Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Laws governing ballot measures
BallotLaw final.png
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

As of December 17, 2023, Ballotpedia had tracked 385 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall elections in 46 states during 2023 legislative sessions. As of December 17, 45 bills had been enacted into law. Legislatures approved 46, but one was vetoed in Louisiana.

On this page, you will find:

HIGHLIGHTS
  • In Ohio, the Legislature referred Issue 1 to the Aug. 8, 2023, ballot, asking voters to increase the vote requirement for constitutional amendments to 60%, increase the signature distribution requirement for initiated amendments, and eliminate the signature cure period for initiated amendments. Voters rejected Issue 1.
  • The Arkansas State Legislature increased the state's distribution requirement for ballot initiative signatures from 15 of 75 counties to 50 of 75 counties.
  • In Washington, the Legislature passed a bill eliminating the state's automatic non-binding questions on tax increase legislation.

    • State ballot measures on initiative and referral processes

    August 8

    State Type Title Description Result Yes Votes No Votes
    OH

    LRCA

    		Issue 1 Require a 60% vote to approve a constitutional amendment; increase the signature distribution requirement; and eliminate the signature cure period

    Defeated

    1,329,052 (43%)

    1,769,482 (57%)

    November 7

    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

    Approveda

    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

    Approveda

    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

    Defeated

    122,646 (31%)

    269,699 (69%)


    Legislation approved in 2023

    Are you aware of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was enacted during a 2023 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 2023, along with the percentages of Democrats and Republicans who voted in favor of these bills:

    Note: Bills with red-colored magins indicate a margin of 50 percentage points or more where Republican support for the legislation exceeds Democratic support. Bills with blue-colored margins indicate a margin of 50 percentage points or more where Democratic support for the legislation exceeds Republican support.

    State Bill D Support (%) R Support (%) Margin Description
    Arizona SCR 1015 0.0% 100.0% R+100.0% Create a signature distribution requirement, with a percentage coming from each of the state's legislative districts, for citizen-initiated measures
    Montana SB 93 2.2% 100.0% R+97.8% 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
    Arkansas HB 1419 0.0% 96.2% R+96.2% Increase the signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated measures from 15 counties to 50 (of 75) counties
    Montana SB 143 0.0% 96.1% R+96.1% Create a process for owners of real property to submit a petition to terminate a zoning district
    Ohio SJR 2 0.0% 94.6% R+94.6% 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
    North Carolina HB 256 8.8% 100.0% R+91.2%% Change the question for local bond measures and require additional information about taxes and bond interest, among other provisions of the budget appropriations bill
    Arkansas HB 1510 13.6% 99.0% R+85.4% Eliminate several election date options for local ballot measures
    North Dakota SCR 4013 20.0% 92.7% R+72.7% 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
    Montana HB 543 19.2% 99.0% R+79.9% Change the language for local property tax and bond measures to say that tax increases may cause rental cost increases and include tax estimates for different home values
    Wisconsin AB 245 13.6% 87.7% R+74.0% Prohibit local governments from referring non-binding questions to the ballot, except for certain topics, among other tax and revenue sharing changes
    North Dakota HB 1230 18.5% 68.3% R+49.8% Make willfully submitting fraudulent signatures for an initiative petition a crime punishable by a civil penalty of up to $3,000
    South Dakota SB 46 63.6% 100.0% R+36.4% Make falsely attesting to personally circulating an initiative petition a Class 6 felony, rather than a Class 1 misdemeanor
    Montana SB 123 63.8% 99.0% R+35.2% Change the language for local property tax and bond measures to say that tax increases may cause rental cost increases and include tax estimates for different home values
    Virginia SB 1151 99.0% 100.0% R+1.5% Provide that the first public notice for a local referendum must be printed no more than 21 days before the election
    Arkansas HB 1027 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Require voter approval for a county government to enact a new or increase an existing local sales tax on hotels or prepared food
    Arkansas HB 1320 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Require initiative sponsors to submit drafts to the Arkansas attorney general, rather than the Board of Election Commissioners
    Arkansas SB 377 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Make certain interferences with initiative petitions and petitioners Class A misdemeanors and require paid petition blockers to undergo background checks
    California SB 773 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Require that ballot measure arguments for districts that include multiple counties be submitted to a lead county (as defined in law)
    California SB 798 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Require the tax rate statement included with local bond measures to include a tax rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation
    Louisiana SB 123 (Vetoed) 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Extend the timeframe for registrars of voters to validate recall petition signatures and make petition signatures a public record after they're submitted
    New York SB 1381 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Require that state ballot measure questions be written in plain language and at no higher than an eighth-grade reading level
    Utah HB 38 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Make technical changes to citizen-initiated ballot measure terms and definitions
    Utah HB 68 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Merge provisions related to signature gathering, including for initiative petitions, into a single section of the Election Code
    Utah HB 69 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Allow information that appears on a separate ballot insert regarding an initiative to instead appear on the official ballot itself
    Utah SB 43 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Change some of the rules governing notices for public hearings before initiative petitions are circulated
    Virginia HB 2161 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Provide that the first public notice for a local referendum must be printed no more than 21 days before the election
    Oklahoma HB 1445 100.0% 99.1% D+0.9% Require school districts to post information online about bond measures, including projects to be funded, before and after the election
    South Dakota SD 1140 100.0% 98.91% D+1.1% Require that the secretary of state to determine if a legislatively referred constitutional amendment complies with the single-subject rule and is not a constitutional revision
    North Dakota SB 2163 86.7% 78.4% D+8.3% Require summaries of ballot measures to be written in "plain, clear, understandable language using words with common, everyday meaning"
    South Dakota SB 113 100.0% 91.7% D+8.3% Change the signature deadline to the first Tuesday in May of a general election year, rather than one year before the general election
    Hawaii SB 113 98.5% 87.5% D+11.0% Require the Office of Elections to prepare a digital voter information guide, including explanations for state and local ballot measures
    Montana SB 56 97.9% 83.3% D+14.5% Conform the statutory signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures with the constitutional signature requirements
    Washington SB 5082 96.5% 1.7% D+94.8% Eliminate the statewide advisory vote requirement for tax increases
    Colorado HB 1003 95.5% 0.0% D+95.5% Require the property task force to evaluate proposed initiatives concerning property taxes that qualified for the 2024 ballot
    California ACA 13 97.6% 0.0% D+97.6% Require that initiatives that seek to adopt or increase supermajority requirements for ballot measures must pass by the same supermajority vote requirement being proposed
    California ACA 1 97.7% 0.0% D+97.7% Decrease 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
    California AB 421 98.8% 0.0% D+98.8% Change the ballot language for veto referendums; require the top three donors to be presented in the voter guide; and allow proponents to withdraw qualified referendum
    California SB 297 100.0% 0.0% D+100.0% Allow proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal that is contingent on a piece of legislation being passed and signed
    California SB 386 100.0% 0.0% D+100.0% Increase the number of days from 30 to 60 that election officials have to conduct a full check of petition signatures when required
    New Mexico SB 180 100.0% 0.0% D+100.0% Make several changes to election policies, including increasing the number of days that the secretary of state has to review a referendum petition
    Maine LD 233 N/A[1] N/A[1] N/A[1] Provide that if petitions are submitted within 30 days before or after an even-numbered general election, the secretary of state has until 30 business days after the 30th calendar day following the general election to complete the verification process
    Maine LD 764 N/A[1] N/A[1] N/A[1] Change the effective date for indirect initiated state statutes passed during the 2023 legislative session from 90 days post-adjournment to after the election in November 2023
    Maine LD 1012 N/A[1] N/A[1] N/A[1] Change the timeline for the judicial review of initiative petitions
    Maine LD 1022 N/A[1] N/A[1] N/A[1] Extend the time frame for holding the budget validation referendum after the regional school unit budget meeting from 30 to 45 days
    Maine LD 1336 N/A[1] N/A[1] N/A[1] Require organizations that spend more than $5,000 to influence the outcome of a municipal referendum campaign in small cities to register as ballot measure committees
    Maine LD 1477 N/A[1] N/A[1] N/A[1] Repeal language requiring that petition circulators be residents of Maine

    By state

    Arizona

    • Senate Concurrent Resolution 1015: The constitutional amendment requires voter approval on November 5, 2024. The constitutional amendment was designed to create a signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated ballot measures. As of 2023, a campaign for a citizen-initiated statute needed to collect signatures equal to 10% percent of the votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election, a campaign for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment needed to collect 15%, and a campaign for a veto referendum needed to collect 5%. Under SCR 1015, campaigns would need to collect that percentage from each of the state's legislative districts.[2]
    • State Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R-13), the lead sponsor of the amendment in the Legislature, said, "Right now, we need 10% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial race to sign petitions saying something should be on the ballot. But they can all be from Maricopa County, or all from a condensed area of the state. What this is saying is, ‘No, we want some buy-in from across the state.’"[3]
    • Jenna Bentley, Director of Government Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, said, "Initiatives are difficult to repeal or fix if there are issues, even technical changes. We feel that it is important that these ballot measures get vetted as well as they possibly can. This just says that if you’re going to put a measure on the ballot, you need to go to every legislative district to do it."[4]
    • State Sen. Juan Mendez (D-8), who voted against the amendment, said, "This is effectively going to allow a single partisan (legislative district) to block the desires of the whole state."[3]
    • Brandy Reese, a spokesperson for Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, said, "This creates an incentive for groups that want to block good ideas or protect their own interests — especially ones with deep pockets — to put a lot of money into blocking and creating a hurdle in one specific legislative district which would cause all of the 29 others’ (efforts) to fail."[3]

    Arkansas

    • House Bill 1027: The bill required voter approval for a county government to enact a new or increase an existing local sales tax on hotels or prepared food from restaurants. Under HB 1027, a simple majority vote of the electorate is required for the tax to take effect.


    • House Bill 1320: The bill required initiative sponsors to submit drafts to the Arkansas attorney general, rather than the Board of Election Commissioners. Under HB 1320, the attorney general is responsible for approving, rejecting, or substituting the ballot title and popular name for each initiative within 10 days of receiving a draft.


    • House Bill 1419: The legislation increased the number of counties where a minimum number of signatures for a citizen-initiated measure must come from. This is known as a distribution requirement. Under HB 1419, a certain number of signatures must come from at least 50 of 75 counties. Previously, the requirement was at least 15 of 75 counties.
    • State Sen. Jim Dotson (R-34) said, "The purpose of this would be to ensure that we're getting representation from all across the state, not just large urban areas but rural counties as well, and having a lot of input into the process."[5]
    • State Sen. Greg Leding (D-30), who voted against the bill, said, "The voters have made it absolutely clear that they do not want the Legislature making it harder for them to get things on the ballot, and I think we should listen to them."[5]
    • State Sen. Bryan King (R-28) and the League of Women Voters of Arkansas sued Secretary of State John Thurston, asking the 6th Judicial Circuit Court to block HB 1419 as violating the Arkansas Constitution.[6]
    • House Bill 1510: The legislation eliminated some special election dates for local ballot measures. Before HB 1510, local ballot measure special election dates could be held on the second Tuesday of May, August, or November, as well as March during presidential election years and February during other years. HB 1510 eliminated these dates, except for March in November during a presidential election year, and May and November during other years. The legislation provided a method for calling emergency special elections for local ballot measures.[7]
    • Senate Bill 377: Under SB 377, certain interferences with initiative petitions became Class A misdemeanors, such as changing someone else's signature and paying a person to not sign a petition. The legislation also required paid petition blockers, defined as persons or entities that pay people to interfere with a canvasser's attempt to solicit or obtain a signature, to register with the state, and to undergo criminal history checks.

    California

    • Assembly Bill 421: The legislation made changes to the veto referendum process in California, including:[8]
    • replacing "Yes" and "No" with “Keep the law” and “Overturn the law,” respectively. Before AB 421, when a veto referendum appeared on the ballot, voters could select “Yes” or “No”. A “Yes” vote had the effect of upholding a bill, and a “No” vote had the effect of repealing the bill.
    • requiring the ballot title for veto referendums to be formatted as a question, rather than a statement. The question shall be formatted as follows: “Should California keep or overturn a law passed in [year statute was enacted] [no more than 15 words stating the general subject or nature of the law]?”
    • presenting the top three funders of the petition drive to repeal the law in the voter information guide.
    • allowing veto referendum proponents to withdraw their qualified referendum within a certain number of days before the election.
    • The League of Women Voters of California, which supported AB 421, wrote, “The League’s experience has been that there is enormous voter confusion generated by a ‘yes’ vote being against the referendum but for the statute subject to it, and a ‘no’ vote being for the referendum but against the statute subject to it. Voters are often uncertain as to whether they are voting to reverse or preserve a law. AB 421 cuts through the confusion by replacing ‘yes’ and ‘no’ with a simple ‘keep the law’ and ‘overturn the law,’ helping voters better understand the ballot and make informed decisions.”[8]
    • The California Chamber of Commerce, which opposed AB 421, wrote, “Currently, a referendum that qualifies for the ballot asks voters to step in the shoes of the Legislature to consider the proposed statute. As such, voters vote for (‘yes’ on) the measure to approve the proposal, and against (‘no’) to reject it. AB 421 makes a major change in the role of the voters. Instead of ‘standing in the shoes’ of the Legislature, they would be asked instead to second-guess the Legislature (‘Keep the law’ v. ‘Overturn the law’), which is a very different question. AB 421 makes the vote about the Legislature’s action, not about the proposed statute itself. This is a profound difference from the historic intent and function of the referendum. Any such change, which we believe would be ill-advised, could likely only be made with a constitutional amendment.”[8]
    • Assembly Bill 773: The legislation required that ballot measure arguments submitted for a special district or school district that encompasses multiple counties must be submitted to the lead county. The term lead county was defined for special districts as the "county with the most voters within the district bounds." The term lead county was defined for school districts as the "county whose superintendent of schools covers the district." [9]
    • Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1: As of 2023, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the electorate was required to approve a local special tax ballot measure or general obligation bond, except for school district bond measures. ACA 1 was designed to 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 for persons at risk of chronic homelessness. The constitutional amendment requires voter approval on November 5, 2024.[10]
    • The Urban Counties of California, which supported ACA 1, stated, "Questions of taxation and public indebtedness are of the greatest importance to the voters of this state. That is why the California Constitution requires that these questions be taken directly to the voters instead of decided solely by their elected representatives. A 55 percent threshold is enough to indicate whether the bulk of a community is willing to incur that indebtedness or pay a tax for such important services."[10]
    • The California Taxpayers Association, which opposed ACA 1, stated, "Reducing the vote threshold would diminish the people’s voice on tax increases and would erode property tax safeguards. ... these taxes are both regressive and distortionary, often disregarding a taxpayer’s ability to pay. Parcel taxes, which can reach thousands of dollars annually in some parts of California, are extremely costly for seniors on fixed incomes and households struggling to make ends meet."[10]
    • The California State Council of Service Employees International Union, which supported ACA 13, stated, "Anti-Democratic efforts are seeking to establish and enshrine the right of a privileged and powerful minority to veto the will of the people. [ACA 13] would retain and protect the majority vote, require any initiative that increases voter approval requirements to also be approved at the higher level, and would ensure local governments can always ask voters for their opinion on issues. ACA 13 protects the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote.'"[11]
    • The California Business Roundtable, which opposed ACA 13, stated, "The initiative process is a vital tool for Californians to voice their concerns, propose changes, and stand up for their values. It allows citizens to bypass the usual legislative channels and bring about changes that matter deeply to them. However, ACA 13 risks diminishing these voices, shifting power away from the people and towards the Legislature in a drastic and unprecedented way."[11]
    • Senate Bill 297: The legislation made changes to the withdrawal process for qualified ballot initiatives in California. SB 297 allowed proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal that is contingent on a piece of legislation being passed and signed. The bill also allowed a majority of proponents, instead of all proponents, to sign off on removing an initiative from the ballot. SB 297 specified that initiatives or referendums must be withdrawn no later than 5 p.m. 131 days before the election.[12]
    • Senate Bill 386: In California, the signature verification process for state ballot initiatives involved a random sample. When the random sample found that between 95% and 110% of signatures were valid, a check of each signature was required within 30 days, excluding weekends and holidays. SB 386 provided election officials with 60 days to provide a full check of signatures when required. [13]
    • Senate Bill 798: The legislation required the tax rate statement included with local bond measures to include a tax rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation. Previously, the tax rate statement needed to provide a tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation.[14]

    Colorado

    • House Bill 1003: The legislation created a property tax task force to report findings and recommendations to the Colorado General Assembly. HB 1003 authorized the task force to "study and develop a permanent and sustainable property tax structure for the state of Colorado." The bill required the task force to evaluate proposed citizen-initiated ballot measures concerning property taxes that qualified for the 2024 ballot.[15]

    Hawaii

    • Senate Bill 1076: The legislation required the Office of Elections to prepare a digital voter information guide, including explanations for state and local ballot measures.[16]

    Louisiana

    • Senate Bill 123 (Vetoed): Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) vetoed SB 123 on June 28, 2023. The legislation would have extended the timeframe for registrars of voters to validate recall petition signatures from 15 working days to 20 or 30, depending on the jurisdiction's size. The bill would have made petition signatures a public record after they're submitted, rather than upon the first signature. SB 123 would have also allowed registrar of voters to request and accept assistance from the department of state or other counties' registrar offices to complete the certification of a recall petition.[17]
    • State Sen. Cameron Henry (R-9), the bill's author, said, "When you are filing a petition, the petition itself becomes public record immediately. As soon as someone signs it, it becomes public record. … To me, it should become a public record once it's actually submitted to the registrar of voters."[18]
    • Gov. Edwards (D) vetoed the bill, saying, "A voter would have no sure way of knowing if their name had been added fraudulently to a recall petition until after it had been certified. The bill as passed creates a confusing standard for when recall petition signatures become public record and increases the likelihood of fraud, and, therefore, Senate Bill 123 will not become law."[19]

    Maine

    • Legislative Document 233: The legislation provided that the Secretary of State in Maine is given 30 business days, instead of just 30 days, to verify the signatures on an initiative petition. Additionally, if petitions are submitted within 30 days before or after an even-numbered general election, the secretary of state has until 30 business days after the 30th calendar day following the general election to complete the verification process.[20][1]
    • Legislative Document 1012 (Question 5): The constitutional amendment required voter approval on November 7, 2023. LD 1022 was designed to change the timeline for the judicial review of initiative petitions, including changing 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 and allowing the judicial review period to begin 30 days after a general election when an initiative petition is filed within 30 days of a general election.[23][1]
    • Legislative Document 1022: The bill extended the time frame for holding the budget validation referendum after the regional school unit budget meeting from 30 days to 45 days.[24][1]
    • Legislative Document 1336: The legislation addressed campaign finance for local ballot measures. Under LD 1336, organizations that spend more than $5,000 to influence the outcome of a municipal referendum campaign in towns or cities of less than 15,000 people must register as ballot measure committees and file campaign finance reports.[25][1]

    Montana

    • House Bill 543: The legislation changed the ballot language for local property tax and bond measures to include the statement "an increase in property taxes may lead to an increase in rental cost" and provide the estimated tax on a home valued at $100,000, $300,000, and $600,000.[28]


    • Senate Bill 56: The legislation conformed the statutory signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures with the constitutional signature requirements. As the constitutional requirement preempted the statutory requirement, SB 56 had no practical change on the ballot initiative process in Montana.[29]


    • Senate Bill 93: The legislation made multiple changes to the ballot initiative process, including establishing a $3,700 fee to file an initiative and prohibiting initiatives that are "substantially the same as a measure defeated... within the preceding 4 years." SB 93 also prohibited the use of electronic signatures for petitions.[30]
    • Sen. Mike Cuffe (R-1), the legislative sponsor of SB 93, said, "There’s a cost to doing these" — referring to administrative and legislative costs — "that’s what the fee is about. It covers the low end of average costs."[31]
    • Sen. Brad Molnar (R-28), who voted against the bill, said, "Herein lies the problem, we are treating lobbyists every day to thousands of dollars’ worth of resources for them to have their say. For a person in Montana who has the constitutional right to ask a question of the elected, to have to $3,700 is a poll tax."[32]
    • Senate Bill 123: Like House Bill 543, SB 123 changed the ballot language for local property tax and bond measures to include the statement "an increase in property taxes may lead to an increase in rental cost" and provide the estimated tax on a home valued at $100,000, $300,000, and $600,000. SB 123 also allowed local governments to replace the estimated tax on a home valued at $600,000 with a different value.[33]


    • Senate Bill 143: The legislation created a process for owners of real property to submit a petition, signed by 20% or more of real property owners within a zoning district, for a ballot measure to terminate a zoning district.[34]

    New Mexico

    • Senate Bill 180: SB 180 made multiple changes to election policies in the state, including increasing the number of days that the secretary of state has to review and approve or reject a referendum petition. The number of days increased from 10 to 30. It also increased the number of days for the state to verify signatures from 15 to 30 days.[35]

    New York

    • New York Senate Bill 1381: SB 1381 required that state ballot measure questions be written in plain language and at no higher than an eighth-grade reading level. SB 1381 also required state ballot questions to meet the following requirements:[36]
    • Include a descriptive title that is no more than 15 words and describes the topic, goal, or outcome of the ballot measure;
    • Include a summary that is no more than 30 words and describes the change in policy and not the legal mechanism;
    • Include a statement of what 'Yes' and 'No' votes mean in no more than 30 words that describe the outcome of each result;
    • Require the New York Board of Elections to publish the proposed ballot questions at least four months before the election and allow for public comment;
    • Require the Board of Elections to publish the automated readability index score on the board's website; and
    • Define plain language as easily comprehended, concise language that does not contain more than one passive sentence, semicolons, or double negatives.

    North Carolina

    • House Bill 259: HB 259 was a budget appropriations bill that contained a provision on local bond measure questions. The legislation required the questions to begin with, "Additional property taxes may be levied on property located in [name of unit of local government] in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on bonds if approved by the following ballot question." The legislation required additional information about taxes and bond interest costs.[37]

    North Dakota

    • House Bill 1230: The legislation made willfully submitting fraudulent signatures for an initiative petition a crime punishable by a civil penalty of up to $3,000. The bill also provided that signature-gathering companies that willfully submit fraudulent signatures cannot do business in the state for five years following a fraud conviction.[38]


    • Senate Bill 2163: SB 2163 required summaries of ballot measures to be written in "plain, clear, understandable language using words with common, everyday meaning." As of 2023, the secretary of state, in consultation with the attorney general, was responsible for writing the ballot summaries.[39]
    • State Rep. Jorin Johnson (R-41) said, "Plain language is a way of writing that uses smaller words and shorter sentences. This helps people understand the main ideas more clearly without inflated vocabulary and convoluted sentence construction."[40]
    • State Sen. Judy Lee (R-13), who voted against the bill, said, "As one of our people who testified said, ’It’s a noble goal, but ‘readable’ is in the eye of the beholder.’ … There are no definitions for some of the words used in the bill like ‘common everyday meaning’… It’s just extremely hard to define."[39]
    • Sen. Janne Myrdal (R-19), who co-sponsored the amendment, said the amendment would curtail out-of-state influences in the initiative process and "make it a genuine, grassroots, North Dakota-organic thing from the grassroots up, with North Dakotans behind the wheel, if you will, to drive this train for changing our constitution."[42]
    • Carol Sawicki, a board member of the League of Women Voters of North Dakota, testified against the amendment, saying, "Citizen-led initiated measures have a long history in North Dakota and play an important role in supporting citizen participation in the governance of the state. SCR 4013 intends to bring an end to that role."[43]

    Ohio

    • Senate Joint Resolution 2 (Issue 1): The constitutional amendment required voter approval on August 8, 2023. The constitutional amendment was designed to require a 60% vote, rather than a simple majority, of electors to approve a constitutional amendment, including citizen-initiated and legislative constitutional amendments. Under SJR 2, the cure period of 10 days for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments would be eliminated, and the signature distribution requirement would be increased from 5% of the electors in 44 (of 88) counties to 5% of the electors in each of the state's 88 counties.[44]
    • State Sen. Matt Huffman (R-12), who sponsored the amendment, said, "When the initiative was passed 100 years ago, the idea was that citizens of the state would rise up because the Legislature wouldn't act ... I think big changes to the constitution should have a more difficult standard."[45]
    • State Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney (D-16), who voted against the amendment, said, "What I hear when the sponsors say we're protecting the constitution is that they want to protect the constitution from you, the people."[46]

    Oklahoma

    • House Bill 1445: The legislation required school districts to post information online about bond measures, including projects to be funded, a description of each project, and an estimated cost for each project. HB 1445 also required that after voters approve a school bond measure, the school district must continue to post updates related to bond projects until projects are completed.[47]


    South Dakota


    • Senate Bill 46: As of 2023, individuals who gather signatures for an initiative must sign a verification stating that they have personally circulated the petition. SB 46 established that falsely attesting to personally circulating the petition is a Class 6 felony. Previously, it was a Class 1 misdemeanor.[49]


    • Senate Bill 113: After the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in SD Voice v. Noem that South Dakota's initiative signature deadline of one year before the general election was unconstitutional, the Legislature passed SB 113. The bill changed the signature deadline to the first Tuesday in May of a general election year.[50]

    Utah

    • House Bill 38: The legislation made technical changes to citizen-initiated ballot measure terms and definitions, such as adding the word initiative or referendum before petition in relevant statutes. HB 38 also criminalized paying someone for their signature on an initiative or referendum petition.[51]


    • House Bill 68: HB 68 merged provisions related to signature gathering, including for initiative petitions, into a single section of the Election Code and made conforming and technical changes.[52]


    • House Bill 69: Among changes to other areas of election policy, the bill allowed information that appears on a separate ballot insert regarding an initiative to instead appear on the official ballot itself.[53]


    • Senate Bill 43: The bill changed some of the rules governing notices for public hearings before initiative petitions are circulated. SB 43 eliminated the requirement that a notice be published in a newspaper, among other changes.

    Virginia

    • House Bill 2161: HB 2161 provided that the first public notice for a local referendum must be printed no more than 21 days before the election, among other changes to notice timelines.


    • Senate Bill 1151: Like HB 2161, SB 1151 provided that the first public notice for a local referendum must be printed no more than 21 days before the election.

    Washington

    • Senate Bill 5082: In 2007, voters approved Initiative 960, which, among other provisions, required an advisory vote on bills to increase taxes. SB 5082 repealed this requirement, thus eliminating the statewide advisory vote requirement for tax increases.[54]
    • State Sen. Patty Kuderer (D-48) said, "Advisory votes are non-binding referendums that do not carry any legal weight. They have no real impact on policymaking. These votes only pollute our ballots with anti-tax propaganda specifically designed to instill distrust in government—and they do it on our most fundamental sanctuary of democracy, the ballot."[55]
    • Washington Senate Republican Caucus issued a statement, which said, "The last time taxes were on the ballot in 2021, voters wanted them repealed. Proponents of taking away advisory votes argue that they are confusing or that voters get frustrated because the taxes they disapprove of aren’t reversed. Maybe the answer is to actually listen to the voters instead of taking their voice away? Democracy in on the ballot when it comes to advisory votes and the will of the people."[56]

    Wisconsin

    • Assembly Bill 245: The legislation was an omnibus bill related to shared revenue for counties and municipalities and taxes. The legislation also included a provision prohibiting local governments from referring non-binding advisory questions to the ballot, except related to capital expenditures proposed to be funded with property taxes; local shared revenue agreements; cooperative boundary agreements; and certain cable and telecommunication operations.[57]
    • Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-63) said local non-binding questions should not be used for local issues, not other topics. "That's not the point. That's what elections are about. We should have had advisory referenda only for things that are directly related to what is being done that municipality," said Vos.[58]
    • Matthew Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said, "But now you don’t even want us to have the ability to offer our views on advisory referendums that have no binding power and only act as a vehicle of public speech. You want to impound that vehicle, and that’s outrageous. Advisory referendums provide the public with crucial ways to express themselves on vital issues of the day, and to communicate with you and other elected officials."[59]

    Legislation proposed in 2023

    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.

    Legislation by year

    Enacted legislation by year

    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:

    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:

    Rulings in 2023

    The following is a list of court rulings issued in 2023 that affected the ballot measure process.

    Arizona

    AZ Petition Partners v. Arizona

    See also: Arizona Supreme Court, AZ Petition Partners v. Arizona, June 21, 2023

    On June 21, 2023, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on paying circulators based on the number of signatures collected is constitutional. The Legislature passed the ban as House Bill 2404 in 2017. Justice Clint Bolick wrote, "As we clarify here, the statute forbids only per-signature compensation, leaving other productivity-based compensation intact. Our clarification also means that the statute is not vague on its face, as permissible and prohibited conduct are clearly demarcated."[60]

    In November 2020, then-Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) charged AZ Petition Partners LLC with 50 misdemeanor counts for violating the state's ban on pay-per-signature. AZ Petition Partners paid signature gatherers based on their time and offered bonuses based on the number of signatures collected through incentive programs.[61] AZ Petition Partners LLC filed litigation against the state.

    On May 24, 2022, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the state's ban on pay-per-signature was unconstitutional. Judge Michael J. Brown wrote, "The mere possibility of substantial fines for enterprises, along with fines and possible jail time for circulators, weighs in favor of finding that (the law) imposes a severe burden on Petitioner’s First Amendment rights."[62] The ruling was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

    Michigan

    Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel

    See also: Michigan Court of Appeals, Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel, January 26, 2023

    On January 26, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a legislative action, referred to as adopt-and-amend, in which the Legislature passes an indirect initiated state statute and then amends the initiative, as constitutional. Judge Christopher Murray said, "The constitutional convention record squarely supports the conclusion that there was no intention to place a temporal limit on when the Legislature could amend initiated laws enacted by the Legislature."[63][64] Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), as well as the campaigns behind two affected initiatives, appealed the ruling the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on June 21, 2023.[65][66][67] On December 7, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the adopt-and-amend legislative action.[68]

    In 2018, two indirect initiated state statutes — one to increase the minimum wage, and the other to require paid sick leave — received enough signatures to appear on the ballot in Michigan. These proposed ballot measures were indirect initiated state statutes. In Michigan, citizen-initiated statutes that receive enough valid signatures are sent to the Legislature, which then has 40 days to pass the initiative into law. Otherwise, the initiative appears on the next general election ballot.

    On September 5, 2018, the House and Senate voted to pass the indirect initiatives, enacting them into law. On December 4, 2018, the Legislature voted to amend the enacted initiatives, and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the bills on December 13.

    Michigan One Fair Wage and Michigan Time to Care — the campaigns behind the two initiatives — sued the state of Michigan. Plaintiffs described the legislative amendments as an adopt-and-amend tactic that violated Section 9 of Article 2 of the Michigan Constitution. Defendants argued that nothing prohibited the Legislature from amending enacted indirect initiatives.[69]

    On July 19, 2022, Court of Claims Judge Douglas Shapiro ruled against the state, holding that the legislature's amendments to the enacted initiatives were unconstitutional. Judge Shapiro wrote, "Both the letter and spirit of Article 2, § 9 support the conclusion that the Legislature has only three options to address voter-initiated legislation within the same legislative session—adopt it, reject it, or propose an alternative. Once the Legislature adopted the Earned Sick Time Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Act, it could not amend the laws within the same legislative session. To hold otherwise would effectively thwart the power of the People to initiate laws and then vote on those same laws—a power expressly reserved to the people in the Michigan Constitution."[69] Judge Shapiro stayed the court's order until February 19, 2023.[70] The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling on January 26, 2023.

    Missouri

    Fitz-James v. Bailey

    See also: Missouri Supreme Court, Fitz-James v. Bailey, July 20, 2023

    On July 20, 2023, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the attorney general has a "plain, unequivocal, and ministerial duty" to approve the state auditor's fiscal summaries for citizen-initiated ballot measures. According to the Supreme Court, the attorney general is responsible for reviewing the legal content and form of fiscal summaries, not their substance.[71]

    Dr. Anna Fitz-James filed 11 proposed initiative petitions on March 8, 2023. The ballot initiatives were designed to provide for a state constitutional right to abortion, contraceptives, and "all matters relating to reproductive healthcare." State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick (R) wrote fiscal notes for the proposals, in which he determined that the state would incur no costs or savings should voters approve the initiatives. The fiscal notes said that one local government expected to lose revenue and that opponents said the initiative would lead to significant revenue loss.[72] Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) rejected the fiscal summaries as inadequate. Fitzpatrick disagreed and resubmitted the fiscal notes, which Bailey again rejected.[71]

    The campaign behind the proposed initiative petitions could not begin collecting signatures until the official ballot title was issued, which required a fiscal note. Fitz-James filed litigation on May 4, 2023, in the Cole County Circuit Court. Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem ruled against Bailey, ordering him to approve the fiscal notes. Bailey appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling.[71]

    South Dakota

    Dakotans for Health v. Noem

    See also: U.S. District Court of South Dakota, Dakotans for Health v. Noem, January 10, 2023

    On January 10, 2023, the U.S. District Court for South Dakota ordered that Senate Bill 180 (SB 180), passed in 2020, was permanently unenforceable.[73] Earlier, on November 1, 2022, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's temporary injunction on SB 180. The three-judge appeals court panel wrote that "taken together, the pre-circulation disclosure requirements... are intrusive and burdensome... [and] present a severe burden on speech" and that "the State has not shown that tighter restrictions on paid circulators have substantial relationship to a sufficiently important governmental interest."[74]

    Senate Bill 180 (SB 180) was designed to require paid circulators to register with the department of state. SB 180 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.[75]

    On January 26, 2023, the case League of Women Voters of South Dakota v. Noem was dismissed after the parties agreed that the district's court ruling invalidated the state's residency requirement. In League of Women Voters of South Dakota, plaintiffs argued that the state's 30-day residency requirement for signature gatherers violated the U.S. Constitution.[76]

    SD Voice v. Noem

    See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, SD Voice v. Noem, February 17, 2023

    On February 17, 2023, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that South Dakota's signature filing deadline for ballot initiatives violated freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The filing deadline required that signatures be submitted one year before an election. "South Dakota failed to provide evidence connecting the one-year deadline to its asserted interests," wrote Judge Steven Grasz. He also wrote that while the one-year-prior filing deadline is enjoined, a federal court could not craft a new requirement.[77]

    Earlier, on August 30, 2021, a district court struck down the filing deadline but ordered a specific deadline for initiated state statutes.[78] The Eight Circuit decided that a court could not set a new deadline as that was a legislative matter.

    Cory Heidelberger, a plaintiff in the case, said, "Thus, the question on every petition sponsor‘s mind is, When are our petitions due? The answer is… We don’t know!" Heidelberger suggested the new deadline should be the second Tuesday of July, which "aligns with deadlines in Arkansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota, fellow Eighth Circuit states who require ballot measure petitions be submitted no later than early July."[79]

    On March 23, 2023, Gov. Kristi Noem (R) signed Senate Bill 113 (SB 113), which changed the signature deadline to the first Tuesday in May of a general election year.[80]

    Noteworthy events

    U.S. House Resolution 4484

    On July 6, 2023, U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-1) of Pennsylvania introduced House Resolution 4484 (HR 4484), the Keeping Foreign Money out of Ballot Measures Act of 2023. U.S. Rep. Jared Golden (D-2) of Maine co-sponsored HR 4484.[81]

    HR 4484 would make donations from foreign nationals to state or local ballot measure campaigns illegal under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Rep. Fitzpatrick said, "The outcomes of our elections must be decided exclusively by American citizens. ... Foreign contributions in elections pose a threat to our democratic process." He added, "[HR 4484] will ensure that American voices are heard, not drowned out, at the ballot box."[82]

    In 2021, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), in a 4-2 decision, found that the existing federal ban on foreign political contributions concerns candidate elections, not ballot measure campaigns.[83]

    Evaluating the effect of legislative changes on ballot initiatives

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

    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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 Note: There were no vote roll-calls recorded for this bill.
    2. ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "SCR 1015," accessed June 13, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 AZ Mirror, "GOP proposal would dramatically increase signature requirements for ballot measures," February 3, 2023
    4. ↑ Arizona Chamber Business News, "Legislators propose giving more voters a voice in initiative process," February 2, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 THV 11, "Gov. Sanders plans to sign new ballot initiative measure," March 7, 2023
    6. ↑ Arkansas Times, "King v. Thurston," March 10, 2023
    7. ↑ Arkansas State Legislature, "House Bill 1510," accessed June 15, 2023
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 421," accessed September 9, 2023
    9. ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 773," accessed September 12, 2023
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 California State Legislature, "Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1," accessed 18, 2023
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 California State Legislature, "Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13," accessed September 18, 2023
    12. ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 297," accessed October 8, 2023
    13. ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 386," accessed October 8, 2023
    14. ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 798," accessed October 8, 2023
    15. ↑ Colorado General Assembly, "House Bill 23B," accessed December 2, 2023
    16. ↑ Hawaii State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1076," accessed June 25, 2023
    17. ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "Senate Bill 23," accessed July 1, 2023
    18. ↑ WWL, "Louisiana House Bills that can change the recall process," April 19, 2023
    19. ↑ Louisiana Governor, "Veto of Senate Bill 123," June 28, 2023
    20. ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 233," accessed June 29, 2023
    21. ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 764," accessed July 12, 2023
    22. ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1610," accessed July 12, 2023
    23. ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1012," accessed July 30, 2023
    24. ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1022," accessed June 25, 2023
    25. ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1022," accessed June 25, 2023
    26. ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1477," accessed July 30, 2023
    27. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, "We the People PAC et al. v. Bellows," July 7, 2022
    28. ↑ Montana State Legislature, "House Bill 543," accessed June 20, 2023
    29. ↑ Montana State Legislature, "Senate Bill 56," accessed April 29, 2023
    30. ↑ Montana State Legislature, "Senate Bill 93," accessed May 24, 2023
    31. ↑ Helena Independent Record, "Senate approves $3,700 price tag for citizen ballot measures," February 23, 2023
    32. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named sb93arguments
    33. ↑ Montana State Legislature, "Senate Bill 123," accessed June 20, 2023
    34. ↑ Montana State Legislature, "Senate Bill 143," accessed May 8, 2023
    35. ↑ New Mexico State Legislature, "Senate Bill 180," accessed April 2, 2023
    36. ↑ New York State Legislature, "Senate Bill S1381A," accessed November 17, 2023
    37. ↑ North Carolina State Legislature, "House Bill 259," accessed Nov. 17, 2023
    38. ↑ North Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1230," accessed April 22, 2023
    39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 North Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 2163," accessed March 24, 2023
    40. ↑ The Dakotan, "'Plain Language' for Constitutional Measures Passes House," March 17, 2023
    41. ↑ North Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Concurrent Resolution 4013," accessed April 20, 2023
    42. ↑ The Bismarck Tribune, "North Dakota Senate OKs measure to tighten constitutional initiative process," February 21, 2023
    43. ↑ North Dakota State Legislature, "SCR 4013 Testimony," March 9, 2023
    44. ↑ Ohio State Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 2," accessed May 16, 2023
    45. ↑ The Columbus Dispatch, "Senate President Matt Huffman backs GOP plan to make it harder to amend Ohio constitution," December 1, 2023
    46. ↑ The Columbus Dispatch, "Ohio to hold August election on proposal to make it harder to amend constitution," May 10, 2023
    47. ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "House Bill 1445," accessed June 21, 2023
    48. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1140," accessed June 29, 2023
    49. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 46," accessed March 8, 2023
    50. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 113," accessed March 23, 2023
    51. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 38," accessed March 17, 2023
    52. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 68," accessed March 17, 2023
    53. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 69," accessed March 17, 2023
    54. ↑ Washington State Legislature, "Senate Bill 5082," accessed April 24, 2023
    55. ↑ MyNorthwest, "Washington House passes bill to eliminate advisory votes on tax increases," April 10, 2023
    56. ↑ Washington Senate Republican Caucus, "Democracy on the Ballot: SB 5082 & SB 5209," accessed April 22, 2023
    57. ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 245," accessed June 25, 2023
    58. ↑ Wisconsin Public Radio, "Activists decry GOP push to stop nonbinding voter questions from appearing on ballots," May 8, 2023
    59. ↑ Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, "Do Not Muffle Our Voices," May 4, 2023
    60. ↑ Arizona Supreme Court, "AZ Petition Partners v. Arizona," June 21, 2023
    61. ↑ Arizona Attorney General, "Phoenix Petition Signature Gathering Company Faces Criminal Charges for Alleged Illegal Payments to Prop 208 Initiative Circulators," November 16, 2020
    62. ↑ U.S. News, "Appeals Court Says Per-Signature Initiative Ban Illegal," May 24, 2023
    63. ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel, January 26, 2023
    64. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Michigan minimum wage increase, paid sick leave wiped out after appeals panel ruling," January 26, 2023
    65. ↑ Michigan Attorney General, "AG Nessel asks Michigan Supreme Court to Weigh in on Adopt and Amend," March 10, 2023
    66. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Group appeals minimum wage, sick time ruling to Michigan Supreme Court," February 10, 2023
    67. ↑ The Center Square, "Michigan Supreme Court will hear minimum wage appeal," June 21, 2023
    68. ↑ NPR, "Michigan Supreme Court to hear arguments on 'adopt-and-amend'," December 7, 2023
    69. ↑ 69.0 69.1 Michigan Court of Claims, "Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel," July 19, 2022
    70. ↑ JDSUPRA, "Michigan Court Reinstates Minimum Wage and Sick Leave Initiative Unconstitutionally Amended by State Legislature," August 2, 2022
    71. ↑ 71.0 71.1 71.2 Missouri Supreme Court, "Fitz-James v. Bailey," July 20, 2023
    72. ↑ Missouri Independent, "Citing appeal, judge declines to order Missouri AG to comply with order on abortion initiative," June 26, 2023
    73. ↑ U.S. District Court of South Dakota, "Dakotans for Health v. Noem, January 10, 2023
    74. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, "Dakotans for Health v. Noem," November 1, 2022
    75. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 180 (2020)," accessed February 2, 2023
    76. ↑ League of Women Voters, "South Dakota Federal Court Strikes Down Residency Requirement for Ballot Initiatives," January 27, 2023
    77. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, "SD Voice v. Noem," February 17, 2023
    78. ↑ Dakota Free Press, "Another Win for Democracy: Judge Gives Citizens Six More Months to Circulate Petitions for Initiated Laws!," August 30, 2021
    79. ↑ Dakota Free Press, "Heidelberger Right, SD Wrong: One-Year Deadline for Initiative Petitions Violates First Amendment," February 18, 2023
    80. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 113," accessed March 23, 2023
    81. ↑ U.S. Congress, "House Resolution 4484," accessed July 12, 2023
    82. ↑ The Ripon Advance, "Fitzpatrick’s bill aims to keep foreign money out of state ballot measures," July 12, 2023
    83. ↑ Business Insider, "The FEC affirmed that foreigners can fund US ballot measures because they're technically not elections," November 2, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Changes_in_2023_to_laws_governing_ballot_measures&oldid=9302605"