Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures

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

Updated as of December 17, 2023

From 2018 to 2023, state governments enacted 206 pieces of legislation related to the three powers of direct democracy in the U.S.—the ballot initiative, referendum, and recall election.

This page provides information on the bills that made or would make the initiative, referendum, and recall processes more or less difficult. Of the 206 bills and resolutions passed between 2018 and 2023:

• 43 pieces of legislation, or 20.87% of the total legislation enacted, made or would make citizen-initiated measure or recall processes more difficult for campaigns to use.

• 14 pieces of legislation, or 6.80% of the total legislation enacted, made or would make citizen-initiated measure or recall processes less difficult for campaigns to use.

On this page, you will find analyses about the legislation, a list of bills and resolutions that made the processes more or less difficult, an explanation of the difficulty analysis methodology, and other related research that provides additional context.

HIGHLIGHTS

Votes in state legislatures: Republican majorities passed 38 (88.4%) of 43 bills that made or would make the ballot initiative process more difficult, Democratic majorities passed four (9.3%), and one (2.3%) received bipartisan support.

State with most bills: South Dakota enacted the most pieces of legislation, 10, to make the process more difficult from 2018 to 2023.

Year with most bills: The year with the most enacted bills or resolutions that made the initiative, referendum, and recall processes more difficult was 2021, when 14 pieces of legislation were passed.

Most common topic: Of the 42 bills or resolutions that made direct democratic processes more difficult, 15 (35.7%) addressed petition circulator, also known as signature gatherer, requirements.

Analyses, 2018-2023

Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by year

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

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

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

Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by state

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

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

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

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

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

Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by topic

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

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

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

Difficulty analysis of enacted legislation by legislative vote margins

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outliers:

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

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

List of bills and resolutions

Harder

The following is a list of bills or resolutions, including constitutional amendments, that state governments enacted between 2018 and 2023 and that made or would make the initiative, referendum, or recall processes more difficult.

Year	State	Bill	Topic(s)	Description	Margin in Legislature
2023	Arizona	SCR 1015	Signature requirements	Create a signature distribution requirement, with a percentage coming from each of the state's legislative districts, for citizen-initiated measures (Constitutional amendment - voter approval required)	R+100.0%
2023	Arkansas	HB 1419	Signature requirements	Increase the signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated measures from 15 counties to 50 (of 75) counties	R+96.2%
2023	Montana	SB 93	Petition requirements; Initiative content	Establish a $3,700 fee to file an initiative and prohibit initiatives that are substantially the same as a measure defeated within the prior four years	R+97.8%
2023	North Dakota	SCR 4013	Election requirements; Signature requirements; Initiative content	Establish a single-subject rule for initiatives; increase the signature requirement for initiated constitutional amendments from 4% to 5% of the state's population; and require voters approve initiated constitutional amendments at two elections (Constitutional amendment - voter approval required)	R+72.7%
2023	Ohio	SJR 2	Election requirements; Signature requirements; Circulation period	Require a 60% vote to approve constitutional amendments; eliminate the signature cure period for initiated amendments; and increase the signature distribution requirement from 44 (of 88) counties to each of the 88 counties (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters)	R+94.6%
2022	Arizona	HCR 2015	Election requirements	Require a 60% vote for voters to pass ballot measures to approve taxes (Constitutional amendment - approved by voters)	R+100.0%
2022	California	AB 2584	Petition requirements	Increase the number of proponents needed to initiate a recall petition depending on a jurisdiction's number of registered voters	D+100.0%
2022	Florida	SB 524	Circulation period; Circulator requirements	Require officials to discontinue reviewing an initiative should signatures expire during the review process and prohibit paying a circulator based on the number of signatures gathered	R+97.2%
2022	Florida	HB 921	Circulator requirements	Prohibit an out-of-state donor from giving more than $3,000 to support or oppose an initiative during signature gathering	R+95.5%
2021	Arizona	HB 2308	Circulator requirements	Require paid circulators and out-of-state circulators to register with the state	R+100.0%
2021	Arizona	HCR 2001	Initiative content	Require that citizen-initiated ballot measures embrace a single subject (Constitutional amendment - approved by voters)	R+100.0%
2021	Arkansas	HJR 1005	Election requirements	Require a 60% vote from voters to adopt constitutional amendments and citizen-initiated state statutes (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters)	R+99.0%
2021	Arkansas	SB 614	Circulator requirements	Ban paying circulators based on the number of signatures gathered and require circulators to be state residents and citizens	R+94.4%
2021	Colorado	SB 250	Circulation period	Require circulators of recall petitions to have identification badges that state either "Volunteer Circulator" or "Paid Circulator"; Eliminate cure period	D+97.2%
2021	Florida	SB 1890	Campaign finance requirements	Create a $3,000 limit on campaign contributions to ballot initiative committees until the state certifies the measure for the ballot	R+99.0%
2021	Florida	SB 1194	Initiative content	Prohibit the use of local ballot measures to restrict maritime commerce at ports, such as cruise ships	R+87.3%
2021	Idaho	SB 1110	Signature requirements	Change the signature distribution requirement for ballot initiatives from 6% of voters in 18 (of 35) state legislative districts to 6% of voters in all 35 legislative districts	R+90.6%
2021	Montana	HB 651	Circulator requirements	Provide for several changes, including requiring the employers of paid signature gatherers to register with the state; requiring a legislative committee to hear and vote on an initiative and publishing the vote on petitions; and requiring a statement on potential affects on businesses	R+99.0%
2021	South Dakota	SB 86	Initiative content	Provide that the secretary of state cannot approve an initiative for circulation if the initiative violates the single-subject rule	R+97.8%
2021	South Dakota	SB 77	Petition requirements	Require a 14-point font for the text of citizen-initiated ballot measures	R+75.4%
2021	South Dakota	HJR 5003	Election requirements	Require a 60% vote on citizen-initiated ballot measures or legislative referrals that would increase taxes or fees or require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters)	R+74.2%
2021	Utah	HB 136	Circulator requirements	Provide for several changes, including banning pay-per-signature; enacting a badge requirement for paid petition circulators; and requiring signature gatherers to present the entire text of initiatives to signers	R+82.7%
2021	Wyoming	HB 148	Petition requirements	Change the filing fees for political office candidates and citizen-initiated ballot measures, including from $500 to $1,000 for an initiative or referendum	D+28.2%
2020	Florida	SB 1794	Circulation period	Provide for several changes, including making signatures invalid after February 1 of even-numbered years each cycle; increasing the signature threshold to trigger a court review; and requiring petitioners to reimburse counties for the actual cost of verifying signatures	R+100.0%
2020	Idaho	HB 548	Initiative content; Circulator requirements	Require that initiatives be limited to a single subject and require entities that pay signature gatherers to report such activity to the state	R+94.4%
2020	Oklahoma	HB 3826	Signer requirements	Require 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 and require petition sheets to include the names, addresses, and signatures of three primary initiative sponsors	R+87.5%
2020	South Dakota	SB 180	Circulator requirements	Require circulators to be residents and require paid circulators to provide their residential address, phone number, driver's license state, voter registration information, sex offender status, and other information	R+89.5%
2019	Arizona	SB 1451	Circulator requirements; Petition requirements	Change several policies regarding initiative petitions and circulators, including requiring that petition sheets be rejected for not meeting proper formatting and requiring non-resident circulators and paid circulators to register with the state	R+100.0%
2019	Arkansas	HJR 1008	Signature requirements; Circulation period	Provide for several changes, including increasing the signature distribution requirement for initiatives; eliminating the cure period for initiative signature submissions; and changing the signature submission deadline from four months before the general election to January 15 of the election year (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters)	R+80.9%
2019	Arkansas	SB 346	Ballot language	Change the timeline for certifying a ballot title and popular name until after the required number of signatures have been submitted and transferring the power to approve a filed initiative from the attorney general to the Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners	R+67.5%
2019	Florida	HB 5	Circulator requirements	Provide for several changes, including banning pay-per-signature and requiring paid petition circulators to register with the state	R+100.0%
2019	Maine	LD 499	Circulator requirements	Require signature gatherers to provide certain personal information and proof of voter registration with the state and file an affidavit that says the circulator has an understanding of the initiative process	N/A
2019	North Dakota	SCR 4001	Election requirements	Require voter-approved initiated constitutional amendments to also receive approval from the Legislature or be placed on the ballot for a second election requiring voter approval (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters)	R+82.5%
2019	South Dakota	HB 1094	Circulator requirements	Require paid signature gatherers to register with the state; create a $20 registration fee for paid petition circulators; and require signature gatherers to wear a badge	R+84.3%
2019	Utah	HB 145	Signer requirements	Require county clerks to display the names of registered voters who sign initiative and referendum petitions on the county website	R+92.0%
2018	Arizona	HB 2648	Circulator requirements	Change the definition of paid circulator to include any circulator who receives monetary or other compensation for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, rather than circulators who are paid based on the number of signatures collected	R+64.9%
2018	Michigan	HB 6595	Signature requirements; Circulator requirements	Create a signature distribution requirement requiring that no more than 15 percent of required signatures come from a given congressional district; provide that petitions must say whether the circulator is a paid or volunteer signature gatherer; and require paid circulators to submit a signed affidavit, among other changes	R+94.3%
2018	Oregon	SB 1510	Petition requirements	Require that the certified ballot title be included on the initiative petition signature sheets and limit the number of signatures that could be included on a state initiative petition to 2,000	D+83.8%
2018	South Dakota	HJR 1006	Initiative content	Create a single-subject rule for constitutional amendments, whether initiated or referred (Constitutional amendment - approved by voters)	R+96.6%
2018	South Dakota	SJR 1	Election requirements	Require a 55% vote to approve constitutional amendments (Constitutional amendment - rejected by voters)	R+95.3%
2018	South Dakota	HB 1007	Initiative content	Establish a single-subject rule for citizen-initiated state statutes	R+89.6%
2018	South Dakota	HB 1177	Circulator requirements	Require initiative petition sheets to include the name, phone number, email address, and the paid or volunteer status of the signature gatherer	R+86.0%
2018	South Dakota	HB 1196	Circulator requirements	Require a signature gatherer to provide a sworn statement attesting to residency, as well as the circulator's vehicle license state, voter registration state, current address, addresses of two previous residences, and a statement expressing the circulator's intention to remain in the state following the petition effort	R+72.1%

Easier

The following is a list of bills or resolutions, including constitutional amendments, that state governments enacted between 2018 and 2023 and that made or would make the initiative, referendum, or recall processes less difficult.

Year	State	Bill	Topic(s)	Description	Margin in Legislature
2023	Arkansas	SB 377	Circulator requirements	Make certain interferences with initiative petitions and signature gatherers Class A misdemeanors and require paid petition blockers to undergo background checks	0.0%
2023	California	ACA 1	Election requirements	Reduce the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55% for local special tax and bond ballot measures that fund public infrastructure, affordable housing, or supportive housing (Constitutional amendment - voter approval required)	D+97.7%
2023	Maine	LD 1477	Circulator requirements	Repeal inoperative language requiring that petition circulators be residents and registered voters (Constitutional amendment - voter approval required)	N/A
2023	South Dakota	SB 113	Circulation period	Change the signature deadline to the first Tuesday in May of a general election year, rather than one year before the general election	D+8.3%
2021	Kentucky	HB 133	Signature requirements	Decrease the number of signatures for veto referendums against school district tax levies	R+88.1%
2021	Oregon	SB 27	Circulator requirements	Replace the requirement that a petitioners' residence address be listed on an initiative with the petitioners' city and state	D+54.4%
2020	Oklahoma	HB 2871	Signer requirements	Allow 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	D+11.1%
2020	New Jersey	AB 4037	Petition requirements	Permit the use of electronic signatures and submission methods during a declared COVID-19 emergency order	D+32.5%
2019	California	AB 698	Signer requirements	Provide that a signature on a ballot initiative petition cannot be deemed invalid because the person signing the petition used initials instead of their full first or middle name, or both	0.0%
2019	Oregon	SB 761	Petition requirements	Allow people to print an official electronic petition, sign the petition, and deliver the petition to sponsors	D+90.9%
2019	Maine	LD 1437	Signer requirements	Allow for persons with physical disabilities that prevent them from signing their own names to use an alternative signature to sign petitions for citizen-initiated ballot measures (Constitutional amendment - approved by voters)	N/A
2018	Louisiana	HB 54	Signature requirements	Reduce the percentage of registered voters required for a recall petition for cities with larger populations	R+9.3%
2018	Michigan	SB 809	Circulator requirements	Provide that a person collecting signatures for a recall petition needs to be at least 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, rather than a registered voter in the electoral district of the official being recalled, among other changes	R+3.6%
2018	Colorado	HB 1145	Circulator requirements	Repeal inoperative laws restricting payment of signature gatherers based on the number of signatures	0.0%

Difficulty analysis methodology

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

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

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

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

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

Disclosure of information and other changes

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

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

Academic research

Matsusaka (2023)

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

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

Publication: Social Science Research Network - August 1, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dinan (2022)

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

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

Publication: Nebraska Law Review 101 (1)

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

Dinan identified the following periods in initiative and referendum use:

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also

• Changes to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures