initiative for compliance with the state's single-subject rule;
- requiring petitioners to reimburse counties for the actual cost of verifying signatures, rather than the then-existing fee of 10 cents per signature or the actual cost, whichever is less.
- providing 60 days, rather than 30 days, for elections supervisors to validate signatures, except within 60 days from the deadline;
- allowing citizens to challenge the registration of a paid circulator; and
- requiring specific statements concerning the impact of the measure on the state budget (negative, positive, or indeterminate) to be included on the ballot, among other changes.
Idaho
- House Bill 548: The bill required that initiatives be limited to a single subject; required that initiative petitions include a statement informing signers that they have the option to remove their signatures from the petition; required individuals or entities who pay signature gatherers to report such activity to the secretary of state; and set the earliest and default effective date for ballot initiatives as July 1 of the year following the election.[4]
- Senate Bill 1310: The legislation required that a non-conflicting officer be responsible for the ordering of a recall election.[5]
- Senate Bill 1350: The legislation added a fiscal impact and funding source statement, drafted by the Division of Financial Management, to the voter information guide for ballot initiatives.[6]
New Jersey
- Assembly Bill 4037: The legislation permitted the use of electronic signatures and submission methods for various types of petitions, including those related to candidates, recall efforts, initiatives, and referendums, during a declared COVID-19 emergency order.[7]
New York
- Senate Bill 8763 / Assembly Bill 10783: The legislation modified timelines for referendum submissions to allow towns to hold a referendum election at a biennial election or a special town election.[8]
Oklahoma
- House Bill 2871: The legislation allowed participants in the Address Confidentiality Program to use the address given to them by the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office to sign an initiative or referendum petition.[9]
- House Bill 3826: The legislation required a signer's first and last names, zip code, house number, and month and day of the person's birth date on initiative petition sheets; required petition sheets to include the names, addresses, and signatures of three primary initiative sponsors; and provided that for a signature to be considered valid, three or more data points provided by the signer on the petition sheet must match their corresponding information in their voter registration record.[10]
South Dakota
- House Bill 1049: The legislation capped the number of words for support and opposition statements about ballot initiatives found in voter information pamphlets at 300 words each.[11]
- House Bill 1053: The bill made clarifying changes to the process for submitting initiatives to the Legislative Research Council.[12]
- Senate Bill 180: The legislation required paid circulators to provide their residential address, phone number, driver's license state, voter registration information, sex offender status, and other information, and SB 180 classified this information as public record. Under SB 180, signatures were considered void when a signature gatherer did not meet the registration requirements. SB 180 also required signature gatherers — paid or volunteer — to be residents of South Dakota for at least 30 days.[13]
Utah
- House Bill 75: The legislation required the name and voter identification number, rather than the name and precinct, of each registered voter who signed an initiative petition to be posted on the county's website and clarified that a referendum petition is void when the Legislature repeals the targeted law.[15]
- Senate Bill 47: The legislation provided that signatures on a voter registration record, an initiative petition, and a request to withdraw a signature from an initiative petition are protected records.[16]
- Senate Bill 143: SB 143 made changes to the fiscal impact statements for ballot initiatives, including the length, form, and content of the statements and required the statements to analyze a period of time most useful to understanding the estimated fiscal impact of the initiative.[17]
Wisconsin
- Assembly Bill 310: The legislation allowed ballot questions to increase the limit on the local levy to be held on the same election dates as a school board referendum and required the ballot question to include the percentage increase from the previous year.[18]
Legislation in 2020
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.
Rulings in 2020
The following is a list of court rulings issued in 2020 that affected the ballot measure process.
Michigan
League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State
- See also: Michigan Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, January 24, 2022
On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state.[19] [20]
In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The legislation—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, the Michigan House and Senate filed lawsuits against Nessel. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens decided that the House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel. The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
On January 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 unconstitutional.[21] The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Missouri
No Bans on Choice et al. v. Ashcroft
On February 8, 2022, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that state law prohibiting signature gathering for a veto referendum before the referendum's official ballot title is certified violates citizens' constitutional rights to use the referendum process. The 3-2 opinion upheld a lower court's ruling, which held that the statutes "dramatically reduce the time available for the circulation of a referendum petition, both in theory and in practice." As of 2022, veto referendum campaigns in Missouri had 90 days following the legislature's adjournment to submit enough valid signatures for a veto referendum. The challenged statutes permitted the government to take up to 51 days to prepare an official ballot title, leaving campaigns with "39 days under the worst-case scenario" to collect signatures, according to the court.[22]
The No Bans on Choice Committee and ACLU filed the litigation after suspending their signature drive for a veto referendum, saying there was insufficient time. The organizations were supporting a referendum against House Bill 126 (HB 126), which included an eight-week abortion ban except in the case of medical emergencies.[23]
On December 4, 2020, Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem ruled that Missouri could not prohibit campaigns from gathering signatures prior to receiving a certified ballot title.[24] The ruling was appealed to the state Supreme Court.
South Dakota
SD Voice v. Noem
On January 9, 2020, U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann ruled that House Bill 1094 (HB 1094), passed in 2019, violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. HB 1094 was designed to require paid petition circulators to pre-register with the state and provide certain information; established a paid circulator registration fee of $20; and required petitioners to wear a badge identifying the committee and ballot measure and their paid or volunteer stats, among other changes. Judge Kornmann wrote that the bill’s definition of a petition circular was too broad and restricted free speech. He wrote, "These disclosure provisions place serious and draconian burdens on protected speech. While the state's interests in effective administration of the law and ensuring that its laws are followed are important, the state has ample means of doing so that would not chill speech.”[25]
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 2019 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures
Footnotes
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 1416," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "Senate Bill 209," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ Florida State Senate, "Senate Bill 1794," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "House Bill 548," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1310," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1350," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 4037," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ New York State Senate, "Senate Bill 8763," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "House Bill 2871," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "House Bill 3826," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1049," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1053," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 180," accessed June 20, 2023
- ↑ U.S. District Court of South Dakota, "Dakotans for Health v. Noem, January 10, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 75," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 47," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 143," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 310," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Detroit CBS, "Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Law To Make Petition Drives Harder," January 24, 2022
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State," January 24, 2022
- ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Senate and House of Representatives v. Secretary of State," January 27, 2020
- ↑ Missouri Supreme Court, No Bans on Choice et al. v. Ashcroft, February 8, 2022
- ↑ Idaho Statesman, "Missouri referendum petition laws ruled unconstitutional," December 7, 2020
- ↑ Idaho Statesman, "Missouri referendum petition laws ruled unconstitutional," December 7, 2020
- ↑ United States District Court District of South Dakota Northern Division, "SD Voice v. Noem," January 9, 2020
