Signature distribution requirements for ballot initiatives

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

A signature distribution requirement, also known as a geographic signature requirement, is a law that provides that ballot initiative petitions must be signed by voters from multiple political subdivisions, such as counties or legislative districts, in order for the initiative to qualify for the ballot.

Of the 26 states that provide for statewide citizen-initiated ballot measures, 16 states require signature distribution requirements.

• Seven states have distribution requirements based on counties;
• Five state have distribution requirements based on state legislative districts; and
• Four states have distribution requirements based on congressional districts.

Washington, D.C., as well as some cities throughout the U.S., also have distribution requirements for local citizen-initiated ballot measures, which are often based on ward districts.

HIGHLIGHTS

Adopted in 2023: The Arkansas General Assembly expanded the state's signature distribution requirement from 15 to 50 (of 75) counties.

Election on August 8, 2023: Voters in Ohio rejected Issue 1, which was designed to expand the state's distribution requirement for initiated constitutional amendments from 50% to 100% of the state's 88 counties, among other changes.

Elections in 2024: Voters in Arizona will decide on a constitutional amendment to establish a distribution requirement based on legislative districts. Arizona is one of 10 states, with an initiative process, that does not have a signature distribution requirement.

Requirements by state

Sixteen (16) states require signature distribution requirements for initiatives and referendums, including:

• Seven states with distribution requirements based on counties;
• Five state with distribution requirements based on state legislative districts; and
• Four states with distribution requirements based on congressional districts.

Ten (10) states with an initiative and referendum process do not have signature distribution requirements. The following map provides information on initiative signature distribution requirements:

Note on Mississippi:

Mississippi has an initiated constitutional amendment process, including a signature distribution requirement based on five congressional districts. However, the requirements cannot be met, according to the Mississippi Supreme Court, because the state has four congressional districts following reapportionment in 2001.

States with signature distribution requirements

The following table outlines the signature distribution requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures in each state that requires distribution requirements:

Comparison of state ballot initiative distribution requirements
State	Type	Citizen-initiated state statute and veto referendum	Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment
				Alaska	State legislative districts	Signatures from 7% of those who voted in the previous general election in 75% of the state’s 40 state House districts	N/A
Arkansas	Counties	Signatures equal to 4% of votes cast for governor in 50 of 75 counties	Signatures equal to 5% of votes cast for governor in 50 of 75 counties
Colorado	State legislative districts	None	Signatures from 2% of the registered voters who live in each of the state's 35 Senate districts
Florida	Congressional districts	N/A	Signatures equal to 8% of the district-wide vote in the most recent presidential election from at least half—14—of the state's 28 congressional districts
Idaho	State legislative districts	Signatures from 6% of the qualified electors at the time of the last general election in each of 18 of the state's 35 state legislative districts	N/A
Maryland	Counties	No more than half of the total signatures can come from any one county or Baltimore	N/A
Massachusetts	Counties	No more than 25% of the total signatures can come from any one county	No more than 25% of the total signatures can come from any one county
Mississippi	Congressional districts	N/A	No more than 20% (1/5) of the total signatures can be from any one congressional district
Missouri	Congressional districts	Signatures equal to 5% of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election from 6 of 8 congressional districts	Signatures equal to 8% of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election from 6 of 8 congressional districts
Montana	State legislative districts	Signatures from 5% of qualified voters in each of 1/3 (34) of the state's 100 legislative districts	Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts
Nebraska	Counties	Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties	Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties
Nevada	Congressional districts	Signatures equal to 10% of total votes cast at the last general election in each of the state's four congressional districts	Signatures equal to 10% of total votes cast in the most recent general election in each of the state's four congressional districts
New Mexico	Counties	Signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast at the last general election in each of 75% (25) of the state's 33 counties	N/A
Ohio	Counties	Signatures equal to 3% of votes cast at the last gubernatorial election in half (44) of the state's 88 counties	Signatures equal to 5% of votes cast at the last gubernatorial election in half (44) of the state's 88 counties
Utah	State legislative districts	Initiative: Signatures from 8% of active voters as of January 1 of odd years in 26 of 29 state Senate districts Referendum: Signatures from 8% of active voters as of January 1 of odd years in 15 of 29 state Senate districts	N/A
Wyoming	Counties	Signatures equal to 15% of votes cast in the last general election in 2/3 (16) of the state's 23 counties	N/A

Comparison of signature distribution requirements

The 16 signature distribution requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures can be compared in two ways:

• (1) The percentage of jurisdictions from which signatures must be collected. In Ohio, for example, signatures must be collected from at least half (44) of the state's 88 counties, meaning signatures are required from 50% of the counties. The distribution requirement in Ohio is based on counties.

• (2) The percentage of the total number of signatures required to meet the distribution requirement. In 2023, 413,487 signatures were required for initiated constitutional amendments in Ohio. That number is equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The distribution requirement is 5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election from 44 counties. That means at least 25% of the required number of signatures must come from the 44 counties.

These two factors alone cannot provide a comprehensive comparison of signature distribution requirements because the various jurisdiction requirements are different. Counties differ in population, while congressional and legislative districts are similar in population, and states have different numbers of counties, legislative districts, and congressional districts.

The table below provides a comparison of the two factors described above — the percentage of jurisdictions required and the percentage of signatures required to meet the distribution requirement:

Comparison of state ballot initiative distribution requirements
State	Type	Citizen-initiated state statute		Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment
		Percentage of jurisdictions required	Percentage of signatures required relative to total	Percentage of jurisdictions required	Percentage of signatures required relative to total
Alaska	State legislative districts	75% of House districts	53% of total required	N/A	N/A
Arkansas	Counties	67% of counties	33% of total required	67% of counties	33% of total required
Colorado	State legislative districts	None	None	100% of Senate districts	61% of total required
Florida	Congressional districts	N/A	N/A	50% of congressional districts	50% of total required
Idaho	State legislative districts	51% of legislative districts	51% of total required	N/A	N/A
Maryland	Counties	9% of counties	0% of total required	N/A	N/A
Massachusetts	Counties	14% of counties	0% of total required	14% of counties	0% of total required
Mississippi	Congressional districts	N/A	N/A	125% of congressional districts	125% of total required
Missouri	Congressional districts	75% of congressional districts	100% of total required	75% of congressional districts	100% of total required
Montana	State legislative districts	33% of legislative districts	33% of total required	40% of legislative districts	40% of total required
Nebraska	Counties	40% of counties	29% of total required	40% of counties	20% of total required
Nevada	Congressional districts	100% of congressional districts	100% of total required	100% of congressional districts	100% of total required
New Mexico	Counties	75% of counties	75% of total required	N/A	N/A
Ohio	Counties	50% of counties	25% of total required	50% of counties	25% of total required
Utah	State legislative districts	90% of legislative districts	90% of total required	N/A	N/A
Wyoming	Counties	70% of counties	70% of total required	N/A	N/A

Percentage of jurisdictions required

As noted in the above section, distribution requirements provide that signatures must be collected from a certain percentage of political jurisdictions. However, the basis for distribution requirements varies from state to state. The requirements can be based on counties, legislative districts, or congressional districts.

The following map provides information on the percentage of jurisdictions required in each state with a signature distribution requirement:

Legislation

The following is a list of bills passed, beginning in 2016, related to signature distribution requirements for ballot measures.

2023

See also: Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures

• 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.

• Arkansas House Bill 1027: The legislation increased the number of counties where a minimum number of signatures for a citizen-initiated measure must come from. 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.

• Ohio Senate Joint Resolution 2 (Issue 1): The constitutional amendment required voter approval on August 8, 2023. The constitutional amendment was designed to make several changes to the laws governing citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, including requiring campaigns to collect signatures from each of the state's 88 counties, an increase from half (44) of the counties.

2021

See also: Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures

• Idaho Senate Bill 1110: The bill was designed to 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. On August 23, 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court struck down SB 1110 as unconstitutional.

• Utah House Bill 211: HB 211 changed the state's distribution requirement for veto referendum petitions from 8% of voters in 15 of 29 counties to 8% of voters in 15 of the 29 state Senate districts.

2019

See also: Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures

• Arkansas House Joint Resolution 1008 (Issue 3): The Legislature referred the constitutional amendment to the ballot in 2019, and voters rejected the amendment on November 3, 2020. The constitutional amendment would have increased the signature distribution requirement for initiatives from requiring a certain number of signatures from 15 counties to a certain number of signatures from 45 counties.

• Idaho Senate Bill 1159 (Vetoed): Gov. Brad Little (R) vetoed SB 1159 on April 5, 2019. The legislation would have made changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Idaho, including increasing the state's distribution requirement to require initiative and referendum petitioners to meet the 10% requirement in 32 legislative districts, rather than 6% in 18 legislative districts.

• House Bill 296 (Vetoed): Gov. Brad Little (R) vetoed HB 296 on April 9, 2019. The legislation made changes to Senate Bill 1159, which was also vetoed, to make the revised distribution requirement 24 legislative districts.

• Montana House Bill 244 (C-46): Voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2020, which amended constitutional language to match the existing signature distribution requirements for initiated constitutional amendments based on judicial rulings and opinions.

• Montana House Bill 245 (C-47): Voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2020, which amended constitutional language to match the existing signature distribution requirements for initiated state statutes and veto referendums based on judicial rulings and opinions.

2018

See also: Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures

• Michigan House Bill 6595: The legislation made changes to laws governing the initiative process in Michigan, including creating a distribution requirement requiring that no more than 15 percent of required signatures come from a given congressional district. In 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court struck down the bill as violating the Michigan Constitution.

2017

• Colorado Senate Bill 17-152: The legislation was designed to implement Amendment 71, which created a signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, and conform statute with the voter-approved constitutional requirement.

2016

• Colorado Amendmnet 71: The ballot initiative created a signature distribution requirement for future citizen-initiated constitutional amendments in Colorado. Amendment 71 required signatures to be collected from 2 percent of the registered electors who reside in each of the state's 35 state Senate districts.

Lawsuits

The following is a selection of case law and litigation about signature distribution requirements.

Requirements based on counties

• Eggers v. Evnen (2022): The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld as constitutional the county-based distribution requirement for initiatives in Nebraska. The 8th Circuit disagreed with prior rulings, from the 9th Circuit, holding that county-based distribution requirements violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.

• The majority's opinion held, "No right can qualify as 'fundamental' for purposes of equal-protection analysis unless it is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. ... And we have repeatedly stated that the right to place initiatives on the state ballot 'is not a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, but is a right created by state law.' ... In fact, we have applied this principle to the very provision at issue here, distinguishing the 'right to vote in an election of political representatives,' which we recognized is 'fundamental,' from the right burdened by the signature distribution requirement 'to participate in [placing] initiatives and referenda' on the ballot, which we held is 'state-created' and thus 'nonfundamental.'"
• Judge Jane Kelly dissented, saying, "The Secretary claims, and the court accepts, that there should be a distinction between the right to vote for a political representative and the right to vote on an initiative, the latter right granted only by the states and thus not guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. But the right addressed in Moore included the right to vote for presidential electors, a right not guaranteed by the Federal Constitution but instead granted by the states. ... If the right to vote is fundamental, I see no reason why it should not apply equally to the initiative process at the heart of Nebraska’s electoral and legislative system."

• ACLU v. Lomax (2006): The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a county-based distribution requirement for initiatives in Nevada violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court's opinion held, "Because the 13 Counties Rule is not based on county population, but rather on a fixed percentage of signatures from a fixed percentage of counties, it dilutes the vote of residents of densely populated counties" Voters adopted the county-based distribution requirement in 1958.

• Montana PIRG v. Johnson (2005): The U.S. District Court for Montana ruled that the state's county-based signature distribution requirements, which voters approved as C-37 and C-38, were unconstitutional. The judge held, "Because some of Idaho's counties are far more heavily populated than others, an initiative that is popular primarily with voters in sparsely populated counties can reach the ballot with the support of many fewer voters than can an initiative that is popular primarily with voters in densely populated counties. ... the Idaho system violates equal protection because the few voters in a sparsely populated county have a power equal to the vastly larger number of voters who reside in a populous county."

• Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa (2003): The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an order finding the county-based signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated ballot measures in Idaho to be unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals held, "The question of the constitutionality of Idaho's requirement that in order to qualify an initiative petitions must be signed by a fixed percentage of voters from each of 22 of the state's 44 counties — counties which vary drastically in the size of their population — is controlled by Moore v. Ogilvie ... Section 34-1805 violates the Equal Protection Clause."

• Gallivan v. Walker (2002): The Utah Supreme Court struck down the state's county-based signature distribution requirement for ballot initiatives, finding that the requirement "violates the uniform operation of laws provision of the Utah Constitution, and also because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."

• Moore v. Ogilvie (1969): The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 7-2 decision, against a county-based signature distribution requirement for presidential electors in Illinois. The majority's opinion held, "The Illinois statute, which is an integral part of the election process, applies a rigid, arbitrary formula to sparsely settled counties and populous counties alike, and thus discriminates against the residents of the populous counties in the exercise of their political rights in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Requirements based on legislative and congressional districts

• League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State (2022): The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. The court's opinion held, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement, which provided that no more than 15 percent of the required signatures can come from within a single congressional district.

• Reclaim Idaho v. Denney (2021): The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that Senate Bill 1110 (SB 1110), passed earlier in the year, was unconstitutional. SB 1110 was designed to 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. The Court held, "Ultimately, the effect of SB 1110 is to prevent a perceived, yet unsubstantiated fear of the 'tyranny of the majority,' by replacing it with an actual 'tyranny of the minority.' This would result in a scheme that squarely conflicts with the democratic ideals that form the bedrock of the constitutional republic created by the Idaho Constitution, and seriously undermines the people's initiative and referendum powers enshrined therein." While striking down SB 1110, the Court did not address the previous distribution requirement, which was restored. "In so ruling, we clarify that we have not decided the question of whether section 34-1805, with its 18 legislative district requirement, is also unconstitutional," read the opinion.

• Semple v. Griswold (2019): The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Colorado Amendment 71, including the amendment's signature distribution requirement based on the number of registered voters in legislative districts, did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs argued that legislative districts were based on equal population but the number of registered voters varied between districts, thus violating the one person, one vote principle. The 10th Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion, cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) decision, which held that the Equal Protection Clause does not require "states to equalize the number of voters in each legislative district."

• Judge Michael Murphy, writing the majority's opinion, said, "In the direct democracy context, voters are able to directly advance the interests of non-voting members of their families and communities when they decide whether to support a citizen initiative. Although citizens, unlike elected representatives, are not 'subject to requests and suggestions' from constituents, their vote on citizen initiative petitions can be influenced by private discussions with non-voting friends, family, and neighbors. In this way, voting-eligible citizens assume a role similar to that of elected representatives when those voters engage in the initiative process."
• Judge Mary Briscoe dissented, writing that the 10th Circuit misapplied Evenwel. "When an individual casts a vote or provides a signature, he or she is representing only himself or herself and no one else. ... In the case at hand, for example, if a single signator is deemed to represent his or her senate district, then why require any additional signatures in order to assure that a proposed ballot measure carries sufficient support to be placed on the ballot? ... the case at hand does not implicate the principle of representational equality and is thus distinguishable from Evenwel".

Arguments

The following is a list of claims and arguments about signature distribution requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures.

Support

Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made in support of signature distribution requirements for ballot initiatives.

Claim: Signature distribution requirements increase statewide and rural representation in the initiative process

• Republican state Attorneys General Leslie Rutledge, Steve Marshall, Treg Taylor, Ashley Moody, Lawrence Wasden, Todd Rokita, Jeff Landry, Eric Schmitt, Austin Knudsen, Drew Wrigley, Dave Yost, John O'Connor, Alan Wilson, Sean D. Reyes, and Patrick Morrisey signed an amicus brief defending the use of county-based signature distribution requirements, which said, "These geographic diversity requirements serve important state interests. They are designed to ensure that important changes in a state’s legal landscape, especially constitutional amendments, are vetted by more than just voters in the state’s largest handful of counties before being placed on the ballot. Without a requirement of attaining a modicum of support from a wide cross-section of voters, rural counties in particular would be entirely shut out of the process."

• National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Initiative and Referendum Task Force issued a report on the initiative process, writing, "Many initiative states are primarily rural, with a substantial proportion of their populations centered in a few urban areas. In states that follow this population pattern but that lack a geographic distribution requirement for signatures, it is not only possible but common for initiative proponents to gather all their signatures in the state’s largest city. The voters in the largest city, therefore, may decide for the state as a whole what issues make the ballot and what issues do not. Such a system gives urban voters an unfair advantage over rural voters."

Claim: Signature distribution requirements reduce the prevalence of well-funded special interest groups in the initiative process

• Arkansas Rep. Kendon Underwood (R-16), discussing a bill he co-sponsored to expand the state's distribution requirement, said, "Out-of-state special interest groups can spend a lot of money in our state trying to change our constitution and all they have to do is gather signatures from 15 counties. And typically those counties are the larger counties and the more populated counties, which in turn allows them to ignore the rest of the state and ignore more rural counties."

Oppose

Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made in opposition to signature distribution requirements for ballot initiatives.

Claim: Signature distribution requirements violate the principle of one person, one vote

• U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote that county-based signature distribution requirements "allocate equal power to counties of unequal population." He further wrote that a requirement in Idaho violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Caluse "because the few voters in a sparsely populated county have a power equal to the vastly larger number of voters who reside in a populous county." "[An] electoral system, here the system governing the people's right to place initiative measures on the ballot, may not be based on treating unequal counties equally and making the electoral determination dependent on the support of numbers of counties rather than numbers of people," wrote Reinhardt.

• Idaho Supreme Court Judge Gregory Moeller wrote that an expanded signature distribution requirement based on state legislative districts responded to an "unsubstantiated fear of the 'tyranny of the majority,' by replacing it with an actual 'tyranny of the minority.'"

Claim: Signature distribution requirements reduce the number of grassroots initiative campaigns

• Richard J. Ellis, Professor of Politics, Policy, Law and Ethics at Willamette University, wrote, "If states make the signature gathering process more difficult by increasing the number of signatures required or by mandating a geographic distribution requirement, they will advantage those groups with the greatest financial and organizational resources. Signature gathering firms will be in even greater demand, and ordinary citizens will find it more difficult to place their issues on the ballot."

See also

• Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures